[CherryRose]

Originally Posted by anais32

A man has just been found guilty of the manslaughter of his five month old baby through violent shaking. The baby's injuries included bleeding behind the brain, detached retina and other bruising on the body. He was sentenced to 9 years. That's 4.5 years in custody and 4.5 years on license.

I bet without googling, no-one would know who he is.

But Thompson and Venables - everyone's favourite 'devil children' - totally different story.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/new...n_in_Gainford/

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/new..._to_the_stand/


I am know the case you're talking about and Lee Clark was charged with MANSLAUGHTER not murder.

I have also read many articles on the evidence both from the defence and prosecution.

Prosecution specialists testified that it was very highly unlikey that the injuries were caused by anything other than SBS.

Defence specialists said that there other possibilities " leading forensic pathologist and shaken-baby expert Professor Milroy said the injuries can occur naturally and are far from “absolute proof” that the child was shaken.

He added that in shaken cases there would usually be other injuries, such as broken ribs or bones, but apart from two bruises on his knees Charlee had no other injuries"


Dr Alam who testified in the case for the prosecution has just been taken to the GMC to see if he was fit for practise after fatally miss diagnosing a child.

Here is quote from the prosection Mr Robertson said: "We, the Crown, don't for a moment think he intended to kill Charlee, nor do we suggest he intended to cause serious harm

One sudden shaken is enough to kill a baby, one moment of anger, where yes he deserves to be punished but you can not compare him to the killers of Jamie Bulger.

[wonkeydonkey]

Originally Posted by NaturalWorrier

In my opinion, the reason Thompson and Venables are seen as different is due to their age. Why you ask? Well most people's moral rights and wrongs are formed when growing up. As soon as they reach adulthood, it is difficult to drastically alter someone's core beliefs.

So going by that, this crime that was comitted, shaped them as people. They lived through this crime and it will shape their views and opinions for years and years. That is why these two are seen as more dangerous than most others.

That is to say, that if an adult comitted a similar crime, you would hope that they could get help and look into their past and understand what made them commit this horrific crime. It could well be something specific in their upringing that has cause them to act in this way. By delving into their upringing you can then make them understand how they got to thinking the way they do now.

With Venables / Thompson, if you were to delve into their upbringing, it would be murder, followed by prison - they would have less to focus on to understand why they did what they did. Which makes it more difficult to beleive that these two can change as people.

That seems the opposite to the case to me. It is a bit bizarre to suggest that 10 year olds have less likelihood of changing and turning things round than adults. A huge amount of your personality develops during puberty and the years afterwards. In fact you said yourself that once someone becomes an adult it is much harder to change their core beliefs. As they were not adults, but many years away from being adults, they had a much better chance.

Camilla Batmangelidh, who has many years experience of working with teenagers who have gone off the rails, and some of whom have committed brutal crimes, has always suggested that the intervention is urgent; that they MUST be offered help and guidance when they are still in those stormy teenage years, before their behaviour becomes 'set'.

[francie]

Originally Posted by MCC243

It is always 'allegedly' or it was 'suggested' though. There was never any suggestion of violence or abuse in his life. His mum wasn't a drinker in the same respect as Thompson's mum. I never heard any stories of her being a heavy drinker.

I think some 'suggestions' or 'alleged' occurrences have developed a life of their own over the years and are now being quoted as fact by some.

What sticks in my mind is that the Venables were always in court whereas Thompson's mother wasn't - although it has to be said that T& V were visited, after being sentenced, by their families regularly.

I've not read of an alcohol problem with Venable's mother either.

[gemma-the-husky]

Originally Posted by anais32

A man has just been found guilty of the manslaughter of his five month old baby through violent shaking. The baby's injuries included bleeding behind the brain, detached retina and other bruising on the body. He was sentenced to 9 years. That's 4.5 years in custody and 4.5 years on license.

I bet without googling, no-one would know who he is.

But Thompson and Venables - everyone's favourite 'devil children' - totally different story.

i will restrict myself to a single comment on this thread, and this is as good a post to respond to as any other.

I wasn't aware of this case, but he should be locked away for good as well. No doubt he should have been found guilty of murder, rather than manslaughter - but we have a completely soft legal system, as well as little respect for life. 4.5 years is just laughable.

With regard to the killers of Baby Peter - they too should be locked away for good.

So what if the Bulger case has a higher notoriety than other cases. It does not invalidate posters views,

I just believe that over focussing on the redemption and rehabilitation of, in particular, murderers, might not actually be desirable. I just don't care about them.

