What was the Trial of Venables and Thompson like in November 1993?

 What sources have I used? 

For this, I have once again used the source https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/james-bulger#The%20Trial, dated from 2018. This source is extremely reliable because it is updated when new material comes to light, meaning that the details  used are up to date and reliable.

What have I learnt from the source?

• on 22nd February 1993, both boys appeared at South Sefton Magistrates Court in Bottle to face the charges. Both enter a not guilty 
• there is a crowd of 300 outside and they riot when the boys arrive and when they leave. There is a decoy van sent out, which begs the question of what the crowd would have done if they got hold of the defendants. As a safety measure, the trial is relocated to Preston, and on the 1st November 1993 the trial begins at Preston Crown Court. 
• Denise Bulger refuses to come to court, as she is adamant that she won't sit in the same vicinity as James' killer. 
• The boys have now reached the critical age of 11, which means that they can be convicted of murder. However, the Jury needs to know that the boys understand the level of severity of their crime. To conceal their identity, they are referred as Child A and Child B. 
• An injuction is enforced so that the press cannot release any details about the boys. 
• It is revealed, that on the 12th February 1993 at roughly 12.30pm the boys attempted to kidnap another boy. A woman is said to have heard Venables and Thompson say "We'll take one of those". 
• Venables did mention in his police interview that they intended to kidnap a child and throw them in the path of a car/ lorry / bus in order to make it look like an accident. 
• This reveals that the 2.5 mile walk completed by the boys, taking roughly 1hr 15 mins was fully planned. 
• the prosecution called 38 eyewitnesses to the stand. 
• The prosecution wanted to make it explicitly clear that the jury didn't need to rely on Venables and Thompson's version of events. 
• One witness, Malcolm Walton, claimed he saw a child matching James description near the Leeds and Liverpool Canal in a distressed state. Another witness, Irene Hitman also claims she saw James at 4.40pm in the same area but with large lumps in his head. She remembers telling Venables and Thompson to take the boy home. All eyewitnesses who took the stand blame themselves for not intervening. 
• The forensic evidence submitted to the jury is vital and clear:
• Graham Jackson who was a Home Office forensic matched James blood to that on Child B's shoe, which gave an error rate of 1 in a billion. 
• Phillip Rydeard who was another forensic was able to match the bruising on James face to that of Child A's shoe. 
• Light-blue paint-marks had been discovered on James’ anorak, hair, shoes and underpants. The same light-blue paint-marks were also found on Child A and Child B’s clothing including their jackets, trousers and shoes.
• Andy Mulley, a forensic scientist, told the jury that a paint mark on Child B’s sleeve might have been James hand-print.
• Even with the overwhelming amount of evidence, the police are scared the jury will find them guilty of manslaughter. 
• After 3 weeks of evidence, the jury are asked to deliberate a verdict. After 6 hours they return a guilty verdict. 
• Mr Justice Morland sentences them to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure for a "very, very long time"
• Before sentencing, he says that the killing of James Was "an act of unparalleled evil and barbarity". 

Where Next?

From this, I will look at the nature and nurture debate of both boys, examining if it is due to the nature or nurture debate which caused them to behave the way they did.