Jon’s lawyers also commissioned their own report from another child psychiatrist. There was no evidence here of any abnormality of mind, nothing to suggest he was unfit to stand trial, nothing that might support a defence of diminished responsibility.
It had been noted that, on many occasions before the sessions with one expert or another, Jon had been seen alone by his father for a quiet chat. Perhaps it was a natural way of offering reassurance, but it caused some concern among case workers from the various social services.
There was also persistent talk of the possibility that Jon had seen Childs Play 3. The police had been round to the video stores used by both families, and collected lists of the films they had rented. Albert Kirby insisted that the police could make no connection between the killing and the watching of videos, but the content of Childs Play 3 (the last film on Neil’s list) was, at the very least, a bizarre coincidence.
Eventually, Jon was asked directly if he had seen the film. His sheepish denial — I don’t like horror films — left many who saw and heard it with the impression that he had watched Child’s Play 3–
Bobby had once seen two minutes of Child’s Play 2, walking into the room when some of his elder brothers were watching the video. Ann had come in and ushered Bobby away. Ann really didn’t like horror films.
Bobby’s lawyers maintained their client’s position. There was no need for any expert evidence because Bobby hadn’t committed the offences. Unlike Jon, however, Bobby was able to talk about what had happened. His solicitor, Dominic Lloyd, sat with him in his room at his unit over several sessions, going through the evidence that had been presented by the Crown and eliciting from Bobby his own version of the killings.
Bobby told his solicitor of a sequence of events that matched the account he had given in his interviews with the police. The assault began with Jon throwing paint at James’s eye, and ended with Jon throwing the fishplate, the big metal thingy, as Bobby called it.
Bobby watched Jon remove James’s underpants and lay them carefully over James’s face. Bobby did not know why he had done this, but assumed it was because the blood coming out of his mouth looked horrible. Bobby did not like looking at the blood. You could still see it pumping out underneath the underpants every couple of seconds, so Bobby started putting bricks round the head so that bricks could be put over the face. He only tried to cover James’s face so that he would not have to look at the blood any more.
Bobby was certain he had not kicked James in the head.
Sometimes, as he spoke of the killing, Bobby would bow his head and cry quietly, almost unnoticeably. He would fidget constantly, kicking off his shoes, removing his socks and knotting them into a soft cosh. He messed with the polystyrene bust in his room, smearing it with crayon colouring for make-up, defacing the eyes, nose and mouth. He played cassette tapes of Patsy Cline and Diana Ross, which had been given to him by his mother. He twisted and styled the hair on the heads of his trolls.
Bobby’s collection of trolls now outnumbered those he had hoarded in his bedroom at home — which had been removed by the police as potential evidence. The new trolls had been brought for him as gifts, mostly by his elder brothers and his mother, who visited him regularly.
Ann’s eldest son, David, had just moved into a flat in Liverpool, setting up on his own for the first time, when James Bulger was killed. He had been shopping with Bobby, buying paint to start decorating the flat, the day after the killing. Following the arrests he too had been forced to leave Liverpool, and was now with his mother, helping her out with baby Ben as he had once helped with his other younger brothers.
Peter, the second eldest, was living in Yorkshire with a girlfriend and working as a trainee manager for a supermarket chain. He couldn’t visit so often, but spent long hours on the phone, talking to Ann.
Philip and Ian had moved together from a care home in Walton to a care home in Derbyshire. Ian had taken another overdose after Bobby’s arrest, and both he and Philip had become involved in some fighting and stealing at their new home, which led to arrests and charges of assault and theft.
Ryan had become increasingly isolated at home and showed increasing signs of disturbed behaviour. Ann would still not run the risk of sending him to school, and would call him in from the garden if he became too chatty with neighbouring children. He had the run down the side of the house on his bike, and that was it. Always a chubby child, he was swelling to even wider proportions as he loafed around in the house.
