As I understand it, Billie Jo was painting the patio doors, or something like that, and was murdered with a tent peg.
Clearly the police never turned up anybody likely to have been there – boyfriend, schoolfriend – and who would have been an unsurprising arrival for Billie Jo explaining why she was just where she was when her body was found.
So the Sion Jenkins supporters would have us believe that a person or persons unknown came around the back of the house (of course, with some houses that’s easy, you just walk down the side; but other houses have fences with gates or doors), walked up to her, grabbed the tent peg and beat her to death with it.
They point to someone who is referred to as ‘mentally ill’, and alleged to be fascinated with putting plastic across his nose and mouth. His nose and mouth, mind.
I’m afraid I don’t buy that. I don’t know of one other case anywhere at all in which someone is killed at the rear of their own home for no obvious motive (e.g. burglary). It just doesn’t stand up. Murderers usually have an agenda, they want a particular person dead; the so-called ‘motiveless’ (or serial) killers actually have a motive, it’s just a non-sense motive, like killing all college girls with long blonde hair, or something like that. Most serial killers are opportunists – they take what comes their way, they don’t go creeping around houses on the off-chance that they’ll find a victim. Even Ted Bundy – who would dress up in artificial plaster casts in order to ask sympathetic girls for help – would take whichever girl that fit his template who happened to be passing, he didn’t set out to kill particular girls. (Spot the difference with slasher films.)
And as for the ‘mentally ill’ guy. Is he criminally insane? There doesn’t seem to be any suggestion that he is. So if that’s the case, why would he suddenly wander around their house and then murder a girl who was unknown to him? (Maybe the ‘supporters’ have these explanations – I haven’t seen them.)
Jenkins’ original conviction was overturned, and subsequently it hasn’t been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he killed his stepdaughter. But I’ll be b()ggered if there are any other prime candidates.
Come come, Barry - I'm shocked to hear such a erudite jurist as yourself stooping to Daily Mail levels of slur and innuendo. I'm sure you know as well as I do that Sion Jenkins walks free from the court, entitled to live the rest of his life with not stain on his character from this sorry episode. Shame on you for thinking otherwise...Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov
It really is impossible to say whether Sion Jenkins is guilty, without having sat on the jury & heard all the evidence. The police obviously believe he is, and that they have enough evidence to prove it, or else they wouldn't have taken it to court 3 times, but then again, 3 seperate juries, 36 people, have heard all the evidence, and cleared him, that has to say something too. Personally, I only know what I read in the papers, and from that, I think he's as guilty as hell, but I'm also fully aware that papers report what they want to report, and you will get from their stories what they want you to get. I remember very early on in the case that there were reports from the family, and Billie-Jo's school friends, that she had been being followed by a stalker for some time, I don't know how much that was ever followed up after they started the trials of Sion Jenkins.
- especially this:
All the evidence pointed to Sion Jenkins, so if he's been let off not just once, but 3 times, I'm not so sure he's guilty. But as TT also said, we weren't in court, so it's impossible to say. I'm just glad I wasn't on any of those juries.
I remember the comments after the Guildford Four were released - very similar, along the lines of "Well, they're not necessarily innocent, just haven't been proven guilty." As if those were two different things.
The conversation then leads to the famous "Not proven" verdicts in Scottish trials - but to me, that's just saying "Oh, he probably did do it, but we couldn't prove it. Yet." which strikes me as unfair to all concerned, and gives the media license to smear someone's reputation at will.
I completely agree with TT - second-guessing a jury's decision based on media reports is massively dangerous - we weren't there, we don't know everything they know, and I think that in general we have to trust the jury system to do the right job.
Oh, and sacking the Chief Constable of Sussex police force for wasting £10 million quid of our money wouldn't go amiss.
I think some of the newspaper reporting is bordering on the libellous, given the Not Guilty verdict. As you say, the jury system is, in general, the fairest so I'm working on the assumption that we can trust their judgement in this instance.
If Sion Jenkins had been found guilty first time around, he'd probably be not far off parole by now. Ironic.
That's a bit strong, isn't it? Two hung juries means there was obviously a case to be put - otherwise they'd have returned a unanimous verdict of 'not guilty'.
