James Bulger: Denise Fergus Shocker!
DISCLAIMER: A Journalist, at all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
This article is a review of books, news articles, television productions and interviews that are available in the public domain. The article leads to certain questions being asked about quotes that are made from the parents of James Bulger in their books and other sources. The horrific story of James Bulger has been told a number of times via the media. 1000s of articles and broadcasts can be found but none of them seem to go into any more detail than the story we all know so well. There have been many key-points overlooked by 100s of producers and publishers and these factors add more layers to the story, they raise more questions. Questions such as:
Q) Why did Denise Fergus not think much of someone calling her at her mums at least 30 hours after James was taken telling her they had her boy over and over again?
Q) Why did Ralph fear both himself and his brother Jimmy were being watched by secret services up to ten years after the killers had been jailed?
Q) Why did Ralph have concerns that a paedophile network had used the boys as decoys to take James without any blame falling on them?
Q) Did Denise Fergus know about Esther Rantzen’s alleged connection to paedophiles when they teamed up to bring vulnerable kids to the Red Balloon Learner Centre with access to a caravan site where bullied children can go with their family.
Q) Did Denise Fergus claiming in various news outlets that she had a tip-off with the whereabouts of Robert Thompson which she followed up on and located him saying she was close enough to see him, mean he will have been relocated and given a new identity at the taxpayers cost? Was he awarded compensation for this?
Q) Did Denise Fergus play a role in the closure of the News of The World after the phone-hacking scandal left Venables and Thompson eligible for compensation and were News of The World, or any other journalist, or outlet involved in obtaining/sharing information about the killers whereabouts that has led to them being relocated and given new identities?
Q) Did Ralph Bulger’s public declaration that he would hunt down Venables and Thompson consolidate their bid for anonymity and should Ralph have not made that statement which made it harder to win his bid to secure the release of their identity and wave their anonymity?
Q) Do the killers keep benefitting most from information leaks in the media?
Q) Did Merseyside Police investigate claims from a man on social media platforms stating he was James Bulger and he wants to speak to Ralph and Denise on Jeremy Kyle after a similar incident involving Heidi Robinson who claimed she was missing tot Katrice Lee in 2019 and received an 18-week prison sentence that was suspended for two years?
Q) Did James Bulger House Memorial Trust ambassador, Tina Malone neglect her child, Flame Chase, when she took her on a free holiday to Disneyland and only had one packet of crisp for her family for a number of days after appearing on television about her alleged identification of Jon Venables?
Q) Has Tina Malone cried fake tears in generated interviews so her fees can be donated to James Bulger Memorial Trust?
Q) How did very lapse security in Bootle New Strand miss 3 hours of the two boys in the shopping complex after they had allegedly already tried to take a child at least 180 minutes before James? Has Bootle New Strand’s role been overlooked in all of this?
Q) Was the video evidence of the first attempted child-grab ever shown in court?
Q) Why were the boys not connected to the incident earlier after they were reported missing on that day also?
Q) How come after 30 years, Denise Fergus suddenly declared that James Bulger was not sexually abused after a pathologist report had stated he was?
Q) If both the pathologist (found signs of sexual abuse) and the psychologist (Paul Britton said the killers never violated James) are correct, and James was sexually abused, but not by the boys, then by who?
Q) Is Denise Fergus sorry for the mothers of innocent people who have died after being wrongfully identified as one of James Bulger’s killers?
Q) Is it time for a public inquiry into the death of James Bulger?
“We’ve got your little boy”: James Bulger’s mum receives a strange call at her mum’s after leaving police station.
James Bulger’s story gripped the nation from the moment news broke that the toddler had gone missing from Bootle New Strand shopping centre in Liverpool.
Searches were made for James Bulger who had reportedly been taken by two young boys.
One strange thing happened that weekend that seems to have been totally overlooked at the time James was snatched.
Denise Fergus (then Bulger) had done all she can do to assist police investigations on the Saturday after James had been taken on Friday, February 12, 1993.
She went to her mother’s house (James’s grandmother) after leaving the police station.
When she was at her mum’s the telephone rang. This was a landline as mobile phones were not a part of everyday life in 1993.
It was Denise who answered the call to hear a voice calmly saying “We’ve got your little boy” over and over again.
Denise Fergus writes in her latest book titled, “I Let Him Go” how she then confronts the caller by asking who it is as they continue to stay calm and say that they had James in their possession.
Denise then claims how she thought nothing of it and put the phone down when she “realised it was a crank”.
Given this was just 24 hours after James had allegedly been snatched and she begged the nation to help her son return home safely, Denise Fergus did not think there was much to the odd call. To just put this down to being the work of a crank at the time is alarming to say the least.
Denise’s quotes are taken from an article that was made up of extracts from her book, “I Let Him Go”.
Denise then writes how after ending the call with the crank, she never contacted the police straight away but instead, she sat on the floor looking at her mum’s fireplace when the pattern changed into the shape of an angel with wings and that she took it as a sign that James had died.
It is a bit odd that the area near the place where James was allegedly found is in fact in the shape of an angel with wings is it not?
I am not sure if this is the book writer’s amplification of the reader’s emotion or if Denise is being serious here but the time she is talking about is 32 hours after James is alleged to have been taken by the two boys, Denise released this book in 2019.
In 2019 when Denise released her book, I Let Him Go, everyone knew that James is alleged to have been taken from Bootle Strand at around 15:30 on Friday, February 12, 1993. He was then taken to the railway lines behind Walton Lane police station. We are told he was subjected to a brutal and sexual assault that killed him as well as being dumped on train tracks to make it look like a train had done the damage.
This poses the question of why is Denise putting it in her book that maybe the moment James died was after she received a call on the Saturday, to say somebody had James? Again, I must point out this was over a day and a half after his probable time of death.
She asked the question in the book as if she was asking it in current tense. She said: “perhaps that moment was the very moment he went?”
Denise knew quite well upon release of her book that the Saturday night after James was taken on Friday afternoon, is not the moment he is alleged to have passed away. There have never been any indications that James is said to have survived any longer than 2.5 hours after being taken from Bootle Strand.
Poor Mum Denise Forgot James Had Been Taken
In another piece of book writer’s fiction or outright strange circumstances, Denise tells the reader how she forgot James was missing as news broke that a body of a two-year-old boy had been found on Merseyside.
A lot of the things that are said in these books are very unnerving, but Denise and Ralph also say a lot of things on camera that do not sit right. I want to go back to the moments James was taken and the hours leading up to the incident.
In the video below, Denise talks about how she still does not know if the boys had been in school at 9am and ran out, or if they were both off all-day. She then states how she does not know if the blame should fall on the school and truancy services. If you watch the video then carry on reading I will make a huge point about this statement and a few more as we carry on.
In her book, Denise writes how when James was very first snatched, she ran out of the butcher shop and turns left. She tells us how she ran to the security terminal which was the most logical thing to do and I agree with that statement (we will come back to this point shortly). Denise tells us how the security team put a message over the tannoy instantly. This means the whole shopping centre staff were all alerted, all security instantly aware. It takes seconds to reach the security area. Readers of “I Let Him Go” are then taken on a frantic search with James Bulger’s mum running into shops screaming that her boy is missing and asking if anyone had seen him. It is alleged that a shop assistant came towards Denise and said: “Don’t worry love, we have found him, he is on the second floor in such and such a shop”. Denise then claims she ran to the shop shouting “have you got my little boy”. We are told how the shop assistant said: “no but I think they have him two shops down”. This was two people who spoke of knowledge of the whereabouts of James instantly. Staff in Bootle New Strand were allegedly giving her information. Where did these people get this from?
During her panic, Denise speaks to a third person, a security guard who tells her: “Don’t worry love, he will be in Woolworths playing with toys, we’ve never had one go missing yet”. This was now three conversations (excluding the conversation at the security booth that triggered a tannoy call) with two different shop assistants and a security guard within the first frantic seconds of her search for James.
This is where I make my next massive point. Keeping in mind how in the video above, Denise does not mention Bootle Strand being held accountable in any way whatsoever but hear me out.
We are told that in the trail how the court found out how a lady had to save her little boy from being taken by the two killers after they were seen trying to lure her son away as he played outside another shop with his sister. Denise has told us in her book, how she spoke to various staff within the shopping complex in the moments after James was taken.
Let us add human nature to this. The mother of the first boy to ALLEGEDLY be approached by the two killers would have seen them try to take her boy and said: something like:
“What are you doing? Get the away from my kid! What are you playing at? Pack it in”.
She would have then looked for a security guard and told him how two boys, who should be in school, have just tried to snatch her little boy. Remember this was before James was taken obviously. This raises the next question. If what Denise says about how she spoke to various members of staff and security is true and it is also true that a little boy was also stopped from being taken by the killers. Then is it not plausible that the security guards should have known about the earlier incident and already been on alert and not said stupid things like James would be playing with toys in Woolworths? Or “don’t worry love, we have got him, he is in such a shop?”. The staff should have known and kicked them out or called the police.
