James Bulger

Doodledog

OldFrill

Anniebach

I understand that, is the book about the murders or her life leading to and after

From the reviews it seems to be about her life and why she murdered, the book is a supposedly a useful investigation into why she murdered. It's called "Cries Unheard" of you want to look it up. It's reviewed 3.88 out of 5 on Goodreads if you use that.

Cries Unheard was not written by Mary Bell. It was written by Gitta Sereny, who has written widely about murderers and victims, including in the Third Reich. It's a disturbing but interesting read, and came out decades ago. My copy includes an essay about the Bulger case, which is also very interesting, and outlines the upbringing of the killers and both their behaviour and that of their parents in court.

I'm not sure that Bell benefited from the book, but to be fair it's many years since I read it.

I think l was clear that Mary Bell was paid to collaborate with the author and didn't write it herself. The book was mentioned due to the furore over Mary Bell receiving payment for it (£50,000 l believe in the 1990s). Sereny also wrote a book about the trial.

I didn’t know much about the home life of Mary Bell, looked up the book yesterday, dear God what hell for a child

It was due to her childhood that she was convicted of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. I have sympathy for her. She and her daughter have had to move several times when their anonymity was compromised. I still don't think she should have taken money for the book but maybe she thought people couldn't think any worse of her.

She had brutally attacked in the media, by the public, perhaps the book was her opportunity to speak . Did she or the author say how much money was involved ?

Anniebach

She had brutally attacked in the media, by the public, perhaps the book was her opportunity to speak . Did she or the author say how much money was involved ?

The media reported £50,000 at the time in the 1990s

Thank you, yet again the media

If it wasn’t for the media we would know nothing of what is happening in the world, Annie. We would be as ignorant of world events as our forefathers living in isolated villages and relying on news from the London carrier. In this case the publicity about the payment to Mary Bell led to a change in the law, restricting the ability of criminals to profit from their crimes by selling or writing about their stories. That is surely a good thing.

Surely there is much for the media to report on without using a very damaged woman

Without the change in the law brought about by the media reporting that the author of the book had paid Mary Bell for her collaboration, criminals would still be free to write about their crimes and profit from them without restrictions. Mary Bell chose to collaborate in the writing of this book, nobody could compel her to do so. Her behaviour was in poor taste.

Bell was released from the Risley remand centre 18 years ago and, ever since, has been hunted by the tabloids. The ' Mary Bell Order' - a court ruling that protects her identity for the sake of her daughter - has not stopped journalists from stalking her as she moved from town to town, nor from offering her large sums of money to tell her story. Four years ago, amid the furore over the Bulger case, she was traced by reporters and forced once more to change her name. Two weeks ago, editors could not justify such stories in the public interest. But with the row over payment for her collaboration with Sereny, the witch-hunt began anew.

The two richest newspapers - the Sun and the Daily Mail - set off in pursuit of the 41-year-old mother. Her new name, it appears, was provided by police sources. By last Tuesday they had tracked her down. The Mail pulled out of the chase at this point, leaving the Sun to claim the tabloid triumph.

The Observer 1998

That was from 1998, 27 years ago Annie. She has only herself to blame for the public outrage caused by taking money to collaborate with the author of the book. She could just have kept her head down and lived a quiet life.

Yes, it describes how the police told the press where she was living and her name, public outrage? No public demand, the press wouldn’t have been interested if the public didn’t want to
read it.

You are comfortable calling a child a criminal? Your choice

The public were outraged that she had received money for telling her story, which led to the law being changed. Yes I am comfortable with calling a child a criminal. Anyone found guilty of having committed a crime is a criminal.

But acceptable for police to tell the press where she lived and her name.

All that little girl suffered yet you call her a criminal, no, she was a victim

She killed two little boys Annie. Her circumstances meant that she was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. Her circumstances do not excuse what she did in my eyes, nor in the eyes of the law. They obviously do in yours. I have not commented on the police divulging any information which they should not have, so please don’t twist my words. That’s my final post on this matter.

She should have charged the men who abused her, doubt a child would think of that.

Two little children were killed by a child who had been so violently sexually and physically abused

End of this discussion

@crossstitchfan Denise Bulger hasn’t died. Her ex husband, James’ father died in 1994

What a pity this thread about James got derailed.

Why, children killed by children

The widening of the discussion is relevant and respectful, not to mention informative and thought provoking.

I agree with Annie have to say - particularly that the police leaking Mary Bell's details to the press was a) cruel & b) professional misconduct.

A link to the James Bulger Memorial Trust
forjames.org/

May I add, She didn’t have £50,000, she did accept a third of that

I think that children who kill are very different from adults who do so.

My son was the same age as James, and when the killers were released he was the same age as they were at the time of the killing. That brought it into sharp relief for me. When James was killed I was pregnant and had a toddler, so 11 year olds seemed grown up by comparison. When my son was 11, I realised how very young that is. Their ideas aren't fully formed - much of what they know about right and wrong (and an intelligent adult is aware that these things are not cast in stone) is more about what they have been told, and the likely consequences if they are caught. Those boys were taught a very different value system from most children, and were not old enough to 'rise above it'. Much the same as Mary Bell.

I don't think we should ever write off children as young as 11. Both cases were dreadful, and of course the families of the victims deserve our sympathy; but whilst I have no compunction about people like Hindley and Brady being jailed for life, I do feel that we should treat children differently.

Anniebach

She should have charged the men who abused her, doubt a child would think of that.

Two little children were killed by a child who had been so violently sexually and physically abused

End of this discussion

Anniebach, you posted relevant information about the abuse Mary Bell suffered before she murdered another child. That’s in many ways, the stsrt, not the end of the discussion. Mary’s childhood experiences were similar to the boys who murdered James.
I don’t believe they should have been tried in a formal criminal court. There needed to be a formal setting to establish guilt or innocence but not a formal criminal court

The Secure Units where they served the earlier part of their sentence provide structure, routines, education, sports, art and more. It’s clear one boy thrived as a result of the regime and relationships with staff.
I’m relieved we were able to offer this