No doubt I am one of the vitriolic "hang em and flog em" brigade you are bothered about. I think we just have a different view on the adequacy of sentencing, and the requirement for punishment.

This isn't "just" about murder. But if unlawful killing doesn't attract a severe sentence, what do you do about other offences. In China, the guys who sold the adulterated milk and killed people were executed. Does anybody think the (very wealthy) horse traders passing off horse as beef will even serve time inside? The attorney general has just complained about inadequate sentences for a gypsy gang that was slaving people over an extended period. We argue about the size of bonuses due to bankers who have bought untold problems on most "normal" people, rather than how long they should serve in jail. Health service bosses are cavalier with the well-being of patients under their control and cover up the true enormity of what is going on. MPs fiddle their expenses, and get away with it.


Make no mistake, it behoves the state to apply proper and reasonable sanctions for crimes and wrong doing. If people cannot trust the state to protect them, they will turn to other methods, and ignore the law.

Rant over. Thanks for your attention.

[DianaFire]

Originally Posted by NaturalWorrier

In my opinion, the reason Thompson and Venables are seen as different is due to their age. Why you ask? Well most people's moral rights and wrongs are formed when growing up. As soon as they reach adulthood, it is difficult to drastically alter someone's core beliefs.

So going by that, this crime that was comitted, shaped them as people. They lived through this crime and it will shape their views and opinions for years and years. That is why these two are seen as more dangerous than most others.

That is to say, that if an adult comitted a similar crime, you would hope that they could get help and look into their past and understand what made them commit this horrific crime. It could well be something specific in their upringing that has cause them to act in this way. By delving into their upringing you can then make them understand how they got to thinking the way they do now.

With Venables / Thompson, if you were to delve into their upbringing, it would be murder, followed by prison - they would have less to focus on to understand why they did what they did. Which makes it more difficult to beleive that these two can change as people.

While that's a well-reasoned post, you might find this article from the Independent informative. It's about life in a secure children's unit and the focus on behaviour and rehabilitation - the stuff you think helps an adult prisoner but perhaps isn't provided for child offenders. The truth is quite the contrary, and the article also points out why rehabilitation works better with younger people.

It's a bit long. All the same, I hope you'll give it a look. I learned something from it.

(For those of you who were on another thread, this is a re-post from there. Nothing new.)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1874053.html

[mildredhubble]

Originally Posted by Babe Rainbow

Exactly. And nobody cares, except the family and friends.

Thompson and Venables have been held more accountable and more punishable, for something they did when they were 10, than an adult perpetrator. Where is the logic in that ?

This ^

[anais32]

Originally Posted by francie

What sticks in my mind is that the Venables were always in court whereas Thompson's mother wasn't - although it has to be said that T& V were visited by their families regularly.

I've not read of an alcohol problem with Venable's mother either.

Ann Thompson was in court for some of the trial actually. She was heavily medicated but she was present.

As for Susan Venables, she did drink but it was psychiatric problems rather than addiction that likely led to the neglect of her children.

Ironically, both the Venables and Ann Thompson became model parents after the conviction of their sons. Not really a case of 'better late than never'.

[CherryRose]

Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky

i will restrict myself to a single comment on this thread, and this is as good a post to respond to as any other.

I wasn't aware of this case, but he should be locked away for good as well. No doubt he should have been found guilty of murder, rather than manslaughter - but we have a completely soft legal system, as well as little respect for life. 4.5 years is just laughable.

.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/new...n_in_Gainford/

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/new..._to_the_stand/


I am know the case you're talking about and Lee Clark was charged with MANSLAUGHTER not murder.

I have also read many articles on the evidence both from the defence and prosecution.

Prosecution specialists testified that it was very highly unlikey that the injuries were caused by anything other than SBS.

Defence specialists said that there other possibilities " leading forensic pathologist and shaken-baby expert Professor Milroy said the injuries can occur naturally and are far from “absolute proof” that the child was shaken.

He added that in shaken cases there would usually be other injuries, such as broken ribs or bones, but apart from two bruises on his knees Charlee had no other injuries"


Dr Alam who testified in the case for the prosecution has just been taken to the GMC to see if he was fit for practise after fatally miss diagnosing a child.

Here is quote from the prosection Mr Robertson said: "We, the Crown, don't for a moment think he intended to kill Charlee, nor do we suggest he intended to cause serious harm

One sudden shaken is enough to kill a baby, one moment of anger, where yes he deserves to be punished but you can not compare him to the killers of Jamie Bulger.