This is in Denise Fergus’ book, it is not me making it up but I am not sure if Denise is not making it up.
The first alleged attempt to take a little boy in Bootle New Strand was at 12:30 in the day, so when James was taken at around half 3. What were the kids doing in the Strand walking around for 3 hours trying to snatch kids? What was going on with security? Has anyone ever shown all the 3 hours worth of footage of them in the Strand trying to take other kids? If this was a claim I want solid video footage proof of that incident too and it is not there I bet it never was. Denise states that she did the logical thing and ran straight to security when James vanished, it is the logical thing and I agreed with that earlier. So I beg the question. Did the mother of the first boy who was almost snatched not do the logical thing and alert security? Was this a factor in how the boys were allowed to roam around a generally small shopping centre for three hours stealing batteries and paint as well as sweets and other objects without being apprehended, or noticed by any senior staff or security within the whole of Bootle Strand? Two boys who you would have expected to be seen over a three hour period went totally under the radar even after trying to lure another boy from his mother. How old was that boy and who was the mother? The memory will have never left that mum and she will still remember it today. Very clearly too. Did the staff really make those comments?
Who was the child that the staff in the shopping centre said they had found? Why were they saying they had found a child who was astray from his parents? One child was actually taken, one was almost taken, and one was allegedly safe with store staff after going missing? This was adults who worked there saying they had confirmed they had found a kid who was being looked after by another adult in two other shops giving the impression that people had spoken to a toddler who had lost his mum and he was safe. Who was that kid and why did the people say that? Who was sharing this information? Was it all said during face-to-face conversation, or over walkie-talkies?
We are also told that the boys were hanging around in the Bootle Strand Shopping Centre for hours in which they were allegedly seen stealing various items. How were they seen stealing sweets without being reported to security? How were the police not notified instantly for theft, and the boys school for bunking off for the day? How did they steal batteries, a troll doll, and blue paint, all without anyone taking responsibility in Bootle Strand? How did James Bulger’s alleged killing even happen? How has Bootle Strand and members of staff gone without any scrutiny in all of this? We were told during the court case that 38 people saw James and/or the boys that day. 38.
If you listen to what she said in the video that we started this section with, you will be shocked to find out how Denise mentions a third snatch attempt involving the boys, two weeks earlier, when they allegedly tried to lure a small girl out of a school. What on earth is going on with this story and the things not only Denise says in her books and tv interviews but Ralph too in his? Pretty soon you are going to see how Ralph speaks about his personal fears that a pedo ring was using the boys as a decoy to hide the fact it was them behind it all. We also have Ralph saying how his uncle became known as the PC assassin and they feared they were being watched by not the police but SECRET SERVICES after Uncle Jimmy’s PCs blew up several times with hard drives totally wiped after he visited sensitive issues when researching James Bulger’s killers. Staff in PC world asked Jimmy if he was visiting websites that he shouldn’t. What type of websites were they getting at? We will get on to Ralph’s book shortly.
A big thing to look out for in cases like this are patterns and the next screenshot from Denise Fergus’ book shows a theme that has carried on throughout may cases involving children, No Stone Left Unturned.
No Stone Left Unturned is a phrase that has been coined by many grieving parents and sometimes dubious ones but all involving high-profile cases.
Here is one example when Madeleine McCann’s parents set up a charity for Madeleine less than two weeks after she allegedly went missing, the charity is called Leaving No Stone Unturned.
This seems to be a phrase attached to many tragic cases involving kids and it also points into the direction of paedophiles as we can see with both the Madeline case and that of James Bulger too but this is not mentioned much.
Here is David Cameron also declaring he will leave no stone unturned after accusations of child abuse from within Westminster.
Here we see how Denise also says the phrase in her book “I Let Him Go”, this is worth noting as we see it connected to so many cases and all cases pose serious questions that mainstream media do not highlight at all. Is leaving no stone left unturned a coded term? Is it a warning to paedophile rings? It seems like an overcharged phrase in such cases.
We are all aware of Madeleine McCann’s eye defect known as a coloboma which is the streak in her eye. Madeleine’s is very well documented but I found another missing child from England, Mary Boyle, who vanished on holiday, near her grandparent’s home in Donegal. She too has the same eye defect as Madeleine as seen in the image below.
Guess who else it seems had a Madeleine McCann and Mary Boyle style eye defect? James Bulger, as stated by his mother Denise in a 1993 Guardian news article. I have looked to see if I can find a streak in James’ right-eye, the same eye in which Madeleine and Mary have a streak, every picture of James is awful quality though and there is always a camera flash in his eyes, but that is Mary Boyle, Madeleine McCann and now this… Click the image to see the article that I archived in the Wayback Machine.
I am not sure if it is a coloboma or, streak, blemish or what but it is pretty uncanny to other stories we have heard regarding the description of a well known case of horror surrounding a Merseyside connected toddler.
We now switch from Denise Fergus book to Ralph Bulger’s, the father of James and things get very weird if they are not already.
We see how Ralph says he had initial thoughts about James being taken by a paedophile ring who had used the two boys, Thompson and Venables to entice James away from his mother without any suspicion falling on a child abuse network.
I would now ask any reader of this article who can remember the time James went missing and was allegedly murdered if they can relate to Ralph’s line of thinking that the boys had been used by a paedophile ring?
I doubt many people will have even had this thought enter their head so why did it enter Ralph’s?
The very odd claims come in Ralph’s book that was released in 2013, the book was called My James.
Ralph’s book then tells us how James’ uncle Jimmy had 5 computers disabled in 6 months and he had to take them all back to PC World who then dubbed him the PC assassin as well as asking if he had been trying to access sites he should not be after he alleges he was looking into sensitive information regarding Thompson and Venables.
Ralph goes on to say that to this day he and his brother Jimmy suspected they were being watched by Secret Services.
Imagine you are looking at images of Thompson or Venables on Google images and suddenly the screen “scrambles and becomes encrypted”, really? Is this what Ralph tried to tell readers of his book without expecting anyone to bat an eyelid? Seriously?
I find this all hard to believe, well I do believe it is possible it happened but It would not take a rocket scientist to beg the question of what exactly would Jimmy be being watched so closely by secret services?
Okay let’s analyse this statement. He is searching for sensitive information on the killers and his computer reacted to that in a way that he described? How? What web pages was he looking at for this to happen? Was it the dark web or something because I can’t imagine Google images suddenly encrypting themselves so was it an equivalent of Google images was back then? How would he even know what encryption is? Ralph said it was years later that his brother Jimmy thought his phone was tapped and internet services “constantly disrupted by some unknown outside force”.
I also find it very strange for a man who had suspicions he was being watched by secret services to also say he fears his child was taken by a paedophile ring who used Thompson and Venables as decoys. What did Ralph know? Is this suggestive of an international paedophile ring for such high-level surveillance. These books all seem highly cryptic. Is this embedded in disclosure? The incident with James was in 1993, mainstream use of the internet in the United Kingdom did not arrive in full-flow until after the millennium, so at what stage did uncle Jimmy get the internet and ruin 5 PCs over a course of 6 months? Why would the Secret Services be monitoring Ralph and his family at least 8 or 9 years later maybe?
That is not the only time Ralph mentions being watched by secret services in his book. Here we see how he claims he was passed a note by his neighbour who informed him that he had seen men in black suits breaking into Ralph’s home using lockpicks or maybe even a key. Why would secret services be secretly raiding Ralph’s home? What exactly is it that Ralph and Denise are telling us in the books?
The case was over when all of the books were published. We know the killers were found guilty of the most horrible crime my city has ever seen. The details of the story have horrified us all for over 25-years. Why did Ralph hold so many fears that he was being watched by Secret Services and more to the point why would they be watching him? The case was closed years before Ralph’s alleged high-level surveillance. Why were resources being put into watching Ralph and his brother Jimmy if the case was finished, the killers jailed, nothing more to see here surely? If Ralph’s claims that he and Jimmy were being tracked by intelligence agencies are true, then would the same be true of Denise? If so then would it not be a secret services tactic to put them in the public eye so much they manipulate events around them, friendships maybe? This would then generate what Denise and Ralph would see as connections that lead to television appearances, book deals and so on. Is the fact that Denise Fergus is such a public figure actually a tactic from intelligence services who have covertly monitored every move James’s parents have made since the death of their son? This could work other ways too, maybe Denise and Ralph are working with Secret Services who I pointed out are MI5, MI6 etc. It is Ralph who mentions them numerous times in his book, titled My James. Again let me show you how the Secret Intelligence Services website states that employees come from all walks of life. Did they have a lock pick to Ralph’s door or a key? Was Ralph living in an MI5 property?
This is from the MI5 website, you can click the image to visit the source directly.
Note how Jimmy said he lost 5 computers in six months. He said the hard drives wiped themselves and computers were stone cold dead, he was branded the PC assassin. He was also saying he felt secret services were doing it. In the image above we see MI5 surveillance tactics from their website. One of them states, Equipment interference, such as covertly accessing computers or other devices. Is this what was happening to Jimmy all them years later and if so, why?
