Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Other cases => Topic started by: joolz1975 on February 27, 2011, 01:23:PM
-
I remember this crime taking place and was sure her foster dad had done it ( he looked odd, daft i know) but after 6 years in prison he was freed on appeal.
Her killer has never been found.
A man seen in the vicinity of the property (with severe mental health issues who had been loitering in the park opposite and also was seen in the same department store as Billy the day befire acting odd) was never questioned about her murder ( in part because his Dr said he wasnt fit to be questioned because of his phychosis) but also because blood was found on her foster dads fleece, the police went after Sion Jenkins with a vengeance.
It wasnt even mentioned at the first trial that an object was inserted into Billie Jos nasal passage which was not seen to be done in anger (which is why they said her foster dad had bludgeoned her) the object seemed to have more significance.
It emerged after that the mystery man seen loitering and an obsession with inserting objects into open spaces has he felt 'evil' could escape from them.
I cannot believe this case has not been reopened and this man not looked at in more detail!
That poor girl deserves justice and her foster dad (who has only seen his birth children twice sincs his arrest) deserves to have the guilty tag thats hung over his head since removed! He wasnt freed on a technicality he was Found not guilty on appeal.
-
I remember this crime taking place and was sure her foster dad had done it ( he looked odd, daft i know) but after 6 years in prison he was freed on appeal.
Her killer has never been found.
A man seen in the vicinity of the property (with severe mental health issues who had been loitering in the park opposite and also was seen in the same department store as Billy the day befire acting odd) was never questioned about her murder ( in part because his Dr said he wasnt fit to be questioned because of his phychosis) but also because blood was found on her foster dads fleece, the police went after Sion Jenkins with a vengeance.
It wasnt even mentioned at the first trial that an object was inserted into Billie Jos nasal passage which was not seen to be done in anger (which is why they said her foster dad had bludgeoned her) the object seemed to have more significance.
It emerged after that the mystery man seen loitering and an obsession with inserting objects into open spaces has he felt 'evil' could escape from them.
I cannot believe this case has not been reopened and this man not looked at in more detail!
That poor girl deserves justice and her foster dad (who has only seen his birth children twice sincs his arrest) deserves to have the guilty tag thats hung over his head since removed! He wasnt freed on a technicality he was Found not guilty on appeal.
--------------------------
I understand your frustration with this matter, and would just like to mention that when the police get a suspect, they set out to frame him /her by presenting information and evidence that is likely to get such a suspect convicted, by the time the matter comes to trial...
The framing of persons by these means, is in my view, a natural process by which cases like this, are progressed through the system...
-
I never thought that Sion Jenkins did it - to me it seemed absurd that he would kill Billie Jo and then get in his car a few minutes later as if nothing happened.
It was interesting in that the forensic evidence wasn't enough - it was the interpretation of that evidence which led to his conviction and later on it led to his release.
-
I understand your frustration with this matter, and would just like to mention that when the police get a suspect, they set out to frame him /her by presenting information and evidence that is likely to get such a suspect convicted, by the time the matter comes to trial...
The framing of persons by these means, is in my view, a natural process by which cases like this, are progressed through the system...
Well that depends on someone's definition of framing, personally I'd see it as they compile sufficient evidence in order to obtain a conviction, rather than framing.
I see the term framed or framing as fitting someone up without evidence.
-
At no point has Sion Jenkins stated the police 'framed him'. Good old BW has a book out there that 'speculates' far more than did those closely involved in the case, but a boring science argument doesn't get a publishing deal. And this appeal DID make new case law...
The 'mystery man' was a semi-vagrant who spent a great deal of time by the children's play area in Alexandra Park (opposite the house) and near the badger sett at the far end of the gardens. One of his main obsessions was carrier bags. A tiny piece of a carrier bag had been forced up to the bridge of Billie-Jo's nose (I believe with the tent peg). This evidence was in the pathologist's report and available at the trial, but no-one had considered the full ramifications. It did not become 'all important' to the trial or subsequent appeals. However, it was of the utmost importance to friends and neighbours of Sion as it gave them considerable cause for grave doubt and the impetus to rally on his behalf.
Investigations have been made and there are strong indications that the 'mystery man' is deceased.
The evidence that released Sion actually related to 'blood spatter' - basically whether Billie-Jo was alive when microscopic blood particles were airborne onto his clothing, or whether they could have been produced when attempts were made to revive an already dead child.