[NaturalWorrier]

Originally Posted by DianaFire

While that's a well-reasoned post, you might find this article from the Independent informative. It's about life in a secure children's unit and the focus on behaviour and rehabilitation - the stuff you think helps an adult prisoner but perhaps isn't provided for child offenders. The truth is quite the contrary, and the article also points out why rehabilitation works better with younger people.

It's a bit long. All the same, I hope you'll give it a look. I learned something from it.

(For those of you who were on another thread, this is a re-post from there. Nothing new.)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1874053.html

Thanks (and for the others that replied).

If it is the case, then surely V & T should be getting less media attention, not more?

Which makes you wonder why this is the case?

[Middleotroad]

Originally Posted by CherryRose

you can not compare him to the killers of Jamie Bulger.

Who can you compare them with?

During the aftermath of T&V's trial, there was another murder in the news. Well it was news in the North West, I'm pretty sure it wasn't anywhere else.

This case has long been forgotten, but what I remember was, a man in his forties (or even older) was convicted of murdering his girlfriend. She was 17. He had kept her imprisoned in his home, abused her and eventually tortured her to death. She was raped, chained to a radiatior for a long period of time (days if not weeks), had her eyes gouged out and eventually was killed.

Now this murder sounds more planned and more brutal than that of James Bulger. The perpetrator was more responsible for his actions than James' murderers. I wondered if this would be noticed.

Someone did notice, a lady panelist on Question Time, she must have been from NW England or she would have been unlikely to have heard about it. She compared the two cases when asked about the Bulger case, and suggested that there were many serious murder cases out there that should not be forgotten or treated leniently. She must have known as well as I did, that the torturing, eye gouging adult was getting hardly any attention, causing next to no outrage. In comparison, the child murderers were being and would long be held up as the ultimate murderers.

[NaturalWorrier]

One other thing - as this (and other) crime was committed by children, surely the focus and media attention should be on the childrens parents? They were the responsible ones, in charge of looking after the children - why are they not villified? Any issues that have personally, whilst tragic, are small in comparison to the crimes their own children comitted. How can they have let their own flesh and blood do such horrific things?

[gemma-the-husky]

Originally Posted by CherryRose

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/new...n_in_Gainford/

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/new..._to_the_stand/


I am know the case you're talking about and Lee Clark was charged with MANSLAUGHTER not murder.

I have also read many articles on the evidence both from the defence and prosecution.

Prosecution specialists testified that it was very highly unlikey that the injuries were caused by anything other than SBS.

Defence specialists said that there other possibilities " leading forensic pathologist and shaken-baby expert Professor Milroy said the injuries can occur naturally and are far from “absolute proof” that the child was shaken.

He added that in shaken cases there would usually be other injuries, such as broken ribs or bones, but apart from two bruises on his knees Charlee had no other injuries"


Dr Alam who testified in the case for the prosecution has just been taken to the GMC to see if he was fit for practise after fatally miss diagnosing a child.

Here is quote from the prosection Mr Robertson said: "We, the Crown, don't for a moment think he intended to kill Charlee, nor do we suggest he intended to cause serious harm

One sudden shaken is enough to kill a baby, one moment of anger, where yes he deserves to be punished but you can not compare him to the killers of Jamie Bulger.

OK.

I don't know the case - I commented on this because it was in the thread, and assumed it to be a recent well known case - but anyway, assume the jury came up with the right result.

He is a killer. Killed his own child. The defence who play the game of trying to get him off, should be ashamed of themselves, and should have persuaded him to admit the enormity of what he had done - not using their tricky legal skills to try and get him off. If they knew he had killed his child, they ought to be serving time alongside him - not hiding behind "doing their job" and "client confidentiality". If they didn't, then he pleaded not guilty to try and evade responsibility, which makes him even more culpable.

I just do not see why we care about the well being of people like this?

And in terms of comparing him with the killers of Jamie - according to many of the posters here he is at least as culpable, I would have thought, maybe worse, as he had adult responsibility, unlike the 10 year olds.

[Slarti Bartfast]

Originally Posted by francie

From what I've read Thompson, out of the two of them, had the violent home environment. Venables by all accounts was an attention seeker who was disruptive in class etc and many feel it was because his older and younger siblings got more attention than he did (they both had learning difficulties iirc). I've not read of physical abuse in Venables home (but I appreciate other forms of abuse can be just as disturbing).

