Nazis A Chilling Comparison Between Nazi Program and Child Protective Services

Nazis And CPS by Suzanne Shell We are all aware of the Nazi eugenics programs. What we aren’t aware of are the chilling comparisons between the Nazi Lebensborn program and contemporary American Child Protective Services (CPS) programs. Simplistically, it can be described as follows: In the U.S. parens patriae is the legal principle used to justify state sanctioned kidnapping of children from their families in order to ‘protect’ them. In Nazi Germany, the Lebensborn program was legally used to justify the kidnapping of ‘Aryan’ looking children from occupied territories to be Germanized’; to be raised as good Germans (younger children) or designated as breeders for the German race – to produce 2 – 3 racially pure children then be killed (older children). But, in reality, the comparison is more complicated – and more horrifying – than that. PARENS PATRIAE is a legal term in American law that is defined as – The right of the government to take care of minors and others who cannot legally take care of themselves. In a Nazi booklet published by SS Gruppenführer Rediess, The SS for Greater Germany – with Sword and Cradle, speaking about the recently Nazi occupied country of Denmark as it related to the Lebensborn program, the German position is stated as, “This people is a Germanic people, and hence it is our duty to educate its children and young people and to make the Norwegians a Nordic people again as we understand the term.” The similarity between these two principles is that a government has assumed a certain authority, either by law or by fiat, over the population. This authority can be as extensive or limited as the government chooses and as the population will endure. In both stated instances, the governments assumed authority over children. PSEUDO-SCIENCES The majority of reasonably intelligent people today recognize that Nazi attempts to designate one race as superior to others based on physical racial characteristics was nothing more than superstitious bigotry unsupported by science. The Nazis actually created a ‘science’ of racial studies, endorsed by ‘experts’ and supported with manufactured ‘scientific evidence,’ in order to support their pet theory that the so-called Aryan race was superior to all others. They had panels of experts, advisory councils, college courses, and specially trained bureaucrats to develop and implement their ‘racial hygiene’ policies. This cadre of ‘experts’ would devise, implement, oversee, evaluate and propagandize the various racial hygiene programs, including Lebensborn. Nazi society abounded with popular literature, textbooks, and manuals touting this most important Nazi platform. Nazi Germany was inundated with racially based propaganda which extolled the virtues of the Aryan and justified the ‘solutions’ imposed on inferior races. Of Pure Blood by Marc Hillel and Clarissa Henry is a 1976 book detailing the Nazi Lebensborn program. “Doctors specializing in ‘racial knowledge’, all members of the SS or the police, were out in charge of racial testing at the reception centers. . .The children’s heads, bodies, arms and legs were measured, as well as the pelvis in the case of girls and the penis in the case of boys, and they were then divided into three groups: a – those representing a desirable addition to the German populations: b – those representing an acceptable addition to that population, and c – the unwanted. . .More than 200,000 Polish children were thus declared . . to be ‘racially useful’. In the United States, the state cannot legally evaluate a person based on their race, or use physical or racial characteristics to judge them. CPS agencies use something much more subtle, but no less specious than Nazi racial hygiene measurements; they use psychological measurements to determine how defective (dangerous to his own child) a parent has been or is likely to be. Under the mechanism of court ordered or coerced ‘voluntary’ psychological evaluations, many parents are being ‘diagnosed’ as a ‘risk’ to their children based on psych eval findings from service providers who are paid for by the state; who conduct their evaluations based on a tainted family history provided by the state; and who, by their own admissions, stand to lose their contract with the state if they submit any findings that are contrary to what the caseworker has ordained. American law has already established protections for persons who are disabled by virtue of their psychology. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, ( 42 U.S.C 12101, 12102, & 12131 et seq), disability is a physical or mental impairment the substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; having a record of such impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. Caring for, nurturing and raising their children is undoubtedly on of the most important major life activities of a parent. This country, through CPS, has raised psychology to the exalted status of Nazi Racial Studies on no more scientific evidence than the Nazis had to support their theories and programs. This pseudo-science is used to demonize parents and justify the legal kidnapping of their children in order to satisfy the state’s need for adoptive children. For example, the most popular psychological test given today is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Index (MMPI II). According to one whistle blower evaluator, the completed test is fed into a computer that analyses the responses and returns a list of diagnoses to choose from. It is then up to the evaluator to decide which diagnosis applies to the subject. This is not a scientifically-based, measurable, objective diagnosis if it is left up the subjective interpretation of the ‘expert.’ The selected diagnosis is based on a gut hunch, intuition, or maybe wishful thinking, or perhaps a state-contracted fee. Whatever it is based on, it is not based on measurable science in any instance; nor even the most rudimentary common sense in the hands of many self-serving psychological evaluators. Psycho-sexual evaluations for allegations of child sexual abuse are used by caseworkers as tool of making a determination whether or not the accused was a perpetrator. Many psychological experts will assert that these tools are not designed to be used on anyone who has not admitted guilt. However, caseworkers continue to use this tool inappropriately to validate allegations. There are volumes of tests employed against parents. This process is inherently flawed based on the fact that once the children have been taken, the parents are depressed, suspicious, angry, anxious, traumatized, worried, frightened, and more. Requiring any person to submit to any psychological evaluation under these horrendous emotional circumstances is clearly setting them up for failure. There is no hope they could present as being ‘normal.’ Naturally, psychological ‘deficiencies’ will show up, and those deficiencies are effectively used by the experts against the parents. However, none of the findings from psychological tests were ever designed to indicate that the parents actually are mentally impaired or that they legitimately justify the application of any psychological label upon the parents. Experts will admit that the findings of the parents’ tests show that they share some of the same characteristics with others who are so psychologically labeled does not mean that any findings are proof positive that the diagnosis is scientifically accurate. The United States has a powerful industry backing up this ‘science.’ There are schools and seminars that teach and accredit the psychology of child abuse/child abusers; advisory councils against child abuse that advise powerful political figures and who lobby for intrusive and offensive legislation that undermines the sanctity of the family; cadres of ‘experts’ who analyze, devise, implement, oversee, evaluate and propagandize child abuse and prevention programs in the private and public sector and whose livelihoods depend on the perpetuation of this pseudo-science; and millions of service providers who provide ‘voluntary’ or court ordered services and whose livelihoods literally depend on the removal of children from their homes. There are many ‘expert’ tomes on the subjects of the psychology of children, parents, child abuse, risks of abuse, and prevention of abuse. Parents have no credibility in the face of this multi-billion dollar industry. These people take this pseudo science very seriously, sometimes with deadly consequences. The May 24, 2000 Rocky Mountain news reported about a therapy technique used on a troubled child in Evergreen, Colorado. The 10 year-old child had been adopted in 1996 and died as a result of this ‘therapy.’ “Sheriff’s investigators say Watkins and Ponder, both therapists, wrapped Candace in a flannel blanket to simulate a womb that the girl should be “born” from. Then, in an attempt to mimic birth contractions, all four allegedly pushed against pillows Candace was lying under. “Rebirthing is a controversial technique Watkins has used for about a year. It is used to treat children who suffer from attachment disorder, which prevents children from bonding with their [adoptive] parents. Critics of the technique call the treatment radical and say it hasn’t been researched well.” However, these ‘experts’ fail to acknowledge what anyone with common sense can see – that perhaps removing this child from her mother precipitated the attachment disorder in this child; that they caused this child’s psychological problems by employing this pseudo science in the first place. Traditional parenting practices are under massive attack with responsible parents being targeted for their refusal to conform to this pseudo-science. The ‘virtuous’ parents are those who do not spank or punish or subject their children to any undesirable circumstances such as an argument; and who casually inflict their consciousless brats on decent society saying, “Oh, isn’t my darling so cute?” when he’s really too bratty to bear. Conspicuous by its absence is any expert acknowledgment for the self-evident consequences of this pseudo-science – as demonstrated by offensive childhood behavior from the regular cacophony of temper tantrums in department stores; to bratty kids running out of control in inappropriate places; to children’s complete lack of respect for others; all the way to the extreme of kids mowing down their classmates with guns because they were ‘teased.’ Demonstrating a callous lack of common sense, the practice of this ‘science’ is based on the premise that removing a child from his parents presents less trauma to the child than being merely ‘at risk’ of future abuse if he remained with his family in a dirty house. People often say, ‘They don’t remove a child for a dirty home!” shocked that anyone could even suggest such a vile act. But there are volumes of documented cases where not only were the children removed for a dirty home, but parental rights were terminated based on that initial removal and the resultant, non-scientific ‘risk assessment’ administered by the intake caseworker. LEGALIZING KIDNAPPING OF CHILDREN In Of Pure Blood, the authors report “ . . . many Norwegian women were trapped into going to Germany against their will. The kidnapping process was given a semblance of legality by a Nazi ruling that defied the fundamental laws of a sovereign nation and legalized the separation of mother and child against the mothers’s will.” Heinrich Himmler, in a speech to officers of the Deutschland division, November8, 1938 stated, “I really intend to take German blood from where it is to be found in the world, to rob and steal it wherever I can.” Orders were issued to implement this ‘stealing’ of children. These orders had the force of law in Nazi occupied territories. A Top Secret order, no. 67/1, 1941 from SS Gruppenführer Ulrich Greifelt, head of the Central Office of the SS and SD in Poland ordered: “The children who are recognized as bearers of blood valuable to Germany are to be Germanized. . . .between the ages of six and twelve in state boarding schools, and between ages of two and six with families to be indicated by the Lebensborn society.” “ . . .the Lebensborn Society will see to the distribution of these children among the families of childless SS men with a view to subsequent adoption. The Lebensborn Society will assume guardianship of the children accommodated in the Lebensborn Children’s homes. In a Reichsfürher circular dated June 14, 1941: “I think it right that young children of especially good race belonging to Polish amilies should be gathered together and brought up by us . . .health reasons should be given for taking the children away. . . .After a year consideration should be given to handing such children to be brought in childless families of good race.” Of Pure Blood – “ . . .the Lebensborn organization was the obvious agency for Germanizing the children abducted from Eastern Europe. The program was initiated as early as 1940 . . . .it was decided, in agreement with the Reichsfürher, that it was preferable for the organization to deal with children under six. There was a simple reason for this: Whether Polish, Russian or Yugoslav, at this age they