Sion was not found 'not guilty' on appeal. Appeal led to two re-trials, with hung juries in both instances, largely due to the technical nature of the arguments presented. After the second re-trial the prosecution decided it could no longer pursue the case and Sion was effectively released on a technicality, hence his failure to receive any compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
As someone who (some 2 years after conviction) supported Sion, yet works within the legal profession, I have to be honest and admit that I cannot categorically state his innocence or guilt. However, given the forensic arguments - and, for me, the carrier bag - I believe justice has been served in Sion's case.
Whether justice has been served for Billie-Jo is a different issue.
-
Sion lost his wife and family, his job and career and was never compensated for the wrongdoing he suffered and continues to suffer.
Where exactly in all of this has justice been done can you tell me?
-
Sion lost his wife and family, his job and career and was never compensated for the wrongdoing he suffered and continues to suffer.
Where exactly in all of this has justice been done can you tell me?
True, but then his wife didn't sound much of a loss considering how she turned on him. He's married again hasn't he? I hope his daughters have made up with him now.
I don't really get why anyone thought he did it. If he'd beaten her like that he would have been covered in blood, but there were only small drops on his clothes - and that could have happened just as he said it did.
-
I think the term some of you are looking for is 'nobel cause corruption,' as opposed to 'fitting up' or 'stitched up.'
This is what I believe happened in my husbands case. (Simon Hall)
Though I still think it's pretty much the same. Only when we use these terms it sounds as though the police were on a mission to go after the wrong person in the first place and of course we can't go pointing fingers can we.. ;)
Have a read of the following article:
http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=313&c=noble_cause_corruption
-
Sion lost his wife and family, his job and career and was never compensated for the wrongdoing he suffered and continues to suffer.
Where exactly in all of this has justice been done can you tell me?
True, but then his wife didn't sound much of a loss considering how she turned on him. He's married again hasn't he? I hope his daughters have made up with him now.
I don't really get why anyone thought he did it. If he'd beaten her like that he would have been covered in blood, but there were only small drops on his clothes - and that could have happened just as he said it did.
Very true Kaldin, you would have thought that his wife at least would have known him better then to believe that he was a cold blooded killer. It just makes you wonder if she was only looking for a way out anyway. Given that she emigrated to Tasmania was this in the back of her mind in any event?
This quote from Siôn's website is interesting...
"The behaviour of Siôn Jenkins' former wife has been a crucial factor since the time of the murder, when it had a direct impact on public perceptions of the case."
Lois Jenkins moved to Tasmania four years after Siôn Jenkins’ trial for murder and three years after his failed first appeal. Inexplicably, she had taken no part in either process, despite being a key witness. At the time her silence seemed eloquent.
However, seven years after the murder—when a second appeal meant the real possibility that his conviction might be overturned—she flew back from the other side of the world to speak out as a prosecution witness even though her detailed memory of events must have faded.
The following year she was a prosecution witness at both retrials. The first time this was by video link. When the jury was not convinced of his guilt and a second retrial was ordered she flew across the world again to give evidence against her former husband. By now she had a great deal to say.
What is that all about???
-
what i have never really understood is why was charged with lying on a cv and murder how are the 2 connected.
-
the m.o for this murder looks very simlar to the work mr levi belfield.
-
the m.o for this murder looks very simlar to the work mr levi belfield.
As far as im aware Levi Belfield didnt have a liking for shoving carrier bags up his victims nostrils
-
that's a fair point.
i suspected belifild because trademark was battering women and girls to the head with a blunt instrument.
but yes as far as i know he did not stick bits of bin liner up his victims nostrils.
i don't Jenkins did this but i dont think the other suspect the mental patient did ether.
-
well anyone who would lie cv to get a jobs clearly capabel of anything including murdering children thank god we have brillant cops like jeremy pain to notice things like that.
-
i wonder if this case might warrant a forum of its own.
-
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.
-
i think it might be something to do with the police not wanting to admit they might of been wrong.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 , 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
thats what i was wondering.
-
this man has been put forward as a suspect.
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/c_sex_killers/a_antoni_imiela/crime_vaults/
-
Why him?
-
he was liveing it rhy at the time and he has a vague resemblence to the man billyjoe cliamed was stalking her.
-
This is, sadly, another case where the treatment of child witnesses is utterly disgraceful. Police officers telling traumatised children, in the presence of their equally traumatised mother, "We know your dad killed your foster sister," and then going on to state their "reasons" why they "know."
It was, of course, nothing more than speculation on the part of the police officers involved, but the children were not to know that - these were police officers, after all.