The frightening thing about this, is the case reminds me alot of the trial of Russell Bishop. He was the prime suspect in the notorious "Babes in the Wood" case, in 1986, where 2 young girls, Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway, from the Brighton area were found murdered in a local park, Wild Park. The evidence against Russell Bishop was immense, but he got aquitted by 2 juries on technicalities, due to tampering with evidence. Everybody knew he was guilty, because the papers had tried him along with the courts, and the public made their own decisions from that, just like now. I'm not saying that Sion Jenkins is guilty, because I just don't know, but from what I've read, I'm certainly not saying he's innocent either, just like the case with Russell Bishop. Sadly, in 1990, Russell Bishop was found guilty of the kidnapping and attempted murder of a 7 year old girl. If the evidence in 1986 hadn't been tampered with, maybe this little girl would have been saved the horrendous ordeal she went through.
£10 million quid. No result - no-one's received justice, that's clear.
So I want my 30p back, I was robbed.
If this were the private sector, one would imagine a stern talking-to might be in order - but police are like doctors, it seems incredibly difficult to register disapproval or discipline for what at the very least must be poor presentation of evidence.
But it's down to the CPS to present the evidence, not the chief constable. Besides, did you sit through the trial for long enough to know the evidence suffered from "poor presentation"? Or did the defence just do a good job in presenting the conflicting evidence? That is, after all, their role. Perhaps next time we should just scrap the idea of a defence legal team, let just the CPS present their side of the story and save £10m. After all, we all know he's guilty. Don't we?
I'm not included in that "we" (yes, I know you were being sarcastic).
I freely admit that I don't know, and I can honestly say that at present, I have no opinion, because I have insufficient evidence on which to base one. I know that's never stopped me in the past, but hey, I'm inconsistent.
[/QUOTE]If the evidence in 1986 hadn't been tampered with, maybe this little girl would have been saved the horrendous ordeal she went through.
People who commit these crimes are not stupid at all. They can tamper with any evidence that they leave behind and trying to track down the person responsible is very tricky, even with today's technology. They still try to solve murders that happened years back, but hardly succeed.
Barry mentioned him being 'mentally ill'. I think anybody who would dare to take someone else's life is obviously insane and needs help. If he was stalking her, my guess is the reason he killed her was because she was rejecting him. That is enough to trigger something off in the mind of a 'mentally ill' person to seriously harm someone.
Then you get those who say they people with a disturbed mind don't know what they are doing! Rubbish! Why do they try to deny it and escape then?
Was reading this and watching/listening to lunchtime news .
Apparently, some of the evidence was not admissible because the judge decreed it was presented too late. eg testimony from his former partner/ spouse and daughter that he had a history of domestic violence , he would severely beat them , had a terrible temper which would flare up then subside extremely quickly! I think this evidence might have helped some indecisive jurors make up their mind!
Heather,
x
Apparently, some of the evidence was not admissible because the judge decreed it was presented too late.
Ahem..I was sayingeg testimony from his former partner/ spouse and daughter that he had a history of domestic violence , he would severely beat them , had a terrible temper which would flare up then subside extremely quickly!up there..YEP! THE GUY IS TOTALLY INSANE and needs locking up anyway. Plus if he was stalking Billie Jo then what he did to his family just shows he could do worse. Me thinks he's definately guilty.
Was reading this and watching/listening to lunchtime news .
Apparently, some of the evidence was not admissible because the judge decreed it was presented too late. eg testimony from his former partner/ spouse and daughter that he had a history of domestic violence , he would severely beat them , had a terrible temper which would flare up then subside extremely quickly! I think this evidence might have helped some indecisive jurors make up their mind!
Heather,
x
I agree that until found guily, then the person must be considered innocent. However, there has been something about this case all along that has made me feel that Sion Jenkins is not telling all - rather like his CV's!
May Billie Jo and her family find some comfort in the knowledge that there is still much disquiet about this verdict!
Elaine
Elaine
Who said HE was stalking Billie-Jo? I said that there had been reports she had a stalker, I never said it was him, I don't remember anyone ever saying it was him!
The only good thing about this, if he is guilty, is that everyone knows who he is now, his name will be remembered for many years to come, and even if he isn't in prison, his life will never be the same again! In that case, let's just hope he IS guilty!
Someone here at work said it. Sometimes you have to be careful what you hear or what you believe because it's when incidents like this happen that all sorts of rumours are flying around.
That's a real shame though. I feel sorry for people who have been through such things that are totally innocent. That's their whole life ruined for good.The only good thing about this, if he is guilty, is that everyone knows who he is now, his name will be remembered for many years to come, and even if he isn't in prison, his life will never be the same again! In that case, let's just hope he IS guilty!
