Interesting recall of the facts there, care to back that up with some evidence? As it seems to me to be in complete contridiction of what I learned when I studied the case as part of my media studies a-level.

I can't be bothered to locate all my notes (which i think i still have somewhere) but a googling produces this:

http://website.lineone.net/~darkangel5/moral.htm

"However, it was revealed soonafter on the BBC news that neither child had actually seen the film, the police even went public and confirmed this. Merseyside Police Inspector Ray Simpson was even quoted in "The Guardian" newspaper that they had "looked at all the videos in their houses and checked their lists of rentals from the shop. We did not find Child's Play 3, nor did we find anything in the list that could have encouraged them to do what they did. If you are going to link this murder to a film, you might as well link it to The Railway Children".

Well I was hoping you could attempt to back up your assertation that there WAS a causal a link between Child's Play and the bulger killing. But clearly you can't.

What is a major factor in these issues is cause and consequence- young people never ever see negative consequences until the shit really hits the fan, then they catch it full in the face.

We tell them about Asbo's, Crasbo's, Tag's, Exclusions, YOS (YOT in England), YOI's etc, (young people are the most legislated against section of our society- with far more controls than even sex offenders)we even apply them as court orders and explain consequences of non compliance then when the order is breached we don't apply the consequence. Surprise- the young person reoffends, with the pattern repeating until one day a magistrate sees his arse and the young person does time for swearing at a copper-or even worse their behaviour escalates while they chase excitement or attention and they do something appalling.

We set them up for it.

We could avoid most of this by simply being consistant- I'd rather see a 12 year old do 3 months in a YOI and shitting themselves than a 17 yr old doing 18 months in Adult population and come out thinking they were McVicar

Actually what you said was this:

"IIRC the kids that did it were only about 10-11 and watched 18 certificate horror movies (childs play in particular) with obsessive regularity and the body was found in circumstance reminescent of a scene from that film."

I think I have sufficiently demonstarted that that view is frankly arse. I especially like the bit where the police inspector says: "We did not find Child's Play 3, nor did we find anything in the list that could have encouraged them to do what they did."

Sorry, is this supposed to back up your point?

"Although there is no proof that Jon saw the entire film, there are some coincidences."

Or to put it another way: No proof that he watched it AT ALL.

here's another link: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/rel-o30.shtml

"Instead of seeking a social or psychological explanation of why the two young boys had become embroiled in a violent act against a defenceless child, it was considered enough to deem them inherently "evil", or to blandly proclaim that their “warped minds” had tried to emulate the teen-horror movie "Child's Play" (which neither boy had ever seen)."

Link? I can't see that anywhere on the article you posted. All I can see is the bit i've already quoted about "No evidence he watched it" and also this bit:

"In fact, he claimed to be scared of television violence. If there was a scene in a movie with “blood coming out,” Jon said he’d turn away from the screen and put his fingers in his ears."

I think an explanation would be good. but "they watched childs play 3" is a shite explanation - esp considering how dubious it was that they actually watched it.

Exactly where were the batteries inserted according to that article? and what dismemberment? again, i can't see it anywhere.