Ryan was bedwetting regularly, and set a small fire in his bedroom. He seemed almost envious of Bobby’s room at the unit and the attention he was receiving. Ann’s fear that he would spill the beans on his family’s notoriety was replaced with the greater terror that he would do something — ‘something terrible’ — to get looked after like Bobby.
Ben’s father remained in contact with Ann, passing on to her a proposition from The Sun which appeared on the doormat of his home in Walton: ‘We’d like to talk to you. Naturally, you’ll be compensated for your loss of time.’
No one — not even The Sun — knew the whereabouts of Ann’s husband, Bobby Thompson senior. Little Bobby and his brothers all remembered the anniversary of his departure; it was five years this October. Neither they, nor Ann, had any contact with him, and he had apparently severed all ties with Walton.
Bobby senior was in complete ignorance of events for months, until a small advertisement appeared in his local newspaper. ‘Will Robert Thompson, formerly living in Walton, please call this number urgently…’ He saw the advertisement and dialled the telephone number. It was a direct line to a reporter from The Daily Mirror. ‘Did you know your son’s on this James Bulger murder charge?’ No, he didn’t know. Bobby senior put the phone down and called Merseyside Police.
Two of the case officers, Phil Roberts and Jim Green, went out to meet him and explain the charges Bobby was facing. They took a one-page statement from him, outlining the brief circumstances of his separation from Ann, and his limited contact with the family — once in five years. They advised him to contact Dominic Lloyd, his son’s solicitor. Lloyd was at first suspicious of the call. Press activity was intense in the weeks before the trial, and pretending to be Bobby’s dad might simply be an effective way of extracting information. Persuaded that this was not a hack in paternal clothing, Lloyd arranged to meet Bobby senior one night at a pub in Southport.
He turned up with Barbara, the woman he had met at the campsite just up the road, and for whom he had left Ann and the boys. He said he had not kept in touch with the family because there was just no talking sense with Ann. He said he’d like to visit Bobby. (This was vetoed by social services because it might further disturb Bobby in the run-up to the trial.) Like his wife and his sons, Bobby senior was shocked at the news of his son’s arrest, and incredulous that his lad could be involved in the killing. None of them could believe or understand that he was capable of such violence.
The Crown’s forensic evidence clearly demonstrated that the patterned mark on James’s cheek came from a shoe, and had been caused by a stamp or a kick. It was the imprint of the upper part of a shoe. The D-ring lace holders, and the lace itself, were visible in the imprint. There was equally no doubt that it was Bobby’s shoe.
The defence sought its own expert forensic examination. The expert consulted William J. Bodziak’s book, Footwear Impression Evidence, which considered marks left on skin according to the force connected with a blow. It was arguable that a lighter blow would be more likely to leave a clearer imprint such as the mark on James’s face. It would be more difficult to argue that the mark had not been caused by a kick, and impossible to argue that it had not been caused by Bobby’s shoe.
This was the single most damning piece of forensic evidence against either defendant, and it undermined Bobby’s assertion that he had taken no part in the attack. If the jury believed the forensic evidence, they would be unlikely to believe Bobby.
After hurried discussion at this late s
tage, and with some misgivings from all concerned, including Bobby, who did not think of himself as a nutter, Bobby’s lawyers decided to submit their client to a psychiatric assessment. They chose a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist from The Tavistock Clinic in London, Dr Eileen Vizard. The Crown was notified of this change of approach, and responded with a renewed request for Dr Bailey to see Bobby. She travelled to his secure unit, but he refused to be seen by her.
Dr Vizard saw Bobby on Saturday, 16 October, two weeks before the start of the trial, and five years to the day since Bobby senior had left his family. Dr Vizard took with her a colleague, Colin Hawkes, a probation officer who specialised in working with adolescent and adult abusers. She also took a toy train set, several toy cars and some dolls. The assessment interview lasted four hours, and her report, delivered on the fifth day of the trial, ran to 27 pages.