The reason why the information wasn't allowed was because the law in force at the time of his original trial did not permit that sort of character evidence unless the defendant 'lost his shield'. Character evidence was not allowed unless the defendant impugned the character of prosecution or other defendant's witnesses - such as, "it's a fit up". This was taken to be an attack on the character of the police - clearly, honourable coppers would never 'fit' someone up. This was referred to as 'losing the shield' and immediately enabled the prosecution to put the defendant's character into evidence, by showing what sort of person he was.
This all changed in the last few years so that now character evidence (in a limited fashion) can be introduced into the trial whether the defendant has lost his shield or not. That's why the evidence wasn't allowed in this trial.
I read a book, and fascinating it was too, called 'Fatal vision' (from Macbeth: Is this a dagger I see before me?). It was made into a TV movie with Karl Malden and Gary Cole. True story.
A US Marine doctor was living on Fort Bragg with his young wife and two little daughters. One night he phones the MPs in the middle of the night and says the house has been attacked, hes' been injured, he's worried about his wife and children. When the MPs turn up, Mum and the kiddies are dead, and he has a punctured lung.
He says that the littlest one wet the bed, and wanted to sleep in the big bed, so he slept on the couch because he could never sleep with the youngster wriggling all night. Middle of the night, dark, he's woken up by a man standing over him. He struggles to his feet seeing himself surrounded by hippies, including a girl with long blong hair and high boots carrying a candle saying "Groovy! Kill the pigs!" (its 1970, by the way). He can hear his wife screaming as though she's being attacked and the girls are crying. He makes a life-or-death attack on one of the hippies, desperate to reach his family and help them. But he's stabbed in the chest, can't breathe and collapses. When he comes to all is quiet and he makes the call to the MPs. He is able to give them pretty good descriptions of 4 hippies, their hair colour, their facial features, the clothes they were wearing and the badges and patches on them.
All credit to the MPs, within about 48 hours they have decided he did it. Mostly because the only injury he has is a tiny puncture wound between two ribs which unluckily is just deep enough to penetrate the pneuma and collapse the lung. Also, almost nothing in the room is disturbed. Even a precarious stack of magazines on the coffee table hasn't been knocked over. For a marine to be in a life or death struggle in a tiny married-quarters living room and the furniture is exactly where it started, and he has no bruises, no marks on his hands or face, just the tiny wound - what's that about?
And in the bathroom sink, under the mirror, are a few blood splats, quite small, exactly what you might expect to see if, say, a knowledgeable person pushed a scalpel just far enough between two ribs to puncture his lung.
At first his mother and father in law were incensed with the Army for charging their beloved (US Marine doctor, no less) son in law. But one day the father goes to the house - a sealed crime scene for years) and lies down on the couch. At 3 am in the morning the room is pitch dark. You cannot see anything, leave alone facial details and hair colour.
Macdonald fought successfully for years, with (admittedly) high class defence teams, even moving to California and becoming a sort of ER doctor to the stars, before finally being convicted. The successful prosecutor kept telling the jury: "If I can prove he committed this crime, I don't need to prove that he is the sort of person who might commit this crime."
It is known that Macdonald had been moonlighting in a local ER and was taking diet suppressant pills (=amphetamines) both to keep his weight within Marine regs and to help him stay awake. After many months doing this he was borderline psychotic. The writer, a journalist who had been commissioned to write the Jeffrey Macdonald is innocent! biography of the court case, theorised that the it was the older daughter had wet her bed; she wanted to sleep with Mommy, he had an argument with his wife about it, she told him she'd finally had enough and he beat her to death. The older daughter died trying to defend her mother.
Each of the family had a different blood group, so scientists were able to see who had been in which room and generally in what order. As a result, most people were convinced that he killed the youngest daughter, barely more than a toddler, simply to provide the alibi.
So loving fathers, even ones who are so loving that their in-laws think the sun shines out of their a**, can be ruthless killers.
And what is easier than to throw the investigators off the scent by going "Hey! Look! A werido/weirdoes!! He/they must have done it!!! I wouldn't be me, not good old Dad...
(However, check here for the other point of view...)
I wonder what this whole saga tells us about our wonderful adversarial system of justice and the common sense of twelve jurors honest and true.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks