1
The James Bulger Abduction:
Criminological Theories and Commonalities in Juvenile Homicide Offenders
Yevgeniy Pastukhov-Semchenkov
2
Introduction
One of the most notorious crimes of the 20th century took place in Walton, Liverpool,
England, in 1993. A mutilated, cut in half by a train body of the two- toddler, James Bulger was
discovered on a railroad. Though the body was severed by a train, the pathologist, Dr. Williams
held that it was not what caused the death of the child. Before a passing train cut his body in half,
James Bulger sustained 42 injuries, 22 of which were inflicted on his head and led to multiple
fractures to his skull (Foster, 2003). After post-mortem examination that revealed that Jamie was
struck by at least 30 blows, Dr. Williams, testified in the court that Jamie could not remain alive
after receiving such injuries for longer than several minutes (Foster, 2003). Though, the number
of injuries did not allow the examiner to identify which one of them caused Jamie’s death. Police
also suspected that the child was sexually abused since his shoes, socks, pants, and underwear
were removed from the body, and put on the ground next to his head. The gruesome discovery
initiated an investigation, findings of which only added to the public disturbance instilled by the
atrocity of the crime. The perpetrators of the murder were two ten-years-old boys, Jon Venables
and Robert Thompson.
Case background
On February 12, 1993, Denise Bulger with her son went to the Tym’s butcher shop, in the
New Strand Shopping Center where James disappeared when she got momentarily distracted.
Later, the police checked the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage from the shopping mall.
Despite the blurriness of the footage, it was evident that the abductors of little James were two
little boys, who took the toddler to the exit. The toddler’s body was discovered on the train path,
just 200 yards away from the Walton Lane police station in Liverpool (Rennie, 2019). That made
3
two suspects the youngest murderers of the 20th century. Police found the perpetrators two days
later.
During the interrogations, two boys were acting differently, but both denied personal
involvement in the murder of James Bulger. Nevertheless, on that day, both were playing truant
and were seen on the footage from New Strand Shopping Center CCTV. In addition, blue paint
and victim’s blood were found on the clothes of both boys (Rennie, 2019). Forensic evidence,
combined with the information obtained from the witnesses who saw both perpetrators with
Jamie, was enough to charge both of them with the murder and bring them to the court (Rennie,
2019). On November 24, 1993, both were found guilty and sentenced at Her Majesty Pleasure
with the recommendation to be kept in custody for as long as it can be possible (Timeline of
Events, 2013). While the sentence at Her Majesty Pleasure means that the sentence is
undetermined, Mr. Justice Morland recommended keeping both in custody for a minimum of 8
years (Bulger, James Patrick, 2017). What made two 10-year-old boys into merciless killers?
Despite the involvement of both in the same murder, the two were different in many ways.
Jon Venables
Jon Venables was born on August 13, 1982. He was a second of three children born to
Neil and Susan Venables. Jonathan’s older brother was born with a cleft palate, which resulted in
communication issues and increasing behavioral breakdowns. He was attending a special school
and required a lot of parental attention and supervision. Jon’s younger sister, as well as her oldest
brother, had developmental issues, resulting in her being sent to the special needs school.
Because his siblings required constant attention, Jon often felt forgotten and unwanted. Trying to
4
receive the desired attention from his parents, he would even mimic his brother’s behavior
(Scott, n.d.).
Susan and Neil were in an unstable relationship, which resulted in around-the-clock
upheaval. As a result of instability and constant stress, both Susan and Neil had depressions, with
Susan being extremely hysterical at times. According to some neighbors, she would assault Jon
both verbally and physically. On some occasions, being unable to deal with Jonathan’s behavior,
she would send him away to his father’s house. Besides having an unstable household, Jon was
struggling to maintain healthy relationships with the neighborhood children, who would often
tease him and his siblings mercilessly. Jon started to display anti-social behaviors (Scott, n.d.).
