The Sleep of Reason: The James Bulger Case

by David James Smith

  Dr Vizard asked Bobby if either he or Jon had touched or interfered with James’s genitals. Bobby looked away and said, no. He sounded defensive and angry. Dr Vizard said it was difficult to understand why two boys should take a young child away, physically damage him and then take off his trousers. She wondered if it had been the intention of either Jon or Bobby to sexually abuse the little boy and whether this went badly wrong, with the result that they became angry and tried to silence him.

  Bobby listened, head down, playing with some toy animals. He seemed unsurprised, or unmoved, by the idea that there might have been a sexual motive. He looked directly at Dr Vizard and said, angrily, I didn’t touch him. He looked down and shrugged his shoulders when Dr Vizard suggested Jon might have interfered with James while Bobby wasn’t looking: I dunno, I didn’t see what he did when I looked away I was shocked, wasn’t I.

  Dr Vizard said Bobby’s description made Jon’s behaviour sound very strange and beyond explanation. Bobby looked up and said, he is a strange boy. Bobby seemed annoyed when Dr Vizard asked if there wasn’t anything else he could have done to stop Jon: I couldn’t hold him all night or throw him off the railway bridge. I couldn’t move him off the railway.

  Bobby said he didn’t know where the blood on his shoes came from. He responded irritably to Dr Vizard’s suggestion that it was James’s blood: yes, it’s not just started raining blood, has it. There must have been so much blood that it seemed like rain, said Dr Vizard. Bobby nodded and looked down. He said the assault ended when Jon just stopped, all red in the face and staring at the baby. They slid down the lamp-post and didn’t speak afterwards.

  Dr Vizard pointed out that Bobby had said nothing to explain the impression of his shoe on James’s face. Bobby said he hadn’t kicked James and didn’t have a clue how the mark got there. At Dr Vizard’s request he again used the Bobby doll and the Jon doll to show his struggle with Jon. Dr Vizard suggested he might have stamped on or kicked James’s face in this struggle. Bobby didn’t know: I’m not concentrating on what my feet are doing, I’m putting all my pressure on him, my feet are going all over the place.

  Bobby was asked what he was thinking when he left the railway line. He said he was thinking, what on earth did he do that for, he’s an effing bastard. He thought Jon would get a good beating for what he had done. Bobby didn’t think he would get into trouble because he hadn’t done anything.

  Why had James’s body been placed across the track? Bobby said, it’s not up to me to think why he put the baby on the track. Then he added, so it would get cut up. What was the point of that? Bobby looked uncomfortable. He said, repeatedly, that he didn’t know. Then he said, some people might say it would give an excuse.

  When he was asked what kind of little boy James had been, Bobby said, all little boys are nice until they get older. James had been quiet, in comparison with baby Ben, although he was asking, where is my mother, every three minutes.

  Dr Vizard noticed that Bobby had the Jon doll in his hand, swinging it to and fro. She asked him if Jon had ever tried to steal a baby from its mother before. Bobby had never seen him. He said, Jon doesn’t like being around babies. I do. Bobby left the room to go to the toilet.

  When he came back he was asked how he felt James Bulger’s death might affect him as he grew older. Bobby thought he might end up lonely, never able to go out. People would always keep their children in sight, in case they might disappear. Dr Vizard’s colleague said people might fear Jon and Bobby, and see them as very dangerous to childen. Bobby sighed, and began knotting the arms and legs of the cloth doll he was holding.

  He said he never had any angry or violent thoughts about children. Dr Vizard said he might be afraid of describing such thoughts. Bobby suddenly pulled his legs up onto the chair and began sucking his thumb, banging the cloth doll against the side of his chair. He was like a much younger child. Dr Vizard said it would be better to let such thoughts out, rather than bottle them up in his mind where they might cause him more distress. Bobby sighed several times and did not reply.

