The Daily Mail reported that a father is living in fear for his life after he was wrongly accused of being Jon Venables, one of the killers who murdered James Bulger, a little toddler in 1993.

Vigilantes set up a Facebook group claiming that David Calvert, 27, was living under the new identity with his family in a house in Fleetwood, near Blackpool.

It is claimed that more than 2,000 people joined the group vowing to track him down and wreak revenge for the murder.

Venables has now been returned to prison for breaching his licence, by allegedly possessing images of child porn on his computer. It was claimed that the depraved images were rated category four, the second most severe on an official scale of one to five.

Justice Secretary Mr Straw has signalled an inquiry into how Venables was supervised in the community before he was called back to prison.

Mr Straw informed MPs that, during week beginning February 22, officials learned that Venables' identity had been compromised.

James Bulger's mother, Denise Fergus, 42, told ITV1's This Morning programme yesterday: 'I do believe that whoever has been protecting and looking after Venables over the nine years of his release should be sacked.'

Now as a backlash for Venables’ identity cover-up, innocent father Mr Calvert is suffering from false accusations.

Chain text messages containing lies about Mr Calvert, including one in which he is named as a rapist, have also been sent to thousands of people.

Mr Calvert was first forced to deny the rumours five years ago, and had to move house several times.

However, in the wake of Venables' return to prison the accusations have resurfaced.

Last night Mr Calvert, who lives with his wife Debbie and four young children, said their lives had been wrecked.

'I live in constant fear that someone will kill me and my family,' he said. 'It is an absolute nightmare.

'We were driven out of our home by people convinced I was Jon Venables living under a new identity.

I tried to tell people I had nothing to do with it but people would not listen and we were forced to flee for our lives.'

The page on Facebook was eventually closed down.

Liverpool-born Mr Calvert, said the problems began when he moved to Fleetwood.

'To begin with people were friendly and nice but then someone got it into their head that I was Venables under a different name,' he said.

'I tried to reason with them but I am the right age and I suppose people might think I could look like him.

'It all came to a head when I was in a pub and a mate said I had to leave or I would never get home alive - they said I was going to be stabbed in the toilets.'

Police were so concerned about the family's safety that they installed a panic button in their home.But the abuse Mr Calvert faced in the streets did not stop and they were forced to move. He said: 'We had to escape and went from house to house until we finally settled where we are now.

'I couldn't believe it when I heard I was all over the internet. I thought the rumours were dead and now it is starting all over again.

'I worry constantly and think of escape routes out of the house in case it is set alight.

'I want Jack Straw to come out and make an announcement confirming that I am not Venables - then maybe we can finally live in peace.'

Mr Calvert is off work due to ill health brought about by the rumours.

The case of mistaken identity comes after the judge who granted Venables anonymity warned that the child killer could be murdered by vigilantes if his new identity is revealed.

The Murder

James Patrick Bulger (born 16 March 1990), a two-year-old child from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, was abducted, tortured, and murdered in 1993. The perpetrators were two 10-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables, (born 13 August 1982). Bulger disappeared on 12 February 1993 from the New Strand Shopping Centre, Bootle, while accompanying his mother, and his mutilated body was found on a railway line in nearby Walton on 14 February.

Evidence found on CCTV at the Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle showed Thompson and Venables casually observing children, selecting a target. Throughout the day, Thompson and Venables were seen stealing various items including sweets, a troll doll, some batteries and a can of blue paint,some of which were found at the murder scene. It was later revealed by one of the boys that they were planning to find a child to abduct, lead it to the busy road alongside the mall, and push it into car traffic.

James Bulger being kidnapped by Thompson (above Bulger), and Venables (holding Bulger's hand), in an image recorded on shopping centre CCTV.

That same afternoon, James Bulger (often mentioned as "Jamie Bulger" in press reports, although never called "Jamie" by his family), from nearby Kirkby, went with his mother Denise to a nearby shopping centre. While inside a shop, Denise realised her son had disappeared. He had wandered out of the shop on his own and was spotted by the two boys. They approached him and spoke to him, before taking him by the hand and leading him out of the precinct. This moment was captured on a CCTV camera at 15:39 (this reference states the time as 15:42).

