True Crime All The Time - Jon Venables and Robert Thompson

Episode Date: February 7, 2022

Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were child killers who abducted and murdered 2-year-old James Bulger. Thompson and Venables were only 10 years old at the time of the murder, making them the youngest convicted killers in Britain. This is a case that rocked Britain and shocked the entire world.Join Mike and Gibby as they discuss Thompson and Venables and the infamous murder of James Bulger. Robert Thompson had a tough childhood and there were allegations of abuse. Jon Venables grew up in a much more stable family but had problems with anger and was known as a bully. This tragic case brings up many legal and ethical questions about children who commit violent crimes. You can help support the show at patreon.com/truecrimeallthetimeVisit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation informationAn Emash Digital productionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello everyone and welcome to episode 269 of the True Crime All the Time podcast. I'm Mike Ferguson. And with me as always is my partner in True Crime, Mike Gibson. How are you? I'm doing good, man. How about you? I'm doing real well. I've been hitting the indoor cycle hard.

Yeah. I've been, you know, doing some lifting. I've been trying to eat better. So I'm really trying to stick with this, you know, New Year's resolution, lose some weight before CrimeCon. Like, so you doing the triathlon or the Ironman? And can whatever soon? Yeah, I don't think that's going to happen.

But, you know, just trying to hold off father time just a little bit. Well, it all makes a difference. It does. Everything you do makes a difference. Hey, let's go ahead and give our shoutouts. For Patreon, Chelsea S jumped out at our highest level. Hey, Chelsea. We had Angela Warren.

What's going on, Angela? Shannon Kennedy. Hey, Kennedy. Rebecca Jackson. What's going on, Rebecca? Catherine Ryan. Hey, Catherine. Angela Harbula.

Harbula. Christopher Bell. What's going on, Christopher? Paula Legg. Hey, Paula. Denisea Salamovic. Hey, Denise. Brandon Cox jumped out of our highest level.

Well, thank you, Brandon. Sweetest Melissa jumped out of our highest level. Well, the sweetest Melissa of all. J.C. Salas. What's going on, J.C? Mark Turner. Hey, Mark. Claire Godin.

Hey, Claire. And last but not least, Dr. 107. Well, thank you, Doctor. So we appreciate all that new support. And then if we go back into. to the vault. This week, we selected Renee Crawford. Hey, Renee, appreciate that.

Yeah. We appreciate the new and the continued support. For PayPal, we had a happy birthday shout out to our good friend Katie O'Connor. Hey, Katie, happy birthday. Yeah, so really sending positive vibes out to Katie. We had donations from Millie McTeague. Hey, Millie. Katrina Wasakowski.

Wasakowski. And Jenny Robinson. Hey, appreciate that, Jenny. So Gibbs, right now on true crime all the time unsolved, we have a case out on Kyron Horman. In 2010, seven-year-old Kyron disappeared from Portland, Oregon. Very well-known case. Yeah, and a case that has been heavily requested.

Sure has been. On unsolved, much like the case we're getting ready to do on TCAT. Yeah. You know, these two cases that we're putting out this weekend are two of the most requested cases that that we've had. Speaking to TCAT, buddy, are you ready to get into this episode of true crime all the time? And I am ready. We are talking about John Venables and Robert Thompson. And we mentioned it, right? The murder of two-year-old James Bulger is a case familiar to millions around the world in February 1993. Two 10-year-old boys kidnapped James from a shopping center

and murdered him. The arrest and subsequent trial were shocking and devastating to the entire country of England. I think the majority of people Gibbs believe that John and Robert never received proper punishment for their crimes. I think that's pretty evident when you kind of research this case and you look at forms and comments, which we do. We do when we're researching. But I also think that the case of Venables and top. Thompson leads to a number of questions, right? Legal questions, ethical questions, should children be tried as adults?

What types of incarceration are appropriate for children who commit violent crimes? You know, do children have the capacity to fully understand right from wrong? And if so, at what age? And who makes that determination? Well, I think this has been a, you know, forever type of debate. Yeah, it's a debate that, you know, you see in a lot of cases going back many, many years. So Robert Thompson and John Venables were child killers who abducted and murdered two-year-old James Bulger. They were only 10 years old, making them the youngest convicted killers in Britain.

Robert Thompson was born on August 23rd, 1982. He was the fifth of seven children. Robert grew up witnessing his father, fifth. physically and emotionally abusing his mother and siblings. According to Crime and Investigation UK, Robert was beaten and molested by his father. And his father abandoned the family in 1988. His mother was devastated. She became depressed and turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism. It was reported Gibbs that Robert's siblings regularly beat him at home. So there's a lot going on here. And, you know, we see this in a lot of cases that we do.

One of Robert's former neighbors spoke to the documentary team for Unforgiven, the boys who killed a child. She described Robert as a normal little boy who got up to mischievous activities occasionally, just like many other boys his age. She said nothing really seemed evil about him. Robert and his neighbor's son like to skip school together. they went shopping they also liked to play on the train tracks her son was one of robert's few friends in school and sometimes the boys roamed around till after midnight okay you know we got to dissect that a little bit

we already know that they were only 10 years old at the age they killed right so we have to believe that it's 10 or younger that this woman is talking about you know them roaming around the neighborhood, the train tracks, you know, until after midnight. Yes, I mean, you're talking what? Younger ages, like if you're seven, what, your second grade, you're out, second, third grade roaming around? I don't know, especially out after, you know, after it was dark out. Yeah.

It's something that I think a lot of parents would have an issue with, all parents, really. Now, she said she looked for them, but she didn't want to call the police because she didn't want social workers to come to her house. Robert's attorney later estimated that he missed half of his education because of truancy. Well, that says a lot, though, right? If you're not in school and if you're not getting a routine, that's when people get in trouble, right? You try to keep kids busy, right? If you don't keep them busy, they could find themselves into some trouble. Well, we're talking about half the school year, each year, each and every year, half the school year, he's not there. Yeah, kids are going to get into trouble if, you know, left up to their own devices for long periods of time.

Now, John Venables was born on August 13th, 1982. It was said that his parents were just normal middle class people. He definitely grew up with significantly more money than Robert. John's parents separated, but they tried to maintain a respectful relationship. According to crime and investigation UK, John's mother suffered from psychiatric problems, and she occasionally complained about feeling overwhelmed by parenting. I think there's a lot of parents out there that get overwhelmed. It's a tough job.