  With the interview coming to an end, Dr Vizard and her colleague told Bobby that they believed he would be helped in future by being able to talk more openly about what had happened in the past. They thought he had more to say about his actions and feelings and that, perhaps, important aspects of James’s death had not been shared during the interview. Bobby had held back some facts and been honest about others.

  He responded angrily, saying he had told them one hundred per cent of his actions and ninety-nine per cent of his feelings. He said he now felt angry with Jon and would like to ask him why he killed James. He would like to give him a slap. Dr Vizard said he seemed much angrier than that, and wondered what he really felt about Jon. Bobby agreed, chuckling, and said he would like to kick his face in. Dr Vizard suggested he pick up the Bobby doll and the Jon doll, and Bobby smiled as he used the Bobby doll to kick the Jon doll.

  Finally, what would he like to say to James, if such a thing was possible. What, say to the baby? I don’t know. Bobby went quiet and became tearful. Eventually he said, I feel sorry for him.

  He was told the meeting had ended, and quickly became more relaxed, playing unselfconsciously with the dolls and the train set.

  In the summary of their report. Dr Vizard and Colin Hawkes first addressed Bobby’s current state of mind and his fitness to stand trial. They wrote that he had presented as a boy of average intelligence, fully orientated in time and space, with no signs of any formal mental illness such as psychosis or a major depressive disorder. In a boy who had been described as underachieving academically, it was interesting to note his flashes of quick intelligence, and the ease and eagerness with which he used the play materials.

  His affectual responses — feelings — had been varied and seemed to relate, more or less accurately, to whatever he was describing or demonstrating at the time. He cried readily, and genuinely, when asked what he thought about James. He went from bitter sobbing to an angry exchange when it was suggested that describing his feelings might be helpful.

  It had been made clear at several points during the interview that Bobby intended to repress or hold back all conscious memories and feelings about the murder. It was also clear that this was a great effort and that his emotional responses would break through and be expressed in some way. In terms of body language, Bobby had been active during the interview. He had gone to the toilet when distressed, moved around in the chair, and sometimes seemed to feel trapped. Despite these indicators of such feelings as anxiety and anger, there had been an impressive sense that Bobby was able to contain his feelings and responses to the killing, so that the same story always emerged. There was no real sense that he would allow himself to relax and speak freely.

  It was a complex picture, but Bobby’s feelings, his body language, sleep disturbance, bad dreams and anxiety about allowing recall of the crime could be understood in terms of the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder after being present at or involved in the killing of James Bulger. These symptoms would have worsened over the last eight months, in the absence of any skilled therapeutic help, and limited Bobby’s capacity to testify in his own defence.

  The report relied on the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic criteria, DSM-III-R, for diagnosis of Bobby’s state of mind. He had experienced an event outside the range of usual human experience (a murder), which was the defining criteria for post-traumatic stress, and the symptoms Dr Vizard and her colleague had observed in Bobby conformed to the Assocation’s classification of the disorder. The report said it should be made clear that there was no reason to think Bobby suffered from the disorder before the crime.

  With the limited information available to them about Bobby’s background and his schooling, and in the absence of a psychological report (Bobby had refused to see a psychologist), Dr Vizard and Colin Hawkes could only make a clinical assessment of Bobby as having an Academic Problem and a Conduct Disorder.

  The former was
appropriate, because there was no mental disorder to explain Bobby’s underachievement. The academic problem seemed to be linked to a pattern of truanting which was item A 13 in the DSMR-III-R definition of Conduct Disorder, Undifferentiated Type. He was also known to have been stealing, to tell lies and to have been physically cruel to people, all of which were part of the definition. The report said that Bobby’s weight increase since arriving at the unit suggested he might have been finding solace in food, in a way which probably related to his high levels of anxiety about his past behaviour and its future consequences.

  The report said that questions could and, in the opinion of its authors, should be asked about why such a young child was not seen and assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist, following his involvement in such a horrific crime. In the absence of any such examination comments about Bobby’s mental state at the time of the killing could only be speculative.

