The Sleep of Reason: The James Bulger Case

by David James Smith

  Jon’s solicitor, Lawrence Lee, visiting his client for the first time, told Jon, it’s all right, son, we’re going to tell the judge you were mad when you did it. This attempt to speak in the language of children reflected the belief that Jon might be able to run a defence of diminished responsibility, in which psychiatric evidence could play a crucial role.

  The Crown — in the guise of the Merseyside Crown Prosecution Service — was also interested in expert evidence. In making its case against the boys it needed to counter the presumption in law that, at the age of ten, the boys did not know that what they were doing was seriously wrong. It also needed to counter any suggestion that the boys were unfit to stand trial, or that they were ‘mad’: suffering from diminished responsibility.

  John Brighouse, the CPS’s special casework lawyer, contacted the defence and requested that their clients be seen by Dr Susan Bailey, a consultant adolescent forensic psychiatrist from Prestwich Hospital in Manchester. Bobby’s lawyers refused and Jon’s agreed. Dr Bailey first saw Jon’s parents in May and went on to interview them over two sessions. She conducted seven clinical interviews with Jon over the next four months.

  On 14 May, the boys stood side by side in the dock at Liverpool Crown Court, formally entering ‘not guilty’ pleas to the charges and hearing that the trial was fixed for 1 November, at Preston Crown Court. Jon was hyperventilating for most of the brief hearing, and a social worker clutched at his leg for support. The public gallery was empty except for Sean Sexton, the local solicitor representing the Bulger family. Neil was the only parent in court, sitting surrounded, by bulky plain-clothed policemen.

  There had been some debate about a possible venue for the trial, which could not be held in Liverpool because ‘feelings were running high’ and because of the difficulty of finding a jury that had not already made up its mind about the boys’ guilt. It had been suggested that the trial might be held at the Old Bailey in London, but The Honourable Mr Justice Morland, who was the presiding judge of the Northern Circuit, decided he would hear the case in Preston, which was a more practical alternative to Liverpool, and would enable the boys to return to their units every evening.

  In her twelve-page psychiatric report on Jon Venables, which was delivered shortly before the start of the trial, Dr Bailey recorded Neil and Susan’s view of their family background and Jon’s childhood development. She said that there was no history of epilepsy, alcohol abuse or mental health problems. Susan told Dr Bailey of the stress and anxiety of caring for Mark when he was an infant, and how this had contributed to the separation from Neil. They had told Jon that they could not get on together but were still friends. Neil continued to see all the children.

  Jon had been overactive at school and at home he would run around and play in the garden, but he was not aggressive. He had been bullied at school by boys who lived nearby and who bullied Jon and his brother Mark at home. Jon showed no anger or antagonism towards Mark, and never expressed any unhappiness about the time and attention Mark had required because of his learning difficulties. Jon was protective towards Mark and Michelle and understanding of their special needs.

  Susan had been very worried about the bullying and had told Jon to stand up for himself, but he worried about his eye and his squint. She had complained to the school, and was told Jon was throwing things in class. He was suspended for two days because he had been throwing things and lying on the floor, refusing to get up.

  Eventually, Susan decided to keep Jon out of school until they got rid of the bullies, so that Jon would no longer be a victim. It was then that he changed schools. Jon had been brilliant at first, in his new school, with the discipline and structure provided by a male teacher. In his current year, with a female teacher, he had begun associating with Robert and truanting. Jon had felt sorry for Robert because he had no friends at school. The police and other local families had warned them to keep Jon away from Robert, who was trouble and renowned for thieving. Jon had been bullied by Robert.

  The only stealing Jon had done was taking cigarettes from his mother’s handbag, and that only because lads in the street had threatened him.

  Jon bit his nails and shared with his mother a fear of bees and wasps. He slept with the light on and used to have a distressing recurring dream in which the spotlight from his eye operation was focused on him. Since being charged and held in secure accommodation, Jon had been observed to line his toys along the side of the bed, to keep things away at night. He had told his mother of flashbacks, particularly an image of blood coming out of James Bulger’s mouth. The memories would not go away when he tried to push them to the back of his mind.

  He had been having bad dreams and good dreams, but could not remember the bad dreams. In a recurring good dream he rescued the victim by snatching James and returning him to his mother. This was worse than the bad dreams because he couldn’t make it real.

  In his interviews with Dr Bailey, Jon was able to settle, sit still and concentrate. If the subject became uncomfortable he would fidget or hide under his sweater. About the offences he would only say that Robert had suggested they sag off and go to the Strand. He was unable to talk further about what happened, and became tearful and inconsolable when the subject was raised. He told Dr Bailey to ask his mum and dad. He said the only people he could talk to about it were the police. Dr Bailey noted that, at times, especially when speaking of Robert, Jon would use the same phrases his mother had employed.

  He showed no evidence of any hallucinatory or other unusual experiences, and there was no indication of obsessive or compulsive phenomena. He had not presented with any clinical evidence of a depressive illness, though he had appropriate anxieties about the forthcoming trial. It was unfortunate, Dr Bailey observed, that Jon had been advised to disguise his age and offences at the secure unit. This had hindered him in coming to terms with his situation.

