Billy jo jenkins

[gordo30]

The expert testimony that small bloodlets could have been produced by agitation of the body when BJJ was already dead is fine in practice but had the jury heard that testimony then the guilty verdict may have been passed.
The fact that it was used for an appeal and subsequent retrial meant that more emphasis was placed on this part of the expert advice and the case was thrown out as the jury could not fine him either guilty or innocent. I understand that he should have been considered innocent until he was found guilty and therefore is innocent but it does create grave doubts.

I also have never understood why the case remains closed and no further investigation into her murder will take place.

[nugnug]

i think it might be something to do with the police not wanting to admit they might of been wrong.

[jon]

Martin , what do you make of MB1 comment's regarding Bob Woffinden ?
If you have time can you give us a short insight into , what you believe are
the main points pointing to SJ innocence ?

[Moe Cassani]

The expert testimony that small bloodlets could have been produced by agitation of the body when BJJ was already dead is fine in practice but had the jury heard that testimony then the guilty verdict may have been passed.
The fact that it was used for an appeal and subsequent retrial meant that more emphasis was placed on this part of the expert advice and the case was thrown out as the jury could not fine him either guilty or innocent. I understand that he should have been considered innocent until he was found guilty and therefore is innocent but it does create grave doubts.

I also have never understood why the case remains closed and no further investigation into her murder will take place.

An interesting debate,
I tend to sway towards his guilt. I accept though that there simply isnt the evidence to safely convict him. It seems an astonishing coincidence that Sion Jenkins had a 'volcanic temper' and had been violent towards his ex-wife in the past. She also stated (there is absolutely no reason for her to lie about this) That he was capable of flying into fit of temper and then moments later would act as though nothing had happened. This behaviour seems somewhat suspicious to me, considering Billie-Jo was murdered very quickly and by someone that was in a obvious rage. Does this make Jenkins the killer? Of course not, but I will tell you, it makes it much more likely doesn't it?
My guess is that being a teenager she was cheeky to him (something he was well-known to not be able to tolerate) as she wa spainting a back door as a chore (which Billie-Jo despised) he lost it and picked up the nearest thing to him, which just happened to be a metal tent peg. he proceeded to batter her about her head with it until his rage cooled. He knew at this moment that he was in deep, deep trouble. He manufactured the only alibi that would have been available to him - that was to get out of the house and then return and find her body (along with witnesses)
This may well be what happened. We may never know.

[nugnug]

his wife also said he  had a row with billy joe the night the day she died it was later established at the appeal court that the only person billyjoe had a row with was her.

so we know his wife does tell lies.

what her reason is i dont know but we know she does.

[gordo30]

I agree nugnug that the wife can lie! but Im not really understanding her need to unless it was to put more beef on the bones about Sion's abusive behavoir.
I don't feel this was done so she could simply have enough of a reason to leave him. He was an abusive husband who was capable of abuse to the children, this for me has the hallmarks of someone pushed to a certain limit may have been induced to carry out a murder (personal opinion).

I do still however believe that as a result of  the retrial that Sion Jenkins is innocent as having the full and proper evidence available to a jury they couldn't convict.

[nugnug]

if he really was as abusive as has been claimed why werrnt the natural parents making a fuss about billyjoe being placed there.

why was there no inquiry be socail services after the conviction as to why she was placed there.

and why wernt the tabloid press and the police demanding one.

[Martin]

Martin , what do you make of MB1 comment's regarding Bob Woffinden ?
If you have time can you give us a short insight into , what you believe are
the main points pointing to SJ innocence ?

Jon

MB1 doesn’t make any specific criticisn of Woffinden’s view, but uses the expression “speculation” . He doesn’t even say what he’s talking about. You gather from his tone that he’s not much impressed by the book, but doesn’t make it clear what arguments he particularly has in mind.

 I have general theory about legal professionals. They don’t tend to like definite conclusions which put an end to debate because it’s through ongoing disputes that they earn their living. Jenkin’s daughters both say they were with him at the time he was supposed to have committed the murder, so that should basically rule him out as a suspect. And at first it did. The CPS, against the wishes of the police, did not want to prosecute. But his wife Lois went along with the police’s view that he had persuaded them to lie or that they must be “confused.”

I don’t think it’s wild speculation to suggest that she probably tried to get them to admit they were lying but that when they would not give in, decided to take matters in her own hands and began to give false evidence.

All the stuff about a volatile temper is typical smear campaign evidence. The lie about the perforated eardrum suggests that she told other lies as well.