would be more receptive to Nazi indoctrination than the older children . . .Because they were so young, they would remember less which would enable Dr. Tesch, the Lebensborn legal expert, to falsify their identify the more completely. . . .By 1941 in Germany, Party and SS members were falling over themselves in their wish to adopt a child of good blood . . .and so demand had outstripped supply. Withing a few months the round-ups of children in the occupied territories would make it possible to satisfy the demand of childless couples. . . Who were children targeted by the Lebensborn Society? “. . .all places were children were assembled; children of Polish adoptive parents or unmarried mothers; children having Polish guardians; children of mixed (Polish-German) marriages; children whose parents opposed Germanization; children of mixed marriages whose parents had divorced; children of deported, liquidated, or banished parents (the great majority); children picked up at random; children born in concentration camps, women’s labor camps or children of mothers deported for forced labor; abandoned children; children to whom special orders applied, children sent to Germany for forced labor.” Danish, English, Russian and other eastern European countries all lost children to this legalized kidnapping campaign. Abducted children were ‘skimmed’ or evaluated according to racial purity, and the acceptable ones, approximately 10%, were Germanized. The others became slaves of the Reich. “The technique of approaching children in the street did not vary greatly. A hungry child would be offered biscuits (cookies), sweets, sometimes even a bar of chocolate or a slice of bread, thus creating an opportunity to question it about its parents, its home, the color of its brothers’ and sisters’ hair. That same evening they submitted their list of names and addresses to special teams of kidnappers . . .Several days would elapse, and then the child would be taken, the abduction generally taking place at night. The child’s parents would never see it again. “The kidnapping game does not seem to have been played in accordance with any fixed rules. The decision whether a child was to be sent to its death or back to its parents depended on the whim of a medical examiner or even of the SS man on guard at the door.” “. . .in 1942, and 1944 . . .kidnappings [in Russia] grew steadily more numerous. In the street, at school, at home, at kindergartens and even in public parks children were the victims of raids which nobody dared oppose. A climate of terror prevailed. . . .[Kurt Heinze, head the Oberweiss home] escorted whole train-loads of children whom the Lebensborn organization rapidly placed in State schools or families.” One account was remembered by a kidnapped child, “The chief of them immediately insisted that the women, who had a long and tiring journey to a labor camp ahead of them, should let the children go first by bus. . .He also insisted that the mothers should hand over their children voluntarily. Obviously none of the them were willing to be parted from their children. To show he meant business, he fired a shot in the air with his revolver. This of course caused panic among the mothers and children. The Germans took advantage of this to go for the mothers and snatch us from their arms. “Believe me, that was a moment that none of us will ever forget, even in forty of fifty years’ time. It’s like a horrible, brutal film that keeps on passing before our eyes.” According to recent government statistics, 67% of child abuse reports are false right off the top. As much as 60-90% of the ‘substantiated’ reports do not meet the statutory definition of abuse or neglect according to anecdotal data. This happens because parents are poorly represented by counsel and threatened, intimidated or coerced by their attorneys and caseworkers into falsely admitting guilt as a condition of seeing their children. By this action, the parents are forced to give the state legal authority to kidnap and keep their children. Once this occurs, the state does not have to prove the child was abused or neglected in order to terminate parental rights. Parents who do resist find themselves having to prove their innocence in order to win their children back, and it often takes months to accomplish. In America, the presenting incident, which is the report of abuse or neglect, becomes the mechanism to gain access to the child and the family. This is the contemporary ‘skimming’ process. The American CPS ‘skimming’ tool is called a risk assessment. Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the primary concern is now the ‘safety of the child.’ Thus, the mere, speculative risk of abuse or neglect satisfies the legal requirements to take custody of children without any evidence of abuse or neglect. This country has effectively legalized the separation of parent and child against the will of both parents and children. There is a virtual army of people out there looking for children to target. Under mandated reporting laws, anyone who has regular contact with children (teachers, counselors, doctors, dentists, etc.) are required to report suspected child abuse or neglect. The schools are especially effective at reporting suspected child abuse or neglect – not based on statutory definitions but on subjective assessments. They will also provide caseworker access to the children in the school and allow the caseworker to legally ‘kidnap’ the children from the school without notifying the parents, no questions asked. Hospital emergency rooms also provide many children for CPS. There seem to be no fixed rules for determining which children are taken and which are not regardless of statutory requirements. It depends on the whim of the caseworker, many of whom falsify reports in order to support her claims. The children are subjected to intimidating and often professionally incompetent questions by the caseworkers. They will use coercion, threats, leading questions and even lie in order to validate the report of abuse. They excuse these tactics by rationalizing that a child often is unwilling to disclose abuse and they must use pressure to extract an accusation. They also object vehemently to having all interrogations video taped stating that it would traumatize the child. What it would do is expose their incompetence and predispositions. The laws do not allow a caseworker to take a child without a court order. Only police can do that. However, under the color of law, they will often take the children by force. Parents routinely report their children being dragged, screaming, from their arms without having been presented with any evidence of abuse or neglect. Midnight raids on unsuspecting, sleeping families are not uncommon. If an agency suspects the parents might resist their requests to question the children, S.W.A.T. teams have been used to circumvent the fourth amendment in Utah and other states. Michigan is actually considering legislation that allows force if a parent asserts their constitutional rights – which is being defined as uncooperative. One Arizona mother held a police S.W.A.T. Team off for 24 hours until they jumped her and took her toddler by force. All criminal charges were dropped but she never got her daughter back. Her frantic initial phone call to an associate, audio taped before her phone lines were cut, demonstrated her fear as the police kicked their way into her home and pulled weapons on her as she was nursing her baby. TURNING CHILDREN AGAINST THEIR PARENTS We must remember that an important element in brainwashing anyone involves trauma. It’s pretty easy to traumatize a youngster simply by denying him his mom and dad. From Of Pure Blood – “When children were taken for Germanization, “ . . .Psychological methods were used to make a child forget or even hate its parents. He would be told they were dead, and there was nothing honorable about the way they died. The mother would be said to have been of doubtful morality and to have died of tuberculosis, drink or other shameful disease, while the father had died of cancer or drink, or been killed by Polish bandits. The object was to give the child a sense of inferiority about its origins and of gratitude to the Germans who had rescued it from the degeneracy of its home environment. “In the German Federal Republic we met a young woman who, at the age of five, had been taken to a church by the Germans and shown a bishop’s coffin and told it was her mother’s. Some years later the child was traced, but she refused to go back to her mother, who had survived deportation. ‘I had stood by my mother’s coffin once,’ she said, ‘and I did not want to do that again.’” Sigismund Krajeski, born in Poznan on April 17, 1933 told Hillel and Henry, “I was taken by force from my family on 20 May 1943.” He went on to describe what they were told by the Nazis, “. . .The child would be told his parents were dead and that he was going to get new ones.” Mrs. Witaszek, survivor of Auschwitz, whose 4 and 6 year-old daughters were adopted when she was arrested. “Years afterwards my younger daughter told me she had often been kept awake at night, wondering why I had sold her to a foreign family. Did I have so little money that I had to sell her? Children at that age were simply incapable of understanding what had happened to them.” Kidnapped Aryan children would be subjected to intensive German language classes and were forbidden to speak their native language after a couple of weeks. Discipline was described as ‘very, very strict.’ Children who refused Germanization had to stay in the chapel “ . . .in the dark on their knees with their arms crossed for hours. They wept, and soon fainted. They were punished like that for saying something in Polish or talking about their parents. They were beaten and deprived of food. But even apart from that, the children were always sad. They lived in fear and were homesick . . .” Many don’t believe we would treat our children so harshly in America. To those I suggest that they talk to the children who have been ‘protected’ by CPS agencies. I have interviewed many former and current foster children. In the most benign cases, the children are often punished by exasperated foster parents when they cry for their mom and dad by being sent to isolation in their rooms. Children report being punished with isolation and withholding food for praying to be returned home. They are denied affection and understanding and feel depressed and homesick and frightened. When they see their parents, they often act out after the visit out of their natural frustration and impotence to change what they perceive to be unfair and cruel. As a result, they are punished by being denied their next visit with their parents. They describe being told that their parents aren’t able to take care of them because their parents are ‘sick’ and need help. That it isn’t safe for them to live with their parents. Many children are told that their parents aren’t trying hard enough to complete the case plan and the children live in uncertainty as to what their future holds for them. They are actually told that their parents don’t want them or can’t afford to keep them. Children report that they are told their mothers are prostitutes, or drug users when they know it is false. They are psychologically manipulated until they begin to believe. They begin to resent their parent’s failures and imperfections that prevent reunification. But many of them are ultimately diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder and others similar emotional problems as a direct result of state efforts to undermine their bonds with their parents. One young boy in Elbert County, Colorado, under the supervision of caseworker Holly Sielaff, was repeatedly forced to deal with the ‘issue’, under the guise of therapy, that his mother had cross-dressed him. The child had no memory of that event, and mom denied doing it. He reports he was verbally abused by his therapist during his court-ordered therapy sessions for his refusal to admit that his mother forced him to wear girl’s clothing. Sielaff then reported to mother in this reporter’s presence and on tape, that they were addressing this issue ‘because it was the child’s reality’ and whether or not it was true, it must be treated as if it were true. Since mom was forbidden to speak of that allegation to the boy, she never learned that he consistently denied it until he was returned home. Many children are not strong enough to resist this kind of abusive psychological pressure. Many of the children I have spoken with have been runaway foster children. They report being told that they must accuse their parents in order to return home. They are promised that if they accuse, they will be allowed to return home and the state will provide ‘help’ to their parents. If they do make a false accusation based on these promises, they are often denied all access to their parents. This isolation from their parents is used in the vast majority of cases. Besides being used to emotionally traumatize the children to make them more receptive to state suggestions, it also has the effect of preventing the child from reporting to his parents any problems, lies or abuses that are being covered up by state agencies under confidentiality laws and ‘in the best interests of the child.’ If children in state custody are fortunate enough to see their parents, it is usually under supervision, where their every word is scrutinized. They are forbidden to hug, to whisper, or to display too much affection. They are forbidden to speak about what happens in their foster home, and to even report any abuse they suffer there. Many parent-child bonding rituals that have been established in the home, such as singing favorite songs or tickling games are forbidden between the parents and children during these visits for specious and/or undefined reasons. There are documented cases where the psychological experts and caseworker not only actively subvert the parent-child bond, but actually employ dubious and traumatic methods in order to brainwash the child to bond to his foster parents. In once instance, a five-year-old child in Weld County, Colorado, was forcefully ‘regressed’ to infancy by being placed in diapers and forced to break potty training, forced to crawl rather than walk, fed only from a bottle and denied all access to her mother in an effort to make this child bond to her foster parents. The mother’s act of abuse? She fell asleep after major surgery with her toddler at home, having been denied daycare assistance by Social Services until she recovered, and the child got into a bottle of Tylenol in mom’s purse. No treatment was provided at the hospital for the alleged overdose in spite of mom’s timely response to the emergency. The most heinous of tactics is to place the child in residential treatment. This often happens to children who are resistant to caseworker indoctrination and especially where there is a risk the child will divulge a truth that is damaging to the caseworker, the CPS agency, the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) or other service provider. Often, caseworkers will predetermine a ‘diagnosis’ of the child in order to facilitate this placement. They can find an ‘expert’ who will validate the diagnosis and present this information to an unsuspecting court or a court who acts with complicity. The court will order the child to the residential treatment facility were they are often drugged. This drugging renders them more susceptible to suggestion and compliance at the expense of the emotional well-being of the child. Since the facility is only provided with the state’s version of the child’s history, the treatment is based on that tainted information. In Pueblo County, Colorado, there is a story of a young boy who has been institutionalized for four years at La Junta Boys Ranch based on a caseworker diagnosis of psychotic behavior. Mom has been unable to obtain a release for the child, and all reports of the brutality he suffered at the hands of the staff are covered up. He finally had endured all he could and killed some of the turkeys on the ranch. He was shipped to the State Hospital in Pueblo, where for over a month the doctors there insisted he wasn’t psychotic and that he had been misdiagnosed and improperly medicated. The caseworker began lobbying for the original diagnosis because, ‘she would lose the funding for him if he weren’t psychotic.’ The doctors at the State Hospital finally began to capitulate under funding pressure. Meanwhile, this child, now 15, clings to his mother during visits and the doctors are telling him that is inappropriate and denying him this only comfort in his life. This child has been sacrificed on the alter of psycho babble disguised as child protection. Too many foster children would never have been forced to endure such levels of psychological abuse at the hands of their parents from whom the state was ‘protecting’ them. SOCIAL WORK The women charged with kidnapping children in Nazi occupied territories were called the “Brown Sisters.” “Actually these women belonged to the NSV, established in 1933 to devote itself to the welfare of the German people. . .To those who suffered under them, these fanatical Nazi women, totally dedicated to the Fuhrer, were perhaps even more loathsome than the killers of the SS or the SD; stony-hearted robots was one description. The sight of these women . . .brutally snatching from its mother’s arms a baby who was smiling at her remains an intolerable memory to those who experienced it. “The special training of the ‘Brown Sisters’ included intensive courses in which they were taught the racial criteria by which Nordics could infallibly be distinguished, and they were instruct in how to observe a child without being noticed themselves; they were also taught ways of abducting it in the street, at home or at school. . .” Of Pure Blood. Caseworkers in America also receive highly specialized training pertaining to popular culture parenting techniques, child abuse, child abuse prevention and more, all based on theory rather than science. They are trained on the job to put pet theories into practice, with children and families being the guinea pigs. The good ones become disgusted in short order and leave for greener pastures. Many ‘protected’ children actively hate the caseworkers who control their lives and their access to their parents. Once free of caseworker control, they often vent their anger in very expressive ways. I have one pair of sisters who opened up in front a video camera with threats and gestures all directed at their Arapahoe County, Colorado caseworker, Dawn Shields. They accused Shields of lying in order to obtain the court order terminating their parents’ parental rights. All of the children I have spoken to express the highest level of disdain, distrust and anger toward their caseworkers and GALs. Parents universally describe caseworkers as heartless, soulless, evil, deceitful, arrogant, two-faced and more. I have personally seen caseworkers utter the most vicious false statements against a parents on the witness stand in court, then embrace the numb parents in the hall with apologies for what she ‘had’ to do to them. This feigned concern for the parents is abhorrent. At least the Nazis were honest about their bigotry and evil plans. I have had one caseworker tell me, “I’m sorry for [your son being taken] but that was years ago. Get over it.” It is incomprehensible to a parent that anyone could be so callous and hardhearted to even consider they’d ever ‘get over’ having their child kidnapped by the state for whatever length of time, but especially if the parent-child relationship was destroyed as a result. This attitude clearly demonstrates their lack of understanding of the depths of the bonds that exist between parent and child and how their meddling is, too often, more destructive than helpful. For an indication of the state of mind of the affected families decades after the children were taken, let’s look to Of Pure Blood, “. . .Parents did everything possible to trace children who were unaware of their existence and will never know the distress the absence still causes. In some Polish villages the grief is still so vivid after thirty years that one ends by wondering how such a thing can be possible.” It is not unreasonable to presume that the pain inflicted by contemporary caseworkers will be comparable and equally unforgettable for millions of American parents. This pain is compounded in many cases by the caseworkers’ casual use of deceit and manipulation of their undeserved credibility with the court in order to win their cases. Many parents not only despise caseworkers, but hate the people they themselves have become as a result of their constant, unpleasant and threatening contact with these toxic bureaucrats. As a result of these abuses, there is little sympathy from victimized families for caseworkers who are assaulted and killed in the course of their work. ABUSE IN STATE CUSTODY In one indoctrination home, where children were taken before being sent for adoption to Nazi families, there “ . . .is a cemetery in which most of the graves are of ‘victims of Nazi barbarism’. Tadeus Martyn, a member of the Polish commission for Hitlerite Crimes . . .told about the authors about a child named Zygmunt Swiatlowski: ‘He was taken from his parents against their will at Poznan and brought here. . .He felt himself to be Polish and would not be Germanized. . .One day, after refusing to greet a German in German, he was killed on the spot by the woman in charge of the invitation, Johanna Sander. The children who died in the home were buried anonymously, but the German who buried Zygmunt revealed his name to the Polish woman caretaker of the cemetery. So this grave remains the only memorial to the martyrdom of Polish children and Kalisz.’” Alycia Sosinka, born at Lodz in 1935, taken from her mother in September 1942. “ . . .for months, when my [adoptive] mother came to tuck me in at night I used to jump out of bed and stand at attention . . .” due to abuses suffered during her indoctrination period. When a Lebensborn home tended by SS ‘nurses’ was liberated by allied forces, a nun who was subsequently charged with caring for the children observed, “These children did not know what tenderness was. They were used to being in bed or living in groups, and were frightened of any grownups who approached them. . .The older children, the three and four-year-olds could not even talk. They merely expressed them onomatopoeically, like young animals. That is typical of children brought up in institutions. Also they were very backward in Mental development in comparison with other children of the same age. According to Department of Health and Human Services statistics, approximately 50% of the children who die of child abuse, die in foster care. Children in foster care are also subjected to more severe abuse in foster homes than they ever endured in their own homes. The Denver Post began a five part series of articles exposing the unsafe nature of foster care on May 21, 2000. They report that abuses are perpetrated by foster parents, biological children of foster parents, and other foster children. This finding supports the overwhelming number of reports of foster care abuse nationwide received by parents and family rights advocacy groups. In the summer of 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens commissioned a task force to look into the foster care and child welfare issue due to the deaths of four children, three of whom were in foster care. The task force returned their findings if0.20early in 2000, months prior to the Denver Post series, but nothing has been done by Colorado Department of Human Services (DHS) to insure that children are safer in state custody than in the homes they were removed from. Foster care providers are not held to the same standards of safety as parents are. In fact, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) applies only to parents. CPS agencies, foster care providers, and institutions do not fall under the jurisdiction of CAPTA even though they are charged with keeping children safe under CAPTA. The standards of care and safety that foster care providers are required to keep are only defined vaguely in CPS policy manuals. Abuse of children in foster care is drastically under reported because there is no independent investigative body to whom foster care abuse or neglect is reported. The CPS agency places the children; and chooses, licenses and oversees the foster homes. Reports of foster care abuse and neglect are made to CPS agencies. Abuse and violations of standards of care are investigated by CPS agencies. As a result, most reports are determined to be ‘unfounded;’ after all, how good would it look if they were to expose the level of abuse that occurs in their own foster homes and contract institutions? Even if abuse is substantiated, the providers do not lose their own children or their foster care license, and the abused children will often remain in the foster home. Occasionally, the alleged abuse will rise to the level of a crime, but even then it is not consistently prosecuted and foster care providers openly acknowledge that any penalties imposed on them will be minor at most. An Adams County, Colorado mother reported that when her children were returned home after over a year in foster care, she caught her 7 year-old son humping her 5 year-old daughter. She was terrified that the children would be removed again. Since she had never been accused of sexually abusing her children, they could only have learned of this in the foster home. An El Paso County, Colorado, twelve year old had his arm broken in a group home while being restrained. He was lucky. Some restrained children die. A youth in DHS custody who resided at the Colorado Boys Ranch was locked up in his room for 23 hours a day, and during his recreational hour, he was shackled and chained. He had not been charged or convicted of any crime. 