JAMES BULGER, the Merseyside toddler whose mutilated body was found on a railway line at Walton, Liverpool, in February, was violently attacked with bricks, stones, and a piece of metal by two 10-year-old boys who abducted him from a shopping centre at Bootle and took him on a two-mile walk to his death, a jury at Preston crown court heard yesterday.![Bulger Killer Bulger Killer](/uploads/1/2/3/7/123750521/963795052.jpg)
A 21-year-old man named Dante Wyndham Arthurs was arrested and charged in connection with that case, and the message reproduced above claims Arthurs was also one of Jamie Bulger’s killers. Apr 18, 2018 - The full story of how James Bulger killers Robert Thompson and Jon Venables led their two-year-old victim past dozens of witnesses on a grim.
James, aged two, died from multiple injuries to the head, said Richard Henriques, QC, prosecuting. His body was then placed on the railway track and was cut in two by a train; according to a pathologist's evidence, the toddler was dead before he was hit by the train.
The two boys, both now 11, deny abducting and murdering James. They also deny attempting to abduct another child.
Mr Henriques claimed that both boys intended to kill James or cause him serious injury, that both acted jointly throughout, and that both knew what they were doing was seriously wrong.
Sitting on raised seats in the dock, the accused boys sat with two social workers as Mr Henriques outlined the prosecution case. Both were smartly dressed in dark blazers, one wearing a white shirt and a dark blue striped tie and the other a blue shirt and a red tie with a light stripe.
From time to time one of the boys glanced nervously at his parents, sitting close by. The other removed his jacket and gazed at the ornate ceiling and chandeliers of the wood-panelled courtroom.
Mr Henriques told the jury of nine men and three women that James was the only child of Ralph and Denise Bulger, of Kirkby. On Friday February 12, James and his mother drove to the Strand shopping centre at Bootle with her sister-in-law, Nicola Bailey.
They visited various shops and on several occasions James broke free from his mother and ran off. He seemed to be in high spirits - in one shop a baby suit fell on his head and he started throwing it about. In Tesco he helped himself to some Smarties.
At about 3.40pm they went into a butcher's shop. Mr Henriques said: 'Mrs Bulger believed James was by her side when she was being served - but when she looked down, he was gone.'
Mrs Bulger ran in panic out of the butcher's shop and was filmed by one of 16 security cameras searching for her son. Little more than a minute later James was filmed going across the upper level of the complex close to the two defendants, Mr Henriques said.
From the moment James was first seen on camera with the two boys to the time he left the centre with them was one minute 39 secs, said Mr Henriques. 'It can be deduced that they left the precinct with some haste.'
He then described how witnesses had seen James with the two boys during the two-mile journey which lasted two hours and ended with his death. Many of them noticed that the boy was distressed, said Mr Henriques, but all seem to have assumed that he was in the care of an older brother or brothers.
Some witnesses said James was crying and extremely distressed, some that he was laughing. Several noticed injuries to his head - a mark on the forehead and a bump on the right side, another bump on the top of the head, a graze on the face, a red mark on the cheek.
Many reported that the little boy was held by the two older boys, one on each side, by his arms or his hands. One said they were dragging him and claimed that one of the boys kicked him in the ribs - 'not a full-blooded kick, but one of persuasion,' said Mr Henriques - and yet another said the two boys swung the child up as if in rough play. At one point, a woman saw a boy take hold of the little boy by the shoulders and shake him briskly.
One woman who asked if the older boys knew the toddler was told they had just found him and were taking him to a police station. But later, approached by a school friend, one defendant said the little boy was the other's brother.
Mr Henriques told the jury: 'You may wonder why we go through this journey in such detail. One of the matters the prosecution seek to prove is that this whole thing was a joint enterprise from beginning to end. You will see time and again how each boy has hold of one hand. Each plays a significant part.'
There were further sightings of the three near the railway line about two hours after James's abduction, said Mr Henriques.
A man who saw them in an entry to a railway bridge heard one of the older boys say: 'I'm fed up having my little brother, he's always the same, I'm not bringing him again.'
A 14-year-old girl saw one boy run up the embankment leading to the railway line while the other followed, carrying the small boy, who was laughing. 'That may well be the last time anyone other than the two defendants saw James alive,' said Mr Henriques.
James's severed body was found two days later with multiple fractures to the skull, lacerations, and damage to the mouth and lower lip. The right cheek showed a patterned bruise consistent with a blow from a shoe or other object.
Bricks nearby had blood on them and blood was found on the shoes of both defendants. Tests on the blood found on one boy's shoes matched the DNA profile of James's blood, and modelling paint found on the body and at the scene matched paint on both boys' clothing.