Yes, by disturbing I was referring to the unusual family life he experienced due to his two learning disabled siblings, one of whom his parents could not control and would send to foster parents. He has been described as a forgotten child who would attention seek with destructive behaviour and could often be found rocking back and forth. Obviously his family life was very different to Thompson's but he clearly did not develop normally.

InB4 someone says "oh well that makes it alright then!11"

[CherryRose]

Originally Posted by Middleotroad

Who can you compare them with?

During the aftermath of T&V's trial, there was another murder in the news. Well it was news in the North West, I'm pretty sure it wasn't anywhere else.

This case has long been forgotten, but what I remember was, a man in his forties (or even older) was convicted of murdering his girlfriend. She was 17. He had kept her imprisoned in his home, abused her and eventually tortured her to death. She was raped, chained to a radiatior for a long period of time (days if not weeks), had her eyes gouged out and eventually was killed.

Now this murder sounds more planned and more brutal than that of James Bulger. The perpetrator was more responsible for his actions than James' murderers. I wondered if this would be noticed.

Someone did notice, a lady panelist on Question Time, she must have been from NW England or she would have been unlikely to have heard about it. She compared the two cases when asked about the Bulger case, and suggested that there were many serious murder cases out there that should not be forgotten or treated leniently. She must have known as well as I did, that the torturing, eye gouging adult was getting hardly any attention, causing next to no outrage. In comparison, the child murderers were being and would long be held up as the ultimate murderers.

This man was not charged with murder he was guilty of manslaugher read the quotation from the prosecution they have even said that they do not believe Lee Clark Mr Robertson said "We the Crown, don't for a moment think he intended to kill Charlee, nor do we suggest he intended to cause serious harm

Yes what he did was wrong but his action we unintentional!

James Bulger killers tortured him to death!!!!

[wonkeydonkey]

Originally Posted by CherryRose

This man was not charged with murder he was guilty of manslaugher read the quotation from the prosecution they have even said that they do not believe Lee Clark Mr Robertson said "We the Crown, don't for a moment think he intended to kill Charlee, nor do we suggest he intended to cause serious harm

Yes what he did was wrong but his action we unintentional!

James Bulger killers tortured him to death!!!!

How do you unintentionally chain someone to a radiator and gouge out their eyes?

[DianaFire]

Originally Posted by NaturalWorrier

Thanks (and for the others that replied).

If it is the case, then surely V & T should be getting less media attention, not more?

Which makes you wonder why this is the case?

Hope you've had time to read that article - it's pretty enlightening.

Purely my own opinion here, but I believe that the attention is largely due to the media, and the media were able to stoke all that up, and keep it going, because the names and photos were released in the first place. Many cases involving child offenders occur every year but those details aren't normally released.

I know I'm usually one of the first to have a go at the redtops, but the attention comes entirely from them. There are some 60 or 70 children killed in the UK every year, yet only the ones the media can make headlines with are remembered.

[Middleotroad]

Originally Posted by CherryRose

This man was not charged with murder he was guilty of manslaugher read the quotation from the prosecution they have even said that they do not believe Lee Clark Mr Robertson said "We the Crown, don't for a moment think he intended to kill Charlee, nor do we suggest he intended to cause serious harm

Yes what he did was wrong but his action we unintentional!

James Bulger killers tortured him to death!!!!

You say that the two cases you were discussing are not comparable. I agree. So who can you compare the Bulger murderers to? Why were they deemed to be worthy of so much hate and notoriety, when the case I mention was virtually ignored?

[Mrs Mackintosh]

Originally Posted by CherryRose

This man was not charged with murder he was guilty of manslaugher read the quotation from the prosecution they have even said that they do not believe Lee Clark Mr Robertson said "We the Crown, don't for a moment think he intended to kill Charlee, nor do we suggest he intended to cause serious harm

Yes what he did was wrong but his action we unintentional!

James Bulger killers tortured him to death!!!!

Why have you chosen to quote a post and then completely ignore everything in it?

[CherryRose]

Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky

OK.

I don't know the case - I commented on this because it was in the thread, and assumed it to be a recent well known case - but anyway, assume the jury came up with the right result.

He is a killer. Killed his own child. The defence who play the game of trying to get him off, should be ashamed of themselves, and should have persuaded him to admit the enormity of what he had done - not using their tricky legal skills to try and get him off. If they knew he had killed his child, they ought to be serving time alongside him - not hiding behind "doing their job" and "client confidentiality". If they didn't, then he pleaded not guilty to try and evade responsibility, which makes him even more culpable.

I just do not see why we care about the well being of people like this?