Dr Vizard would have liked to have videotaped the interview, but this was vetoed by Bobby, who also asked that his case worker from social services sit in for reassurance. They gathered around a low table in a staff meeting room at the unit. It was warm in the room, but Bobby wanted the windows closed in case someone from the media, or elsewhere, was eavesdropping.
Bobby was asked if he knew why Dr Vizard and Mr Hawkes had come to see him. He said, to see if I’m a nutter… to see if anything was playing in my head when it happened. That’s right, he was told, but they were also interested in finding out if he needed help as a result of having been present when James Bulger was killed.
When it became apparent that Dr Vizard would be doing most of the talking, Bobby turned his chair to face her. She and Colin Hawkes observed in their report that he maintained good eye contact and that, from time to time, he drummed or tapped with his hands on the arms of his chair. The drumming accelerated when the questions became difficult or worrying, and at times he was humming anxiously under his breath. He sometimes shifted in his chair in a rocking motion or curled up in the chair like a smaller child. On one occasion he sucked his thumb.
They spoke about going to court, and Bobby was asked how he felt about the trial. He became hesitant and looked across at his case worker. It seemed as if he was looking for reassurance. He said he was most afraid of all the crowds but, as the windows of the van were opaque, his fear was not so great. He was asked what he would say in court, and replied, not guilty. He said he knew he would come back to his unit, whatever the verdict, and began tapping more vigorously on the arm of his chair when asked how long he thought he might have to remain in secure accommodation. That’s not for me to guess, he said.
Already, as their report observed, Dr Vizard and her colleague saw Bobby as an articulate boy of reasonable intelligence who was spontaneous in his speech and communication. He spoke rapidly at times, but was coherent and rational, and understood all the questions. At times it almost seemed that he was of better than average intelligence, his responses being carefully gauged for his interviewers.
They moved on to talk about Bobby’s family and drew up a family tree, with Bobby showing an accurate recall of names, ages and events. The report explained how Bobby had perceived his father as a consistent source of control in the family until 1988, when he had suddenly left home and had not returned.
It was Bobby’s recollection that they had all been camping together when his father returned from a visit to the pub to say that he was leaving. Bobby looked sad as he said he couldn’t make any sense of it. He seemed to be actively reliving the experience of rejection by his father, though he then tried to deny that his father’s departure had caused him any significant distress. He said things in the family got looser afterwards, and his mother needed a lot of help from social workers so she could cope. I’m surprised she did cope, with all of us boys on her own.
He seemed keen to talk about his mother, and told of her asthma and the trapped nerve in her hand which was going to need surgery. Dr Vizard said she understood that his mother had a temporary problem with drinking too much after his father left. Bobby found this subject difficult, and at first denied any problem. Then he said she did drink at one time, but, like, only three nights a week, when she would go straight to bed on her return from the pub.
Bobby sounded defensive now and, for the first time, dropped eye contact with Dr Vizard. He picked up a toy lion and began playing with it on his leg and on the arm of the chair. The lion was made to scratch and attack the arm of the chair angrily. Bobby said he wasn’t bothered whether his mother drank or not and, anyway, she doesn’t touch a drop now.
They stopped then for lunch, and the train set was laid out on the table. After they had eaten, they discussed Bobby’s weight, and he said he’d put on a lot, and was now eight and a half stones: I was like a matchstick, compared with what I am now. He said he took no exercise at the unit because the other boys were much older and the gym equipment was too heavy to use.
He slept fairly well, and would ring the buzzer when he had nightmares, so that a member of staff would come and comfort him. He described a recurring dream in which he was chasing someone through the street and ran into the road where he was hit by a car. The car hit him on the front, no, on the side. As he spoke of the dream Bobby began fanning his face with his hands as if it was making him feel hot and bothered. He looked agitated and asked his case worker to open the windows. He said that whenever he had the dream he would try not to go back to sleep again, in case the dream returned. He now looked distressed and red-faced, and looked anxiously around the room.