It is a tough job. I think at many points in time, it can be very overwhelming. Now, John had no official record of violent behavior, but he was known in school for bullying other children, sometimes violently. John had just transferred to Robert's school from another school. He moved because of his bad behavior. Teachers reported that he ran around the classroom, pulling down other students work, you know, off of the wall. He hid under his desk, stuck paper to his face. cut himself with scissors and even tried to choke a boy with a ruler.

Now, my wife's a teacher. So I hear a lot of stories when she comes home. I don't know if I've ever heard someone acting up this badly from her, you know, in one of her classrooms. But I think the big thing gives was that this new school for John was supposed to be a fresh start. He had acted out at his previous school. He had gotten in trouble.

Okay. We're starting fresh at a new school. John and Robert became friends really during the first few months that John was there at the new school. So we got two trouble kids coming together to join forces. And we've heard that story before. And it very rarely ends up well. Now, obviously it's not going to end up well in the stories that we do because we're talking about violent crime. But just in general, you know, I think when you have kids who get

together who, you know, kind of have similar interests and those interests are, you know, towards the darker side. Yeah. Okay. What are the chances are that they're going to delve into some of those darker issues together? Chances go up, right? Right. James Bolger was kidnapped from his mother in a shopping mall in Boodle, Mercyside on February 12th, 1993. We mentioned to Gibbs. He was only two years old. One month away from turning three, he was the son of Ralph Bulger and Denise Fergus, formerly Bulger. John and Robert skipped school on February 12th. And they went to this shopping center. They stole several items, including some blue paint from different shops.

They had been there for a few hours. By the time Denise and James arrived, Denise took James to the shopping center to run some errands. Now, normally she put him inside a shopping cart, but that day she didn't. Denise was inside a butcher shop with James. She let go of his hand to pay the cashier. And Gibbs, when she turned around, James was gone.

Every parent's nightmare, man. It is. It is. you know, we hear this in some stories. It always takes me back to the Adam Walsh case, right? They're in the, the Kmart or the Sears or whatever store it was. I, I always forget, but, you know, he's an aisle over. He's playing with something.

You know, these are experiences that all parents have. Can any parents say that they've held their child's hand every, you know, second of every day? no no you're looking at something your child wanders off okay you say something to them come back sometimes you know when they're just an aisle over you know where there are you you saw them they're playing with something but the next thing you know you can't find it and and like you said every parent's nightmare your heart sinks oh yeah most people find them but for that period of time however long it is it is it is

is terrifying. It's happened to me on numerous occasions. Same here. It feels like forever. Denise looked for James outside briefly and then ran straight to the security office to ask for help. According to the CCTV footage timeline, James most likely wandered outside within about one minute of letting go of Denise's hand. See, that's the other thing. People don't realize how quick little kids can be. Oh, they're quick. And things happen very quickly. Robert and John happened to be outside of the butcher shop at that exact moment and they saw what to them was an easy target. They grabbed James by the hand and lured him away. Now there are some differing accounts depending on what source you find or what source you look at.

You know, there are some sources that say Denise left James outside for four or five minutes. minutes while she went into the butcher shop. But the majority of the sources seemed to report that he was inside the butcher shop with her. So I went with that. Yeah, I mean, he is a two year old. I can't imagine too many parents letting a two year old hang outside of a store by themselves. But this is something to point out, right? It's something that you and I experience week in, week out as we're researching these cases. You look at a lot of different sources, reputable sources, and sometimes they are very, very different in what they report. So to me, you kind of have to go with the majority of sources, say X. Security footage shows two boys leading James out of the shopping center on February

12 at 3.42 p.m. They took him two and a half miles from the shopping center to the railway line at Walton Lane, Liverpool. Most of the journey was either captured by CCTV or seen by witnesses. And CCTV footage comes up a lot. I'm actually kind of surprised that back in 1993, they had this much CCTV. Yeah. We know today it's everywhere. It's ubiquitous.

It's even in here. Yeah. Well, I have to keep an eye on you for sure. But it did kind of surprise me that they had so much there that they were able to capture a majority of, you know, not just there at the butcher shop outside, but them walking. John and Robert walked James to the canal near the train tracks. Robert made James Neal and look into the water. According to his later confession, he hoped that James. would fall in. James cried and fell on his head at the canal. One witness saw James crying there at the canal. CCTV footage shows the boys pulling, dragging, and kicking James along the rest of the way. James appeared to be distressed. I don't think there's any doubt. He was resisting these boys. He was crying. And he already at that time had visible injuries. Yeah, he was hurt. But still,

The boys with him passed shops, traffic lights, cars, churches. So they were seen, right, by a number of people. One person even stopped and confronted them. But everyone who saw James assumed he was with his brothers. I just thought these were just bad kids, man, treating their brother terrible. Yeah, or as brothers do sometimes. I mean, you can look at it a bunch of different ways.

it's kind of hard to think that these people could have even imagined what these two boys were going to do. And obviously, if they did, you know, you would think they would have stepped in. John and Robert eventually took James to the train tracks in Walton Lane. They kicked, they beat, and they stoned James until he died. It was also said that they threw blue paint into his eye. Gibbs. James had. James had. many injuries that the pathologist couldn't identify, you know, one single fatal blow. And it was noted that both of these young boys switched kind of, um, the leadership roles during this heinous act. So wasn't one following the other. They both were leading each other on it. Yeah. And it seemed like

they were both in it together. And then lastly, they weighed James's head down with bricks and and left him on the railway tracks. And later, a train struck James's body before the police could find him. It's all horrific. It's absolutely horrific. I'm sure there are even more details that we could go into. I don't really want to. You know, in this case, it's tough enough.

You know, the whole stoning thing is an ageal way of torturing people. And killing people. And killing people. and it's very brutal. It is. I think about these two young boys making the decision that they're going to kill this much, much younger boy. Well, how are they going to do it?

Let's say they don't have a knife. They don't have a gun or anything like that. So they're going to use their legs, their hands and whatever they can find and, including stones. Yeah. But I know everyone listening, you know, it is so tough to think that a couple of 10-year-old boys can consciously make the decision that, okay, not only are we going to kill someone, we're going to kill a two-year-old boy.

Yeah, man. It's brutal. I'm just trying to, you know, I'm thinking, what, fifth graders, two fifth graders, around that time frame or doing this type of thing. Yeah, give or take, fourth grade. I don't know what grade they were in. Detective Phil Roberts, who worked in Merseyside's serious crime squad, received a call at 6 p.m.

About a missing two-year-old boy who had last been seen at the New Strand Shopping Center. Inspector Jim Fitzsimmons also took on the case. He analyzed CCTV footage. I mentioned it, right? It's 1993. I was already surprised that they had the amount of, you know, CCTV coverage they did. But it's not surprising to learn that the footage was grainy, right?