  Jon’s three magic wishes were to be out of his secure unit; to turn the world into a chocolate factory; to live forever, with enough money, and to have no accidents or illnesses. His choice of a partner on a desert island would be his mum, if he could take only one person, but, otherwise, mum, teddy, dad, brother, sister and nan.

  If he could go back in time, he would return to the offence so it didn’t happen. He could be happy if it hadn’t happened. Going forward in time, to twenty, he would like to be living with his mum and dad and have a job as a mechanic. He was fearful that he would go to prison when he was eighteen and stay there until he was 40.

  Asked about his understanding of death, Jon told Dr Bailey that when pets or people die that fact can’t change, they cannot come back. Good people go to heaven where there is Jesus, Mary, God and disciples, all in white. Naughty people go to hell.

  Jon liked watching cartoons such as Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck which he recognised as make believe. He liked the soap operas, and their characters were his favourite people on television. His favourite film was Goonies, which he liked to watch every day, rewinding to see the funniest parts again. He also enjoyed Police Academy, Home Alone and The Incredible Hulk.

  He told Dr Bailey he would make believe it was only acting when he saw ‘naughty things’, by which he said he meant blood or fighting. He would turn his face away and put his fingers in his ears if, in the Rocky films, someone was punched and blood came out. He watched Kung Fu films which his dad got out on video; when he saw them he thought they were real, and he would cry. If he could be anyone out of the films, Jon would be Sylvester Stallone/Rocky, because he was rich and he was nice. He’d like to be Sonic the Hedgehog from the computer games, because he ran fast and saved his friends.

  Dr Bailey’s behavioural analysis of Jon’s problems was that there was no evidence of any organic factors in infancy which might have affected his development. He had been reared in a supportive family setting and, in early childhood, had been described as a happy boy who functioned normally in a play group setting. Between the ages of four and seven he had functioned normally within the hom
e and within education.

  When his parents separated they had taken joint responsibility for the children, with active support from Susan’s mother. Styles of parenting had differed, with Susan presenting as more direct and immediate in her responses. Jon’s behaviour and achievement in school had deteriorated but, significantly, he had responded best when set limits and boundaries. The bullying was linked to remarks about Jon’s eye defect and his brother’s special needs. Both Jon and his parents had stressed the bad influence of Robert, in the months before the offences, when Jon began to play truant and become involved in minor anti-social acts.

  Jon always stressed that he had no problems in his family, and no frustration with regard to the time and attention his ‘less able’ siblings needed and received. It was apparent to Dr Bailey, from her interviews with Jon, that he wanted to please his mother, and it was very important that his parents thought well of him.

  His parents had spoken to her of the cognitive and emotional difficulties they had experienced, trying to come to terms with what had happened. Neil showed more overt distress and fearfulness. Susan expressed her feelings through the pressure and depth of her speech. They had been asking for, and needed, more professional support than they had been receiving. They had remained supportive towards Jon, and non-rejecting of him. At times, however, they were understandably overwhelmed by the situation in which they found themselves.

  Dr Bailey said she could not comment on the offences, but Jon continued to lay the blame on Robert. She concluded that Jon was fit to plead and stand trial, was not suffering from any mental disorder, was of average intellectual ability, had a clear understanding of right and wrong, could understand the concept and permanence of death, and could distinguish between fantasy and reality. He had remained consistent in his accounts of both neutral and emotive topics, typically denied anything negative about himself or his family, but expressed anxiety about his future.

  Dr Bailey had fulfilled the role required of her by the Crown, but there was nothing in her report to support the family social worker’s view that Jon was jealous of the attention given to his brother and sister, which had made him feel neglected. There was no mention of his tantrums, or the possibility that he had copied Mark’s behaviour. Scant reference was made to the more extreme behaviour he had presented at school and the aggression he had displayed.

  The report did not refer to any instability that might have resulted from Neil and Susan’s separation, the ensuing moves from one home to another, and the apparent on-off nature of the couple’s subsequent relationship. There was no suggestion of any emotional, verbal or physical conflict between Neil and Susan, before or after the separation, or the impact this might have made on Jon. No mention was made of their depression or its possible effect on Jon.

  There was a brief reference to the different parenting styles of Neil and Susan, but no exploration of this, or the possible effect of inconsistent parenting on Jon. Dr Bailey had noted that Susan had smacked Jon ‘out of worry’ on the night James Bulger was killed, but there was no reference in the report to any inquiry about physical punishment of Jon.

  Dr Bailey had made a concluding point about the theme of denial in her interviews with Jon, but there was no indication in the report of any disparity between the family’s view of itself and other information that was then available. Dr Bailey had concluded that Jon could distinguish between fantasy and reality, but had noted from her interviews with Jon that when he watched Kung Fu videos he thought they were real, and would cry.

  In October the CPS made a second request, for Jon to be seen by a consultant psychologist, Marion Preston. She spent the day with Jon at his unit towards the end of the month, carrying out a series of recognised tests which were designed to assess Jon’s intellectual functioning and his current emotional and psychological status.

  They sat together in the school room of Jon’s unit, where he normally went for one-on-one teaching. Marion Preston had been told that Jon might be distracted, but she found him engaged and responsive, only once stopping to ask his social worker, who was sitting quietly in the room, what book he was reading. Jon was affable and cooperative, making appropriate jokes, in particular about his being overweight.

  The first two tests, of Jon’s intelligence, scholastic aptitude and literacy, suggested that he was of average ability, with some underachievement, probably linked to his difficulties at, and absence from, school. The third test, the Bene Anthony Family Relations Test, was designed to explore a child’s feelings towards his family and him/herself. Jon chose his mum and dad, his brother and sister, and his nan as his family. The test included a Mr Nobody, to whom the child could assign qualities that were not felt to apply to anyone in the family.

  Jon allocated more items to Mr Nobody than anybody else, and they were mostly negative associations. Nobody scolded Jon, disliked him, frightened him or thought badly of him. He did not think badly of anyone in his family, or hate anyone, or feel like being violent towards anyone. He did not get fed up with anyone in his family, he did not want to annoy anyone, and no one in his family made him angry.

  Marion Preston noted that Jon gave very few items to himself, particularly anything in relation to positive feelings. He indicated that his parents were over-protective, and that his mother paid too much attention to him. He attributed many positive feelings to his mother and suggested that his brother, Mark, was sometimes a bit too fussy and spoilt other peoples fun. He expressed positive feelings about his sister, Michelle, with the one negative note that he felt she was never satisfied.

  Marion Preston’s report said that the test indicated a high level of denial of any negative feelings, both from Jon to his family, and from his family to Jon. The only positive item he gave to himself was that this person was nice. Mr Nobody was given anything associated with kissing or close contact, his mother given cuddling, being near to and giving hugs to Jon. There was no indication of physical contact with his father, other than that he liked his dad to tickle him. Jon’s picture of family life was that his mother was warm and giving, his father less emotionally demonstrative; there were never any arguments, disagreements or difficulties between any members of the family. Marion Preston said this was an unrealistic view of family life, with clear denial of any problems or difficulties.

  The next test, the Childs Depression Scale (Revised), was designed to examine feelings of unhappiness and sadness, inadequacy and low selfesteem, boredom and withdrawal, psychosomatic illnesses, preoccupation with death or illness and problems with aggression, irritability or temper outbursts. Jon’s test gave no clear pattern of response, and no indication of clinical depression, though there was a recognisable denial of negative feelings and of many problems, particularly in relation to his family. He was above average in preoccupation with sickness, feeling tired a lot of the time, not liking waking up in the mornings, experiencing some sleep disturbance, and feeling uninterested in doing anything at the moment. There was some acknowledgement of feelings of guilt.

  The Culture Free Self-Esteem Inventory measured self-perception and self-esteem, and also included a lie scale to indicate defensiveness. Jon’s test gave him a low self-esteem, in the bottom 22 per cent of children, but because he had found it difficult to make up his mind when scoring some of the categories, Marion Preston said the results should be treated with some care. By contrast, Jon had suggested that he was happy most of the time and believed he was as contented as most boys and girls. He did not think his parents thought him a failure, they did not make him feel he was not good enough, and they did not dislike him. He felt that he did well at school, persisted at his work, liked school, and felt that teachers thought he did well. This was particularly in relation to schooling at his secure unit.

  Jon’s lie score was relatively high, and Marion Preston said this was in keeping with the degree of defensiveness shown in other tests. He was continuing to deny any difficulties, notably to do with his family.

  The final test was t
he Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale: ‘What I think and feel’. Again, Jon did not show a high level of anxiety, except in relation to what was going to happen to him. He felt people were going to tell him he did things the wrong way, and he was aware that a lot of people were against him. There was a high lie score in this test, too, consistent with faking good and relating, the report said, to an idealised view of himself.

  With the tests completed, Marion Preston tried to approach the subject of the charges with Jon. He immediately became subdued and uncommunicative, and put his head down on the table in front of him. He said he hated Robert because Robert made him do it. He said he was sorry about what had happened, but refused to discuss it further.

  Staff at the unit told Marion Preston that in general Jon behaved himself and was very little trouble. With the increased attention he had been receiving — the expert assessments, the interviews — he had begun discussing his feelings with the residential care workers, but had not disclosed any details of the offences at length. He had recently regressed in some of his behaviour and had soiled himself twice, which had not been happening when he first went to the unit.

  Marion Preston’s report concluded that Jon was of average intelligence with no deficits in intellectual functioning. He had presented an unrealistic view of relationships within his family, but had shown some awareness of his current difficulties. Throughout the tests he had demonstrated an understanding of right and wrong, and had known the right thing to do when confronted with a moral dilemma.

  Marion Preston believed that Jon was repressing and denying many of his emotional concerns. It was not altogether surprising, she reported, but it indicated an awareness on his part of what needed to be considered, and he was consistent in this over the four hours of testing. It was likely that Jon would require treatment by an expert psychiatrist or psychologist to help him to address the very difficult circumstances surrounding his offending behaviour, regardless of the outcome of proceedings against him. The final line of the report stated that Jon Venables presented as a capable young man, who would require treatment and support for some time to come.