Jon’s inadequate behavior was noticed by his teachers. They reported that he would rock
back and forth in his chair while making strange noises. When his teacher decided to change his
seat to the one in the front row so she could keep an eye on him, he started to mess up with the
stuff on her desk (Scott, n.d.). His behavior was worsening and becoming more violent. Initially,
his violent outbursts were directed towards himself. He would bang his head against the wall,
throw himself on the floor, and roll under the chairs and desks in the classroom. On one of the
occasions, he took scissors and cut himself and his clothing (Scott, n.d.). Later he started to
destroy things in the classroom; he would stand on the desk throwing stuff at his classmates.
Teachers had to document and report his behavior. According to school records, Jon’s weird
behavior was growing extremely violent. In one of the incidents reported by school officials,
Jonathan attacked another student from behind and started choking him with a ruler (Scott, n.d.).
Eventually, Jon was transferred to another school, where he was kept behind a year. That
is where he met Robert Thompson. Accompanied by Robert, Jon always felt braver and tougher,
5
which in his understanding of things allowed him to bully other students. Robert seemed to be
more mature than his new friend; he also was very manipulative. When teachers realized that this
duet brings out the worst in both, they started to keep them apart in the classroom. Neil, Jon’s
father, also saw Robert as a bad influence on Jon. Sometimes, when Jon was at Neil’s house,
Robert would come by, just to be chased away by Jon’s father, who always told his son to stay
from Robert due to his bad reputation. Neil seemed to be a caring father. On the contrary, some
people, including the trial judge, saw Neil as a bad influence on Jon. Mostly, because of his
tendency to rent horror movies. In one of them, the main character, a doll named “Chucky” dies
toward the end of the movie in a roller train ride, while having blue paint spattered all over his
face (Scott, n.d.). This is exactly how the body of the victim was found: on the train path
spattered with blue paint.
Robert Thompson
While Robert Thompson was seen as the tough one and an evil-minded, manipulative
child, who “got little Jon in trouble,” in reality his behavior was rather defensive and explained
by his brutal background. His family had a long history of intrafamilial abuse. His mother, Ann,
married his father at the age of 18 only to escape beating from her father, who was an aggressive,
violent alcoholic. Little did she know that her marriage had nothing better to offer. Robert
Thompson, Sr. was an alcoholic who was also aggressive. He would beat Ann ruthlessly in front
of their children. Frustrated Ann would then batter her children. Numerous neighbors mentioned
that she attempted suicide several times and eventually turned to drinking as a coping
mechanism. She was a frequenter in local bars. Her habitual drinking led to the abandonment of
the children. They were left on their own after Robert Thompson Sr. left his family for good.
6
Children left on their own started to assault each other. Eventually, instead of protecting each
other, they required protection from each other (Scott, n.d.).
The family was well known to the police and social services. One of the siblings was
placed in foster care after being abused at the age of four; the other was an arsonist suspected of
sexual abuse of other youngsters. One of the brothers was a thief who was taking little Robert
with him when he was going on his stealing adventures. Some of them attempted suicide. All
Thompsons were known for skipping school. Despite his home environment, Robert was not
aggressive, and his teachers did not consider him a troublemaker, but rather as a quiet boy who
was a liar and manipulative of others. When Robert was younger, he was trying to be a good
child, always helped his mother in the house, was watching his younger brothers when their
mother was away. Sometimes he was truant merely because his drunk mother would hide his
shoes from him to keep him home babysitting the seventh child, Ben. His truancy increased with
age. Being well known for his being a Thompson, he was a target for mockery, but
simultaneously, he used his reputation for maintaining his rough-and-tough image in school
(Scott, n.d.).
Application of theories
Given the in-depth background description of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson Jr., it
is reasonable to state that both share certain commonalities related to their upbringing, which can
explain their criminality. The author chooses the social approach as the major way to explain
deviance of the perpetrators in James Bulger case. Social theorists see psychological individuallevel explanations of crime as less significant than those provided by social and cultural
conditions. According to social theorists, delinquency is a result of social and cultural conditions
7
in which children grow up, and the social groups in which children can be involved (Bartollas et
al., 2019, p. 77). Those groups include school, family, peers, and other groups in which
interactions take place.