And in terms of comparing him with the killers of Jamie - according to many of the posters here he is at least as culpable, I would have thought, maybe worse, as he had adult responsibility, unlike the 10 year olds.

Mr Robertson said: "We, the Crown, don't for a moment think he intended to kill Charlee, nor do we suggest he intended to cause serious harm

The difference is it was unintenstional, I am a peadiatric first aider and have been shown how little it takes to shake a baby and cause terminal damage, it can even be done through innocent play.

Lee Clark was responsible for his sons death YES but the prosecution believe he did not mean to kill or or cause serious harm. Yes he deserves to be punished and 9 years fits the crime, The Bulger killers tortured and placed that little boys body on a train track, what they was the evilest of evil! They served 10 years fgs!

[wonkeydonkey]

Originally Posted by Middleotroad

You say that the two cases you were discussing are not comparable. I agree. So who can you compare the Bulger murderers to? Why were they deemed to be worthy of so much hate and notoriety, when the case I mention was virtually ignored?

Here's a vaguely similar case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-14885830

A young woman with learning disabilities was savagely beaten, then led weeping through the streets to a railway line, where she was beaten , choked and forced to drink urine, then stripped naked and left to die on the track. Who, without reading the article, remembers the case or could name any of the perpetrators?

(Bless Gemma Hayter's mother btw. "I do not hate the five, I am not sure what I feel towards them, pity I think is the first thing that comes to mind. Such sad, wasted young lives").

[anais32]

I think you are talking about the Suzanne Capper murder middleotroad. The trial of her killers was around the same time but received no attention because all the media was focused on Thompson and Venables.

It was an horrific killing and most of her killers have been released. All were either adults or much older teenagers. She was kidnapped, held for a week while being raped constantly, tortured and then taken out in a car and set on fire.

I'm betting not a single person could name her killers without doing a google.

[alan29]

Excellent thread. Its really refreshing to read posts about this event that don't see things in simple black/white terms when it comes to responsibility, and that recognise that there were adults who helped to bring this nightmare about in one way or another.
As a small contribution, there is all the difference in the world between "knowing" right and wrong , and being equipped to act on that knowledge. We adults can find it hard at times, even more so children.

[CherryRose]

Originally Posted by Middleotroad

You say that the two cases you were discussing are not comparable. I agree. So who can you compare the Bulger murderers to? Why were they deemed to be worthy of so much hate and notoriety, when the case I mention was virtually ignored?

I don't hate them but I do have concern that they are out in our society.

What they did to Jamie was THE worst case I personally have ever heard, I study criminology.

The anger in the Bulger case is because what was done to that child was horrendous, vile and evil and the sentence did not fit the crime.

They tortured the little boy and his body was found in pieces.

Myra Hindly (dead now) Ian Brady killed 5 children and will never be let out.

Rose West and Fred West (dead) they killed 11-13 people and was first sentenced to 25 years but then that was changed to a life tarrif, she will never be released.

The Bulger killers sentence should have more sever and that is where the anger comes from.

[gemma-the-husky]

Originally Posted by CherryRose

Mr Robertson said: "We, the Crown, don't for a moment think he intended to kill Charlee, nor do we suggest he intended to cause serious harm

The difference is it was unintenstional, I am a peadiatric first aider and have been shown how little it takes to shake a baby and cause terminal damage, it can even be done through innocent play.

Lee Clark was responsible for his sons death YES but the prosecution believe he did not mean to kill or or cause serious harm. Yes he deserves to be punished and 9 years fits the crime, The Bulger killers tortured and placed that little boys body on a train track, what they was the evilest of evil! They served 10 years fgs!

Why did he and his team deny causing the death then. Why not spare his partner the court case? Has he admitted it now?

[aggs]

Originally Posted by Slarti Bartfast

Yes, by disturbing I was referring to the unusual family life he experienced due to his two learning disabled siblings, one of whom his parents could not control and would send to foster parents. He has been described as a forgotten child who would attention seek with destructive behaviour and could often be found rocking back and forth. Obviously his family life was very different to Thompson's but he clearly did not develop normally.

InB4 someone says "oh well that makes it alright then!11"

It it takes a village to raise a child, it must take a village to muck one up.

To me, the mark of a society is not how it treats the affected members of it, but how it looks after the disaffected.

While putting a couple of 10 year old boys in prison for ever and throwing away the key, might be appealing on the 'don't have to deal with it' front, surely the best thing would be to do the utmost to rehabilitate them into productive members of society - while running a parallel strand so that the victims of the crime do not feel shortchanged and can deal with the events without being completely defined by them.