  Still, it could be argued that, before the offences, there was a body of evidence that suggested emotional and behavioural disturbance in Bobby and might have merited the attention of an expert. It seemed likely that there were conflicts, doubtless relating to home and school life, in Bobby’s mind which drove him to participate, in a very calculated way, in the offences.

  Assessing Bobby’s current and future needs, the report suggested that Bobby’s emotional and physical development was being impaired by his placement at the unit which, in the opinion of the authors, was quite inappropriate for such a young boy. He had no same-age peers and his main activity was playing video games on his own. The unit gym was equipped for older boys and he could not join in physical activities, nor find flat, open spaces inside the unit on which to play roller boarding or other active games.

  Dr Vizard and Colin Hawkes were concerned about Bobby’s increase in weight. It was not, the report stated, a trivial matter, and had implications for his future physical health. Clinical experience suggested that obesity in children was often associated with the early onset of puberty, for which Bobby should receive counselling or therapy.

  They were gravely concerned over the absence of any therapeutic work with Bobby or his family since the arrest. There might or might not have been legal advice about the need to avoid compromising or contaminating Bobby’s defence by pre-trial therapy, but Bobby’s best interests needed to be actively considered alongside his status as an alleged juvenile offender. In the opinion of the report’s authors, Bobby’s capacity to instruct his lawyers and testify in his defence had been impaired by the residual, untreated symptoms of post-traumatic stress.

  He had not been able to express his feelings about the alleged offences and this might be more difficult in the future. It was also likely that his family’s attitude towards Bobby and the offences would become fixed in a legal perspective and it would be harder for the family to benefit from therapy.

  There was an immediate need for Bobby and his family to be helped to begin talking about the offences and the likely effects on the rest of his life. The report also recommended that Bobby should not be allowed any unsupervised contact with younger or vulnerable children, because of the serious risk of Significant Harm which he posed.

  25

  Monday, 1 November 1993 was not the first time Bobby and Jon had been to Preston Crown Court. They had been driven there in police vans, one after the other, on Sunday, 3 October, to familiarise themselves with the setting in which they would be tried for murder.

  The court had been busy making accommodations to the ages of the defendants and the infamy of their alleged crimes. Two rooms had been set aside — one, the female officers’ rest room — where the boys could go with parents and social workers in the breaks between sittings. Already, court staff had been turning the lights on in these rooms early in the morning, so that new activity would not be identified and associated with the boys by press photographers outside the building.

  A wooden platform nine inches high had been knocked together and painted black. The boys would sit in chairs on the platform in the dock, so that their view would not be obscured by the dock’s brass rail.

  The usual rows of free-standing chairs in the public gallery had been replaced by seats that were screwed to the floor, in case anyone was tempted to throw them.

  The boys’ visit, that Sunday morning, had been unusual, and unlike all their subsequent daily trips during the trial. The vans had not entered the court complex, but had pulled up at an outside door. The boys had taken a few steps along the street to enter the building.

  The Wednesday of the following week was the day of Home Secretary Michael Howard’s rabble-rousing speech on law and order to the Conservative Party Conference. The speech was widely reported in Thursday’s national newspapers.

  The front page of Thursday’s edition of The Sun gave a single left-hand column to Michael Howard. SUN SPEAKS ITS MIND. YES, CRIME MINISTER.

  It was, said The Sun, a joy to hear a tough-talking Home Secretary say he couldn’t give a damn if more people ended up behind bars. Never mind three cheers, he deserved one hundred and three for yesterday’s declaration of war on the muggers, robbers and rapists who made our life hell. Bail bandits, young yobs the law couldn’t touch, guilty men freed because they stayed silent in court. They were all about to be whacked with a very large stick.

  The rest of The Suns front page, alongside this column, was consumed by a photograph of Jon, carrying a lollipop, being led into Preston Crown Court by a policeman with his hand on Jon’s shoulder, taken the previous Sunday. Jon’s face had been digitalised and was obscured by fleshy cubes. It would have been contempt of court to identify him. SUN PICTURE EXCLUSIVE: Arm on shoulder, lollipop in hand, the boy accused of Jamie murder. Continued on Page 12.