Social development of an individual involves social learning of norms, values, and
morals that according to Akers and Sellers (2004), might result in either conforming or deviant
behavior. Social process theories explain delinquency from interactionist point of view on it.
Interactionist perspective provides an in-depth insight into the nature of influential factors that
stem from communicating with the social environment. The key element of the interactionist
perspective is understanding of the impact of the external environment, and the social learning
process on the internal individual components of children (Bartollas et al., 2019). The author
sees deviance of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson as a direct product of unhealthy, crimepromoting interactions in their families.
The family is one of the most intimate groups where individuals learn a vast majority of
the elements that will later shape their behavior. Sutherland’s differential association theory
suggests that the crime is learned from others. The theory states that “The principal learning of
criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups” (Bartollas et al., 2019, p. 92). Little
children are especially vulnerable and malleable. Both Jon Venables and Robert Thompson grew
up in dysfunctional families with abusive parents, being exposed to high levels of violence that
included physical and psychological abuse of children by parents. Robert, for example, saw his
father beating his mother and siblings, his brothers were also constantly fighting (Scott, n.d.).
This is where he could pick up the ideas that violence and physical abuse are “normal.” While
neither perpetrator was exposed to murder, both were the subjects of parental physical abuse.
8
Sutherland also stated that learning of delinquent behaviors involves learning the specific
techniques of committing the crime. In case of James Bulger, the perpetrators were beating their
victim with stones, bricks, and a metal bar. They virtually did what they have seen at home; for
both, beating was something that they have seen almost daily. The frequency, duration, and
intensity of the exposure to such interactions also impact the learning process. The idea that
children learn from their significant once is hard to reject. The rough backgrounds of both played
a key role in their crime. While there is a lot of criticism of differential association theory in
terms of why some juveniles become criminals and some do not, it is only fair to state that while
most theories can be applied to virtually every crime, none of them are capable of the exhaustive
explanation of delinquency.
While social learning theory explains many of the aspects of Jon and Robert’s deviancy,
it can be complemented by social control theory, which is also a part of the social approach.
While social learning theory attempts to answer the question of why children become
delinquents, social control theory is aimed to explain internal mechanisms that help children to
avoid delinquency. Control theorists came to an agreement that juveniles commit crimes when
control force is either absent or somehow defective (Bartollas et al., 2019, p. 97). Travis Hirschi
developed what is known as bonding theory. The four major elements of his theory are: weak
attachment, weak commitment, weak involvement, and weak belief (Bartollas et al., 2019). All
four elements were present in the case of Thompson and Venables.
Attachment to parents, according to bonding theory, is one of the strongest factors in
preventing children from committing delinquent acts. This part was most definitely missing in
the lives of both Venables and Thompson. Bonds between them and their parents were severed
9
by their alcoholism, cruelty, instability of their households, and physical and emotional abuse.
No child will ever feel close to a parent in such circumstances. In addition, neither of their
parents were ever dedicated to instilling high morality in their children and developing any
healthy relationships with them.
The weak commitment element of bonding theory is satisfied by the fact that neither
perpetrator had anything to lose. Neither perpetrator was committed to conventional values but
instead had their commitments to disorderly behaviors. Truant from school, seeking for trouble,
held back a year, without proper parental supervision, the two were at high risk of becoming
delinquents. Since truancy was a normal thing for both, they were not participating in their
school lives to the extent they were supposed to; hence, there was weak involvement in
conventional activities (Scott, n.d.). Truancy also demonstrates the weak belief, since the two did
not respect either school authorities and policies, nor did they respect the conventional view that
attending school is what children must do.
While social approach provides convincing insight in possible explanation of why Jon
Venables and Robert Thompson did what they did, it still does not explain the crime completely.