The boys took Bulger on a 2.5 miles (4.0 km) walk, leading him to a canal where he sustained injuries to his head and face.During the walk, the boys were seen by 38 people. Bulger was clearly distressed, but most bystanders did nothing to intervene assuming he was a younger brother. Two people challenged the older boys, but they claimed that Bulger was a younger brother or that he was lost and they were taking him to the local police station.Eventually the boys led Bulger to a railway line near the disused Walton & Anfield railway station, close to Walton Lane police station and Anfield Cemetery, where they attacked him.

Facts established at trial show that, at this location, one of the boys threw blue modelling paint on Bulger's face. They kicked him and hit him with bricks, stones and an 22-pound (10.0 kg) iron bar. They then placed batteries in his mouth.Bulger suffered skull fractures as a result of the iron bar striking his head. Alan Williams, the case's pathologist, speculated that Bulger suffered so many injuries that none could be isolated as the fatal blow.

Before they left him, the boys laid Bulger across the railway tracks and weighted his head down with rubble, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After Bulger's killers left the scene, his body was cut in half by a train. Bulger's severed body was discovered two days later, on 14 February. A forensic pathologist testified that he had died before he was struck by the train.

The police quickly found low-resolution video images of Bulger's abduction from the Strand Shopping Centre by two unidentified boys. As the circumstances surrounding the death became clear, tabloid newspapers denounced the people who had seen Bulger, but had not intervened to aid Bulger as he was being taken through the city, as the "Liverpool 38". The railway embankment upon which his body had been discovered was flooded with hundreds of bunches of flowers.

The crime created great anger in Liverpool. The family of one boy who was detained for questioning, but subsequently released, had to flee the city. The breakthrough came when a woman, on seeing slightly enhanced images of the two boys on national television, believed she recognised them. She contacted police and two suspects were arrested.The fact that the boys were so young came as a shock to investigating officers, headed by Detective Superintendent Albert Kirby, of Merseyside Police. Early press reports and police statements had referred to Bulger being seen with "two youths" (suggesting that the killers were teenagers), the ages of the boys being difficult to ascertain from the images captured by CCTV. When the case was featured on Crimewatch, the boys were estimated as being 12-14 years of age.

Forensic tests also confirmed that both boys had the same blue paint on their clothing as found on Bulger's body. Both had blood on their shoes; blood on Thompson's shoe was matched to Bulger through DNA tests.

Thompson and Venables were charged on 20 February 1993 with the abduction and murder.

With their conviction in 1993 Jon Venables and Robert Thompson became the youngest convicted murderers in Britain for almost 250 years. They were originally sentenced to detention at "Her Majesty's pleasure" and were not to be released for at least 20 years. After sentencing, the boys were housed in separate secret locations somewhere in the north of England and were expected to stay there until they turned eighteen when they would be transferred to an adult facility to serve out their time. However, when the European Court of Human Rights decreed in December 1999 that the boys had not received a fair trial and awarded costs and expenses of £15,000 to Robert Thompson and £29,000 to Jon Venables, the plan changed.

The following March, British newspaper The Observer ran the announcement by Jack Straw, Britain's Home Secretary, that Thompson and Venables would be freed by 2003. Straw's decision was based on the European Court of Human Rights ruling that Michael Howard, Home Secretary at the time of the boys sentencing, had "acted illegally when fixing a 15-year sentence for them."

According to the report filed on March 12, 2000, the Home Secretary "had the option of referring the case to the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, for a full review, because of the long-standing confusion over serious child crimes and the open-ended sentences imposed."

Also detailed were two other options: "to accept the original sentence of eight years set by the trial judge, Mr. Justice Morland, which would have meant the boys walking free next year [2001], or the 10-year tariff imposed later by the then Lord Chief Justice after a campaign by James Bulger's parents. He opted for the latter."

The Observer also suggested that the decision could have far-reaching consequences as it could mean future cases of a similar nature would not be tried in an adult court.

On Thursday October 26, 2000, the Guardian reported that Lord Woolf, the British lord chief justice, had cut the minimum sentences of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables "effectively granting them their freedom early next year [2001] subject to a parole board decision."