How many people have read the books and overlooked these huge details? How many have made films, documentaries, or published news articles about the story and not questioned all of the factors listed in this article that you are reading now? These are outrageous claims and it is correct to question this level of information on such a public event when it is the various books, television shows, and documentaries that have constantly brought this issue up time and time again since 1993. Generating money, creating or counter creating laws, movements, trusts, events. We have never been allowed to forget the details of the James Bulger murder and it is now a commercial brand. James Bulger’s name has been commercialised by those who claim to have his memory at heart. But the questions that are unanswered remain in the pages of books from the same people, his parents.
Ralph and Denise Bulger’s Books: Australian holiday contradictions
Another event that stands out in both books is when Denise and Ralph spent six weeks in Australia at a time you would expect them to be putting all efforts into protecting, and bonding with their new son Michael.
Imagine packing your suitcases while your husband was at work, booking flights to Australia then going away for 6 weeks leaving your new-born baby with family after you have already lost two babies? Then going on national television and telling the nation how much she idolises Michael and never lets the kids out of her sight. He was new-born, he needed his mother! He was left for 6 weeks while Ralph and Denise lived what Ralph said in his book was “a normal life” for the “6 weeks” they were there.
It was the day they got back that Ralph left her and Denise called the police to report his car stolen after he had got off and the police came back telling her he was found in his back seat with someone. All I am doing is pointing things out in their own books that do not make any sense whatsoever. Watch the video and look at the book pages, does this make sense to you? I find the books highly weird.
Below we see Denise mention the holiday in her book and how she felt at not seeing Michael for so long. But we see another slight issue here also, because Denise does not say she was away for six weeks, she states it was just two.
Playing it down a bit isn’t it? How is there a full month missing? It confuses me how without Ralph knowing as he states in his book that Denise secured Ralph’s passport behind his back, booked flights, packed their bags, organised staying with the family in Australia, and organised for new-born Michael to stay with Barbara (who agreed with the plan) for the 6 weeks and got a car round to whisk them away when he got in from work. This is a mum who has just lost her child and in any normal walk of your senses would be going berserk with worry at the thought of leaving the country without him. How does a mother and father spend 6 weeks away from their new baby who was in the opening stages of a vital bonding period with his parents? How did Denise “organise the passports”? How did she attain his passport if, as we are t0 believe. he never had one and she organised them?
Denise Fergus states in “I let Him Go” holiday to Oz was only a two week trip not 6
Notice how Denise states about her only being away for two weeks twice. One time she says two weeks, and another she says a fortnight.
See two weeks?
Below we can see Denise Fergus, who was Bulger at the time, further confirms the holiday took place by stating it in her book as you can see below.
This is on her return after the holiday.
Ralph said in his book that they lived a rather normal life for the 6 weeks in Oz. He goes into detail. So, how does it happen that Denise states it was only 2 weeks? Was it a mistake? Was it a lie? Denise said she was clinging to the frame of the door as she had to leave. Would a little white lie about that time frame be enough to not have people question how she could leave new-born Michael for over a month? Denise has stated in numerous tv interviews and articles, how she never lets her kids out of her sight since that happened to James. She said in one interview she had to tell their school teacher that under no circumstances were they to have their phones confiscated under school rules because she needs a hotline to them at all times. All this is very well and said but how does going to Australia for 6 weeks but saying it was only two, play into the overprotective and traumatised mother role? Denise probably made the two-week claim without realising Ralph had already said 6 in his book. Ralphs book was released first.
Denise Fergus claims Ralph Bulger organsied the trip to OZ
We can see below how Denise then claims in her book that it was Ralph who organised the holiday and she repeats that she was only away for two weeks.
This is a side by side of Denise and Ralph’s book pages on how the holiday came to happen and who instigated it. See how far apart the stories are from each other?
Ralph was very specific in his book, stating he had no idea what Denise was plotting and he only found out when he got home from work that day and was told he was being taken to the airport and going to Australia.
He leads the reader to believe he was not mentally ready for this to be thrust on him so fast. He paints a picture of being sent through such an emotional whirlwind without any notice. He says things that let you know the way it happened, and the magnitude of going away in this manner had negative psychological effects on him.
How did Denise think it would be okay to go behind her husband’s back like this? what about his work? He arrived at home expecting his tea and was put on a plane to the other side of the world.
Any normal person would be happy with a fantastic surprise, but this was no normal couple at the time and post-traumatic stress levels would be high. Ralph states in an interview with Loose Women how he had no counselling about what happened to James. No phycological support. Why would any parent want to leave their new-born child in such a hurry given the scale of the whole situation surrounding the family and what is alleged to have happened to James?
Denise adds more emotion to the situation by saying “In all honesty, I couldn’t have managed any longer without Michael”.
This was in her book that was released in 2018, 5 years after Ralph’s book.
Whose lie is it anyway?
We have two books from two of James’ parents and they both completely contradict each other on these events. One of them is lying, who is telling the truth here? Who is lying?
You can see these statements in the top and bottom section of the highlighted area from Denise’s book. We now know that Denise was away for 6 weeks and not two so how did she manage to cope fpr an extra 4 weeks on top of the two she says was unmanageable?
This is when she switches the language from two weeks to a fortnight.
It is written in her book that the day they got back is when they split up. What happened on that holiday that made Ralph leave instantly as soon as they got back?
Denise states that Ralph went out as soon as they returned and never came back. She then claims that his car was missing (even though he was probably out in it) and she reported it to police who then came back and told her they had found the car, and Ralph, but he was not alone, and he was in the back seat. Denise should have known Ralph would be out in his car and not made claims that it was stolen to police. She states that the car was still there when he had left, how was the car still on her path when she looked outside before looking out again shortly after to see it gone, but the police found the car with Ralph in it?
I doubt the car was still on the path when she alleges she looked out the window, and right now, I have no reason to believe anything that Denise Fergus says.
This means Denise basically used the police to track down Ralph, and the information that the police then returned gave her grounds for divorce.
You can see it from the screenshot from the book below.
The get-up and go trip would have cost a fortune to book flights to Australia at such short notice. Did Denise raise money by having events that somehow escaped Ralph’s memory, or did they make money from the James Bulger Cash Cow? Hello Magazine will have paid a lot of money for the photoshoots with Denise and Ralph when she was pregnant with Michael and after Michael had been born. The Australia holiday may have been courtesy of OK Magazine either directly or from payments for these photoshoots. Denise and Ralph were awarded a sickening amount of compensation for what happened to James with the figure quoted being less than £10.000. You can’t put a price on the death of a child but was this part of the tabs being kept on Ralph, have him all over every magazine and newspaper in the country?
Ralph met his new girlfriend Eileen when he was near 28 and she was 18.
Denise met Stuart Fergus when she was 28 and he was 20, she was married to him with children around a year later.
We also see in the books how Sarah Ferguson had a written letter to Denise and Ralph at a time when emotions were still very raw about what happened. Sarah Ferguson was married to Prince Andrew at the time. Andrew went on to become embroiled in allegations surrounding alleged prolific paedophile Jeffrey Epstein in 2019. Sarah Ferguson’s letter was sent to Ralph and Denise Bulger. We will learn further down the article how Denise Bulger opened the Red Balloon learning centre for vulnerable children in partnership with Esther Rantzen, another celebrity who has had allegations around her romantic relationship with a man who was proven to be a paedophile in a court of law.
The letter that was sent to the Bulger’s can be seen in the screenshot taken from one of the books below.
Is it time for a Public Inquiry into the death of James Bulger?
We are told many horrors of the case and most of the brutal ins and outs but for some reason, some evidence was held back from the trial and put under lock and key for decades as it is just too bad for the public to hear. Since then we have been subjected to 9/11, numerous other alleged mass death events, we are aware of the horrific child abuse that goes on around the world. We have just watched the Queen of England’s son Prince Andrew showing sympathy to a known paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. We have had the Shannon Mathews saga, Sara Payne, Madeleine McCann and so on. All of these events and more have desensitised the public. This means when we see traumatic events taking place we are less surprised, less bothered as a society. But the subliminal impact still runs deep and people are allegedly living with many mental issues in the 2020s and they have been created by media and the government who have designed things to do just that. What can be that bad in the Bulger case that we can not handle?
We have already been told how James was identified and that held many horrible points in the case as well as the alleged sexual abuse the two murderers are said to have inflicted on James also.
I repeat, what is it about this case that could not be aired to the public that was worse than we already know?
Let’s play devils advocate with the story that James was abused that we were resorted to hearing over and over again for 30 years before Denise and Paul Britton’s, M. Night Shyamalan style twist in January 2023. Although I must add, I would believe a pathologists opinion would be held in a higher regard than a psychologist in this situation.
The two boys who took James are alleged to have sexually abused him so where did they learn how to sexually abuse a child?
Were the boy’s abuse victims themselves? We do know at least one of the families had major dealings with social services in the past.
The case all seems to have political agendas to it and huge underlying paedophile tones to it that must be highlighted.