  Page 12 described in some selective and spurious detail the boys’ luxurious lives in their units as they awaited trial. Page 13 was two more photographs from Preston. One of Bobby and another of Jon, again with their faces obscured. They were, respectively, captioned: Good life … one of the boys charged with Jamie’s murder, escorted here by a PC, has put on weight. Sweet treatment … the second accused lad clutches a lolly as he is led into court to view the dock where he will sit.

  It appeared that The Sun had waited four days to use these pictures, alongside its comment on the Home Secretary’s speech. It was not unreasonable to speculate that someone had been compensated for their loss of time in betraying the advance information of Bobby and Jon’s trip to Preston to The Sun.

  There was no opportunity for snatched photographs on 1 November, when the vans drove straight through the open gates of Preston Crown Court and into the secluded courtyard. A handful of people stood still and silent at the gates as the vans passed by. There were legions of press photographers and television news crews. There were eleven people queuing for seats in the public gallery.

  Bobby and Jon were led to their respective rooms. There they sat, waiting. They were not in the dock when Court One rose at ten o’clock to greet the Honourable Mr Justice Morland for the first time in the trial.

  Who’s Who 1993

  MORLAND, Hon. Sir Michael, K.t 1989; Hon. Mr Justice Morland; a Judge of the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, since 1989; Presiding Judge, Northern Circuit, since 1991; b 16 July 1929; e s of Edward Morland, Liverpool, and Jane Morland {nie Beckett); m 1961, Lillian Jensen, Copenhagen; one rone d Educ. Stowe; Christ Church, Oxford (MA). 2nd Lieut, Grenadier Guards, 1948–49; served in Malaya. Called to Bar, Inner Temple, 1953, Bencher 1979; Northern Circuit; QC 1972; a Recorder, 1972–89. Mem., Criminal Injuries Compensation Bd, 1980–89. Address: Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, WC2.

  The Lord Chancellor’s Department in London had earlier issued a press release, announcing that the judge would address the media at ten o’clock on the first morning of the trial. It was like a summons to appear, and the court was overflowing with journalists. There were more media representatives than press seats, so it was standing room only for the judges address.

  Morla
nd, who was not yet fully robed, outlined the orders he had drawn up, which would restrict reporting to protect various interests and avoid prejudicing the trial.

  It was no longer R — v — T and V, Regina versus Thompson and Venables. It was R — v — A and B (two children). For the purposes of reporting, Bobby was now Child A and Jon was Child B.

  Nothing which was said in court in the absence of the jury could be reported before the verdicts were given. The boys could not be identified, and neither could any child witnesses. No witness or defendant, or any member of their families, could be harassed, followed or interviewed until after the verdicts.

  To cope with the sheer volume of press interest, a court annex had been set up at Crystal House, a high-rise office building across the square from the court. Morland and the Lord Chief Justice had discussed the possibility of providing a video link from Court One to the annex. It had never been done before in a criminal trial, and they decided not to do it now. A sound link had been set up instead and, Morland explained, the annex was now subject to the same rules as the court. No tape recorders, no laptops, no bleeping pagers, no mobile phones.

  Morland excused himself if he seemed schoolmasterish. He said he would be happy to help if there was a problem. Any breach by anyone of the orders should render that person liable to a substantial term of imprisonment and a fine. There was a short break, for everyone to find their seats and settle down. The judge went out, and came back in again.

  In accordance with ancient ceremonial tradition, Morland was now wearing a long red gown, with black sash trimming, and a horsehair wig. He carried a pair of white gloves and a folded black cloth. It was the same black cloth cap that judges had once put on their heads to pass a sentence of death. It was 162 years since John Any Bird Bell had been sentenced to death in Maidstone, the last child to be hanged for murder. The concessions to informality introduced in modern youth courts would not be allowed at this trial.