Cameras back then, not even close to what we have today when it comes to clarity and and all of that. But from the grainy video, Fitzsimmons estimated that the kidnappers were boys somewhere between the ages of 14 and 16. So he was a little off, right? He thought they were older. than what they were. Now, maybe some of that comes from the fact that he would possibly have a hard time thinking

these were kids even younger than that. Well, I think so. I think he probably looked at that grainy video and said, all right, they look like kids. They've got to be at least some type of teenager, right? Yeah, not 10 years old. And then just hope that he could find a better video, something a little more clear. And one store owner called and told him that he had. CCTV footage from his parking lot showing three young people together. Fitzsimmons watched it,

and that's when he realized that the perpetrators were much younger than he had originally thought. Gibbs, they had over 100 detectives out searching for James. The police appealed for any young people to come forward with information. But James's body was found two days later on February 14th, on the track. in Walton Lane. James was spattered with blue paint and his head was surrounded by bricks. The pathologist identified multiple serious injuries to his body. And so they could tell that he had been killed before the train hit him. Bricks and an iron bar were found at the scene and were presumed to be the murder weapons. James's clothing was removed. And I think that, I think that

led Gibbs to police theorizing that he'd been sexually assaulted. Now, psychologists later reported that there was no sexually deviant element to the murder. Dr. Susan Bailey, John psychiatrist, confirmed that he never indicated any sexual motivation to the crime. But I think that would be very natural, right, for police to develop that theory, given the fact that his clothes had been removed. Yeah. The police interviewed about 60 young people. On February 16th, they arrested a young boy, but cleared him after an interview. But the community, just based on the fact that they hauled this boy in and interviewed him.

Wasn't so forgiving, were they? No, they were outraged because they believed this boy was guilty. And you have to think about this community in any community where a two-year-old boy is found murdered, everyone is going to be upset and they're going to be looking for someone to blank. It got so bad with this boy and his parents, though, that they were forced to leave town because of all the threats of violence against them. And that's terrible. Obviously for this boy who it turned out had nothing to do with this crime. But I think it shows you, I don't know if I want to say the mob mentality, but the level of outrage in the community, they were looking for someone to hold

accountable. And because this boy was brought in, they thought, okay, police must have had a reason to do that. Yeah, to bring a kid in, they must have had enough on him. Yeah. And to interview him and all that. Scary, though, if you think about it. That your whole life could change in an instant just because the police want to talk to you. Yeah. Even though, you know, you end up cleared, you didn't have anything to do with it. It is a scary thing. All right, Gibbs.

Let's take a quick break to talk about bombas. Bombas mission is simple. Make the most comfortable clothes ever and match every item sold with an equal item donated. So when you buy bombas, you're also giving to someone in need. Bombas design their socks, shirts, and underwear to be the clothes that you can't wait to put on every day. Everything they make is softs. soft, seamless, tagless, and has a luxuriously cozy feel. And that's because they use super soft materials like marino wool, Pima Cotton, and even cashmere. Bomba's is known for their socks.

And there's a pair of Bomba socks for everything you do. They come in tons of options and all of them are amazing. But they also have T-shirts, underwear, and they make some really incredible slippers. My whole family are wearing these slippers right now as the weather is cold. don't sleep on those socks underwear and t-shirts are the three most requested clothing items at homeless shelters that's why bombas donates one for every item you buy so far bombas customers like you have helped donate over 50 million items of essential clothing go to bombas dot com slash teacat and get 20% off any purchase that's b o m b a s dot com slash teacat for 20% off bombas dot com slash teacat the police then received the tip from a woman in the community who recognized the boys on the security footage as John Venables and Robert Thompson.

She told the police that these two were troublemakers. So police started checking school records and noticed that the pair were absent when James was abducted from the shopping center. Robert and John were arrested and taken in for questioning on February 18th, 1993. So things are moving pretty fast. Yeah, I think things moved quickly, basically based on, you know, all of this footage that they had. Without that, would it have moved as quickly? I don't know, because then I think you would have to have relied on eyewitnesses. Maybe somebody would have come forward and maybe not.

But, you know, the camera doesn't lie. And once that footage is shown, okay, how hard is it going to be for someone in the community to say, hey, I know those two boys. Right. Yeah. Detective Sergeant Phil Roberts interviewed both boys. He knew that he had to interview them because of the tip. But again, Gibbs, he never suspected that 10-year-old boys could be capable of such a horrific act.

And how hard would that be to interview 10-year-old boys? And try to pin them down thinking that they committed this murder. But let's go back to that idea. of getting over that hurdle that, okay, could these 10 year old boys have done this? Are they capable? I think for many that that's a, it's a tough hurdle to get over.

You think about your own kids at the age of 10. Nobody thinks that their children would have been capable of something like this. No, man, you think of playing ball and, you know, fishing or whatever. You don't think their mind is set on hurting

another individual to any level, yet alone this level. Or even capable of coming to that conclusion that, hey, this is something we should do. Yeah. I think it's one of the really mind-boggling aspects of this case. Not only should their mind kicked in and said, we shouldn't be doing this from the get-go, but the fact that their mind never kicked in during the process that they just kept going, that they fed, you know, they fed on it instead of saying, hey, this, this, this, This boy's really hurt.

We need to stop. This is not right. Another detective released some enhanced images of the boys and pleaded for the public for information about them. He didn't even realize that they already had the killers in custody. Again, just speaking to the fact that, you know, I think police had trouble wrapping their minds around the fact that these 10-year-old boys could be the culprits. Now, when interviewed, Robert and John B, you know,

both denied being near the shopping center. But the police later found their fingerprints on the store's front windows. The manager had also seen them playing in front of the window. Additionally, Robert Thompson lived just a few hundred yards from the rail station where James was found. According to the son, Detective Roberts described Robert Thompson as street smart and clever. He said he was trying very, very hard to con me. Man, a 10-year-old.

A 10-year-old. Con the detective in the interview room. He said he would cry whenever there would be an awkward situation to avoid answering my questions. Detective Roberts set him down and told him that he needed to ask him about James's murder. That's when Robert began to panic. He started to cry. But the detective said that no tears came out. It was in Robert's second interview that he had.

that he admitted to kidnapping James, but he blamed John Venables for everything. He said he told John to take the baby back. Detective Roberts described the interview to real stories as like pulling teeth. He said everything was step by step. He would lie. He would admit things. Then he would lie and then he would admit more things. When John's attorney arrived at the police station, he was sure.

by how young his client looked. And I can understand that, right? You're an attorney assigned to help this boy. You get there and you're like, this is a 10 year old kid. Yeah. And he's being accused of this. It was said that John lied during his first few interviews. He denied being at the shopping center at all.