When analyzing Jon’s background, the author recognized the pattern that highly resembles the
concept of primary and secondary deviance described by Edwin M. Lemert as a part of the
labeling theory. He stated that the process of becoming deviant goes as follows: (1) primary
deviation, (2) penalties, (3) further primary deviation, (4) stricter penalties accompanied by
rejection, (5) further deviation that can be aimed at those penalizing, (6) tolerance crisis
manifested in stigmatizing of the deviant, (7) strengthening deviant behaviors in response to
stigmatizing and penalties, (8) ultimate acceptance of deviant status (Bartollas et al, 2014, p.
10
115). As it was described above, Jon’s behavior was progressing from merely weird rocking in
his chair, accompanied by odd sounds, to the violence directed at other students in the school.
The initial measure taken by the teacher, namely changing his seat, was quickly responded by
another act of disobedience manifested itself in messing up with the things on the teacher’s desk.
The labeling theory shifts the focus of delinquency involvement from an individual to his
or her interactions and suggests that an individual can take the roles and self-images assigned to
them. The labeling theory can be applied to Robert, as well. His reputation was exceeding him
by far. Once assigned a deviant label, an individual can either fight it or conform to it. As it was
mentioned above, Robert’s family was well known to the police and social services, as well as to
the neighbors and Robert’s school. He used his label to maintain the perception of himself
amongst his peers as “rough-and-tough” and was acting accordingly.
Besides the truths held by social learning theory, family has several other ways to impact
an individual and increase the chances of becoming a delinquent. Bartollas et al. (2019) list the
factors that found to be associated with family and delinquency. Factors such as broken home,
single-parent home, birth order, family size, quality of home life, family rejection, and discipline
in the home impacted bot of perpetrators in James Bulger case (Bartollas et al., 2019, pp. 182183). Jon was a second child, his parents were divorced, he had two siblings, his home could not
be described as having a high-quality life, sometimes he was rejected by his mom, she would
send him to his father’s house, and the discipline was just not there. Robert, the fifth of the seven
brothers, lived with the divorced mother, who rejected him and would prefer to spend time at
bars versus taking care of or disciplining her children. Bartollas et al. (2019) also state that when
a child has parents and/or siblings who are criminals, the likelihood of the involvement in
11
delinquent behaviors for such a child increases. All Robert’s brothers were involved in deviant
behaviors to a different degree (Scott, n.d.).
Another theory that might help to understand the events that took place on February 12,
1993, is the rational choice theory. The theory posits that crime is a result of free will and
logically made decisions. While the deterrence theory is concentrated on the punishment that
follows the crime, the rational choice theory states that the individual weighs gain from
committing the crime versus pain that possibly will be inflicted by the punishment (Bartollas et
al., 2019, pp. 51-53). Rational choice is influenced by psychological, biological, and social
nature. Nevertheless, it is up to the individual to decide whether to resort to the crime or not.
Another important part of rational choice theory is that the crime is something planned.
Looking at James Bulgers case, it is evident that the death of the toddler was a
premeditated crime. His murderers were roaming around the shopping mall, having a
conversation that eventually turned into a discussion about hurting someone (Scott, n.d.).
Following that conversation, Jon and Robert prior to the abduction of James, attempted to kidnap
another child but were caught by the child’s mother (Rennie, 2019). In addition, they were
stopped and questioned about James several times, while they were leading him to the place
where they committed his murder (Scott, n.d.; Rennie, 2019). That should have prevented them
from the crime, but it did not, they seemed to be extremely dedicated to their plan. They also
made an attempt to avoid consequences of their wrongdoing by staging the crime scene so it
would look like an accident rather than murder. They positioned the body of James on the
railway so a passing train would run it over, thus expecting that no one would assume that the
child died from other causes Rennoe, 2019; Foster, 2011). Another piece of evidence to support
12
the applicability of the rational choice theory in this case is that solicitors of both Jon and Robert
prior to their interrogations established if they were able to know the truth from the lie, and that
both understood to the best of their capabilities that the lie was something wrong and socially
unacceptable (Scott, n.d.).