13 year-old Veronica from Larimer County, Colorado was repeatedly coerced to falsely accuse her father. Upon her return home, she was unable to fall asleep without her bedroom light on and her mother by her side for six months. She’d hide in a closet whenever someone knocked at the door. Taler Barnes, was taken from his mother at birth due to a false hospital social worker report. While in Kansas foster care, he suffered broken ribs, broken hip, constant bruising, his eyes were gouged until he is legally blind, and he suffered shaken baby syndrome resulting in brain damage. He was emaciated and starving when he was finally returned to his family at 22 months old. During the course of her visits, his mother would photograph the injuries, but the judge ordered her to stop and to remove her web site that documented her case and the abuse her son suffered at the hands of the state. Even the courts cover up foster care abuse. At the very least, parents report that the children who are returned to them from foster care are not the same children that were taken. They are easily frightened, clingy and needy, they act out sexually or are physically and verbally abusive, they wet the bed, they test their parents’ love and violate established rules, schoolwork suffers, they are haunted and distrusting, and more. Evidently, foster care is not the warm and fuzzy panacea it’s cracked up to be. THROWAWAY CHILDREN Of Pure Blood – 21 September, 1942 – Notes on an SS discussion “ . . .after the sifting has been carried out the children will be separated from the mothers. . .so that no irresponsible hatred will develop among these children. . .children with a good capacity for Germanization will be handed over to the Lebensborn Society, which will arrange for the adoption of these children by pure German families.” Himmler, recognizing the threat posed by children who were not properly conditioned against their parents, said to Max Sollman, on June 21, 1943, “The children of good race, who obviously could become the most dangerous avengers of their parents if they are not humanely and correctly brought up, should . . .be admitted to a Lebensborn children’s home for a probationary period, where as much as possible about their character should be discovered, and then be sent to German families as foster-children or adopted children.” “ . . .Children who passed the tests were taken to a Lebensborn reception center; the others generally disappeared without trace, often being dispatched to a concentration camp. Luckier children might be returned to their parents without explanation.” “ . . .many children became ‘orphans’ when they were taken from their parents . . .” Leo Twardecki, 11, roused from sleep and kidnapped by three SS men with Alsatian dogs, were herded to a train observed. “I was never adopted. I was too big and too Polish, and no one wanted me.” German Nazis who adopted the Lebensborn children were told that the children were orphans of German parents and if it was found out that they had a child of inferior race, they would often refuse to keep the child. Lebensborn children came with a monthly government payment to subsidize their care and upkeep. Their records were falsified and their names Germanized; new birth certificates were issued to support the stories told to the adoptive parents. The Nazi occupied countries never knew about the Lebensborn program until after the war. They all presumed that the children were exterminated or enslaved. In fact, the vast majority were. They were the Nazi’s throwaway children. CPS agencies, in taking children who do not meet the statutory definition of abuse or neglect from loving homes is creating more throwaway children than they are legitimately saving. Anyone who doubts this only has to look at the adoption web sites, adoption fairs, and adoption catalogs sponsored by CPS agencies. These listings present huge quantities of children available for adoption who have problems that make them difficult to adopt. Virtually all of them are on medications to treat behavioral or emotional problems, they are generally over six years old, and they are not blonde-haired and blue-eyed. Some of them are sibling groups that shouldn’t be separated. Their birth certificates are altered to remove their birth parents names. Sometimes their names are changed making it impossible to trace them. These children come with adoption subsidies – a monthly check from government – medicaid, food stamps, a hefty tax break and intensive support services. Just think what the biological parents could have doh those resources. Since the vast majority of the children are taken due to poverty related issues, the money provided to foster parents and adoptive parents could have prevented the removal of the children in the first place. Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Federal government pays a $4000 bounty for every child adopted out of foster care who exceeds the 1997 baseline. If the child is ‘special needs’ – and most of them are by virtue of the psychological trauma they suffer at being separated from their parents – the bounty goes up to $6000. There are many childless couples and others who desperately want to adopt. CPS is the legalized adoption mill. With the law requiring permanency planning in twelve months for children under six, most of these children become adoptable within a year and a half of being taken. Is it coincidence that the Nazi Lebensborn program advocated placement of the children within a year of their abduction and focused on blond-haired, blue-eyed children under six? In taking the younger children, many older siblings are left to languish in foster care. The real tragedy is that many of these children were very much loved and wanted by their biological parents. These parents fought with everything they had in too many cases only to lose their children. Since the state saw fit to take these children from these loving parents, these children are now alone, unloved and unwanted by the rest of the world. They are the throwaway children, and don’t think they don’t know it. The two sisters from Arapaho County, Colorado reported that their foster mother told them she wanted their baby sister but didn’t want them. Nobody wants the older, troubled child who knows they were kidnapped. Even the children who are adopted often know that they should never have been taken from their parents. All adopted children exhibit some of the same issues to resolve; abandonment or the fantasy that they were, in reality, kidnapped against their loving parents’ wills. The kidnapping fantasy is, in fact, the truth in many of these cases anymore. And when these children grow up and learn their real parents fought tooth and nail to keep them, they will resent their adoptive parents as being willing participants in their abductions. This is too obvious to deny. But worse, 25% of state adoptions disrupt. This literally means the children are returned like defective merchandise, creating even more throwaway children. When an adoptive parent returns a child, CPS will offer higher subsidies or threaten to take all other children in order to prevent the adoption from disrupting. Our children are treated like commodities, to be bartered and sold by CPS agencies. RETURNING CHILDREN HOME The U.S. obstructed the repatriation of kidnapped children. June 11, 1948, Zycie Warszawy reports, “ . .the attitude of the British and American occupation authorities. . .These authorities are not satisfied when a child is tracked down, when evidence of its identity is produced and even its parents (if they are alive) claim it. All that is not enough for them. They do their best to insure that the child is not returned to Poland . . .” “ . . .there was the ‘interest of the child’ to be considered, that famous interest in the name of which they had been taken from their families in the first place. The British, American and French investigators, often motivated by the most generous feelings, hesitated to create new dramas in the minds of young children who could remember only their adoptive parents. . .No one knew whether children who were being brought up in comfortably-off families would find similar conditions if they were sent [home]. “Thus, the post-war files contained a multitude of reasons why [kidnapped children] stayed in Western Germany.” “Dr. Roman S. Hrarbar, a lawyer who in 1945-7 was head of the Polish mission responsible for repatriating Polish children “It was also claimed that is would be a shock to the child to be returned to its real family. That turned out to be false. . . .[the military authorities in the Western Allied occupation zones] took the view that it was preferable to leave the child in its present surroundings – in the interest of the child – instead of making it get used to new surroundings, unknown to the child. These were humanitarian explanations which covered essentially politically motives. “Reactions [of children who were identified] varied. Younger ones, who remembered nothing, were surprised. They had to be prepared for the change. The others, the older ones . . .accepted the situation with delight, particularly when we were able to tell them that their parents were still alive and waiting for them.” This sounds suspiciously like today’s CPS excuse for whatever they do: “The best interest of the child.” While they trot that phrase up at every opportunity, they never define it or describe exactly why a recommended action is in the child’s best interest. They are not even qualified to judge what is in an individual child’s best interest since they don’t know the children as individuals; they don’t know anything personal about the children they kidnap. Many of them even admit that they act for the best interests of children in general, not necessarily for the individual. The best interests of the child has become the equivalent of the Nazi’s ‘Final Solution;’ a phrase that sound good and justifies their destructive and abusive actions. Clearly, the U.S. has an extensive history of plugging other people’s children into whatever slot they feel is best, the child’s and the families needs notwithstanding, placing political expediency above the humanitarian issue of truly protecting children. CPS will also say the children need a ‘reunification’ process before being returned home. Why was it acceptable to remove children precipitously from their parents, but they can’t be returned in the same manner? Could this be reverse brainwashing time? Or is it merely a mechanism to extend more control over the family? Whatever it is, CPS is extremely reluctant to allow foster children to return to their birth parents even if they haven’t proven abuse or neglect. EVALUATING THE SYSTEM As far as the Nazi’s were concerned, the Lebensborn program was a great success. They were evaluated by their experts and their superiors. They were rounding up and distributing valuable Aryan bloodlines. As far as they were concerned, the end justified the means. It is important to note, that at no time during the Nazi regime, were the subjects and victims of these programs ever consulted for their assessment, evaluation or input into the effectiveness and reliability of the racial hygiene programs; the effects of those programs upon the individuals and families involved; or the moral implications of what was occurring in Nazi Germany and the countries it occupied as it implement its master plan. Today, CPS agencies undergo the same kind of evaluations as to the effectiveness and efficiency of their programs. The same experts who devise and operate child protection also evaluate it. There is no mechanism whereby an evaluation is conducted by an independent agency or that the clients of this system are ever contacted for their input. Client complaints are often covered up. David Berns, Director of El Paso County DHS reported to the county commissioners that his agency had received only one complaint for the year ending June, 1999. This reporter knows of seven that were filed during that time. When I protested his report, he amended it a few weeks later to two complaints. He stated that the second complaint had not been filed on proper form, forgetting that their complaint process did not require filing in writing and not knowing that all seven complaints that were unreported were filed in writing. Later, a Denver paper reported that most counties in Colorado had no complaints against DHS; that the citizens review panels had only heard three complaints for the entire state in the previous year. They speculated that either DHS was virtually perfect, or more likely, that they were stonewalling complaints. Many family advocacy groups are demanding independent investigations into CPS agencies nationwide. These agencies respond by requesting an internal investigation, or failing that, an outside ‘expert’ in the field. The advocacy groups are resisting, saying that’s like having the Gestapo investigate a concentration camp. Until there is independent public oversight over CPS agencies; until the confidentiality laws are eliminated; until caseworkers are held accountable and liable for abuses against families; until child abuse is treated like a crime and investigated by law enforcement; our children will continue to be more horribly abused in state custody than they ever were in their own homes. if0.00 Our population of legal orphans will continue to grow and we will produce more human fodder for prisons and mental institutions as a direct result. If we don’t learn our lessons from history, we are doomed to repeat the failures. American CPS agencies are well on their way to becoming the Nazi child kidnappers of the new millennium. Story copyright 2000, Suzanne Shell –