But when the police told him that Robert said he was there, John did finally admit to being at the shopping center. But he insisted that he never grabbed a child. John later said he was afraid to tell the truth because of what his parents' reactions would be. But when his mother told him that she would love him no matter what, that was when John finally told the truth. You needed that to step up, huh? Well, let's face it, most 10-year-olds are afraid of their parents' reactions in a lot of situations. we're talking about knocking over a lamp and breaking it.

Okay, you're scared to death. What are my parents going to say? I'm going to get in trouble. Gibbs, we're talking about killing a two-year-old baby. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

What are my parents' reactions going to be about the worst possible reactions that you can ever imagine? Yeah, they're not going to be happy. John finally said, I killed the baby. I'm very sorry. Can you tell his mom, I'm sorry. You imagine hearing that from your kid.

No. Finally coming out and saying that he did what the police have already said, they believe he did. And you're just like, how can my kid do that? Why would my kid do that? Well, and let's face it, as a parent, you would be devastated, devastated for the loss of, you know, this two-year-old's life, but also devastated that the boy you raised was the perpetrator.

Now at this point, Robert still denied murdering James, but the police found blood on his shoes, indicating that he had kicked James in the face. According to the son, Detective Robert said of the two boys, as far as I'm concerned that day 20 years ago, I stared evil in the face. I think Thompson was in charge, but they both attacked James. They were a match made in hell, a freak of nature. They went out that day to kill. I truly believe that. And if they hadn't been caught, I fear they would have struck again. Pure evil.

I will never change my mind about that. So it's powerful. It is powerful. You know, this is a detective that interviewed them, sat with them, listened to them. Very close to the case. Very close to the case. He's being interviewed, you know, many, many years later. And there's no doubt in his mind that.

These two individuals he talked to were pure evil and that they would have killed again. He didn't veer from what he thought early on to 20 years later. He still believed that after all that time. Robert and John were moved to separate secure facilities to await their trial. Now, one fact about British law is that if the boys had committed the murder at age nine, they would have been considered under the age of criminal responsibility and could not have been tried. or punished. It's a little scary too, right? That somebody could have did this exact same crime at 10 years old and been like, you know, wash your hands of it. Can't do anything. There's nothing we can do

about it. In 1993, the law the way it was assumed that children between the age of 10 and 14 did not always know right from wrong. So really, the biggest thing for the prosecution was that they had to prove that John and Robert fully understood that what they did was wrong. And that could be a big hurdle. If you are not attending school every day missing 50% of your education, I don't know. Maybe you don't really have a good understanding of what is wrong and what is right. Maybe you don't. You should, but maybe you don't. Yeah, I get what you're saying. I kind of think I lean more towards, you know, you learning right from wrong from your parents. Now, we know that one of the kids had a better upbringing than the other, but, you know,

I think you learn from both places. Yeah, I think you got to have some education, you know, from the school, teaching you some things. But also, yeah, it's important for the parents to always teach their kids. Especially right from wrong. Yeah, good morals. Yeah. What's morally right?

ethics, morals, all that stuff. But if you have shit parents, you're not going to get those morals. You might not. John and Robert's trial began on November 1st, 1993. The court ruled that they should be tried as adults. These are 10-year-old boys who are going to be tried as adults. Ralph Boulger attended part of the trial, but it was tough, as it would be for any parent. He had to leave after hearing part of the witness testimony.

and then he never was able to return to court. Yeah. You just don't want to hear the particulars. No, you don't want to hear how your child suffered. Denise didn't attend because she was pregnant at the time. And her doctors warned her that the stress of the trial could possibly cause a miscarriage. In total, the trial lasted 17 days, 13 of which were dedicated to following the journey from the shopping center to the railway station, The courts required all media outlets to refer to Robert and John as child A and child B.

So they were forbidden from publishing their real names. They also couldn't publish any photographs of them. Well, I get, you know, why they do that. Yeah, but this is different from country to country. And you and I have talked about this before, right? Canada has some really interesting laws about, you know, what can be published or they have in, you know, over their history. I think things have changed over time. But when you think about it, normally there are some type of restrictions, right, about publishing certain types of things about

minors. But I think at the same time, what's interesting is that the determination has already been made, that we're going to try them as adults. So papers, you can't disclose their names. Yeah. You can't publish their photographs, but we're trying these 10-year-olds as adults. Right. John's parents attended the trial and, you know, it was reported in all kinds of outlets, Gibbs, that they spent most of their time looking down at the floor.

Probably ashamed of what their kid did, I would hope. I'm sure. Robert's mother didn't attend. both boys fidgeted in their seats throughout the trial. Other times they cried. According to the guardian, John asked his lawyer to tell the court, would you please tell them, I'm sorry? And I think this was an incredibly tough trial.

You know, many of the witnesses cried on the stand. A lot of them struggled to even speak as they were giving their testimony. I think it would be one of those courtroom experiences that if you could skip it, you would want to skip it. You wouldn't want to be in that corner on that day. Nobody would want to have to do any of that. The prosecutors painted Robert as the ringleader, basically saying that he led John on. They also presented evidence that both Robert and John tried to abduct another boy before abducting James. A witness referred to as Mrs. Z testified about how the boys tried to abduct her son.

She took her son and his little sister to the shopping center at noon on February 12. She was looking at sweatshirts and her children were playing near her. She saw Child B, which we know to be John, holding a purse in the next aisle. He froze up when he saw Mrs. Z approach him. She paid for her clothes. She thought her children were behind her. But when she turned around, they were gone. She found them near the purses and brought them back.

but they ran off in different directions. The third time her daughter returned alone and said her brother ran off with two boys. Mrs. Z left the store and saw her son following two older boys. Now, she said she thought it was harmless fun, but she noticed how they were persuading him to follow them. When one of the boys saw her, he told her son to go back to his mom. So I'll ask you the question, Gibbs, how scared or how traumatized would you be if you were this mother knowing what then later happened to

James Bolger? Very traumatized. Very. And if you were that child, years later, you hear this story and you hear that they attempted to persuade you to come with them, that could have been you. again, you know, that would be traumatizing. You avoid it a very bad situation. Yeah, I don't know how you could look at it any other way.

