🚨 “I Can Put Him Back Behind Bars…” 😱⚖️

After 32 years of unimaginable pain, James Bulger’s mother Denise Fergus has finally broken her silence – and her words are sending shockwaves across Britain.

In a raw, defiant vow, she declares she has the power to send Jon Venables – the man who tortured and murdered her 2-year-old son – straight back to prison where he belongs.

But how? What explosive evidence or secrets is she ready to unleash against the system that gave him new identities, multiple chances, and endless protection?

Venables is up for parole AGAIN, and Denise is fighting like never before – vowing to challenge the very laws shielding him and expose the failures that let a child killer walk free time after time.

This isn’t just a mother’s grief… it’s a battle cry for justice that could change everything.

More than three decades after the brutal abduction and murder of her toddler son James Bulger shocked the nation, Denise Fergus has issued a stark warning: She believes she holds the key to returning one of his killers, Jon Venables, to prison for good.

In recent interviews amid news of Venables’ latest parole hearing, Fergus, now 57, spoke with raw emotion about the ongoing trauma inflicted by a justice system she says has repeatedly failed her family. The statement – interpreted by some as “I Can Put Him Back Behind Bars” – underscores her determination to confront Venables directly and push for changes to the anonymity and rehabilitation measures that have shielded him since his release as a teenager.

The case dates back to February 12, 1993, when 2-year-old James was lured from a shopping center in Bootle, Merseyside, by two 10-year-old boys, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. The pair tortured and murdered the child on nearby railway tracks, an act captured in haunting CCTV footage that became seared into British public consciousness. Convicted of murder, the boys were detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure and released on license in 2001 with new identities under a lifelong anonymity order – a decision that sparked outrage and debate over juvenile justice.

Venables, now 43, has been recalled to prison twice since his initial release: in 2010 for breaching conditions by possessing child abuse imagery, and again in 2017 for similar offenses. Each time, he was given a new identity upon release, though both recalls led to further incarceration. His most recent parole bid in 2023 was denied after a closed-door hearing, but authorities have now granted him another full review, with a date yet to be set for early 2026.

Fergus, speaking to outlets including the Daily Mirror and Liverpool Echo, expressed fury and distress upon learning of the development. “It is distressing and frankly makes me angry that I’ve now been told that James’ killer will be afforded a parole hearing and a chance of release,” she said. She has been granted permission – for the first time – to observe the proceedings via video link from a secure location, though Venables’ face will remain obscured and his voice potentially distorted to preserve his anonymity.

In her statements, Fergus emphasized the physical changes in Venables since 1993: “The parole board must remember, he’s not a 10-year-old anymore. He’s bigger and stronger.” She voiced deep fears about what a freed Venables might do outside the “protection” of prison walls, questioning why someone with repeated breaches is given yet another opportunity. Her spokeswoman, Kym Morris, described the news as reopening “unimaginable trauma,” noting Fergus had hoped for a summary rejection without a full hearing to spare her further pain.

The phrase attributed to Fergus – vowing she could “put him back behind bars” – appears to stem from her confidence in highlighting Venables’ ongoing risk and past failures of supervision. While she has not detailed specific new evidence in public comments, her long campaign has included calls for tighter restrictions on offenders like Venables and criticism of the anonymity order that critics say hinders public safety monitoring.

Venables’ repeated offenses have fueled arguments from Fergus and others that rehabilitation has failed. Supporters of the current system point to the principle of giving young offenders a chance at redemption, noting Venables was a child at the time of the crime and has served significant time for subsequent convictions. The Parole Board assesses risk based on behavior, psychological evaluations, and compliance – factors that led to his 2023 denial but now warrant another look.

Fergus and ex-husband Ralph Bulger (James’ father) have both secured rights to attend the hearing, a shift from previous closed processes where Venables cited mental health concerns over facing the family. Ralph has vowed to “stand for my son James” and fight any release, describing Venables as a continuing threat.

The anonymity protections, imposed by court order in 2001 and upheld over the years, remain controversial. They prevent publication of Venables’ current appearance, location, or details that could identify him – measures designed to prevent vigilante attacks but criticized by Fergus as enabling him to evade full accountability. She has previously called for reforms, including stronger internet laws to remove harmful content related to her son’s murder and better support for victims’ families.

Public reaction remains polarized. Campaigners and much of the British press side with Fergus, portraying Venables as undeserving of freedom given his history. Others argue the juvenile justice framework – which treated the killers as redeemable children – should not be undermined by lifelong punishment without evidence of current danger.

As the parole process unfolds, Fergus faces weeks of what she calls “purgatory and trauma.” She will hear Venables speak for the first time since his 1993 trial, when he appeared as a frightened boy in court. The hearing’s outcome could either provide her a measure of closure or prolong the nightmare.

Fergus has channeled her grief into advocacy, launching initiatives like a helpline for crime victims and pushing for AI regulations on distressing online material. Her persistence highlights a broader debate: How does society balance rehabilitation for juvenile offenders with justice for victims’ families?

For Denise Fergus, the fight is personal and unrelenting. Thirty-two years on, she refuses to let the system forget James Bulger – or the man convicted of taking his life. Whether her vow translates to concrete action against Venables remains to be seen, but her voice continues to resonate, demanding accountability in one of Britain’s most haunting cases.