Juvenile murderers in academic literature
Due to the relatively rare incidence, the existing literature on juvenile offenders is scarce,
and majorly consists of either case studies or the studies that had extremely small samples. Yet,
they provide a deeper insight into the factors that are related to and explanatory of homicides
committed by children and juveniles. In 2002, Hill-Smith and colleagues conducted a study of 21
juvenile murderers and compared their psychological variables to those of 21 nonviolent
offenders. The results of the study revealed that the reported history of harsh parenting from both
parents was higher in the study group and was approaching statistical significance for mothers
(Hill-Smith et al., 2002). 25% of mothers and 20% of fathers of murderers had a history of
psychological problems; criminal involvement for parents of murderers was higher than that for
the control group; drug and alcohol abuse rates for both parents of murderers was also higher
than that for parents of nonviolent delinquents (Hill-Smith et al., 2002). That supports the
authors view that intrafamilial environment in which Bulger’s murderers grew up partially
explains their crime.
Rolf Loeber and his colleagues (2005) examined 63 factors that were predictive of
violence and homicidal tendencies in juveniles. While their overall sample was 1,488 boys, only
33 children were tried and convicted of homicide. Descriptive statistics revealed that 61% of
homicides were committed by two or more people together; 91% of their victims were males;
13
none of the victims in that study was younger than 15-years-old. 93.9% of killers displayed
violent behaviors prior to committing homicide (Loeber et al., 2005). 54% of homicide offenders
were held back in school. More than a quarter of homicide offenders had poor parental
supervision, poor intrafamilial communication, were physically punished by parents, yet had not
persistent discipline, had parents who abused substances, were abused as children (Loeber et al.,
2005). 57% of juveniles who killed were truants, 59% had positive views on delinquent
behavior; none of them had developmental issues (Loeber et al., 2005). Once again, one can see
that there is a repetition of the variables that were present in the lives of Jon Venables and Robert
Thompson. They were at high risk of committing homicide, specifically Venables, since his
behavior was becoming increasingly violent. Loeber’s study suggests that most individuals who
committed the murder and were represented in his study had tendencies similar to those that
Venables had (Loeber et al., 2005).
Emily Grekin and her colleagues (2005) conducted a study of 816 families with children
born between 1981 and 1984. The main goal of the study was to explore the relationship between
parents’ alcohol use disorder and child delinquency. This study produced controversial results.
While paternal alcohol use disorders were found to be correlated with both violent and
nonviolent delinquency, maternal alcohol use disorders did not demonstrate any association with
either violent or nonviolent delinquency and had to be excluded from the study (Grekin et al.,
2005). Another study, conducted by Finan and colleagues in 2015, demonstrated that while
maternal drinking does not directly result in rule breaking but was negatively related to family
cohesion which in turn results in rule-breaking and aggressive behaviors amongst children (Finan
et al., 2015). Mothers of both perpetrators in James Bulger case were alcohol abusers, which
14
resulted in a weakened connection between them and their children and hypothetically could
increase the likelihood of becoming delinquent for both boys.
Explanations of possible factors that contributed to Jon Venables and Robert Thompson’s
becoming murderers can be complicated by the fact that they were only ten years of age. Most of
the delinquents who committed homicides are usually older. For example, the average age of
adolescents charged with homicide in the study conducted by Cornell, Benedek, and Benedek
(1987) was 16.7. They were predominantly white (54%), 64% had parents who were divorced,
about half of them were drop-outs or expelled from school, 72% of them did not have prior
juvenile placements, 43% did not have prior arrests, in the majority of the cases the victim was a
male (Cornell et al., 1987). These variables seem to be very common for juvenile murderers. The
study provided information on the use of a weapon by adolescents. The majority of the
intrafamilial murders involved a gun (60%), most of the murders where the victim and the killer
were acquaints involved a knife, and in most cases where the victim was a stranger, no weapon
was used (Cornell et al., 1987). Findings of this study once again demonstrate a lot of themes and
elements that were observed in James Bulger case.
