Jon Venables parole board decision, Digi Mart USA News (Merseyside, United Kingdom): Child killer Jon Venables will remain behind bars after he told a Parole Board panel that he should stay in prison. Venables told parole staff dealing with his latest review, which took place in private, that he was not seeking release.
Venables tortured and murdered two-year-old James Bulger in 1993 after he and Robert Thompson, both then aged 10, snatched him from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside. The two boys, who were truanting from school, led James two-and-a-half miles to a railway track where they beat him to death.
A summary of the panel’s findings said: “At the outset of the hearing, Mr Venables submitted an opening statement to the effect that he accepted the need to undertake further offending work in custody and so was not seeking release.” The panel considered evidence from probation officers based in the prison and in the community, three psychologists and a psychiatrist.
All bar one concluded that he should remain in prison.
Venables and Thompson led the toddler out of the Strand shopping centre while his mother, Denise Fergus, was paying for shopping at a butchers. After a three-week trial at Preston Crown Court, Venables and Thompson were found guilty of murder.
The names of both boys were released after their trial.
In June 2001, Thompson and Venables were released on life licence and handed new identities. A court injunction prevented their new identities from ever being revealed.
Venables was recalled to prison in February 2010 after indecent images of children were found on his computer.
He was once again freed in August 2013 with a second new identity, and then called back in November 2017 for the same offence. Parole judges considered his case again in September 2020.
In the latest review, a victim personal statement “which clearly conveyed the devastating impact of Mr Venables’ crime and the impact of his offending” was heard by the panel. Panel members found there were concerns about how well Venables would work with probation staff were he to be released and “how open and honest he would be in supervision”.
They said there was “a need for further work in custody to address his sexual interests”.
The summary went on: “Mr Venables articulated his protracted and extreme remorse for his crime. Professionals assessed this to be genuine and sincere.” Panel members decided that they were “not satisfied that Mr Venables was suitable for release”.