Children Committing Suicide in CPS/DCFS Care

Children Committing Suicide in CPS/DCFS Care “… laws, according to state documents, encourage counties and their private contractors to earn money by placing and keeping children in foster care. The county receives $30,000 to $150,000 in state and federal revenues annually for each child placed.” [While reading this, please keep in mind the age of the story. The statistics have not decreased in the past 9 years, but on the contrary have increased. Although the beginning doesn't give the full impact of the article, please do read on as you will find it increasingly interesting and somewhat enlightening. ] December 28, 2003 Troy Anderson Staff Writer Children committing suicide at younger age Los Angeles County’s child protective system is one of the most violent and dangerous in the nation, and its foster children are up to 10 times more likely to die from abuse or neglect than elsewhere in the country, a two-year investigation by the Daily News has found. In 2001 in the United States, 1.5 percent of the 1,225 children who died from abuse and neglect were in foster care, but in the county 14.3 percent of the 35 children who died of mistreatment that year were in foster care, government statistics show. The percentage in the county from 1991 to 2001 averaged 4.23 percent. The taxpayer-funded county and state systems are so overwhelmed with false allegations – four out of every five mistreatment reports are ruled unfounded or inconclusive – and filled with so many children who shouldn’t even be in the system, experts say, that social workers are failing in their basic mission to protect youngsters. Nationally, two out of three reports of mistreatment are false. Since 1991, the county Coroner’s Office has referred more than 2,300 child deaths to the county’s child death review team – and more than 660 of those dead children were involved in the child protective system, including nearly 160 who were homicide victims. In many of these deaths, county Children’s Services Inspector General Michael Watrobski made recommendations to the Department of Children and Family Services to conduct in-house investigations to determine if disciplinary action was warranted against those workers involved in the cases. Of 191 child deaths Watrobski investigated since 2001, he made a total of 63 recommendations to address systemic problems to improve the way the system works in an effort to reduce the number of child deaths. Despite spending more than $36 million on foster care lawsuit settlements, judgments and legal expenses since 1990, DCFS disciplined less than a third of the social workers responsible for the lawsuits, most of which involved families who alleged social workers’ negligence contributed to the deaths and mistreatment of their children in foster care. “That’s pathetic,” county Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said. “When you have a department that is responsible for the health and safety of children there is no excuse to have a dismal record of accountability like this.” Meanwhile, in the various facilities that make up the county’s foster care system, between 6 percent and 28 percent of the children are abused or neglected – figures comparable to the rate in New Jersey, which many experts have long called the state with the most dangerous child welfare system in the nation. In the general population, only 1 percent of children suffer such mistreatment. “When I stepped into this job, I said that too many kids are hurt in foster care,” said DCFS Director David Sanders, who started in March after the forced resignations of the previous four directors. “That is absolutely glaring and the fact this department has never been willing to say that is a huge problem. “It is clear when you compare us to other systems, we have more kids being hurt in our care than in other systems. That is absolutely inexcusable. I can’t say that more strongly. If is a reflection of a system that isn’t working.” Despite the staggering number of child deaths and mistreatment of thousands of children, Sanders said the department’s efforts have saved the lives of hundreds of children over the years. He also noted that the vast majority of foster parents don’t mistreat children. And child advocates say for the first time in the county’s history the DCFS director is taking unprecedented steps to reduce the number of deaths and percentage of foster children who are mistreated. “In the past, the system has failed to protect children in its care,” said Andrew Bridge, managing director of child welfare reform programs at the private Broad Foundation. “The new leadership at the department has been left with that legacy and is taking aggressive steps to fix it and protect children.” DCFS statistics show the percentage of foster children abused and neglected averages about 6 percent, but in the foster homes supervised by private foster family agencies, an average of 10 percent of children are mistreated. However, the rates range up to 28 percent in some homes, Sanders said. Statewide, the rate averages close to 1 percent. In New Jersey, the foster care mistreatment rate ranges from 7 percent to 28 percent in different parts of the state, said Marcia Lowry, executive director of the New York City-based Children’s Rights advocacy organization. Of 20 states surveyed in 1999, the percentage of children mistreated by foster parents averaged a half percent. The rate of abuse ranged from one-tenth of a percent in Arizona, Delaware and Wyoming to 1.6 percent in Illinois to 2.3 percent in Rhode Island, according to federal statistics. Susan Lambiase, associate director of Children’s Rights, was surprised to learn of the percentage in Los Angeles County, calling it “absolutely horrendous.” “(Los Angeles County is) a child welfare system in crisis because the children are getting pulled from their homes to keep them safe and the system cannot assure that they are being kept safe,” said Lambiase, whose organization has filed about 10 class-action lawsuits to place state child welfare systems under federal consent decrees and is considering what action it might take in Los Angeles County. “It’s unacceptable,” she said. “This is a malfunctioning foster care system given that its role in society is to protect children from abuse and neglect.” Critics say social workers are so busy filling out paperwork and investigating false reports that they are overlooking the warning signs of many children in the community in real danger and are not able to properly ensure the safety of children in foster care. “When you overload your system with children who don’t need to be in foster care, workers have less time to find the children in real danger,” said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Alexandria, Va. The Daily News investigation found that up to half of the 75,000 children in the system and adoptive homes were needlessly placed in a system that is often more dangerous than their own homes because of financial incentives in state and federal laws. These laws, according to state documents, encourage counties and their private contractors to earn money by placing and keeping children in foster care. The county receives $30,000 to $150,000 in state and federal revenues annually for each child placed. Some examples of settled cases involving the deaths of foster children include: –Long Beach resident Jacquelyn Bishop, whose twins were taken away because she hadn’t gotten her son an immunization. Kameron Demery, 2, was later beaten to death by his foster mother. The foster mother was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to prison. In 2000, the county settled a wrongful death case with Bishop for $200,000. –Gardena resident Debra Reid was awarded a $1 million settlement last year for the death of her 9-year-old son Jonathan Reid, who had been in foster homes in El Monte and Pomona. He died of an asthma attack in 1997 after social workers didn’t notify the foster mother of his severe asthma and diabetes conditions – a tragic irony, because the boy was placed in foster care after county social workers alleged Reid was neglecting her son by not providing appropriate medical care for his diabetes and asthma. Reid’s other son, 10-year-old Debvin Mitchell, who received $100,000 as part of the settlement after he was wrongfully detained, said his foster parents were “brutal” to him during his one-and-a-half years in multiple foster homes. “I thought that it was cruel and unusual for being beaten like that for no reason,” said Mitchell. “When I came home, I had bruises everywhere. I feel good to be back with my family where I don’t get beaten for silly things for no reason and most of all I’m glad to be back with my mom.” Anthony Cavuoti, who has worked as a DCFS social worker for 14 years, said the department does a poor job of protecting children. “The nominal goal is to protect children, but the real goal is to make money,” he said. “A caseworker used to have 80 to 100 cases. Now we have 30, but we have to file five times as much paperwork. If the workers put kids before paperwork and administration, they are going to be forced out or harassed. With such a mentality, children are always in danger.” In a historic step to address the problem at the root of the system’s failures, Juvenile Court Presiding Judge Michael Nash recently called for a historic reevaluation of half of the 30,000 cases of children in foster homes to determine who could be safely returned to their families or relatives. If properly done by providing the services families need, experts say this step combined with the DCFS request for a federal waiver to use $250 million of its $1.4 billion budget on services to help keep families together could ultimately reduce the number of children in foster care and social workers’ large caseloads, giving them more time to help protect children in truly dangerous situations. “The court system itself should only be for those cases that reflect serious cases of abuse and neglect,” Nash said. “We have to have more of a talk first, shoot later mentality rather than a shoot first, talk later mentality. We can do a much better job.” Sanders said more than 25 percent of those children will probably be able to return home. Concerned that two-thirds of his 6,500-employees are working behind desks, Sanders said he plans to move 1,000 staff promoted to office jobs by previous directors back to the streets as social workers, which will reduce caseloads and give workers more time to spend with families, a critical element to assure the safety of children. Keywords: LOS ANGELES COUNTY – FOSTER CARE – CHILD – DAILY NEWS - PROBE - VIOLENCE – DEATH – MURDER – US – STATISTIC – COMPARISON – REPORT - DEPT OF CHILDREN FAMILY SERVICES – DCFS – REACTION – ABUSE – ISSUE – LIST - SAFETY - CALIFORNIA – REFORM ———————————————————————- ———- All content © 2003- Daily News of Los Angeles (CA)