Mr Henriques alleged that earlier in the day, before James was abducted, the two boys had attempted to abduct another two-year-old boy at the Strand, but the child's mother spotted them and shouted to him to come back.
There was tight security around the court, with barriers lining the pavements and a nearby street sealed off.
Before the hearing a small crowd gathered at the front, including reporters, cameramen, and television crews, several from overseas. More onlookers waited at the back of the building, where the rear gates opened at 9.30am to admit two white police vans with a motorcycle escort. The windows of both vans were blacked out.
Since the defendants' arrest last February they have been kept in the care of Liverpool city council.
The Judge, Mr Justice Morland, has ordered that neither of the defendants is to be identified. They are to be referred to as 'Child A' and 'Child B' and child witnesses are to be identified only by letter as well. The trial continues today and is expected to last up to four weeks.
© PA James Bulger, left, and one of his murderers Jon Venables (PA)The father and uncle of murdered toddler James Bulger are to find out if they have succeeded in their bid to have information about killer Jon Venables made public.
A worldwide order made in 2001 has allowed Venables to live under a cloak of anonymity since his release from a life sentence for the kidnap, torture and murder of the two-year-old in February 1993.
Lawyers for Ralph and Jimmy Bulger argue certain details about the killer and his life are “common knowledge” and easily accessible online.
They have asked the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, to consider varying the order so that it does not cover this information.
Sir Andrew is due to give his ruling on the case on Monday.
© Provided by The Press Association Ralph Bulger, the toddler’s father, pictured in 2011 (PA)The toddler was killed by Venables and Robert Thompson, who were both aged 10, after they snatched him from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside.
They were both granted lifelong anonymity by a High Court judge and have lived under new identities since their release from custody.
![Bulger Killer Bulger Killer](/uploads/1/2/3/7/123750521/963795052.jpg)
The court order was amended in relation to Venables after he was convicted of further offences in 2010 and February last year.
He was jailed for three years and four months last year after admitting surfing the dark web for extreme child abuse images and possessing a “sickening” paedophile manual.
He was charged after police found more than 1,000 indecent images on his computer.
© PA Images SCHOOLBOYS PAUSE AT THE RAILWAY EMBANKMENT IN WALTON WHERE TWO YEAR OLD JAMES BULGER WAS MURDERED AS THE PEOPLE OF LIVERPOOL MOURN FOR THE YOUNGSTER ON THE DAY OF HIS FUNERAL. (Photo by Malcolm Croft - PA Images/PA Images via Getty Images)It was the second time he had been caught with such images, and when he was arrested he told police he was plagued by “stupid urges”.
Lawyers for the Bulgers told the High Court last week that something had “gone wrong” with Venables’s rehabilitation and they, as victims, should be able to scrutinise his handling by the authorities.
They argued they are prevented from doing this because the terms of the injunction stop them from discussing details which are widely available online.
Solicitor-advocate Robin Makin, for the Bulgers, told the court: “This a very high-profile matter and indeed it is one where the current situation is unprecedented, in which we now have a child murderer who has, as an adult, committed two sets of serious sexual offences and is undoubtedly a danger to the public.”
Mr Makin said it appeared “no lessons have been learned”, adding: “The point is that (Venables) has been trained by the state to be dishonest and hide his identity, and to no doubt develop techniques for dealing with such matters.”
He said the Bulgers do not want the order to be discharged altogether, but are asking for it to be varied so some information can be revealed without the threat of prosecution.
© Provided by The Press Association A decision will be made by Sir Andrew McFarlane at the Royal Courts of Justice (Nick Ansell/PA)The court heard the information includes details of Venables’s identities and former addresses up to 2017 and the prisons where he has been detained.
Mr Makin said: “In order for the applicants to exercise their rights as victims and to deal with the process going forward, there should be disclosure of information akin to what was disclosed when the offending occurred in 2010.”
The lawyer said the “reality of the situation” is that information can easily be found about Venables by searching online and he has not been “damaged” by the material so far.
However, anyone sharing such information would, under the current terms of the order, face prosecution for contempt of court.
Lawyers representing the Attorney General’s office and Venables argued there is a need to maintain the order.
James’s mother, Denise Fergus, is not involved in the proceedings and no challenge is being brought against the anonymity granted to Thompson.
At the time of a preliminary hearing in the injunction challenge last year, Mrs Fergus said in a statement: “I understand the motivation for the application, but my concern is that if Venables were known by his own name, it could lead to vigilante action and innocent people being hurt.”
Only a handful of lifelong anonymity orders have been made to date, including those granted to Venables and Thompson, and child killer Mary Bell.
NOW READ: