Following their son Jon Venables’ arrest for the brutal killing of little James Bulger in 1993, Susan and Neil Venables offered some insight into why they thought the murder took place
The murder of James Bulger is a case that will never be forgotten. The little boy was just two years old when he was abducted and killed on 12 February 1993. More shocking still was the news that his killers were two ten-year-old boys.
After their arrest and throughout the trial, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were known only as Child A and Child B. On 24 November 1993, after a three week trial at Preston Crown Court, the pair were both found guilty of James’ horrific death.
They were released on life licence in June 2001, and handed new identities protected by a court injunction ordering lifetime anonymity. Thompson is not known to have reoffended since his release.
Venables, however, has been recalled to prison twice (2010 and 2017) following his initial release in 2001. Both were due to the possession of child sexual abuse images. As it stands, Venables remains in prison, although it was revealed in January that he is set for an upcoming parole hearing, two years after his last appeal failed.
READ MORE: Inside Bulger killer Robert Thompson’s secret new life from partner to shameREAD MORE: Jon Venables’ sick history of violence from school ruler attack to James Bulger
The new identities given to both Thompson and Venables have never been revealed. But back in November 1993, Venables’s parents spoke about their son, his horrific crime, and their warped explanation for his actions.
“You look at him and you say to yourself, ‘How could you be involved in anything like this?'” Susan Venebales told PA. “On the other hand, you are looking at him and you are saying ‘Well, I know why – because he is so weak’. He did like to be liked, and loved to have friends, and he has got involved with the wrong person.”
Susan further claimed that her son had been led astray by Thompson. Describing Jon as “loving, caring, thoughtful and considerate . . . fun to be with”, she said: “It is hard to take in really. We feel so sorry for him because he must be going through so much torment.
“You know, we just try and help him as best we can to try to come to terms with things. Our feelings haven’t changed towards him. We still think the same of him as we always have. I would say he was provoked. He is one of those children that if you told him to put his hand in the fire, he would.”
Susan continued: “He is easily led. He didn’t want to hurt James. He was fearful of the other boy. He was fearful, he was weak and he was provoked.
“All he said when we’ve said ‘Why didn’t you run away?’ and things like that is that he was frightened. He said he was frightened of Robert’s older brother. Robert said ‘If you tell anybody I’ll get my big brother to batter you up’.”
Her husband, Neil, added: “If you had a league table of children, you would put him at the bottom of the list for anything like this.”
Jon’s parents, who sat in court for most of the trial, said they grieved for the Bulgers. “My heart really goes out to them. I wish we could turn the clocks back,’ Susan, then 36, said. ‘I think about little James and what he must have gone through, how they must feel. I know how I feel as a mother. It is just heartbreaking.”
Neil, 40, said he felt “just devastated, thinking of that little boy’. Wiping away tears, he added: ‘I feel for that family. I feel so sorry for them. I have lost my son as well. We will never be able to do the fun things any more . . . football, snooker, things like that. Just TV programmes and little things remind me of the good times we had together . . . I just think of James and his Dad and about all that fun with his little boy, like I had with Jon.”
They said their son met Thompson in September 1991, when Jon was transferred from another school. Both boys had been held back a year, and they were put in the same class. “I think it was because the class group was too big for them to go in . . . so they were put in a lower year,” Susan said.
“I think my son’s concentration wasn’t the way it should have been, but he wasn’t slow. He’s quite bright and clever. He’s a good reader if he’s interested in it.
“He tends to be a bit hyperactive so his concentration did go a bit, but apart from that he is quite bright, no worries.”
She further defended his home life, saying: “I don’t think we went wrong as parents at all. He has had more love and attention than a lot of children I know. He has been educated. He has never really been what you would call a sagger off school (a truant). He has had his holidays like everyone else. He has had Christmas presents.
“Contrary to what the papers will tell you, he is not a little urchin boy. He is far from it. He has had security with loving parents and a loving brother and sister.”
The parents also said that they had spoken to Jon about James after he was arrested. “He mentions James, not all the time. But now and again. He gets upset. He says ‘I know, Mum’. He is broken- hearted over it.
“What he’s done is wrong so he needs to be punished,” Susan said. “What upsets me is I’ve no way of bringing him up for the rest of his young years so he’s going to lose all his childhood.”