Let us look at some of the details we are presented with and some that may have been missed out or overlooked by most commentators on the incident and the trial.
We know the boys took James from Bootle New Strand on February 12, 1993, and they were seen leaving the shopping centre at around 15:42.
Where is the rest of the footage from the day with 3 hours of the kids in the shops stealing paint etc?
They were then filmed around twenty minutes later on Merton Road. CCTV captured them near a roundabout and a church that is known by locals.
This was after it is reported they had taken James to the canal near the Bootle Strand complex and had attempted to push him into the water. It is not known if the boys were caught on the near-by post-office CCTV system as they were taking James onto the canal.
The next screenshot shows us how a witness known as witness H stated in court that they had seen the boys taking James onto the embankment yards away from Walton Lane Police Station at 17:20. This was around 2 hours after James was taken and 5 hours after the alleged first child was almost taken from Bootle New Strand.
We are told by a pathologist that the boy’s attack on James may have lasted minutes only so this gives us a time of around 17:30. Witness H was the last person to see James alive. There was a total of 38 witnesses in the trial.
The next screenshot gives us another time in the story. At around 18:00, the boys are said to have entered a local video shop when they were found by Boy B’s mother. The article states Boy A was grabbed by Boy B’s mother who then shouted at her son also after grabbing Boy A.
If this was after 6pm, had the boys been home and been changed out of their bloodstained school uniform by this time or had they gone for more walks without changing? Had they not eaten by this time it was past tea-time? Were the boys assisted in any way with their school uniforms that they had worn when they had murdered a toddler? We are told the boys were also reported missing to police that day. They already matched descriptions of the suspects seen in CCTV video footage that had been circulated around British press hours after James had vanished. Why were the boys not connected to the incident earlier after they were reported missing also?
Although I was very young at the time and living in Kirkdale, a residential area between Bootle and Walton, I have also lived in Walton for a good part of my life. I lived in the same area where the incident happened for a very long time. I have back-of-my-hand knowledge of the area where James died. The train tracks were accessible for many children and teenagers at the time and it would never go a few hours without a group of kids walking up it after getting on to the bridge where the killers entered on Walton Lane. You could also get onto it from within the cemetery that the police station and train tracks backed onto.
It would be used by teenagers on a Friday night who would be drinking or smoking. The times that the killers would have been there with James means that there would have been a huge chance of somebody else being there very shortly after. A whole Friday night passed by, followed by Saturday morning, afternoon and night. James was then discovered by four boys on Sunday. This meant that nobody spent any time on that bridge or the tracks for all that time before the teenagers who found James’s body. I wonder if anyone ever came forward or if they could today to say they were on the tracks that weekend before the body was discovered? Did nobody go onto them at the time? Did the police helicopter not see anything on the tracks to alert them that a child was in danger as they covered the area in the minutes and hours after James was taken? Did the boys not feel scared that they were carrying out a brutal murder just yards away from a local police station? Did they not think the “bizzy’s will hear us” (bizzy’s is a Liverpool-slang term for police)? Did they have this much audacity about them to carry out this murder right above a police station with a helicopter circling the area before going to a video shop in what has not been confirmed to be the same clothes or different ones from those worn in the murder of two-year-old James Bulger? Did they change their clothes? Did anyone help them if so? Did any of their parents know anything about their clothes as they were evidence? Should these details have been presented to us instead of what we have been told which is something that is potentially on par with an episode of Blues Clues?
Here is the person they say found James Bulger, he says it destroyed his life.
The fact that they say this is who found James, and not a police helicopter or something similar, tells us that what I just said about the area is correct. This shows us that members of the public did use the train tracks as a route through areas. Most notably kids, and this then poses the question as to how it took so long for the body of James Bulger to be found? The search ran from Friday afternoon until Sunday morning.
James Bulger, how did it happen?
For instance, I don’t want this to detract from my main points on this article but let’s take a quick look at what is alleged to have been used to inflict the fatal injuries on James.
We are told about a number of items used to inflict the injuries on James and one of them was a 22lb iron bar from the train tracks known as a ‘fishplate’. A train track fishplate is used to join two lines of the track together.
They are very heavy and contain at least 4 large bolts that will be secured with an impact driver to allow for any vibrations from the train.
I just want to know how they got it off, it is not impossible for them to have taken it off, or for it to have been loose but the bolts as I mentioned will be fitted at high torque with an impact driver.
Image of a more modern fishplate.
Images of an older version most likely the type that was highlighted in the trial.
22lb is the equivalent of just under 10kg or 4 bags of 5lb potatoes and a normal-sized bag of sugar. As a tall and large-sized 10-year-old, I personally used to hate getting sent to the shop for a bag of spuds, it would be a struggle to carry it home.
I would be holding over one shoulder behind my back and swapping shoulders and even cradling it in both arms, not just hands. Then this would become too heavy and I would revert back to carrying it over my shoulder again. It would have been fairly hard or awkward to raise it above my head height or swing it. Bearing in mind the comparative weight of the fishplate was 4 bags of spuds and one bag of sugar. I do wonder if both boys were said to have helped each other pick the fishplate up, raise it and allegedly drop it or strike James with it.
Any iron objects from train tracks were very heavy as a child, even the more rounded objects called a ‘pandrol clip’ that we see in the above image were very heavy.
The article that I referenced tells us that marks were found on James’ face that was identifiable as shoe print from one of the boys. We are also told that brick dust was found on James’ clothing and blood was on the bricks and fishplate. It does not go into too much detail about how the blood got onto the fishplate in the article but does with the bricks and other items such as paint. The iron bar is only mentioned once in this article. I can not state how many times or how much detail this had during the trial.
The kid’s hands must have been filthy after handling this fishplate and so many bricks but they went to a video shop and were not found until after 6pm. With rusted hands covered in brick dirt and (potentially) blood.
All of this makes me wonder if Ralph’s questioning as to whether the boys had been used by a paedophile ring to get the kids to lure James Bulger and the other two girls mentioned, away from their parents. The paedophiles could then carry on regardless without any suspicion.
Ralph seems to have had more knowledge of how paedophiles operate than anyone else at the time. Anyone back then would have first thought an adult child snatcher was at large in the city until the CCTV footage came out and disproved that fear.
After the CCTV imagery was released, the whole nation had not given a second thought to this being the work of paedophiles. Ralph Bulger stated in his book that was written in 2013, 10 years later, that he suspected a paedophile ring was behind it regardless of what the CCTV footage was showing. He was talking in the past tense, but again, why did he have them fears, and did any member of the public share those fears? I was 8 at the time so I can not quote anyone else on this.
James Bulger CCTV
We can see how the James Bulger case was ground-breaking in many ways. One notable factor was the CCTV footage used from that day in 1993. It was ground-breaking in the fact that there was only ten CCTV systems in operation in the UK.
After CCTV incident became famed for the incident, the technology became live in Liverpool 12 months later before being installed right across Europe.
You can see this in the image below that you can click through to its original source from.
We also see how the media was used to sway the emotions of the public yet again and this will have made it easier to draft in the widespread use of CCTV with an angry population agreeing to the cameras within our communities.
The same article talks about this factor in emotional manipulation.
How the story changed in 2023
I have highlighted how the many shocking factors of the case have been mentioned 1000s of times over the past 30 years. I have asked if so many of the details we have heard are that shocking, as we all know, then what is left to be held back from the public to protect us? What was just too bad for the public to know and hear?
Every person from my generation knows the narrative that these two boys were alleged to have attacked James Bulger in ways that got Childs Play 3 banned.
The movie was banned but the news and media in the UK was allowed to spread this apparent horrific misinformation from what can only be viewed as a fabricated warped reality. If media outlets were allowed to spread the story non-stop, on repeat for 30 years, how are they any better than the witch hunt they they propagandised against Child’s Play 3?
We even had Inspector Ray Simpson, of Merseyside Police, playing down the links to Child’s Play 3 by stating we would be better comparing James Bulger’s death to a movie called The Railway Children.
A quick glance at the plot of The Railway Children and I do not know whether to laugh or cry.
I have no idea how this vendetta against Child’s Play 3 ever got enough backing to even become a real reason to ban the film and alert the world to “video nasties”.
It was 1000s of personnel from mainstream media, including, to name just a few, script writers, newspaper outlets, editor and chiefs, tv presenters, news presenters, radio presenters, documentary makers, and whole entire networks, who all took part in this nonsense.
Not just that, but they repeated it annually, from 1993, to 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000. Then they continued right through the early 2000s, into and throughout the 2010s. The 2020s arrived and we got a sudden change of heart from the media who decided the killers were just misunderstood scared little boys. All the while, not one of those so called best of the businesses picked up on any of the points raised in this article. They never thought (or did they know what they were doing?) that they may be spreading lies to shape public perception and mislead the mass population in ways that can’t be forgiven. That is another trend within mainstream news and entertainment that has never changed.
It is also notable that the clip which led to the film being banned and used as propaganda, was Chucky being splashed with blue paint during a paintball shooting scene. It seems to be totally unconnected to any logical observations.