One witness said they saw James with a bump on his head being led away by two boys. A second witness was riding on a bus when she saw two boys swing James into the air. She said she expressed concern to the other passengers on the bus. A third witness saw the boys kick him. James in the arm. And then a fourth witness spoke to the boys and they expressed concern about James. This woman noticed a lump on his head and that he was struggling to get away. But like we mentioned before, Gibbs, no one intervened because they all thought James was with his older brothers. Is that a good excuse? Well, I think it's a great question and something

to talk about. Now, obviously, with hindsight, you would say, if you were any of these people, wow, I wish I would have done more. Well, of course, yeah. But in the moment, just think about it tomorrow. If you saw this situation, what would you do? Well, you would think, you would hope, me, whoever, if you saw that same scenario, you would grab those boys and say, nobody's going anywhere until we get this figured out. Something's going on here, right?

I get you. So where's your parents at? No, I absolutely get you, but now you've just grabbed young boys. Well. And you've detained them. Yeah. So, I mean, again, I'm just drawing out different scenarios. Could you be viewed as a predator yourself?

You could. Does that run through, you know, someone's mind? But if you see a kid in distress, and obviously there was a kid in distress. Yes. I mean, I think you kind of owe it as a adult to step up. You should step up. You see anybody in distress, but especially a child. Yeah, I just, I hate to put too much blame on these people because I really don't know how I would react in a certain situation.

Really, no one does until they're in that exact same situation. Yeah, and I agree with you. I'm sitting in this chair quarterbacking saying this is what I would do. And I think this is what everybody should do. But again, you're right. Those moments happen so quick, right? you drive by you see that and you're like hmm that didn't look right but then your day continues you move on you don't give it another thought unless you read in the paper one day that something

happened i think about the woman on the bus what she going to do she's riding along in the bus right you know asked the bus driver to stop so she can investigate you know i don't know i mean you can you can definitely come down on either side of that fence pretty easily the prosecutor argued that the boys interviews indicated a fluent capacity to tell lies. Each of them blamed each other before they confessed. Now, the defense's arguments centered around diminished responsibility due to the boys' age, but the majority of the news coverage at the time was really dedicated to the prosecution. I mean, diminished responsibility. What are they trying to say there? That these boys were too young to know right from wrong. Exactly. That's what they're trying to

They're just leading that jury in that direction. Well, and can you blame them? What else can they do? That has to be their main argument to try to get this jury to think that the boys cannot be held responsible because they were too young. Yeah. Well, and that's what you want. You're right. You've got to constantly hammer back at the jury that they're just little kids.

They're just little kids. They didn't know what they were doing. doing. The jury found the boys guilty on November 24th, 1993. They were sentenced the same day. Justice Morland declared the boys guilty of what he called an act of unparalleled evil and barbarity. And he recommended a minimum of eight years served in a secure facility. But he didn't stop there. He didn't blame the parents for the boys' actions. He said the home background, upbringing, family circumstances, parental behavior, and relationships were needed in the public domain so that informed and worthwhile debate can take place for the public good in the case of

grave crimes by young children. Beautifully said. Yeah. He also blamed horror films for influencing the boys. He called them video nasties. Well, I like a good oral flick. I do too. And you and I have talked about this before, right?

violent video games, horror movies, slasher films, things like that. A lot of us play them. A lot of us watch them. It doesn't cause us to go out and do bad things. I think it all begins with what you're taught at home, right? Your moral responsibilities, what's right, what's wrong, followed up with education behind it. Most people, majority of the people, are not going to go out and do bad things. No, I think it has to be a combination of a whole bunch of different things, right?

It can't just be a violent video game on its own. It can't just be a, you know, a horror movie on its own. There has to be other factors and influences. That's my opinion anyway. But the justice said easy access to gore and violence could have influenced them to commit the violent act. There were rumors floating around that the boys had watched Child's Play 3 on that day, on February 12.

But this rumor is kind of fascinating, right? Obviously, you're talking about a horror film. We're talking about Chuckie, though, who was a doll. Right. A very small doll. Yeah.

So, you know, I think people probably make the correlation that, you know, if this was true, okay, we're little kids. This is a little kid, you know,

you can kind of put the pieces together of what they're trying to say. Sure. Justice Moreland chose to name the killers after sentencing. That's a big step. It is, and he did receive a lot of criticism for this because it meant that they would likely get new identities after they were released. The boys went to separate, secure accommodation facilities. The media were banned from disclosing their location.

Yeah, I'm sure that didn't go over well with the family members associated with these boys either. now that the names were out there because you're always going to have that some level of guilt by association. Well, absolutely, right? You brought these kids up. So people are upset with them. They're going to be upset with you whether you did anything wrong or not. Yeah, it could have been your brother, your sister, your mom, dad, uncle, whatever. You're associated. You're just as bad. The crowds who watched the cars driving the boys away shouted all kinds of things, kill them. hang them. I mean, people were outraged.

This was a brutal crime against a two-year-old boy murder. They definitely had the right to be outraged. But then years passed, and there really weren't, you know, many updates. When the boys were 15, media outlets began to speculate if they would be transferred to a young offenders institution, similar to, I guess,

what we here would call Juvie or Juvenile detention, Yeah. This ultimately didn't happen and they remained at the secure accommodation facilities. In England, children under 15 cannot go to prison or a young offender's institution. They basically have to go to this, what they call secure accommodations, which are run by local authorities. Now, it's still going to be a huge change for most children. It's kind of like a boot camp.

Yeah, I mean, they're going to have trouble, right, adjusting to this. life, it's a very strict routine. They do go to school, they eat regular meals, snacks, but they meet with psychologists and they're locked up at night. Family visits are allowed and encouraged. An employee at one of these secure facilities spoke with the Unforgiven documentary team. This guy said that despite the strict routine, the majority of the children in secure accommodation respond to treatment and then go on to live productive lives with extremely low reoffence rates. So I don't know why they say despite strict routine.

I think it might be because of strict routine, you know, because a lot of these kids didn't have any routine. That's why they got in trouble, which led to bigger trouble. I actually agree with you 100%. I think maybe a lot of these kids eventually respond well. Yeah. To having structure. And, you know, that plays a big part in their life going forward.

It does. but it was said that these facilities cost about 3,000 pounds per week per inmate. But officials have urged the public to think of it as an investment in the youth that will ultimately save money on future incarceration. And that would be true. You know, if the reoffence rate is low, if these things really do turn these kids' lives around. Well, look, prisons and juvenile centers, all that stuff.

None of it's a moneymaker. It's always going to be at a cost. Oh, you know, absolutely. But when it came to Robert and John, they were allowed some mobility outside of the prison. It was reported that at least once a week, they were allowed to leave the facility with either a parent or supervisor. In December of 1993, Lord Taylor of Gosforth increased the boys. minimum term to 10 years. So he increased it by a couple of years. What they get eight or eight or something like that? Originally. But it was reported that almost 300,000 people had signed a petition demanding that these two boys be locked up for life. So he compromised and said, I'll give him a few more years.

