Jon Venables.

[Grafenwalder]

The murder case involving Scotland's youngest ever murderer is back in the news after Jamie Campbell's killer was boasting about life outside prison.

Richard Keith was only eleven years old when he repeatedly beat the three year old with sticks and stones and then drowned him.

He was found guilty of Culpable Homicide and was served eight years.

Richard Keith is now 39 and unlike the killers of James Bulger, he wasn't given a new identity.

I don't imagine many people outwith Scotland have heard of the case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5375399/Scotlands-youngest-killer-enjoys-life-outside-prison.html

The problem i have with that article is, to quote the DM; "Miss McPhillips said the family are facing fresh agony after learning Jamie's killer is living five miles away and has been boasting about his new life online." Apparently by that's in reference to him now having a girl friend and posting on Facebook. I can't really see how that's 'boasting'.She said she had also been told Keith had boasted about killing Jamie, telling someone he ‘didn’t want to talk about it but he killed someone once’.

Is that not usual for a person whose committed murder to not want to talk about it? Would Miss McPhillips feel happier if he was telling everyone about a crime he committed 28 years ago, appearing on tv chat shows or selling his story to some rag like the DM? The murder was certainly horrific but unlike Venables it seems this man has been rehabilitated back into society.

I wonder if the Mail are going to be there to pick up the pieces after some crackpot vigilante mob have hunted him down and beat him to death? Or as has happened before, an innocent person.

I find it odd for him to mention it in the first place. Human curiousity being as it is the first thing I'd be doing is checking out his name any place I could.

Reminds me of facebook..............'feeling glum today'........'you ok hun?'..........'I don't want to talk about it'.

Maybe he never did as it's not mentioned or implied in a Scottish newspaper. Seems more likely to be a bit of Mail mischief making and pot stirring.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scot ... d-11994326

[Guest]

I think there is a choice. At first, obviously, the grief, anger, and shock are not a choice, but years later one can make a choice as to whether such a horrible thing is going to rule their life or if they're going to try to move on and find some peace.

is it really possible for them to find peace? i hope none of us are ever in a position to have to put that to the test.

I've kept this other guest post in because it's valid.

In reply to Raggamuffin's post.

There really isn't a choice. Her son's death will always be a part of her and her life. You talk about holding on to grief in a bitter and twisted way. Their grief and reminding people that Venables was and still is a very dangerous person. Is normal. He not only murdered their son. He is also continued to watch small children being horrifically abused.
I applaud them for that and they are not alone. There are many victim's relatives attending parole boards year after year. In the hope of keeping monsters like this behind bars.

Are you suggesting that Denise and Ralph are not bitter?

People do attend parole boards but isn't that usually in connection with a crime where they were the victims? The Bulgers were involved in the release of the boys in 2001 of course, but Venables' last two crimes have not been connected with them.

No, but he is connected to them. Hurting small people is not something from which people easily let go

[guest]

The murder case involving Scotland's youngest ever murderer is back in the news after Jamie Campbell's killer was boasting about life outside prison.

Richard Keith was only eleven years old when he repeatedly beat the three year old with sticks and stones and then drowned him.

He was found guilty of Culpable Homicide and was served eight years.

Richard Keith is now 39 and unlike the killers of James Bulger, he wasn't given a new identity.

I don't imagine many people outwith Scotland have heard of the case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5375399/Scotlands-youngest-killer-enjoys-life-outside-prison.html

The problem i have with that article is, to quote the DM; "Miss McPhillips said the family are facing fresh agony after learning Jamie's killer is living five miles away and has been boasting about his new life online." Apparently by that's in reference to him now having a girl friend and posting on Facebook. I can't really see how that's 'boasting'.She said she had also been told Keith had boasted about killing Jamie, telling someone he ‘didn’t want to talk about it but he killed someone once’.

Is that not usual for a person whose committed murder to not want to talk about it? Would Miss McPhillips feel happier if he was telling everyone about a crime he committed 28 years ago, appearing on tv chat shows or selling his story to some rag like the DM? The murder was certainly horrific but unlike Venables it seems this man has been rehabilitated back into society.

I wonder if the Mail are going to be there to pick up the pieces after some crackpot vigilante mob have hunted him down and beat him to death? Or as has happened before, an innocent person.

I find it odd for him to mention it in the first place. Human curiousity being as it is the first thing I'd be doing is checking out his name any place I could.