Then the outrageous "expert" interviews with the children by a husand and wife team, concluding that the children were, to coin a phrase "in denial" about their dad's guilt. For goodness sake, none of the three natural daughters was there when Billie Jo was murdered - how could any of them be "in denial" about something they hadn't even witnessed?
I have seen this over and over again - in the trauma, grief and shock of the immediate aftermath of such terrible events, the police begin to drip feed extremely vulnerable people kernels of doubt about the accused person, and seeds of "reasonable" explanations which will support their later accusations - by then, the job is done.
I'll lay my cards on the table - I don't believe the evidence in any way supports the accusation that Sion Jenkins killed Billie Jo, and, as such, I stand by his innocence.
It's a fact of life that none of us can ever "know" for sure - we all have a choice to make - throw our hands in the air and ignore difficult questions, or try to think them through logically, fairly, and methodically - I know what my choice is!
-
id have to go with innocent as well.
-
This is, sadly, another case where the treatment of child witnesses is utterly disgraceful. Police officers telling traumatised children, in the presence of their equally traumatised mother, "We know your dad killed your foster sister," and then going on to state their "reasons" why they "know."
It was, of course, nothing more than speculation on the part of the police officers involved, but the children were not to know that - these were police officers, after all.
Then the outrageous "expert" interviews with the children by a husand and wife team, concluding that the children were, to coin a phrase "in denial" about their dad's guilt. For goodness sake, none of the three natural daughters was there when Billie Jo was murdered - how could any of them be "in denial" about something they hadn't even witnessed?
I have seen this over and over again - in the trauma, grief and shock of the immediate aftermath of such terrible events, the police begin to drip feed extremely vulnerable people kernels of doubt about the accused person, and seeds of "reasonable" explanations which will support their later accusations - by then, the job is done.
I'll lay my cards on the table - I don't believe the evidence in any way supports the accusation that Sion Jenkins killed Billie Jo, and, as such, I stand by his innocence.
It's a fact of life that none of us can ever "know" for sure - we all have a choice to make - throw our hands in the air and ignore difficult questions, or try to think them through logically, fairly, and methodically - I know what my choice is!
I believe that there is proof that Jenkins is innocent. People familiar with the evidence will know that Jenkins daughter Charlotte says that she and Annie were in the house with Sion at the time he was supposed to have committed the murder and that on that occasion she went upstairs to put her clarinet away while Annie remained with her father downstairs. After only two or three minutes, all three left after Annie had spoken briefly to Billie-Jo. The Crown originally accepted that his daughters evidence gave Sion an alibi. He only ended up being prosecuted because his wife Lois told the police that the girls had changed their story to one where they said they were outside at that time. This was exposed as lie when Annie and Charlotte were interviewed by Kent Police four years later. Both girls denied ever having changed their evidence.
From a practical point of view Sions defence still had a certain weakness. They were asking the Court to believe the children and not their mother. The children understandably would not accuse their mother of lying, so in the two further trials the prosecution could appeal to her adult authority. Sion was the villain, Lois became the darling of the tabloid press with her stories of a perforated eardrum and the like.
Given that child witnesses are considered to be less reliable than adult ones, it would have greatly benefited Sion’s defence if there had been some independent proof that he had not been in the house alone with Billie-Jo at the crucial time. I believe there is.
The background assumption in all of hostile press coverage is that Sion’s daughters Annie and Charlotte were outside, leaving Sion with a three minute window of opportunity to kill Billie-Jo. But if the girls came out three minutes before he did, he must have been in the house more like a total of five or six minutes, since it’s absurd that they would have gone in and sprung straight back out again. At any rate you have to lengthen the time to accommodate the so called window of opportunity. But where is it said that Sion must have been in the house for at least five minutes or so? Such a length of time would have been more favourable to the prosecution, so why didn’t they make that distinction between Sion’s total time in the house on that occasion and the time he was supposed to have been alone with Billie-Jo. Maybe they didn’t go in at all, you might say? No, there’s proof they did! Charlotte said she put her clarinet away, so at least one of them did. Could she have been lying? If you say that, you will have a hard job explaining why the police didn’t find it still in the car.
Here is a question. Did the prosecution’s case change over the three trials? Was it ever their position that the girls went in the house, but came out earlier than Sion, or did they always maintain that his daughters never went in at all? It is possible to prove that the latter is false.
-
well the prosecution changed there story on a lot of thingsin the first trial they told the jury the forensic evidence was incontrovertible in the second and 3rd trials they told the jury not to take to much notice of it.