Here is that scene, watch it, and you tell me if you think that this has any inspiration in the case of James Bulger?
If you watch this scene, and compare it to what we were led to think for all this time, then we musk ask why is the story constantly coming at us with manipulation?
The clip suggested to have led to the Thompson, and Venables being turned into brainwashed killers was part of the theme for the evil monster kids. But, I find after seeing this footage properly for the first time, that the term “video nasties” is underwhelmingly linked to what we see in Child’s Play 3.
Thanks to the world being 30 years post-1993, we now have YouTube and we can see for ourselves that this appears to be an extremely loose connection. Almost mindless. It’s bonkers would be a more fitting description.
They have told us for 3 decades that blue paint was thrown into the left-eye of James Bulger and this is why Child’s Play 3 was banned.
Why was there not a media ban on the story? Will Denise Fergus ever get a media ban? Why do they continue to persecute people with on repeat every year? If they thought Child’s Play 3 could inspire Thompson and Venables to murder James Bulger, then what could their constant reporting of the case inspire? These networks and platforms are okay running advertisements for games like Grand Theft Auto and have been since it was first released in 1997, just 4 years after James Bulger died. How has having the story drilled into us every year since 1993 helped? How did knowing details in the case help us as kids? This story has been there all my life.
All this is a bit much, yet they still tell us blue paint in Child’s Play 3 was a good enough reason to use mass public emotional manipulation to push a weak narrative that just adds to the many contradictions in this case and the fall-out that it generated.
We know Child’s Play 3 was banned, but countless news reports and documentaries did not protect my generation form hearing the sordid, and possibly faked details of how the boys were alleged to have inserted batteries into the anus of their victim.
Surely this can only be done in a sexually abusive way? There is no other way to categorise such behaviour. If this claim is true, then it is sexual abuse.
Remember the source of all these reports have been mainstream media and they have also been endorsed by police.
We are also told that the boys had likely touched the private area of James Bulger and a pathologist report had stated that the skin on the privates of the victim had been “forcibly pulled back”.
Again, this paints a horrid picture of abuse from the boys and has always posed the question as to why they behaved in this way. with questions directed towards the family life and upbringing in a bid to understand the dynamics.
This was a statement from a pathologist who testified in court and his statement was read out during the trial.
The grim factors of the case were told, day by day, year by year, media production by production.
None of us have ever been able to escape this knowledge. We are all well aware, we grew up with it.
Given all of this, I want to know how and why, that whole basis of the shocking horror of the case of James Bulger has now shifted to say that Venables and Thompson never sexually assaulted the toddler.
No sh*t, look and listen for yourself. This claim was made by Denise Fergus in January 2023, as she attended another bout on This Morning with her all time favourite hosts on the grimmest couch in Britain, Holly and Phil.
It is not known if Denise would play down the allegations around Phillip Schofield in the way she did those surrounding Michael Jackson as highlighted earlier.
This paradigm shifting outburst came on 19 Jan 2023, as the pathologist statements which were read out in court in 1993, were all seemingly dismissed by Paul Britton, a police forensic psychologist also on the case in 1993, is now alleged to have told Denise that James Bulger was not sexually abused.
This is staggering. It was police who suspected that batteries were used in the alleged attack.
Paul Britton has been seen in many James Bulger documentaries over the past 30 years and he is no stranger to controversy during his time.
It was the pathologist who claimed that James Bulger had been subjected to having his privates forcibly pulled back.
How can a psychologist suddenly claim that none of that happened?
But if we are now to believe that it was not the boys who who did this, then the question is, if the pathologists findings are to be trusted from a professional witness statement point of view, then who did do that to James Bulger if there are signs it had happened?
My whole point has been to ask is it time that the public stopped getting put through this ordeal of reliving the horrors of the case with Denise year after year. I ask again after recent revelations that put many factors of the alleged story into the realm serious lies. If the narrative is not truthful, then should we be subjected to the story based on that alone?
We don’t know if Denise and Ralph went to Australia for two weeks, or six. Nor do we know if Denise planned and attended a fundraising event to finance the holiday, and plotted behind Ralph’s back to secure his passport. Nor do we know if she contacted his Australian family members to organise the getaway, without Ralph knowing. Nor do we know if Denise was kicking and clinging on to the door frame as the taxi pulled up to take them as it all was too much for her. We are there so many holes in the stories?
We no longer know if it was true that James was sexually abused by any of the boys despite it being one of the key factors in how horrific the case allegedly was. We do not know why the movie, Child’s Play 3 was banned given the police said it would be better to compare James’ death to a film called The Railway Children. I think we have a case to cross the Child’s Play 3 fiasco out of the James Bulger story and put it in the bull shit files.
Why did the police suspect the use of batteries in the way as described for the past 30 years? If that is not true either, then are they psychopaths too?
Why was all of this pushed onto the public?
If the Thompson and Venables had nothing to do with abusing James Bulger, then I bring our minds back to what Ralph said in his book about paedophile rings taking his son and using the boys as decoys.
Again I ask, why would Ralph make such an outlandish claim?
Why was James said to be showing physical signs of sexual abuse that were picked up by a pathologist?
How right or wrong was the pathologist? And how right or wrong is the psychologist? If the psychologist is correct, the pathologist needs asking, how did the signs of abuse that they documented become to be a thing?
Did somebody else do something to James that was being blamed on the boys for all this time?
Denise Fergus VS Tina Malone?
Tina Malone is heard saying how she regrets sharing Jon Venables Facebook post but there is more to this interview than meets the eye.
She tells us how she was so skint that the local priest gave her money via an envelope at Christmas that year. She then goes on to say how she had felt suicidal and had written a note. Her daughter Flame Chase was why she never harmed herself. This is also where she first mentions not being able to go to Disneyland in Paris because she had received a £10k fine and 8 months suspended sentence, for as papers claim, “Identifying Jon Venables”. She avoided jail in 2019.
In 2011, a Robert Thompson lookalike known as, Spencer Payne, (just like Sara Payne) was given a 12 week suspended sentence and fined £0 (as reported) for “Falsely Identifying” Robert Thompson, saying he lived above his flat in Essex leaving his innocent neighbour fearing for his life after the accusations.
Keywords here are ‘false identification’ and ‘identification’. Did Tina actually identify Venables? Or was she acting? She is an actor and those crocodile tears did not kid anyone.
In the next interview Tina mentions Disneyland, and how she got over a year of hell which included being arrested for possession of cocaine when starring in a snow-white pantomime in Barrow-in-Furness. Malone tells us how she had been given a free holiday to Disneyland Paris by a travel agent who had seen her crying about not being able to take her kid Flame Chase on holiday. Tina also states they had to leave the hotel early. She tells us how she had to scramble to get family and friends to send her money so they could book another room. Tina also said that all she had for food for her family was a packet of bashed-up six-day-old crisp that she found in her bag.
How did Tina Malone go from being able to borrow £37.000 from a friend to not being able to borrow £20 from friends or family to feed her child whilst stranded in France? This next screenshot shows her claiming it was that friend calling in her £37k debt that led to her being declared bankrupt in 2012 after spending sprees included £4000 worth of Ugg boots for friends and family. Who was the friend who gave her so much money and then had to send in the bailiffs when she never paid it back?
It is also in the second video where she mentions a list of 24 people who have made her life hell and she will pass the names on one day.
She gave her interview fee from a newspaper to James Bulger House charity but this came after she had been to court over the Venables identification case.
I still have Tina Malone’s Facebook posts from the day that Denise and Stuart Fergus appeared on GMTV and Tina posted how she had been watching them on television and guess who is taking her to court? Was it Denise and Stuart? Why did she say this? Giving the impression that the relationship between Tina and Denise and Stuart Fergus had broken down.
Remember her interview fee for a newspaper was given to Bulger House and she had a £10k fine to pay for her court case. Was this £10k compensation for Venables in his new identity as by law he was eligible for it no matter what he has done the courts will have compensated him. So we have a situation where he will have been compensation just like Levy Bellfield who killed Milly Dowler and was awarded £4500 in damages after being beaten up in prison.
So not only did Tina do well to line the pockets of Venables, but she also has helped line the pockets of Denise Fergus, who was seen as a friend especially after her appearances with/for her at events. We have this list of 24 names Tina says she will release one day. People who made her life hell. Was Denise Fergus one of the 24 names?
The people had driven her to the brink of killing herself regardless of her 5-year-old daughter. This shows how she was skint after a £10.000 fine for allegedly identifying Jon Venables. She told us she was watching GMTV with Denise and Stuart Fergus when she posted about them to say she has been summoned to the high court and she said: “guess who is taking me to court”. Was it Denise? Was Denise one of the 24 people named on the Tina Malone suicide list?
We have seen the interviews of how skint Tina is and I beg the question of why did she give her interview fee to James Bulger House after crying about poverty and how she can’t take her kid to Disneyland. Was Tina caught between a rock and a hard place where she is claiming benefits, unable to be paid for media work? Is it Denise Fergus who has been making her life hard and making her do interviews where she can make money but have it donated to James Bulger Memorial Trust? Not only that, but she also asked fans to donate to Bulger House instead of paying her legal fees. Her fee, or fine was £10.000. Have they found ways to embezzle money into James House, of which Tina was an ambassador? What is Tina’s agent’s role in all of this if so? Tina has since been removed from the ambassador page on the Bulger Memorial Trust website.
Tina has since split up from her husband Paul Chase, otherwise known as Paul Chevy Malone, who is the alleged biological father of their daughter Flame.
Did he split up with Tina after supporting her through as she said heavy drinking, financially wiping her mum out, inciting hatred online by sharing information about Venables resulting in a £10.000 fine and suspended prison sentence? Did Paul find it unbearable to watch Tina covertly hustling for a free holiday to Disneyland which they then went on with not enough money to feed themselves or their daughter Flame? Did he think she was involved in something bigger than what it seems at face value? Other reasons may be that Tina was abusing drink and drugs In her days of hell and Paul was not really in love with her? Could he no longer be seen to be supporting such a train wreck celebrity in such a public way. Did he want to get his daughter away from a toxic personality? Was Paul an undercover police/government asset stringing Tina along ensuring she continued to ride the wave?
The next clip seems to be staged by media bosses who have put Tina Malone on display simply to poke fun at her in what seems to be another sign of the lack of respect the industry has for her and how she presents herself in public. Reporter Petronella Wyatt appears to be sent out to laugh at Tina in this tongue-in-cheek interview.
Paul Chase has a military and television background. Between them all, we are left with a lot of connections and money being funnelled into Denise Fergus who set up her James House caravan site with Esther Rantzen who supported Jimmy Savile.
Here is one picture with the miserable face that Denise uses in television interviews and newspaper articles. We then have another image with a happy face that you can see daily on her social media platforms. Both pictures were taken within seconds of each other. I don’t think both should have been published but the two were published. This shows how mainstream media manipulates emotions, was it happiness or sadness Denise was feeling at the time of this meeting with Ester Rantzen. Is that photograph taken in her own home? Look at the picture on the wall.
In response to her child being taken by an alleged pedo boy Jon Venables, Denise Fergus spends her time saying how vile Venables is and how his repeat paedoaphile crimes mean he should never be able to remain anonymous. And I fully agree. But can Denise tell me why out of all the things she can do in the world did to remember James by, why did she have to set up a caravan where she can send vulnerable children (who are usually systematically abused) in a venture that was a bright idea from Ester Rantzen who is an alleged female version of Jimmy Savile?
In 1994, the following story appeared in the UK press:
A GRANDFATHER who repeatedly molested a five-year-old girl in a swimming pool at Esther Rantzen’s country home was convicted of indecent assault yesterday.
Robert Gillings, 63, who was granted bail pending sentencing, was a guest at the television personality’s holiday home in the New Forest, Hampshire, when he assaulted the girl as she played in the pool, Guildford Crown Court was told. Ms. Rantzen was not at the house at the time.
The victim told the jury that the defendant had also assaulted her before the trip to the New Forest. ‘He had said if I told mummy he would kill her,’ she said.
Gillings denied the allegations and claimed that Ms. Rantzen’s television work on behalf of abused children must have put ideas into the girl’s head.
He said of the swimming pool incident: ‘We were playing tag at the time, swimming backwards and forwards. My fingers caught hold of her bikini just at the bottom or the side somewhere. It was just a bit of fun – it was such an insignificant thing.’
However, the jury of seven women and five men returned a majority verdict after six hours, convicting the defendant of two charges of indecent assault, one of which took place at Ms. Rantzen’s house. But they cleared him of two other charges of indecent assault, one in which the girl claimed he had molested her in Ms Rantzen’s changing room.
After the case, Ms. Rantzen, best known for the long-running television series That’s Life, said her holiday home had been tainted by the incident.”
According to the Mail:
”Esther Rantzen has spoken of her revulsion after learning that a former lover has been linked to the child abuse scandal threatening to engulf Westminster.
The broadcaster and Childline founder had an affair with politician Sir Nicholas Fairbairn after they met at a BBC studio in 1966.
But Ms. Rantzen has now distanced herself from the late Conservative MP and Solicitor General for Scotland – who died in 1995, aged 61.
Evidence has come to light suggesting he may have visited a London guest house where children from care homes were allegedly assaulted by high-profile visitors.”
So Denise shacked up with Ranzten to send vulnerable kids to a learning centre with connections to a caravan park after a meeting with the Childline founder who also said her help was irrelevant after she had only heard “office gossip” when speaking about Savile. Fabulous. It gets worse! She then sets up an annual festival for kids in Stanley Park which is near to where James was allegedly murdered.
The festival is called Kids Fest and it invites 100s of children to a park where paedophiles could have a field day. So in the name of a snatched child they put a load of kids in a park and increase the chances of one of them being snatched. Amazing work Denise! Amazing work everyone involved in Kids Fest! Do-gooders and yes people who must be seen to be doing good when really it is all about the brand James Bulger now in my opinion.
Just when you thought it could not get any worse, the next part takes us to a story of a poem sent all the way from Neverland to Bootle Strand as we learn how Michael Jackson wanted to hug James Bulger’s killers. He also sent Denise Fergus gifts including a rare poem that must be worth a fortune.
Bulger shocker: Mirror report may be a devious response to Denise Fergus in Michael Jackson debate. Was the article a dig at Denise?
But seriously though Michael Jackson allegedly wanted to visit Venables and Thompson in prison and hold them, and look them in the eye and say I love you as reported in a Mirror article about Denise Fergus defending Michael Jackson’s name against accusations of child abuse.
I can not believe my eyeballs still. What planet are we living on? We are told he argued with his wife Lisa Marie Presley, daughter of Elvis about the killers’ jail sentence and then sent Denise a basket of flowers along with a rare poem about James called Child Of Innocence? I’m going to be sick all over myself.
Is this article a coded attack on Denise Fergus? I think so, let me explain why.
Just read how the report is structured and all becomes clear. The first third focuses on Denise Fergus defending Michael Jackson after taking to Twitter to express her views on the Leaving Neverland documentary that made more child abuse claims against Jackson. The article picked up on how Denise branded the claims of potential child sex victims “crap” and stated how the mother of James Bulger thought they were liars.
The article then switches to the story of how one of the biggest superstars in the history of the music industry sent Denise a poem that as far as rare unpublished MJ creativity goes must be worth a fortune. This also subliminally highlights how Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger have accepted gifts from Michael that one of which may be of significant value.
Denise is then quoted talking about the poem she received from the under-fire Michael Jackson.
she told Liverpool Echo in 2009 after Jackson’s death: “There was a brown envelope and inside was a letter on A4 paper from Michael. He wrote a poem for James and he named it Child Of Innocence. It touched my heart.”
The article then ends in the final third with what seems to be an irony alert to Denise as it then states how Michael told Rabbi Shmuley Boteach that he wanted to visit the prison of the city (Liverpool) if not country’s most despised child killers to look them in the eye before giving them a hug and declaring his love for the pair.
It is almost as if to say well Denise would you be saying this in defence of Michael if he visited Venables (the soon to be known paedophile) to give him a hug and tell him he loves him with all the press attention that stunt would have generated?
This is all cleverly done and the points raised here are exactly what the reporter, Emmeline Saunders is doing. (click image)
We must now ask why are mainstream media outlets playing games with Denise Fergus? First, we had the channel 5 documentary which critics say, tried to de-sensitise public emotions towards the killers and generated huge outcry just days before Denise appeared on ITV with Trevor MacDonald. These two shows were both timed to be aired in the same week.
That week brought the first wave of attention to the short movie detainment which also normalised the emotions of Venables and Thompson creating calls for the production to be pulled. Denise then appeared to not have an easy time when she was interviewed by hosts Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield on This Morning as she told how she feels filmmakers should obtain permission from living family members of people who have been killed in a hurtful way.
We also have one of the biggest news organisations in Britain telling us how Michael Jackson had sympathetic views towards the two boys dubbed Little Monsters by Denise in a phrase that was also turned into the title of an award-winning American movie based on the story of James that reflected how the killers lived their lives after leaving prison. It is badly acted out and if you did not know the true horrors that took place in 1993 you would have no idea this trashy film was based on true horror, not the usual fictional horror that its American director, David Schmoeller is known to work on. Wikipedia tells us David is an American film director, producer, and screenwriter. He is notable for directing several full-length theatrical horror films including Tourist Trap, The Seduction, Puppet Master, Catacombs, Netherworld and Crawlspace starring Klaus Kinski.
The promotional images surrounding the movie are totally shocking and uncalled for. Did Denise Fergus give permission for this movie and front cover to be published as well as awarded around eight years ago? Did Denise call for the 2 Little Monsters movie to be banned and for the director to be stripped of his award? No. This horrible movie remains in the public domain and has done since 2012. What on earth is going on?