Page rank

Check Page Rank of your Web site pages instantly:

This page rank checking tool is powered by Page Rank Checker service

Now Gordon Brown rejects Bulger family's demand to know if killer was sent back to jail for drugs and violence By STEPHEN WRIGHT, JAMES SLACK, TIM SHIPMAN and JAMES TOZER

Sources say Venables 'flipped' and attacked colleague Has been in hospital after violent fights twice Victim's father: 'It's one more kick in the teeth' Gordon Brown today rejected growing calls for the public to be told why one of the killers of James Bulger has been put back behind bars. The Prime Minister defended the Government's stubborn refusal to reveal why Jon Venables has returned to jail as details emerged of his new alleged offences. Sources say the murderer, who is now 27, 'flipped' and attacked a colleague and had been using Ecstasy and cocaine since his release in 2001. It also emerged that Venables has been hospitalised twice since he was freed after becoming involved in violent altercations. It was claimed he was stabbed more than two years ago during a row after a man tried to chat up his girlfriend. Mugshot: Jon Venables, aged ten, poses for police in 1993 Mr Brown insisted this morning that he understood public anger over the iconic murder but said it was right not to lay bare the details of the recall. 'What we are talking about is a totally abhorrent crime that happened some years ago but that still, rightly so, disgusts and offends the British people and I can rightly understand the public outrage, even after so many years,' he said. Keeping quiet: Gordon Brown today as he also refused to reveal why Jon Venables is back in custody 'But the public know that we cannot comment on individual cases that are going through the system and I think the Justice Secretary explained the particular constraints in this case. 'What matters here is that the justice system is allowed to run its course and that justice is done, whatever wrongs are committed. The justice system must be allowed to take the action that is necessary. That is what people would expect and that is what is going to happen.' Suspicion was growing that Venables had returned to violence, which raised fresh doubt over the wisdom of releasing the two murderers in the first place. Last night, it was claimed the 27-year-old had been recalled after attacking a work colleague. A source told the Daily Mirror that the pair grappled before others intervened and pulled them apart. More... DAVID WILSON: Why we must be told the truth MAIL COMMENT: Jon Venables - open justice and a family betrayed His alleged victim is said to have made an official complaint about the attack which led to Venables's suspension from his job. And it was alleged that in December 2008 Venables was arrested by police after being seen taking cocaine in an alleyway with another man. It was claimed he was later let off with a caution. The Ministry of Justice refused to comment on the claims today. Distraught: Denise Fergus, Jamie Bulger's mother, in Liverpool yesterday The Bulgers have led condemnation for the move to put the human rights of James' killers ahead of his parents. His father Ralph said the decision to hide the truth is a 'disgrace' and 'one more kick in the teeth for James and his family'. Justice Secretary Jack Straw fuelled the mounting anger yesterday by refusing to be drawn. He insisted it was 'not in the public interest' to reveal how Venables breached his parole nine years after he was controversially released from custody. Yet hours earlier, Home Secretary Alan Johnson had declared on TV that he believed 'the public do have a right to know'. Mr Bulger added: 'From day one, everything has been done to protect the human rights of Venables. 'He was given a second chance, unlike my son, but he has blown it and now he deserves for those same human rights to be revoked and for the Government to reveal all. My biggest fear now is whether another child has been killed and another family is going through the hell we live with every day.' On her Twitter page, James's 42-year-old mother Denise Fergus wrote: 'Would like to let everyone know Jon Venables is where he belongs tonight behind bars. Is this my son's justice?' She added today: 'I've always said that there are more good people then bad in this world and the messages I' still receiving proves it. Thanks to everyone x.' A spokesman for Mrs Fergus confirmed that she had not been informed of the reason for the recall. 'The decision to inform Denise that Venables is in custody, without telling her what he has done, is very callous and insensitive. 'Denise agrees with Alan Johnson that she and the public have a right to know what Venables has done, and what his punishment will be.' Murder: James Bulger (left) and Venables' accomplice Robert Thompson (right) As few as eight officials were said to know the precise reason why the killer has been returned to jail, although ministers privately briefed the Tories and Liberal Democrats to explain what had happened. Venables and Robert Thompson, who were freed with new identities in 2001, were just ten when they snatched two-year-old James in a Liverpool shopping centre and battered him to death in February 1993. Both killers were given compulsory life sentences for the murder but were released after serving just eight years in custody when they won a human rights court battle. In a terse statement on Tuesday night, the Ministry of Justice said Venables was recalled to prison after breaching the terms of his release. Mr Bulger, who was divorced from James's mother two years after the murder, said officials had called at his home in Merseyside hours earlier to break the news about Venables. 'Without a doubt he is back where he belongs but he should never have been let out in the first place,' he said. 'I always said that the judges and politicians who let James's killers go free had his blood on their hands because they just didn't care enough about the precious life of my little boy. 'Our legal system danced on the grave of my innocent son without a hint of shame or compassion by letting these murderers go free. Now their actions have come back to haunt them.' In memory: James Bulger's grave in Kirkdale Cemetery, Liverpool Few details are known about Venables since his release but he is believed to have been involved in several aggression-related incidents. In 2007 unconfirmed reports suggested Venables was to marry a pretty office worker he started dating two years earlier. He was then taken to hospital for emergency surgery after violence flared in the street when a man tried to chat up his girlfriend. In 2003, both Venables and Thompson were believed to have been treated to a holiday at taxpayers' expense to keep them safe on the tenth anniversary of the toddler's horrific death. But Venables's attitude was so bad that frustrated police minders threw him across the bonnet of a car - and threatened to leave him chained to a lamp-post in Liverpool to teach him a lesson. The row over the public's right to know why Venables has returned to prison was stoked by confusion and farce at Whitehall yesterday. In an early-morning television appearance, the Home Secretary said more details would be released. Mr Johnson told Sky News: 'I believe the public do have a right to know and I believe they will know all the facts in due course. But I must in no way prejudice the future criminal justice proceedings.' The last remark appeared to break the Government's code of silence by implying that Venables faced a possible court case. Mr Straw was then sent out to try to clear up the mess. He said: 'I'm sorry that I cannot give more information at this stage on the nature of the alleged breach. 'I know there's an intense public interest in why he has been recalled. I would like to give that information but I'm sorry that for good reasons I can't and that's in the public interest.' In a later TV appearance, Mr Straw appeared to hint that Venables had committed a criminal offence. Image of horror: CCTV footage of James being led away to his death He said: 'There was information that suggested conclusively that there had been a breach of Jon Venables' licence conditions. As a result of this the appropriate and timely action was taken. 'Breach covers quite a wide range of possibilities but you don't get taken into prison for a breach of your licence conditions unless you have done something inappropriate or wrong.' Tory backbencher Douglas Carswell warned that failure to keep the public informed would lead to 'mob rule'. He said: 'How can people have confidence in the criminal justice system? Venables will face a hearing of the Parole Board within 28 days of being recalled, where the details of the breach will be examined. These hearings are normally not open to the public. He is being represented by London-based-human rights solicitors Bhatt Murphy - who declined to return calls yesterday. Last year only 79 prisoners on life licence out of a possible 1,400 in the community were recalled to prison. A senior probation source told the Mail: 'You don't recall a prisoner after 16 years of very expensive rehabilitation unless it is something serious.' The source said that the chances of Venables 'remaining undetected' whilst in prison were 'very small'. 'Hitherto there were only a handful of people involved in his care: a probation officer, a senior probation officer, a police officer and someone at the Ministry of Justice. 'Now he is in the prison service the likelihood of him becoming compromised has increased significantly. He will almost certainly need a new identity when he is released.' Eight years of pampering, then a new life By MICHAEL SEAMARK At the time, the decision by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson to remain voluntarily in secure children's units for an extra six months after their release order was interpreted as a fear of freedom. But given what they were leaving behind, who would blame them for their reluctance to leave? During their eight years of detention, they lived a life of comfort and expensive rehabilitation, cookery lessons and trips to watch Manchester United. Coming from broken homes and dysfunctional families, they enjoyed an education far better than most of their contemporaries. Many, not least James's family, were furious that Venables and Thompson were freed without ever spending a day in an adult prison for the shocking murder. Draconian legal injunctions giving them anonymity for life were put in place when the pair were released in 2001. THE £5.5M BILL The Bulger case is already estimated to have cost the taxpayer £5.5million. Here is the breakdown: Police investigation: £500,000 Murder trial (prosecution and defence costs): £1million Time killers spent in custody in secure units: £2.5million Setting up and maintaining new identities for Venables, Thompson and families: £1.5million Each was given a new identity, backed up passport, birth certificate, National Insurance documents and NHS records. Bank accounts and credit cards were set up under their new names. They were coached in their cover stories and given elocution lessons to lose their Liverpool accents. Years of preparation had gone into the boys' release, with personal tutors mentoring Venables during his stay at Red Banks Children's Home, a former approved school at Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, only 13 miles from the Bulger family home at Kirkby. Thompson was nine miles further towards Manchester, at Barton Moss, near Eccles. While serving his sentence, he began letters to friends: 'It's Bobby here, live from the five-star Hotel Barton Moss.' He had his own room - with TV and PlayStation - in the modern, 20-bed complex, with the use of a garden, gym, games room and computer room. Thompson, who developed an interest in textiles and design, won praise for a beaded wedding dress he made, as well as a tapestry of a lion's head which hung in the foyer. He passed five GCSEs and took A-levels, was taken on supervised days out to shopping centres, the Lake District and the theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon to get him used to the public. For Venables, life at Red Bank - once home to child killer Mary Bell - was even cushier. His regime included a bigger and better room than other inmates - decorated with Manchester United wallpaper and complete with computer, games and a TV. He could ride scramble motorbikes in the school grounds, enjoyed regular family visits and took trips to Wales and a swimming pool in nearby Wigan. Every month £25 was put into his account for clothes, £6 for toiletries and £4 for a haircut. For each birthday he received £30 and for Christmas £40, rising to £60 once he was 16. Before his release he was taken with his father to Old Trafford to watch Manchester United play - ostensibly to get him used to being in large crowds and try to reduce his fear of being recognised and attacked. Since their release, the legal injunctions mean the public know little about the lifestyles of either Venables or Thompson. When not working, both are entitled to benefits to ensure neither drifts back into crime. Both see probation officers at least four times a year and officers are on call 24 hours a day in case either needs help or advice. In 2003, both were reportedly treated to a holiday at taxpayers' expense to keep them safe on the tenth anniversary of the toddler's horrific death. But Venables's attitude was so bad that frustrated police minders threw him across the bonnet of a car - and threatened to leave him chained to a lamp-post in Liverpool to teach him a lesson. In 2005 there were reports that Thompson was addicted to heroin and was being prescribed the substitute methadone to wean him off his habit. The following year, the Daily Mail revealed that he was gay and had been given permission by his probation service 'minders' to live with his homosexual lover, who was aware of his past. In 2007 unconfirmed reports suggested Venables was to marry a pretty office worker he started dating two years earlier. He was taken to hospital for emergency surgery after violence flared in the street when a man tried to chat up his girlfriend. In another, unprovoked attack, he was seriously injured and reportedly went to a hospital on Merseyside for treatment - although he is banned from returning to the scene of his crime without permission. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255274/James-Bulger-killer-Jon-Venables-sent-jail-drugs-workplace-brawl.html#ixzz28DGSylKW Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Bulger killer 'accused of sex offence' as Straw admits allegations are 'serious'