According to the report, Lord Woolf said: "Because of their behaviour they are entitled to a reduction in the tariff (the minimum term for punishment and deterrence) to eight years, which happens to be the figure determined by the trial judge.

"An eight-year tariff would expire on the 21st February 2001. I have already pointed out that it would not be in their or the public's interest for these two young men to be transferred to a young offenders institution."

He added, "However grave their crime, the fact remains that if that crime had been committed a few months earlier, when they were under 10, the boys could not have been tried or punished by the courts."

On Tuesday November 14, 2000, the Guardian followed up with a report that described how Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were at "real risk of reprisals which could threaten their lives if their whereabouts and new identities are revealed" and applied for "unprecedented lifetime injunctions preventing the media from disclosing information which would identify them."

Their applications were based on comments by Ralph Bulger, James's father, who had vowed to "hunt his son's killers down." Edward Fitzgerald QC, council for Venables stated, "taken in context, it is abundantly clear what he intends to do when he hunts them down." They also cited a "declared intention by the media to 'out' the pair."

In answer, Ralph Bulger told reporters: "James had the right to live, the right to grow old, to love and be loved and to have children of his own. But they took his rights away from him and so they should have no rights at all, never mind the right to privacy or the right to hide away."

The injunction was sought under the Human Rights Act, which came into force in October 2000 and, according to Fitzgerald, "was justified to protect their right to life and to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment, which could be threatened by revenge attacks."

He also asked that the injunction "ban anyone publishing anything about the boys' whereabouts or their assumed identities when they are released. Disclosure of that information would expose him (Venables) and his co-detainee to serious physical risk and serious psychological fear and the likelihood of harassment. It is necessary to protect his right to life and freedom from persecution."

The Guardian also reported that the application "was backed by the attorney general, in his role as guardian of the public interest. The home secretary and the official solicitor also support the application for a media ban, which is opposed by three newspaper groups."

Current Proceedings

Furthermore currently Venables could stand trial amidst unprecedented secrecy over his recent offence. Some lawyers believe that to protect his anonymity, and ensure he gets a fair trial, the case could be heard in 'camera', without the press or public present.

The case is particularly complex because of the draconian injunction which protects Venables's new identity. Even before he is formally charged, legal opinion is divided on how the case will be managed.

An Old Bailey barrister said: 'It is quite possible that the case will be held in camera and that Venables will appear under a false name. Any prosecution will be hugely problematic, but extremely fascinating from a practical and historical point of view.'

However a former Crown Prosecution Service lawyer said that Venables's notoriety should not prevent his real identity being disclosed to a jury, so long the media were barred from printing any new pictures or sketches of the killer.

'Over the years, a number of notorious criminals have gone on trial and their identities have been revealed to juries,' the lawyer said.

'What is important is that the judge tells the jury to assess his guilt or innocence on the evidence in the present case, not on what he has done in the past.'

The Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, and Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, are consulting their most senior advisers as they plot the legal minefield that lies ahead.

Jon Venables only a ‘trivial risk'

The Daily Mail reporter that Jon Venables was reported  as only a 'trivial' risk to the public, according to a psychiatric report compiled before his 2001 release.

The account, which formed part of the legal case for his freedom under a new identity, said 'the risks to the public are so trivial that, strictly in relation to that perspective, immediate release would be justified'.

The document also said that Venables had 'come to terms' with the killing of the toddler. 'The Jon Venables of today is a very different person to the Jon Venables aged ten,' it said.

'It has been a very important part of his rehabilitation so far that he has come to terms in a wholly realistic way with the awfulness of his behaviour eight years ago.'

Fears were growing last night that Venables will dodge child porn charges.Prosecutors were said to be having second thoughts to protect his identity and prevent a 'circus' around any trial.

James Bulger's family said any move to prevent him appearing in court would be the 'ultimate cover-up'. Officials familiar with the case believe Venables, could be locked up for just as long for breaching the terms of his release on a life licence.

Venables, 27, was granted a new identity after he was released. He and Robert Thompson served just eight years for killing James.

A source with knowledge of the case said: '[Those deciding his fate] will want to look at how long Venables could be kept behind bars for breaching the terms of his licence.

'With a serious breach of parole he might get just as long as he would for child porn. It would be easier to protect his identity if there is no further media circus.'