Reminds me of facebook..............'feeling glum today'........'you ok hun?'..........'I don't want to talk about it'.

Maybe he never did as it's not mentioned or implied in a Scottish newspaper. Seems more likely to be a bit of Mail mischief making and pot stirring.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scot ... d-11994326

Maybe the Mail is stirring it, maybe the other papers have just picked out the bits they were interested in, maybe he's still a shit, may he isn't etc

[Raggamuffin]

I think there is a choice. At first, obviously, the grief, anger, and shock are not a choice, but years later one can make a choice as to whether such a horrible thing is going to rule their life or if they're going to try to move on and find some peace.

is it really possible for them to find peace? i hope none of us are ever in a position to have to put that to the test.

I've kept this other guest post in because it's valid.

In reply to Raggamuffin's post.

There really isn't a choice. Her son's death will always be a part of her and her life. You talk about holding on to grief in a bitter and twisted way. Their grief and reminding people that Venables was and still is a very dangerous person. Is normal. He not only murdered their son. He is also continued to watch small children being horrifically abused.
I applaud them for that and they are not alone. There are many victim's relatives attending parole boards year after year. In the hope of keeping monsters like this behind bars.

Are you suggesting that Denise and Ralph are not bitter?

People do attend parole boards but isn't that usually in connection with a crime where they were the victims? The Bulgers were involved in the release of the boys in 2001 of course, but Venables' last two crimes have not been connected with them.

No, but he is connected to them. Hurting small people is not something from which people easily let go

The courts will deal with Venables, it's not up to anyone else to do their job for them, and it's not up to anyone to try to impose their own form of justice.

[Guest]

is it really possible for them to find peace? i hope none of us are ever in a position to have to put that to the test.

I've kept this other guest post in because it's valid.

In reply to Raggamuffin's post.

There really isn't a choice. Her son's death will always be a part of her and her life. You talk about holding on to grief in a bitter and twisted way. Their grief and reminding people that Venables was and still is a very dangerous person. Is normal. He not only murdered their son. He is also continued to watch small children being horrifically abused.
I applaud them for that and they are not alone. There are many victim's relatives attending parole boards year after year. In the hope of keeping monsters like this behind bars.

Are you suggesting that Denise and Ralph are not bitter?

People do attend parole boards but isn't that usually in connection with a crime where they were the victims? The Bulgers were involved in the release of the boys in 2001 of course, but Venables' last two crimes have not been connected with them.

No, but he is connected to them. Hurting small people is not something from which people easily let go

The courts will deal with Venables, it's not up to anyone else to do their job for them, and it's not up to anyone to try to impose their own form of justice.

By the same token it's not up to anyone to state how Denise or Ralph should be living their lives remembering their murdered child.

[Raggamuffin]

By the same token it's not up to anyone to state how Denise or Ralph should be living their lives remembering their murdered child.

Oh well, if they want to waste their time it's up to them. The press should stop reporting what they say though - I think it's just stirring people up again.

[guest]

By the same token it's not up to anyone to state how Denise or Ralph should be living their lives remembering their murdered child.

Oh well, if they want to waste their time it's up to them. The press should stop reporting what they say though - I think it's just stirring people up again.

Thankfully the majority do not see Denise or Ralph talking about their murdered son as them wasting their time.

It's not down to you or me what the press report - you have the option to read or not read the press, to listen to bereaved parents or not. Your choice.

[waste their time]

By the same token it's not up to anyone to state how Denise or Ralph should be living their lives remembering their murdered child.

Oh well, if they want to waste their time it's up to them. The press should stop reporting what they say though - I think it's just stirring people up again.

Waste their time? He murdered their child. You clearly don't understand the devastation this brings.

[Guest]

By the same token it's not up to anyone to state how Denise or Ralph should be living their lives remembering their murdered child.

Oh well, if they want to waste their time it's up to them. The press should stop reporting what they say though - I think it's just stirring people up again.

I would hazard a guess that you would love to moderate the press to your liking, a bit like having forum button memories

[Guest]

By the same token it's not up to anyone to state how Denise or Ralph should be living their lives remembering their murdered child.

Oh well, if they want to waste their time it's up to them. The press should stop reporting what they say though - I think it's just stirring people up again.

Just. Wow. Fenella you come across as somebody who has a very cold heart

[guest]

By the same token it's not up to anyone to state how Denise or Ralph should be living their lives remembering their murdered child.