Bulger killer 'accused of sex offence' as Straw admits allegations are 'serious' By STEPHEN WRIGHT UPDATED: 20:39 EST, 6 March 2010 Comments (234) Share One of the killers of James Bulger is facing 'extremely serious allegations' after being recalled to prison, Justice Secretary Jack Straw has admitted. Jon Venables, now 27, has been taken back into custody after breaching the conditions of his release. Justifying his decision not to disclose details of the recall, Mr Straw said: 'Our motivation throughout has been solely to ensure that some extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done. 'No-one in this country would want anything other. That is what the authorities remain determined to do.' He spoke amid claims today that Venables had been accused of committing a sex crime. The Sun newspaper claimed it has uncovered the 'exact details' of the alleged offence, but said it was unable to publish them in full for fear Venables' new identity would be revealed. Today the Daily Mail revealed that Venables worked for years as a nightclub bouncer despite his violent past. He was employed by a firm which provided door staff at clubs and concerts. His bosses had no idea he was one of the country's most notorious killers and were happy to hand him the responsibility for ejecting troublemakers from a series of venues. In addition, he was able to dodge the vetting process which is aimed at stopping serious criminals from being employed on the door. The revelation that the killer worked in a trade where dealing with brawls and confrontations is commonplace will raise further questions about the handling of Venables's case since he was released from a secure unit nine years ago. He was recalled to prison last month for a breach of his licence but ministers have refused to reveal what prompted the move. More... 'They're always going on about protecting them... but there's no one to protect me': James Bulger's mother speaks AMANDA PLATELL: Why are a child killer's rights more important than ours? Last night, in her first full interview since the news of the recall, James Bulger's mother told the Daily Mail of her anger over the official refusal to tell her why Venables, who murdered her two-year-old son with accomplice Robert Thompson in 1993 when both boys were ten, is back behind bars. Denise Fergus, 42, said she was the victim of a 'massive cover-up' and said: 'If this hadn't been about to leak into the papers, I don't believe they would have even told me he was in prison. 'It hurts me to think that someone else might have suffered at Venables's hands in the process. I feel so angry about it.' James Bulger's mother Denise Fergus, left, and her two-year-old son. He was killed by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson in 1993 According to informed sources, Venables's hand-picked probation officers were fully aware of his occupation. One source said: 'Venables found the job himself and was quite clever about doing work which did not require him to be the subject of Criminal Record Bureau checks. 'The company he worked for provided security at nightclubs and events. 'So long as Venables had no contact with children, probation officers were happy for him to continue in the job. He worked for the company for three or four years.' It is not known if Venables, who was given a new identity when he was released from jail in 2001 after serving eight years, was still working for the firm when he was recalled to prison. But in recent years, recruitment procedures have been tightened up to ensure that people with a history of violence do not become bouncers. Led away: Security footage shows James hand-in-hand with one of his killers at a shopping centre in Liverpool It is illegal for anyone to work as a 'door supervisor' without a licence from the Security Industry Authority. It is thought that Venables may have sidestepped this requirement - and with it the vetting process - by working under a slightly different job title. In order not to breach an injunction which protects his anonymity, the Ministry of Justice will not disclose why Venables is back in custody. Claims that he was involved in a fight with a colleague and had a long-standing drink and drugs problem have been dismissed. Privately, sources have described the reason for his recall as 'shocking', prompting speculation that Venables may have been violent towards a child or woman. The reason is thought to be so serious that it is unlikely he will even be considered for release for at least a year. Following his recall to prison, sources believe it is only a matter of time before Venables's cover is blown, leaving the Home Office with no option but to create a second new identity at an estimated cost of up to £250,000. Officials will provide Venables with another new name, National Insurance number and passport when and if he is released. Venables's accomplice, Robert Thompson, now 27, is gay and is believed to be in a long-term relationship with a man who knows about his past.

James Bulger killer moves in with gay partner

UK James Bulger killer moves in with gay partner (karma: 5) en>fr fr>en By BlackJack Comments: 1235, member since Mon Nov 14, 2005 On Mon Mar 27, 2006 07:06 PM In 1993, the world was shocked when two Liverpool boys, aged just TEN, murdered two year old James Bulger by abducting him from a shopping centre and battering him to death on a railway line. They were locked up but released 5 years ago with completely new identities.

But it has been revealed that one of the killers, Robert Thompson, now 23, is gay, and has been in a relationship since his release.

But he had to TELL his boyfriend that he was one of the Bulger killers when the relationship got serious.

Not surprisingly, his lover left him but he is now in another relationship. In 1993, Britain was shocked when 2 year old James Bulger was murdered by two ten year olds - Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. They were locked up but released 5 years ago with completely new identities so that no-one will recognise them. But it has been revealed that Thompson, now 23, is gay and has been in a relationship. Despite having a new identity, Thompson had to TELL his boyfriend that he is one of the Bulger killers - Bulger killer's 'gay lover' By TOM REILLY ROBERT Thompson, one of the killers of toddler James Bulger, has moved in with his gay lover, it was claimed last night. The 23-year-old is reported as being in a “long-term relationship” with a man he met following his release from custody five years ago. At first, his partner was unaware of his gruesome past, sources claim. But when the relationship became serious, he revealed that he was one of the killers of two year-old James. He had to tell his partner of the murder to meet the strict conditions of his release, which force him to be honest about his past if he forms close relationships. In 1993, he and his friend Jon Venables abducted James from a shopping centre and led him across Liverpool before torturing him and then battering him to death on a railway line. Detectives in the case believe Thompson thought up the plan to kidnap the toddler and was more violent than Venables. The two killers were aged just ten at the time. Thompson now has no regular access to children. Murdered ... toddler James Bulger Sources close to him say he is now in a settled relationship with another man. They also claim that he has been living with his lover — whose age is not known — for several months. The killer was not previously known to have been gay. It is believed that Thompson, who lives at a secret location in North West England, has settled back well into the community and is NOT considered a risk to the public. Since the two killers were released after serving eight years in child detention centres — the public have not been allowed to know much about their lives. The pair cannot contact each other. And Thompson was given a new identity, including a name, passport and National Insurance number. A High Court injunction protects his new identity. The child killer has received huge financial support from taxpayers through the Home Office and Probation Service since his release. He is allowed to claim benefits to stop him turning to crime when he is not in work. He also has access 24 hours a day to probation officers if he needs advice. While in custody, he was encouraged to develop an interest in textiles and won praise for a wedding dress he designed. Thompson was held at a detention centre in Barton Moss, near Eccles, on the outskirts of Manchester. Venables was locked up at the Red Bank Children’s Home on Merseyside. It was just 13 miles from the home of James Bulger’s family in Kirby. The cost of keeping the pair in secure units was around £150,000 a year — making the total £2.5million for their total sentences. A spokesperson for the Home Office refused to comment on the revelations about Thompson. She said: “We do not discuss individual cases such as this.” thesun.co.uk