Dr Vizard told Bobby that sometimes nightmares were linked to painful memories and it helped to talk through these issues. Bobby said he tried to keep his mind off his dream. Again, he looked around the room, as if he would like to escape. When Dr Vizard said it was helpful to talk about bad memories, as well as painful dreams, Bobby leaned forward and touched the toy railway track. He seemed to be anxiously humming or muttering under his breath.
There were three cloth dolls on the table with the train track. Dr Vizard explained the idea of using these toys to help Bobby give his account of James Bulgers death. A Jon doll, a Bobby doll, a James doll. She asked Bobby’s thoughts about James. How do you mean, the baby? Bobby put his hands over his eyes and began to cry. They told him it was understandable that he should cry. There were bound to be strong feelings involved when someone had been present at, and perhaps taken part in, the death of a child.
Dr Vizard said it would help to cry, and Bobby reacted angrily through his tears. Well, how does this help me? If they were going to help him they needed to know how he felt when James Bulger was killed. Bobby was crying bitterly. How does it help to make it all come back? I don’t want to do it. He was given a tissue by Dr Vizard, to wipe his tears.
She and Mr Hawkes said they realised how difficult it was for Bobby to talk about the killing, but it was also difficult to understand what had happened, because Jon said Bobby did it and Bobby said Jon did it. Bobby said, that’s the truth.
They began to move the dolls on the track, Bobby holding the Bobby doll, and Dr Vizard holding the Jon doll, asking him where she should place the James doll. Bobby said he was holding Jon’s hand and that Jon and the baby were about five yards ahead of him as they walked along the track. Dr Vizard asked what happened next and, with a flicking gesture of his wrist, Bobby said Jon had thrown paint in one of the baby’s eyes. Dr Vizard coloured the James doll’s left eye and cheek with blue marker pen to show where the paint had stained.
Reluctantly, in response to Dr Vizard’s request, Bobby used the dolls to show how Jon had thrown a brick at James. He demonstrated with the James doll how the baby fell backwards into a sitting position. He showed how Jon had thrown another brick as James tried to get up. He became increasingly involved in moving the dolls to represent the assault, dolls and track being dislodged from the table as he tried to position them correctly, determined to show his version of events. Jon had thrown three or four more bricks and then the iron bar.
Occasionally, Bobb
y paused, staring at the scene before him, as if lost in thought. He seemed genuinely upset by this process of reliving the assault. Sometimes, he corrected Dr Vizard’s positioning of the dolls.
Bobby moved the dolls to show how Jon had dragged James across the tracks and placed him face upwards across the rail. He said Jon continued to throw bricks which hit James on the head and body. Dr Vizard asked Bobby where he had been standing and what he had been doing. He said, I tried to stop him, pulled him down once or twice but he was getting more angry. Bobby placed the Bobby doll behind the Jon doll and wrapped the Bobby doll’s arms around the Jon doll s body, showing how the two fell backwards onto the track by James. Bobby said, Jon got up more angry, I don’t know what he was angry about. I tried to get up after he squashed me because he fell on top of me. My back was all squashed.
Bobby then spent some time trying to demonstrate how Jon had placed bricks around James’s head. The James doll would not lie still and be held by the bricks positioned against it. He was asked to show how James’s lower clothing had been removed by Jon, and the James doll was dislodged from the bricks as he did so. Bobby said Jon had placed the underlayer on James’s mouth.
Dr Vizard asked what else had happened and Bobby said, I’m trying not to watch him. He didn’t join in the assault because he wasn’t that kind of person. He didn’t speak to Jon because he was so shocked he said nothing.
Bobby could not explain the alleged disturbance of James’s penis, which Dr Vizard said had puzzled her. Jon took the pants off, I was trying not to look, said Bobby. It could have been caused by the bricks, or Jon’s kicking, though he had seen most of the things Jon did.
The Sleep of Reason: The James Bulger Case Page 25