Oh well, if they want to waste their time it's up to them. The press should stop reporting what they say though - I think it's just stirring people up again.

Waste their time? He murdered their child. You clearly don't understand the devastation this brings.

[Grafenwalder]

The murder case involving Scotland's youngest ever murderer is back in the news after Jamie Campbell's killer was boasting about life outside prison.

Richard Keith was only eleven years old when he repeatedly beat the three year old with sticks and stones and then drowned him.

He was found guilty of Culpable Homicide and was served eight years.

Richard Keith is now 39 and unlike the killers of James Bulger, he wasn't given a new identity.

I don't imagine many people outwith Scotland have heard of the case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5375399/Scotlands-youngest-killer-enjoys-life-outside-prison.html

The problem i have with that article is, to quote the DM; "Miss McPhillips said the family are facing fresh agony after learning Jamie's killer is living five miles away and has been boasting about his new life online." Apparently by that's in reference to him now having a girl friend and posting on Facebook. I can't really see how that's 'boasting'.She said she had also been told Keith had boasted about killing Jamie, telling someone he ‘didn’t want to talk about it but he killed someone once’.

Is that not usual for a person whose committed murder to not want to talk about it? Would Miss McPhillips feel happier if he was telling everyone about a crime he committed 28 years ago, appearing on tv chat shows or selling his story to some rag like the DM? The murder was certainly horrific but unlike Venables it seems this man has been rehabilitated back into society.

I wonder if the Mail are going to be there to pick up the pieces after some crackpot vigilante mob have hunted him down and beat him to death? Or as has happened before, an innocent person.

I find it odd for him to mention it in the first place. Human curiousity being as it is the first thing I'd be doing is checking out his name any place I could.

Reminds me of facebook..............'feeling glum today'........'you ok hun?'..........'I don't want to talk about it'.

Maybe he never did as it's not mentioned or implied in a Scottish newspaper. Seems more likely to be a bit of Mail mischief making and pot stirring.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scot ... d-11994326

Maybe the Mail is stirring it, maybe the other papers have just picked out the bits they were interested in, maybe he's still a shit, may he isn't etc

Given it's long established reputation i'm inclined to go with the bib!

[Raggamuffin]

Some of you guests don't seem to able to grasp what's really happening here. Do you actually think that Denise Fergus will get anywhere then?

What she''s angry about is the sentence they got for killing James in the first place. I actually agree that it was too lenient. Now we've got this chap who was at the same place telling everyone how Venables had no remorse and got loads of privileges, which isn't going to help. What Denise wants is for Venables to go to prison now for a very long time to serve the sentence she thinks he should have had back then when he killed James, but is that ever going to happen? He got 40 months, so they'd need a good reason not to let him out after that time.

[Lady Murasaki]

Some of you guests don't seem to able to grasp what's really happening here. Do you actually think that Denise Fergus will get anywhere then?

What she''s angry about is the sentence they got for killing James in the first place. I actually agree that it was too lenient. Now we've got this chap who was at the same place telling everyone how Venables had no remorse and got loads of privileges, which isn't going to help. What Denise wants is for Venables to go to prison now for a very long time to serve the sentence she thinks he should have had back then when he killed James, but is that ever going to happen? He got 40 months, so they'd need a good reason not to let him out after that time.

She probably wants him gone from the earth, regardless of what the press are saying.

[Raggamuffin]

Some of you guests don't seem to able to grasp what's really happening here. Do you actually think that Denise Fergus will get anywhere then?

What she''s angry about is the sentence they got for killing James in the first place. I actually agree that it was too lenient. Now we've got this chap who was at the same place telling everyone how Venables had no remorse and got loads of privileges, which isn't going to help. What Denise wants is for Venables to go to prison now for a very long time to serve the sentence she thinks he should have had back then when he killed James, but is that ever going to happen? He got 40 months, so they'd need a good reason not to let him out after that time.

She probably wants him gone from the earth, regardless of what the press are saying.

Maybe so, although it's not really what the press is saying, it's what she says to the press. If she does want him dead, she's never said so.

Don't you think she'd still be angry though? I think most of her anger is with the legal system, and that wouldn't change even if he was dead.

Meanwhile, prison inmates are allegedly circulating photos, as are others This is contempt of court, so shouldn't they be prosecuted?