Free Jon Venables and he will harm children again

Free Jon Venables and he will harm children again James Bulger dad's warning on killer By RICHARD MORIARTY Published: 25th June 2011 THE father of murdered toddler James Bulger last night begged authorities not to release killer Jon Venables — warning he will once again target children if he is freed. Grieving Ralph Bulger, 42, hit out as a parole board met to decide whether Venables should be released after serving just half of his two-year prison sentence for possessing child porn. Ralph accused authorities of IGNORING a sexual element in little James’s murder, and slammed them for LOSING vital papers that could show why Venables is still a danger. He warned that Venables, now 28, WILL reoffend and will target kids if freed. Ralph said: “The authorities just do not wish to face the reality that Venables’ recent sex crimes are related to his original murder of James. Ignored “Documents that show the sexual element of James’s murder have been destroyed and not made available to those considering releasing Venables. “They say they no longer exist but we have offered copies to them and they declined. How can they make a proper decision without all the facts? “There is a clear child sex offence link to the murder of James and Venables’ recent offending. If Venables is let out now he will target children again. “I just pray that the parole board finally see the truth — that Jon Venables is and always was a predatory sex killer who will never be changed. He will always be a danger to children which is why he must be locked up for life.” Solicitor Robin Makin said Ralph submitted “a lot of material” to the parole board that released Venables in 2001 from his sentence for murdering James. Killer ... Jon Venables Mr Makin said: “Astonishingly, the parole board have no records, so the proceedings ten years ago amount to nothing. “The Ministry of Justice don’t seem to have been able to locate those papers, so we’ve had to start again.” Ralph believes the missing files include documents detailing his belief that there was a strong sexual element to James’s murder. Those concerns were dismissed, but Ralph said Venables’ later arrest for child porn proved they should not have been ignored. He believes Venables’ confession that he was “thrill-seeking” when he downloaded the porn proves he has not been reformed. Mr Makin added: “The explanation Venables gave was that he was seeking the ‘ultimate thrill’. Ralph’s concern is that he is really seeking to relive something similar to the original murder.” The solicitor said previous reports on Venables were “fundamentally flawed” because they wrongly assumed there was no sexual motive to James’s murder. He added: “The problem is this — the authorities, because of their liberal agenda, don’t really want to see Jon Venables for the person that he actually is.” Victim ... little James Bulger Venables and pal Robert Thompson were ten when they abducted and murdered two-year-old James on Merseyside in 1993 in one of Britain’s most notorious crimes. The killers spent eight years in secure juvenile units before being released on licence in 2001 — with new identities — after experts claimed they were no longer a danger. Venables was returned to prison last year after being caught with child porn on his computer. Ralph spoke out after making an emotional victim impact statement to the parole board via a video link at Liverpool Crown Court. James’s mother Denise Fergus did not attend the hearing, but submitted a written statement instead. A Parole Board spokesman said case files were destroyed after nine months because the Ministry of Justice has a master copy. The Ministry said it had provided all the information and evidence requested by the head of the parole board panel, including key documents from the original hearing. The parole board is due to give its decision on Venables in ten days. r.moriarty@the-sun.co.uk Murder ripped my soul out RALPH Bulger yesterday made an impassioned plea to the parole board to keep Venables in jail for life. In a highly emotional impact statement, he said: I feel like a totally different person now and I will never again be who I was before. They ripped my soul out when they killed James and they killed a piece of me. Now I don’t want anyone to know who I am and how I am feeling. James was adorable, a really cute child whom everyone loved. He was very mischievous, like a lot of kids, but he had this pup that he adored. Gone ... James Bulger is taken from shops He was a normal, loveable kid getting his first taste of life but he had that stolen from him. When James disappeared I thought at first that he’d be OK as it was only kids who had taken him. When I found out I didn’t know how to tell my wife. How do you tell someone something so horrific? There was no way of putting it. I never got to see James’s body because he was so badly mutilated. Everyone thought it would destroy me — “cabbage” me. My brother Jimmy identified him and that’s stayed with him forever. Nightmare We couldn’t have an open coffin because they bashed his skull in. I remember carrying his white coffin, it was one of the hardest things that I have ever had to do — every parent’s nightmare. I’d always wanted to remember James as he was the last time I saw him alive. But even that was denied me because I can’t get rid of the images in my head after I was told what they done to him. I think James must have been crying for me, but I wasn’t there for him. When I saw Thompson and Venables at the trial I felt pure hatred, like I’d never felt before in my life. But I also felt bad that I hated two kids that much. Pain ... Ralph Bulger with Denise in 1994 I wanted them to get life and it was so hard to sit there while they were laughing in the dock about killing James, sniggering about what they had done. I believe they knew what they were doing, because my daughter knew what was right from wrong when she was four years old. They decide to smash his skull, take his pants off and drag him on to the rail track because it would sever him in two. When they got released it was a victory for the murderers and a knife in the back for me. There were no rights for James. His only right was to be murdered. I thought we’d get justice but we didn’t. The State failed us and let James down. All I saw was the offenders getting the best of everything when my son was dead. It was like the State was saying, ‘Go out murder a child and we’ll look after you’. It’s hard waking up every morning knowing you have so much hate inside, thinking what those boys did. But they are not boys anymore. They are men who will continue to hurt others. It’s like a cancer that eats away at me. I can’t stop it because it’s my son that was murdered. I loved my son so much and they ripped him away from me. mpu When the pressure got too much I’d drink myself stupid. I didn’t realise at the time I was just slowly killing myself. I am not an educated man but I still have feelings. I still bleed and I still love. I can’t understand why this has happened. I wish this had never happened but I can’t change anything. What the killers did made me the way I am today. I don’t like this person but I have to live with it. I find it hard to have fun with people, knowing my son was killed as he was. I put on a smile, but it’s false. People don’t always know what what I’m feeling, but I know what it’s like inside and it hurts. I wouldn’t want anyone else to feel like this. Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3658266/Father-of-murdered-toddler-James-Bulger-warns-on-killer-Jon-Venables.html#ixzz28DArg3lR

RIP James Bulger

Born 16 March 1990 Murdered 12 February 1993

A Father Driven To Suicide

A father was driven to suicide by rumours he was one of James Bulger's killers, his distraught mother has claimed. Scott Bradley, 36, was accused of being child murderer Robert Thompson, whose real identity is protected, and suffered months of malicious abuse and torment from a hate mob in the village of Garlieston, Wigtownshire, in Scotland. Mr Bradley, who moved to Scotland seven years ago, left a heartbreaking suicide note which read: 'They called me all sorts - a paedophile, a follower of young girls, walking around bullying old people. 'The list is endless. And I’m supposed to be a child killer.' Now his mother Sue, who found her son dead at their home on Sunday, has described how the last 12 months of her son's life became a 'living hell' after the hate mob spread the rumours that he was Thompson, now 29. Sue said: 'My son was tormented by the allegations. He had a good heart and didn’t deserve this. It’s been heartbreaking. 'He kept saying ‘I’ve had enough, I’m going to kill myself’, but I didn’t believe him.' The rumours are believed to have begun after a local playwright wrote a fictional play last year about Robert Thompson moving to a remote coastal village in Galloway. The play, Village of the Damned, proved so controversial that playwright Des Dillon was interviewed by police. In June this year it was revealed Dillon was negotiating the rights to turn it into a Hollywood film. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186431/Father-killed-hate-mob-wrongly-accused-James-Bulger-child-killer-Robert-Thompson.html#ixzz28D8I8zaf Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Mr Dillon said: 'The police come talk to me and keep asking me who’s it about. 'It’s set in a fictitious village with fictitious people.' James Bulger's mother Denise Fergus said she was 'shocked and upset' to hear of Mr Bradley's death and claimed he would still be alive if the identities of Thompson and Jon Venables were not a secret. Mrs Fergus said: 'What happened to Scott makes my blood run cold. 'I’m shocked and upset that he has apparently taken his own life. 'Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, this is one that shows how dangerous it is to spread false rumours and gossip about something as serious as the identity of child killers.' She said: 'Sadly Scott’s death goes to show it is other people who are left to suffer as a result of the official conspiracy, lies and deceit that the authorities have used in this case.' A Dumfries and Galloway police spokesman said Mr Bradley's death was not being treated as suspicious. Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were just 10 years old when they abducted James Bulger from a shopping centre in Bootle in February 1993. The pair walked the toddler several miles to a railway line in Walton, where they tortured and killed him, leaving his body on a train line where it was hit by a train. The two-year-old's body was found two days later. Thompson and Venables were convicted of murder and served eight years in prison before being freed in 2001 and issued with secret new identities to protect them from vigilantes. Venables was recalled to prison in 2010 after downloading child pornography. He is set to remain in prison indefinitely for his own safety after revealing his true identity. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186431/Father-killed-hate-mob-wrongly-accused-James-Bulger-child-killer-Robert-Thompson.html#ixzz28D9GSRcz Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

James Bulger - A Father's Story (full)

Unforgiven: The boys who murdered James Bulger 2/5