He himself thinks the jury probably convicted him because his daughters Annie ans Lottie did not testify at the original trial. His wife prevented the defence from interviewing them. Lawyers would never call witnesses blind. The theory is that they noted that his defence said that they were with him at the crucial time, yet were not there to back him up. Sion thinks on that account it’s understandable the they found him guilty. The jury could not be told his defence could not in the circumstances call them as witnesses. 

I think the main factor in this miscarriage of justice is the fact that his daughters were minors at the time and the fact that the marriage was in difficulties at the time. Wily adults found a way to get round the problem of the childrens' evidence. If they had been five years older say seventeen and fifteen they would surely have prevented their Mother from interfering and told the police straight themselves.

[susan]

Morning mertol22 steve's post sounds as if it should be in a book.  Maybe he is a writer he seems to have so much small detail of Jeremy and Julie same age as Jeremy perhaps they were in school together.

[nugnug]

his wife went to austrial after the trail now i wonder had she allready planned on doing that were was she the day of the murder.

[nugnug]

Jon

MB1 doesn’t make any specific criticisn of Woffinden’s view, but uses the expression “speculation” . He doesn’t even say what he’s talking about. You gather from his tone that he’s not much impressed by the book, but doesn’t make it clear what arguments he particularly has in mind.

 I have general theory about legal professionals. They don’t tend to like definite conclusions which put an end to debate because it’s through ongoing disputes that they earn their living. Jenkin’s daughters both say they were with him at the time he was supposed to have committed the murder, so that should basically rule him out as a suspect. And at first it did. The CPS, against the wishes of the police, did not want to prosecute. But his wife Lois went along with the police’s view that he had persuaded them to lie or that they must be “confused.”

I don’t think it’s wild speculation to suggest that she probably tried to get them to admit they were lying but that when they would not give in, decided to take matters in her own hands and began to give false evidence.

All the stuff about a volatile temper is typical smear campaign evidence. The lie about the perforated eardrum suggests that she told other lies as well.

He himself thinks the jury probably convicted him because his daughters Annie ans Lottie did not testify at the original trial. His wife prevented the defence from interviewing them. Lawyers would never call witnesses blind. The theory is that they noted that his defence said that they were with him at the crucial time, yet were not there to back him up. Sion thinks on that account it’s understandable the they found him guilty. The jury could not be told his defence could not in the circumstances call them as witnesses. 

I think the main factor in this miscarriage of justice is the fact that his daughters were minors at the time and the fact that the marriage was in difficulties at the time. Wily adults found a way to get round the problem of the childrens' evidence. If they had been five years older say seventeen and fifteen they would surely have prevented their Mother from interfering and told the police staight themselves.

but if his daughters had said that then his wife would no that so his wife must of known he was innocent witch would make what she did later rather strange.

as far as i can see he dident have a chance to get his daughters to lie for him after the murder he was never alone with them.

and his wife would of also known this.

[gordo30]

I've been looking for a while to get some sort of answer to this online but have been unable to find anything close to an answer.

The contradicting expert testimony about the ability of  of microscopic bloodlets to be produced due to the lungs being depressed when Sion lifted her to cradle her when he found her hold some problems for me.

If the blood that created this bloodlets was in the lungs then where did it come from?

If it was in the esophagus then I can understand why a little could have found its way there but enough to create bloodlets?


The problem I have is any blood that found itself in the airways would have been subjected to other fluids of the body. If BJJ did not die straight away then her irregular or slower heart beat would fill the lungs with fluid, the compression on the lungs would surely have the same effect on this fluid as it did on the blood. The blood would then have become a form of substance made up of the blood and other body fluids and surely this was detectable. If this is wrong then surely the other fluids of the body and lungs would have been subjected to the same microscopic vaporising and be deposited on the clothes also.
The bloodlets if caused by the crime itself would not have been subjected to the same processes and be clearly identifiable as blood all 158 of them.

The other problem I have is that the blood was in effect dead blood and would have thickened to a degree, enough to vaporise it? Its possible.

[nugnug]

im no epert but i would of thought if you had bashed some head in with a tent peg you have more blood on you than that.

i mean there was ground over the ground nd it would appear the blood had sprayed in all directions.

[haughton]

Lois Jenkins flies across the world to give evidence against her husband!. It seems to me that she was desperate to keep him locked up. I wonder why, where was she at the time of the murder?

[nugnug]

thats what i was wondering.