The murder of two-year-old James Bulger remains one of the most harrowing crimes in modern British history, shocking the nation not only for its brutality but for the ages of those responsible.

James was abducted and killed on 12 February 1993. The country was left stunned when it emerged that the perpetrators were two 10-year-old boys, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. During their trial at Preston Crown Court, they were referred to only as Child A and Child B.

After a three-week hearing, both were found guilty on 24 November 1993. They were later released on life licence in June 2001 and given new identities under a lifelong anonymity order.

While Thompson has not reoffended since his release, Venables has twice been recalled to prison, in 2010 and 2017, for offences relating to child sexual abuse images. He remains in prison and is expected to face a further parole hearing.

At the time of the trial, Venables' parents spoke publicly about their son, offering a controversial explanation that he had been influenced and led astray.

"You look at him and you say to yourself, 'How could you be involved in anything like this?'" his mother, Susan Venables, told PA. "On the other hand, you are looking at him and you are saying 'Well, I know why, because he is so weak'."

She described her son as someone who "did like to be liked" and "loved to have friends", suggesting this made him vulnerable. "I would say he was provoked," she added. "He is one of those children that if you told him to put his hand in the fire, he would."

Susan also claimed her son had been frightened during the incident and unable to walk away. "All he said when we've said 'Why didn't you run away?' is that he was frightened," she said. "He said he was frightened of Robert's older brother."

She insisted he had not intended to harm James, she said: "He didn't want to hurt him. He was fearful, he was weak and he was provoked."

Her husband, Neil Venables, also defended their son's character. "If you had a league table of children, you would put him at the bottom of the list for anything like this," he said.

The couple rejected suggestions that their son's upbringing had contributed to the crime. Susan said: "I don't think we went wrong as parents at all. He has had more love and attention than a lot of children I know."

"He has been educated. He has had his holidays like everyone else. He has had Christmas presents," she continued. "Contrary to what the papers will tell you, he is not a little urchin boy."

They also spoke about his behaviour after the arrest, describing him as emotional and remorseful. "He mentions James now and again. He gets upset. He says 'I know, Mum'. He is brokenhearted over it," Susan said.

Despite their defence of their son, both parents expressed sympathy for James' family. "My heart really goes out to them. I wish we could turn the clocks back," Susan said.

Neil added: "I feel just devastated thinking of that little boy. I feel so sorry for that family."

The remarks were widely criticised at the time and remain controversial decades later, particularly in light of Venables' subsequent convictions.

More than 30 years on, the murder of James Bulger continues to resonate across the UK, remembered as one of the most shocking and tragic crimes in recent history.