In 2019, Denise Fergus was in the news as she called for a film, titled Detainment, to be banned after she was not spoken to by its writer Vincent Lambe. The short movie was about the murder of James Bulger and it focused on the time the killers spent at the police station whilst under questioning.
Denise and Stuart Fergus appeared on This Morning in January 2019. Denise stated that she was not contacted over it as were none of her family. The production was said to be a potential winner at the Oscars.
Denise also said in this interview she knows the film can not be stopped so I do not get why they let her go on television to call for it to be banned. This, as well as the Mirror article regarding Michael Jackson wanting to hug Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, are a big reason why I started to wonder if media bosses are playing a game with Denise.
The murder of James Bulger has been in the public domain non-stop for decades now and it is Denise who has kept it that way. There have been various television appearances, documentaries, books, we have an annual festival (Kids Fest), numerous tie and tiara occasions, as well as non-stop fundraising. For Denise to state people should get permission from her to do media work on a matter of public concern is very outlandish, even given the circumstances. I published an article about the 2 little monsters movie when Denise was battling against Detainment because although I had found the 2012 movie, I could not find one quote from Denise or any family member slamming the production. This meant I found the way Detainment was approached to be highly strange. I was then told by Stuart Fergus to delete my article and not to “bring that up again”. Although people were aware of the movie it was far from widespread public knowledge or campaigned against as we saw with the Irish film in 2019.
The front cover of the 2 little monsters movie reminds me of this news article… Remember Stuart said: “don’t bring that up again”. Is this what he was talking about?
This again is something to ponder, we are told a family member of Robert Thompson posted a picture of a child on train tracks to mock either Robert Thompson directly in a family feud, or it was aimed at another family member, possibly a close relative of Thompson, such as his parents or siblings. None of the articles about this incident show the alleged Facebook post but when we look at the description of what the image is said to have looked like it appears to describe the 2 Little Monsters front cover. If we think about it, what other picture on earth features a kid on a train track? Truth be told, the image that was shared on Facebook was staged. Keep reading…
Another strange thing about the article stating the Thompson family were fighting between themselves whilst bringing James Bulger into it, was how it seemed to covertly identify possible whereabouts of Robert Thompson and members of his family who were also given new identities and moved as police felt the family would be in danger from vigilante attacks.
If the Thompson family has new Identities that nobody is aware of then, by the media highlighting the ALLEGED Facebook post, (no screenshots available on any articles) they may have triggered a new identity being given to Robert Thompson and his family. They could well have had their cover blown as jig-saw identification can not be ruled out. Is this a real media ban or just a covert way to make the killers rich in shadow courts?
It is said (if we are to believe reports from proven fake news outlets) that each new identity given to the killers can have a cost of up to £250.000. We are also told that Venables has had 4 of these new identities costing the British taxpayer £1million.
The Thompson family were having arguments on Facebook that may have been seen by people who lived close to them. Is it logical to suggest that confirmation from press outlets stating it was the actual Thompson family, mean Robert had to be relocated and given another new persona over this incident? I think so based on what I have just said about Jigsaw Identification.
Was this the first time Thompson may have been given a new identity? No, and it is possibly not the first time the people of Britain have had to pay for him to be whisked off somewhere else with a new disguise and possible compensation each time someone identifies him.
The killers have injunctions on them meaning they can not approach the Bulger or Fergus family, and this will work both ways too, meaning Ralph or Denise will not be allowed to confront either the child-killers by law or they would themselves be in contempt of court. Did Denise Fergus trigger the need to have a new identity set up by the government after she admitted in news articles that she was yards away from the Thompson but could not say anything to him out of sheer rage.
Did Denise locating Thompson mean he then needed a new identity? Was Denise questioned by police after making this admission in national newspapers? Did Thompson get compensation from Denise’s actions? Probably, and if he did, this is more madness.
Denise Fergus said she had an anonymous tip-off that led to her being able to locate Thompson. She has also claimed she has journalist friends in the news industry. Considering there is an alleged worldwide injunction in place that is said to stop people from sharing information about the killers, you would expect it to not have so many loopholes or flaws. It seems people are breaching the rulings left, right and centre. This may be leading to the killers being relocated and financially benefiting. is it possible they are close to millionaires from compensation pay-outs?
I do not understand why Denise would say this in national newspapers. I don’t understand why she never denied saying it, or why she has not spoken in person about being quoted with the comments. This is serious as she has admitted to finding him which means he had been identified therefore another process was most likely triggered.
The screenshot below shows how Cheshire police produced a threat assessment that concluded if Jon Venables was ever identified either by the press or in society then it would lead to the highest possible risk of him being attacked.
The same level of risk acknowledgment would be in place for Thompson too.
I do not understand why Denise Fergus made the claims about locating Thompson, in such a public way when she knows he will get moved on again and get another new life.
She could have been spotted by somebody who was unaware that Thompson was there and they may recall seeing her looking at him very angrily in a seemingly random place, again jigsaw identification can not be ignored.
People are arrested and taken to court for breaching the laws in place around Thompson and Venables identity, was Denise ever questioned about this?
I do not agree with them having anonymity but anonymity is a very fine lined subject which I will discuss in more detail some time but in short, revealing the guilty party in certain cases can identify the victim who also has life-long anonymity by law and this is the fine line here.
Victims could then be targeted by friends, families or supporters of their attacker, maybe even killed by a paedophile ring to stop further statements being made against other people after being identified due to a law change to release the identity of Venables and Thompson.
A precedent would then be created.
At the moment anonymity law protects both good and evil, it is a very, very well constructed legal loophole, a double-edged sword.
In the screenshot below, we see how the Mirror reported on Robert Thompson’s mum being visited by journalist and author David James Smith. He knew her enough for it to be classed as a friendship of sorts with Thompson’s mum. The article refers to her as Ann which is her original name and not her new identity.
David James Smith, then claims he had driven Robert Thompson’s mother to the secure unit where he was and pointed him out to him. Was it simple word of mouth that later led to Denise being able to locate one of her son’s killers or was Denise being fed information by reporters? Look how close David actually got to this family.
This man has friends, neighbours, fans of his books, readers of his articles. It is possible that his very public statement in which he claims to have been visiting Thompson’s mum at her home, means one of her neighbours could recognise him from the visits and jigsaw identification comes into play once again.
David says he was close to Ann for a long time, years in fact. He also says it took her years to accept that Robert had been involved in the death of James Bulger. The article is backing up the fact that this was long-term knowledge about the identity and whereabouts of not only Robert but his family too. I do understand people will have been aware, but the fact is, a lot of people are leaving huge clues by making their knowledge public in such a way that anyone who recognises the person visiting the families of the killers or even Venables and Thomspon directly, can work out who it is very easily. All of these statements and interviews can help to identify either killer so why are leads published when Jon and Robert could be being compensated when it happens?
The video below shows Denise Fergus talking about her disgust at the possibility of Thompson and Venables being awarded compensation for the News of The World phone-hacking scandal. Was it reporters who had hacked into calls relating to the pair that had led to the whereabouts of Thompson being given to Denise to then go and locate him? What did they find out when they allegedly hacked into phones that may belong to the killers or their families? Did they hack into Denise also? This interview proves what I have said about them being eligible for compensation. This is just another example. Did Denise locating Thompson result in him being relocated with a new identity? Was he given compensation for what the courts will see as a breach of his human rights?
Denise tells viewers that she is disgusted by how the killers are being paid for what they did. We have seen reports from her friends in the newspaper industry quoting her as saying she located Thomson and went to within a distance that the no contact injunctions will state she can’t go within. So, given we know all these protocols have been admittedly breached, I find it highly disturbing that Denise herself may have helped to line the pockets of the killers with her own actions. Was she campaigning to stop them from being compensated when she did this? I never heard much about it, to be honest.
It is highly ironic that David James Smith published an article for the Sunday Times about the phone-hacking scandal. In the publication, David points out how detectives had warned the News of The World phone hackers that they may have put the security of Thompson and Venables at risk. He seems to have ignored how his constant visits to the mother of the killers may have had a similar effect.
The new identities and reasons for them being awarded will be discussed behind closed doors in shadow court cases which may well have been attended by a lot of the people named in this article, the general public will never know such details but this information gives great reasons for that to have been the case numerous times.
The video below shows Ralph Bulger calling for the identity of Jon Venables to be released after he was sent back to jail for having explicit images on his computer.
This interview on ITV’s Good Morning was Feb 12, 2018, the same date that James was taken, nobody in the interview mentions this was the anniversary.
These statements helped to consolidate the anonymity of the killers by saying in public that he will do all he can to hunt them down after their release from prison in 2000.
This gave the courts a clear opportunity to generate a media ban on their new identity and keep them out of the public eye meaning they were free to blend into society without anyone knowing their true existence.
Considering Ralph and Denise are pubic figures, should they be served with their own media ban for not using their media status or platforms responsibly in guidance with the law?
Is it time Denise and Ralph were stopped from writing books, appearing on television interviews, documentaries, and news reports given they have made so many mistakes?
Although she does not fully understand the laws around anonymity, during morning television talk shows that Denise has appeared on, she has been able to voice her views to millions of people who will always support her and they will not understand the implications of what she is saying on a bigger scale.
Denise is a public figure but she is clearly taking the role of a political extremist with puppet strings propping her up.
On February 5, 2020, Denise told viewers of Loose Women that the alleged terrorist involved in the Streatham incident should not have been let out of jail, “time should meantime” for criminals and the law has to change.
The timing of the interview is key again, it is exactly one week to the date that James was taken, these television appearances generate books sales, the charity will is mentioned in them all also which has had connections to Esther Rantzen and these plugs will end up in donations being made to James Bulger Memorial Trust.
Denise has a powerful voice to the target audience of shows like Loose Women and this is how easy it is for TV bosses to manipulate public perception.
Denise was asked about her views on the Streatham incident on purpose because the agenda wanted her to answer it.
The questions are scripted and TV producers will have been in the ears of all members of the show telling them when to step in and say certain things.
Denise has a very bad understanding of the law as this article has proven numerous times, most notably around life-long anonymity for victims of sexual abuse which is what we may have been dealing with during Jon Venables’s most recent allegations.
A child may have been involved in that case and Denise was calling for her to be given information on the case on national television once again ignoring key factors in the law that help victims of abuse.
Denise has no right to information on a case potentially involving another child who may have been assaulted and will, therefore, have lifelong anonymity.
The presenters of the show do not explain why Denise is wrong very well but they do try to balance the interview out and they do not make it easy for her and you can see it becomes hard for her to focus when she needs to out-think the situation, law and the points that are made.
Denise says in the interview she does not want to jeopardise any of this (meaning the battle to drop killers anonymity) but we now can see how she has been directly involved in many occasions where the whole case has been jeopardised and she openly wants to create openings in the law that could jeopardise the lives of millions of victims under witness protection and hidden under anonymity by setting a precedent that could open doors for victims to be outed as the people who hurt them are.
And again if they are not named directly, that old jigsaw-identification can easily come into play.
I don’t think the nation should be taking legal advice from Denise Fergus.
Please remove obvious emotions for a moment, watch the interview again and tell me if I am wrong here?
The general public have not been able to read between the lines in this case or the book from the parents of James Bulger who have subjected a huge audience to constant reminders of the horrific events back in 1993.
I am sure after seeing this pattern for decades, these reminders are now a fundamental part of an agenda based around law and money, it’s almost like clockwork year after year.
It is not widely known that people who write books, can often be bending media laws and making statements in the public domain that can not be made via news outlets. I do wonder if some of the books we have covered are loaded with legal messages? If you want to get a message across based on a true story you can just change names or locations. This means the author can then claim it is nothing other than similarities. But another way things can be embedded is to put them within the story that everyone is aware of. These can sometimes be warnings to other people. They can alert people that a closed court case is underway when the person the message is meant for sees it and perceives it the way it is meant to be understood.
I do not disagree with parents of tragic stories showing grief but this is now politically charged beyond belief and who benefits most?
Thompson and Venables….
Next, we look at how Merseyside police stated they would investigate claims from a man saying he is James Bulger and he is alive and wants to speak to Ralph and Denise. This was reported on by Enchanted LifePath News & Media in June 2019.
James Patrick Bulger Twitter and YouTube accounts found as Denise Fergus is confronted by man claiming to be James who then requested Jeremy Kyle involvement over his story.
James Bulger accounts continue making wild claims that James is not dead, Denise is not his mother and she is called Lisa.
Stalker states video of James is him at Sarah’s.
Police are believed to be monitoring the social media accounts of a man who is claiming to be murdered two-year-old James Bulger.
A Twitter account in the name of James Patrick Bulger contacted Denise Fergus in March claiming he is ready to meet Ralph Bulger and Denise on morning television shows in the United Kingdom to talk about what happened to James Bulger who he speaks of in first-person.
Denise Fergus responded to the creepy Tweet by telling the account owner to “go away you deluded fool”.
Members of the public reacted in anger as they responded to the Tweet by saying they would be willing to meet the person behind the profile.
The James Patrick Bulger Twitter account was reported by people in support of Denise Fergus but the account remains active.
Tweets that were reported include one sent to Good Morning Britain saying “I’m alive can we meet”, another sent to Jeremy Kyle reads: “Is it ok to meet Ralph on a morning show to talk about what happened to me”.
The account also asks someone called Valerie to send a baby photograph to brother.
Merseyside Police were alerted to the Tweet and they swiftly addressed people’s concerns by saying they are aware of the incident and enquiries were being made.
The husband of Denise Fergus, Stuart, could also be seen asking Merseyside Police to follow him and keep the family updated.
Since Tweeting Denise Fergus in March 2019, the person behind the profile has since made a series of Tweets as late as May and June where he is believed to be talking to Ralph Bulger who he calls dad and says he is waiting to talk to him.
The profile which has its location set to Edinburgh says “I’m here I’m alive”.
The person behind the account also appears to run a channel on YouTube that is also used to reference murdered toddler James Bulger.
The YouTube channel has the same name and profile as the Twitter account, both called James Patrick Bulger and it has no subscribers.
Videos on the channel include a theme of paedophilia with all three on the channel showing the owner of the account to have views about James Bulger, child killers, and paedophiles.
The video below is called James Patrick Bulger Hated it and it is about a case of a 12-year-old boy who is alleged to have killed his younger sister.
The further two videos also carry a disturbing theme that highlights the dangers around children.
The James Patrick Bulger account on YouTube is not the only one that has been targeting Denise Fergus in the past twelve months with another one also making startling claims regarding the James Bulger story.
A video that contains an interview with Denise was targeted by a man who also claims to be James called Steven Allen who states Denise Fergus is not his Mother and her name is Lisa.
The video with the comments can be seen below.
22 Years later… Interview with Mother of James Bulger, Denise Fergus | Bay TV Liverpool
Steven Allan can be seen calling Denise, Lisa in the comments is a Daily mail video from March 2018 titled: James Bulger family reject apology from son’s killer Jon Venables – Daily Mail
The person behind the Allan accounts then tells Denise that he finds the video to be a bit much and that he is James and he is not dead.
Steven Allen’s YouTube channel About Page contains a reference to when Denise says that a ghost of James tugged on her nightgown when she was alone upstairs.
You can see Denise Fergus say this in the 22 years later video.
The channel called steven allan does not have any content uploaded to it but the one named SteVen Allan does and it did contain some of the comments that will be a concern to Denise and Stuart Fergus.
It is not known if all these accounts are run by the same person.
The channel has four videos and one of them alleges to be Steven known as James at Sarah’s house in footage that is owned and was released by AP news.
The next video on the channel is a 5-second clip strangely called: Robert Thompson Robert Ford I Mean Set Me Up And John Stephens And Lesley Venables Isn’t Denise And Nor Is Lisa
The video has no comments.
The next video titled Video Playback 2 shows the person behind the account naming more names and saying he was set up. It is not known who he is talking about here as the video is about Robert Thompson.
This next screenshot is from the video description and one comment left on it by Steven Allan.
He again seems to say he is not related to Denise.
He returned in December 2019 with another video again targeted at the parents of James Bulger.
Here we see him in a library where he uploads a short 20 second clip in which he starts by stating “I’m James Bulger”, but he pronounces Bulger like vulgar.
He then says “You are not my dad”, before going on to say: “You made me pretend that I had murdered myself when I was 3”.
He ends by saying “And I’ve never been in jail for a sex offence ever”.
The accounts relating to the name James Patrick Bulger are still active on social media platforms in 2023.
We can see James Patrick Bulger Liverpool has been posting regularly during the summer of 2023. This is despite being reported to police in 2019.
The Steven Allen Facebook account is the same as the Steven Allen YouTube Channel that mocked Denise Fergus for saying she felt a ghost pull at her dressing gown. There is also the Steve Allen YouTube Channel remember.
The Facebook account for Steven Allen can be seen below.
The incidents are similar to a story Enchanted LifePath covered in 2018 when a Wirral based actor set up Facebook accounts claiming to be missing toddler Katrice Lee and began to troll her father and sister online.
Heidi Robinson, then 39, was caught in the eye of a storm involving missing person Katrice Lee who was taken from a supermarket at a German army barracks in 1981, aged two.
The Lee family was left shaken and upset after a Facebook account in the name of Katrice which also used photographs sent a friend request to Natasha Lee, the sister of Katrice.
Natasha took a screenshot before showing members of the group Search For Katrice Lee who responded in disbelief.
Royal Military Police asked Heidi Robinson, 39, for DNA sample after a Facebook account in her name was changed to the identity of the toddler who has not been seen for 37 years.
The father of Katrice Lee was left angry and frustrated by Heidi Robinson’s refusal to engage in dialogue with authorities, give a DNA sample, attempt to clear her name, or apologise to the family if it was her who impersonated his missing daughter.
Enchanted LifePath Alternative News & Media spoke with Richard Lee, the father of Katrice during reports on the wanna be miss universe contestant.