In Pictures: Inside James Bulger Killer Jon Venables’ Prison Cell
TODAY’S edition of The Sun neatly converts James Bulger’s ten-year-old child-killer Jon Venables into a 27-year-old monster in three sentences. And this the child killer Venables’ trial brief Laurence Lee says could have been set free within two weeks had it not been for media hysteria.
The front-page headline screams:
“ARMED COPS GRAB BULGER KILLER.”
The is blur of adjectives:
“ARMED cops gave James Bulger killer Jon Venables just five minutes to pack before hauling him away for questioning yesterday.
He gets to pack?
“The monster was seized in a dawn swoop as he lay in his prison bed.”
A raid on man in a super-max prison cell? A man being guarded by 20 crack wardens? Where was he going to run to?
“Venables, 27, faces a fresh grilling over child porn allegations that saw him recalled to jail this month.”
He’s in jail. Why wold you need guns to grill him? You just open the door…
The imagery is all there. We know from various informed sources the recalled from life-licence Venables is alternatively,
* “arrogant”
* “tough talking”
* “bragging”
* “stressed”
* Scared
Such is the nature of secrecy.
The Sun says, in what must have been a highly irregular procedure:
“Nine officers, some with handguns, put him in the back of a waiting unmarked car.”
Only nine?
The report gives the impression of police officers entering a High Security jail to drag Venables from his bed. Nearly but not quite but a brilliant bit of tabloid suggestion.
The Sun must have been invited as a witness because:
“Venables, in grey jogging bottoms and a brown sweatshirt, was said to have looked “dazed” at the speed of the operation.”
But no, The Sun was not invited to the party. Once again sticking it’s head over the high security razor wire was the ubiquitous insider, the anonymous signatory to the Official Secrets Act 1911 and 1989.
“A source said: “Two police cars arrived at 6am. One parked next to the isolation unit where Venables was held.
“He was given five minutes to get dressed and put his stuff into a bag. He was gone within 20 minutes. It was very slickly organised.”
So the armed police did not actually go inside then?
“Armed officers were deployed because of security risks surrounding Venables.”
Aha. The armed police were perhaps outside waiting quietly in order to protect Venables from a public who has no clue where he is?
Another stooge says:
“A police source said: “He has the highest profile of any prisoner in Britain. Moving him from a secure cell into the public domain is a security nightmare.”
The old Durham Jail. Jon Venables was probably not snatched from here.
The Sun was certainly not here.
For the more morbid among you
There were 91 executions here.
Not nearly as much of a nightmare as getting away with the impression that nine armed policeman went inside a maximum security prison to wake a prisoner haul him from his cell for questioning without washing or feeding.
I used to read about that sort of law enforcer, I understand my old dad may have delivered summary justice to one or two of them in his 1944-1946 Tour of the Low Countries. But he didn’t talk about it much.
The Sun cuts back to a bit of half decent coverage by saying:
“Venables was said to have been in possession of category four child pornography – one level below the most depraved sort.”
In possession but as far as we are told…no charge??
The Sun knows who carries the can….
The decision on whether to prosecute is so sensitive it will lie personally with Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer.
You have to begin to think Jon Venables trial solicitor Laurence Lee had a point…
Posted: 19th, March 2010 | In: Key Posts, Reviews Comments (37) | TrackBack | Permalink