Yeah. And then less than a year later, Michael Howard, the home secretary, raised their minimum term to 15 years. But in 1997, his decision was. was overturned. Then on December 16th, 1999, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the boys did not receive a fair trial. Robert and John's attorneys both argued that the adult venue and the publicity ruined any chances they had of getting a fair trial. Michael Howard breached their human rights by intervening and raising their sentences. And because of this,

Robert received 15,000 pounds and John received 20,000. 29,000 pounds as compensation. So I get it, right? That the court ruled this way. I can't imagine that the public looked at that and said, okay, that seems fair. We just gave these boys a bunch of money. Yeah.

I can't see how anybody would look at that and go, good for you. No, they had to be upset. I would say, what did you guys do for the victim's family? Did you give them any compensation for what these kids did? to that family? Okay, so the minimum term for the boys had jumped around. In October of 2000,

Lord Chief Justice Wolf announced that the boys' minimum term had expired. They would be released in 2001 after their 18th birthdays. He said the facts of the crime were horrific, but their age was one overriding mitigating factor. They would not be sent to a young offender's institution because the corrosive atmosphere would undo all the progress they made at the secure facilities. So basically, they were supposed to do eight years. They were 10 years old.

They're going to do eight years and be released when they're 18. The news reported that Robert had done well in the secure unit. He showed an interest in art. He took advanced high school courses. In 2000, top child psychiatrist, Sir Michael Rudder stated that, if John were released, the risk would be what he called trivial because he received extensive rehabilitation. At the time, Venables was seen as being more rehabilitated than Robert because he had shown remorse. According to the unforgiven documentary, John Venables fully admitted his guilt in 1995.

Robert refused to speak to a psychologist until she agreed to write down only minimal. notes. He didn't really show any type of remorse for what he had done until about 1998. It's a long time. It is a long time. Psychiatrics declared that they had both worked hard in their studies and didn't show any violent behavior at the secure facility. And this really was the first time that the public had received any type of updates about their progress because we mentioned it, right? The media had been banned from. a lot of things. One of those was discussing their rehabilitation or even printing photos of the boys passed a certain date. The pictures taken at the time they were charged are the only images that the media was allowed to release. So this Lord Wolf, he had to take all this evidence into, you know, account. Then he said in his ruling, because of their behavior, they are entitled to a reduction to eight years, which happened. And, he said, in his ruling, because of their behavior, they are

entitled to a reduction to eight years, which happens to be the figure determined by the trial judge. On October 29, 2000, so this is not long, right, after the judge made this ruling, Ralph Bolger threatened to hunt down the killers when they got out of the facility. He told a number of news outlets. Something's got to be done about it. We can't just stop now and let these two little animals get released. I will do all I can to try to. Try and my best to hunt them down. Dad wanting vintage. Yeah. And again, I understand the anger.

Now, can you threaten to kill people? No. No. You can't do it. But after all these years, that anger is still there, right? It hasn't subsided. Yeah. He's not like, you know, I hate them, but I'm not going to touch them. Now, some people do. We've done stories where people say, oh, I have forgiven them. Yeah. I don't think I would be one of those people. Would I want to hunt them down and do bad things to them maybe i don't know if i was in that situation would i want to break the law no i certainly wouldn't broadcast what i well and what i was going to do yeah if you were going to do it would you

tell all the papers that you were going to do it no denise fergus told the guardian that she wanted to meet her son's killers she said i want to look them in the eye and ask them why i just want to know what they did it for and how they could be so evil as to do it to do it to a baby. Was it just for fun? I want to ask them before they are released if they think about James, about the life that has been taken away. This I understand. I completely understand a parent wanting answers from, you know, these killers that that took her little boy's life away. Why'd you do it? It's too bad that wasn't incorporated into the release, you know, like part of you being released is that you have a sit down and answer these questions.

On January 8th, 2001, the boys won a high court order to protect their identities for life. The judge said that she believed their lives were at risk if they were released without protection. This was the first order granted to protect the identities of adults. The media was barred from disclosing their new identities, addresses, even physical descriptions, and accents. Wow. They just couldn't say much about them at all. On June 23rd of that year,

the Bulgers were informed that the boys were going to be released after their 18th birthdays. Robert Thompson and John Venables were released from the secure facility in 2001 just after their 18th birthdays. The terms of their release required that they never returned to Liverpool, never reoffend and never contact each other. Now, from what I understand, Robert has not reoffended since his release. In 2006, there were some reports that Robert was in a stable romantic relationship with a man

who knew his true identity. But I don't know how factual some of this stuff is. A lot of this seemed to be rumors. He would now be, what, 36 years old. And his identity is protected by a worldwide injunction. And I read in one article, it said, even trying to find out his address could put you in jail. Well, it's a court ordered out there.

Despite the beliefs that Robert was the ringleader and the one who was most likely to reoffend, it actually turns out that John has been the one to get in trouble. He has changed his identity twice because he compromised his own identity by telling friends he was a convicted murderer. He's also been back to prison for serious crimes. In 2008, John was arrested for drunk and fighting. He received a formal warning by the probation service and was also given a warning for possessing cocaine.

Wow, is that a warning? Well, I guess it probably depends on how much you have, maybe. Maybe, yeah. Must be not caring the whole kilo. Yeah. But John was recalled to jail in March 2010. In February, he feared that his true identity had been discovered. So he contacted his probation officer.

The officer arrived at his address and told him to collect his things. John was caught trying to delete files and remove his hard drive. When officers examined his computer, they found over 1,000 images of children. These were inappropriate images, eight of which were said to have been level four, which is the second most serious level. So we're talking about child pornography. Right. Yeah. So most unfortunate, his rehabilitation didn't work, that he's doing those things.

Well, and to me, it's what he did. Possessing child pornography when you were the murderer of a two-year-old little boy, I mean, possessing it, period, is horrible. But what does that say about him on top of what he did? Well, in the fact that they found and John admitted to having a manual explaining on how to harm children, I don't know how you can ever explain that. Yeah, the independent reported that he told the arresting officers that he was, quote, breaking the last taboo. So again, you know, make of that what you will. He had already done one of the most horrible things imaginable.

the Ministry of Justice initially refused to release information about his arrest. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary would only say John was back in prison due to what he called extremely serious allegations. Other ministers said that if they released information, John may not get a fair trial. John's attorney argued that he possessed the images partly because of the abnormal situation of living under a fake name. and the constant fear of reprisals. Still don't know why that would be okay to have those type of images. Well, to be honest, that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Okay, yeah, you have an abnormal situation. You have it because of what you did, but how does that go hand in hand with the need for collecting child pornography? His attorney said isolation led him into a downward spiral of drinking and drug addiction. He tried to live a normal life. get a job, but he had to constantly lie. So he could never really form a close relationship. I get that. I assume all of that is true. Right. Again, there's a reason for it. Sure. You have to lie because you killed a two-year-old child. Yeah. That's not going to be a good

opener at a bar when you're meeting somebody, you know. And what does it have to do with the need to possess child pornography? I'm not, I'm not seeing the correlation there. No, they're blaming the fact that he was alone and couldn't have a relationship and was doing drugs and alcohol that. That's why he had the porn on his computer. Children porn. In July 2010, John pleaded guilty to downloading child sexual abuse images between February 2009 and February 2010, he admitted to distributing three photos in February of 2010 and distributing 40. and distributing 42 images in February 2008 to a convicted pedophile.

In these messages, apparently Gibbs, he posed as a mother who abused her own daughter. He's a troubled individual. Yeah, it was said that he offered to sell access to this fake child, right? There's no real child. He's making this part up. Sure. Then he broke off contact. John was sentenced to two years for download.

and distributing inappropriate images of children. He appeared via a video link that only the judge could access. He spoke in court only to confirm his name and plead guilty to the charges. So he went to prison. But by September 2013, the parole board recommended John's release. So then he got out. Yeah. In November 2017, John was arrested again for possessing more inappropriate images of children.

According to the mirror, John told the arresting officers, this is my own fault. I have let people down again. I have had urges, inquisitive. It won't be a slap on the wrist for me. Well, at least he recognized that. You know, it just always gets me what these people say. This is my own fault. Okay.

Who else's fault would it be? Exactly. You know, somebody else made me download child pornography. In February 2018, he was sentenced to 40 months in jail. In May of that year, lawyers for Ralph Boulger launched high court proceedings to have John Venable's identity disclosed. They argued that certain details of his life were easily accessible online, and he had violated the terms of his agreement by reoffending.

Now, what's interesting is that Denise Fergus argued that John should keep his identity private for what she said was to avoid vigilante justice. According to INews UK, she said, I understand the motivation for the application, but my concern is that if venables were known by his own name, it could lead to vigilante action and innocent people being hurt. Beyond that, I have no further contact to make. So to me, you have the father wanting this guy's name out there. Right. We already know, he said that. he would take care of him himself. Right.

But then you have the mother saying, no. If this is allowed, people are going to take the law into their own hands, not even the law. They're going to seek retribution against this guy. He's hated. They both are. Extremely. So on March 4th, 2019, the courts ruled that John would continue to live under a false

identity in order to protect him from serious violence. According to the son, the president of the family division said, my decision is in no way reflection on the applicants themselves for whom there is a profoundest sympathy. The reality is that the case for varying the injunction has simply not been made. Venables is uniquely notorious and there is a strong possibility, if not a probability, that if his identity were known, he would be pursued resulting in grave and possibly fatal consequences. I don't know Gibbs that this person was wrong. Yeah, I think it's a valid statement.

Yeah, I do believe it's a valid statement. You can make the argument, is it right or wrong? It doesn't change the fact that there probably would have been people who would have tried to go after him. Yeah. In August 2019, Ralph Bulger warned the public that Venables would be able to apply for parole soon. He told iNews.uk, Venables is up for parole anytime now. And if it's granted, he will be released into the community under a fake name and secret new identity. He is a dangerous predatory child abuser and killer.

And I'm terrified he will strike again and harm another child like. my James. This is where I think some people will have a huge problem with this fake name, secret identity idea, right, or construct. I get it. There probably would be people who would want to do this person harm. On the other hand, this person has shown to be a serial child pornography, sex offender, whatever you want to call it. Right. So how do you get on? the radar. Yeah. So do you want this person living next to you under a secret identity having no idea who they are? So, you know, these cases are not easy. And this is separate, right, from what he did to James Bulger. This is like, you know, his after release life. Yeah. It seems like sometimes

the protection of the guilty can end up doing more harm to the innocent. can. Yeah. It can. I think it's also kind of fascinating to see how different countries, different systems kind of handle these things. According to iNews.uk, John's most recent parole was expected to take place in October 2021, but the results of that hearing have not been released to the public. But there were a bunch of rumors in October 2021 that went viral. These rumors were that John had been murdered by convicts after attending a party in Wales. Now, these were eventually dismissed as not true because he was still in prison at the time. Denise Fergus spoke to the guardian in 2018. She and Ralph separated after James's death. Their grief caused a huge rift in

their relationship. And I think we see this very, very often. It is sometimes extremely tough. for the marriage to survive the death of a child and especially a brutal horrific murder such as this one. Yeah, I think it'd be tough to move forward sometimes on things like that. James's older brother, Michael, was born just after the trial. And it was said that Denise had a really tough time, right? Coping with the grief and trying to take care of a newborn baby. James Bolger would have turned 31 on March 6th. 16th, 2021. Denise keeps a large picture of him in the living room. Her three children all think of him as their older brother and the entire family still talks about him. Denise wrote a book about the case

titled, I let him go. And Ralph also wrote his own book in 2013 called My James. Denise said she wrote the book to bring James's memory back to life. She also said that she was tired of how the media only remembers him as a murder victim. She wants everyone to know that James was a happy little boy who always had a smile on his face. He loved to make other people laugh. You know, it's good to hear that. You know, a happy two-year-old boy.

She had some good memories of him while he was alive. And I get the fact that she would not want him solely to be remembered as, you know, kind of this tragic murder victim. Both Denise and Ralph were devastated, that Thompson and Venables were. allowed to be released and they have continued advocating for their son and other victims of violent crimes. Denise founded the James Bulger Memorial Trust, which offers free vacations and other rewards to people who are dealing with a loss, suffering the facts of a violent crime or the victims of bullying. If you're interested in learning more about her organization, you can visit forjames.org.

So Gibbs, as we wrap up this case, obviously it's a very tough one to do. I do think, you know, this is a case that brings up a lot of legal and ethical questions. Kind of talked about it right up front. You know, how do you treat or how should you treat, you know, young offenders who have committed horrific crimes at 10 years old? What is the right sentence? I don't have the answer. I don't have the answer for that. I think it's always going to vary at each situation. Well, it is, but, you know, as lawmakers do, they, you know, they kind of put down minimums and maximums and, you know, judges have to, a lot of times, kind of fall in with what the law is. Now, I think the parents of a murder child are always going to think, you know, it should be more. It should be more. They're not doing enough time. And I

completely understand that. And then, you know, you get into this whole thing of whether or not these two guys deserve lifetime anonymity. You know, it's almost as if, you know, here in the U.S., like they were in the witness protection program or something. Right. Exactly. But I think once you're into it so far, do you really have a choice to go ahead and release their names at one point? Well, I think a lot of people would make the argument that, yes, while they're minors. Okay. Anonymity. Once someone is an adult, do we have to protect their, you know, identity until the day they die? They're adults now. So, you know, I don't think here in the U.S. they would be afforded that. At least I don't know that I've ever seen a case here where that has happened.

Now, you take the identity of minors very seriously. Sure. Because, you know, There are repercussions around that. But are you telling me when these guys are 60 years old, they still have to be anonymous? Yeah, I mean, I don't think so. I definitely think John shouldn't be so for being a repeat offender. Yeah, for reoffending. That was part of the deal. I get that.

Robert seems to be doing fairly well from what we can tell. And then you're always going to have this question. You know, should children accused of murder? be tried as adults in court. You know, a lot of times when you're in the area of 16, 17, okay, I've seen those individuals be tried as adults. I think we've seen some 14 and 15 year olds as well. Sure.

I don't know that we've ever encountered someone as young as 10 being tried as an adult. Maybe I'm just forgetting about a case that we've done, but it's very young. Yeah, I think it's a hard thing. to even think about. But I will go back to, okay, they were tried as adults, but they didn't get an adult type sentence. No, they did not. So were they really tried as an adult?

Because, you know, over here in the U.S., if you're tried as an adult, let's say a 16-year-old and you get a life sentence, okay, you're going somewhere for two years. Right. And when you turn 18, you're going to big boy prison. Yeah. So. out the term. It's a much different deal, I believe.

I will say, I don't know that anyone has the perfect answer to all of these questions. I know I don't. Obviously, as we talked about, it varies greatly by country, by system. But I think what, you know, new cases, some of these older cases do, at the very least, they keep these conversations going. Right. Because laws change. evolve. And as the Bulger family, you know, have stated, the most important people to keep in mind

are the victims and their family. Yeah. Well, all I can say is I definitely would want to know if John was living in my neighborhood. I would as just John Q. Public. Yeah. But if I'm the parent of a murdered boy, I want to know where those perpetrators are. Yeah, both of them at that point. So I can keep track of them. I want to know that they're, you know, here or there or whether they're back in jail. So I don't know. I don't know. I'm not, I'm not, I try not to get too down on any one system because ours is not

perfect by any means. No. But I think it's valid to bring up the questions and talk about it and kind of, you know, kind of stoke the audience to think about it and talk about it. But that's it, Gibbs, for our episode on John Venables and Robert Thompson and the murder of James Bulger. We've got some voicemails. You want to check those out? Let's hear him.

Hey, Gibby. Hey, Mike. This is Allison calling from Singapore. I wanted to say thanks because I'm a kindergarten teacher and on the way to school and during my prep and on my way home. I have a blast listening to the two of you and your banter. Gibby, I think you're just the most hilarious person. I laugh out loud every time I listen to your episodes, and I think you guys are great. I just wanted to send some good vibes to you from across the world and hope you're doing okay.

I'm looking forward to hearing an episode on Adrian Lim, who is the only known serial killer in Singapore. Singapore kind of keeps its crimes underwrapped, so we don't hear too much about that in the news. And we do carry the death penalty here. so not just for murder but also for drugs trafficking so you better not bring your pot to Singapore anyway have a great day night whatever it is and keep your own time ticking man I missed those Singapore days I knew you were planning a trip back there so she gave you some good advice yeah yeah I'm not familiar with that case but it definitely sounds like we should look into it Hi, Mike and I'm learning English, so I apologize in advance.

I found your podcast looking for content in English. It's really impressive the work you do every week, and I'm super hooked on your program, so I want to congratulate you for your work. I take this opportunity to greet all my classmates from the official language school of Kalea. But not all are congratulations. I think it's time to talk about the case of the two bank employees who committed a multi-million dollar robbery and they are now the host of a well-known podcast you know bye bye

well this isn't too bad it was right up there with mine yeah i thought it was actually very very good so voicemail from singapore voicemail from spain we're pretty national yeah pretty awesome hi mike and give me this is rebecca calling for ideas and interesting i have to smile to myself congratulations on coming up on five years it's a really big deal and i hope you go on for another tea. All right. Love it. Love you. Appreciate the Garrett's popcorn. It's going over well. It was fascinating. Yeah. Fascinating. Interesting. You know, over the years, a lot of people have talked about me saying that word. I say it like three different ways. You do. Interesting without the tea. Interesting, which I say a lot. Sure. And very rarely do I say it correctly, which is

interesting. I don't like to say it that way. It doesn't sound right. Even though I know it is correct that's very interesting it is isn't it hi guys my name is kisi i am calling from woodland washington i just want to say absolutely like your guys podcast is one of my favorites i just got my mom to start listening to it just picking on patreon uh i listen to you guys all day while i'm decorating cakes and it's definitely a time for bye-bye and yeah you guys do a great job thank you for everything you guys do and all the podcasts you put out and yeah i can't wait for the next episode. I'm so excited with on Patreon to hear all the new episodes. So keep your own time checking. Have great a day, guys. All right. Love it. Love the fact that you made the decision to join

Patreon. Yeah. We have what, 41 episodes, I think. We just put out 41? I think so. Or 41st, Patreon only episode. Yeah. One of when we actually make, bake a cake and decorate at the same time we're recording. Yeah. Yeah. Figure out which one. Didn't turn out well. No. The cake or the... Either one. Either one. We had mailbag. Meredith Hagler sent you a pigeon. Yeah, a real pigeon. Not a real pigeon. A little stuffed animal pigeon. Based on, I guess, references we made in earlier TCAT episodes, I can't remember, other than me talking about the movie I liked,

um, private eyes where they use the, the homing pigeons to send messages. It could have been that. I don't know. We say so many things over the, I know. It's hard to keep track of it. Yeah. Ellen Lincoln sent me some Harley chips. And she sent you what she called man cookies.

Yeah. We're talking chocolate chunks, bacon, and potato chips, three of my favorite things. It's a give them a try. Yeah, we haven't had a chance to try them yet. But, I mean, how can they not be good? There's bacon. They look good. Yeah, they do look good.

Yeah. All right, buddy. That is it for another episode of True Crime all the time. So for Mike and Gabby. Stay safe and keep your own time ticking. Thank you.