Afterword
It has been 26 years since the dreadful crime took place, but the general public and many
criminology, sociology, and psychology practitioners and scholars still have difficulties
understanding and explaining what led two 10-years-old children to committing such an
atrocious and heinous murder. Some people, including the leading detective in the case, Albert
Kirby believe that Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were born criminals, that they are
irredeemable and should have been incarcerated for the rest of their lives (Born Evil, 2019). The
15
general public too sees Venables and Thompson as pure evil and still is seeking justice for little
Jamie and questions the release of the two in 2001. They do not believe in the rehabilitation of
two “monsters.” People most likely have a good reason to be concerned about the release of the
two, since Venables is known to be rearrested three times after he left the detention center in
2001. The first arrest was in 2008 for affray (Grierson, 2018). The same year he was given a
formal warning for possession of a small amount of cocaine. The second time he was arrested in
2010 for possession and distribution of child pornography (Grierson, 2018). The third arrest of
Venables took place in 2017, the charges were, once again, related to child pornography
(Grierson, 2018). On the other hand, as far as it is known, Robert Thompson has never
reoffended since his release on a lifelong license in 2001.
16
Reference
Bartollas, C., Schmalleger, F., & Turner, M. G. (2019). Juvenile delinquency (10th ed.). New
York, NY: Pearson.
Born evil: What drove James Bulger's underage killers? (2019, February 12). Retrieved June 30,
2019, from https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/article/born-evil-what-drove-jamesbulgers-underage-killers
Bulger, James Patrick (1990–1993), murder victim | Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
(2017, November 10). Retrieved June 30, 2019, from
https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb9780198614128-e-76074
Cornell, D., Benedek, E., & Benedek, D. (1987). Characteristics of adolescents charged with
homicide: Review of 72 cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 5(1), 11-23.
Finan, L. J., Schulz, J., Gordon, M. S., & Ohannessian, C. M. (2015). Parental problem drinking
and adolescent externalizing behaviors: The mediating role of family
functioning. Journal of adolescence, 43, 100–110.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.001
Foster, J. (2011, October 23). James Bulger suffered multiple fractures: Pathologist reveals.
Retrieved June 30, 2019, from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/james-bulgersuffered-multiple-fractures-pathologist-reveals-two-year-old-had-42-injuries-including1503297.html
17
Grierson, J. (2018, February 07). Bulger killer jailed over indecent images of children. Retrieved
June 30, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/07/james-bulgerkiller-jon-venables-pleads-guilty-to-having-indecent-images
Hill-Smith, A., Hugo, P., Hughes, P., Fonagy, P., Hartman, D. (2002). Adolescent murderers:
Abuse and adversity in childhood. Journal of Adolescence, 25(2), 221-230.
Loeber, R., Pardini, D., Homish, D., Wei, E., Crawford, A., Farrington, D., Stouthamer-Loeber,
M., Creemers, J., Koehler, S., Rosenfeld, R. (2005). The Prediction of Violence and
Homicide in Young Men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,73(6), 10741088.
Rennie, D. (2019, June 19). They Abducted, Tortured, And Killed A Toddler - And They Were
Only 10. Retrieved June 30, 2019, from https://allthatsinteresting.com/james-bulgerkillers-robert-thompson-jon-venables
Scott, S. L. (n.d.). Death of James Bulger. Retrieved June 30, 2019, from
https://web.archive.org/web/20081002060559/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notori
ous_murders/young/bulger/2.html
Timeline of events following abduction of James Bulger. (2013, July 4). Retrieved June 30,
2019, from https://www.itv.com/news/2013-07-04/timeline-of-events-following-murderof-james-bulger/