Posted August 24, 200816 yr Acquitted of the murder of his foster daughter Billie-Jo, Sion Jenkins says he has been let down by the police, the scientists, and the former wife who took his daughters away Is he a killer? Everyone wonders that when they first meet Sion Jenkins, and he knows it. He sees them watching his eyes, his face, his movements. Listening to his voice, for a sign he is capable of sudden, violent rage. "People need me to have a temper," he says. "I was convicted of murder." His 13-year-old foster daughter Billie-Jo died after being beaten with a metal tent spike on the patio of their home in Hastings, East Sussex, in February 1997. Her skull had been smashed. Jenkins served six years in prison for the crime, but was then released on appeal. There were two attempts at a retrial, but both times the jury failed to reach a verdict. In February 2006, he was formally cleared of the crime. "I am," he says in a new book, "an innocent man". Now he intends to reinforce that message by suing for compensation for the years in jail. This is news. Encouraged by the money recently given to Colin Stagg, wrongly jailed for a year for the murder of Rachel Nickell, he has applied to the Home Office. "I am waiting for a decision. I fit all the criteria." The most he can expect, according to legal advice, is half a million pounds – minus the board and lodging charged for being a guest of Her Majesty. "The amount is not the most important thing." Biography 15 February 1997: Billie-Jo Jenkins murdered on the patio of her home in Hastings, East Sussex. She has been battered with a metal tent spike. Foster parents Sion and Lois Jenkins appear together at a press conference, appealing for help. Nine days later, Sion is arrested. June 1998: The trial begins, in Lewes. A month later, Sion Jenkins is convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. december 1999: His first appeal fails. The following year he is refused leave to take the case to the House of Lords. July 2004: A second appeal succeeds. Conviction quashed; Jenkins released from prison. July 2005: First retrial ends when jury fails to agree a verdict. In October a second retrial begins. February 2006: Jury is again unable to agree a verdict, ending second retrial. Sion Jenkins is formally acquitted of murder. See whole article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/s...yed-907223.html What are your thoughts? Should he get compensation? Do you think he did it or is the real murderer still out there?
August 25, 200816 yr Like Barry George and Colin Stagg, Jenkins is a victim of "Trial By Media".... And another example of how the cops and the CPS will pretty much do whatever they deem necessary to stitch someone up just because they appear the most likely suspect... This is why you need a damn sight more than "circumstantial" evidence in a court of law... I mea, look at what this guy went through ffs... THREE trials????? LUDICROUS..... After all that, you cant really blame most people for thinking "well, he probably did it, he just got away with it.....".# Of course he should sue for compensation, I mean, seriously, how many employers out there would actually employ this guy for a start, how can he live and work normally after all this sh"t...? I doubt he has a steady job, hence the need to write a book.. Also, his family life has been destroyed, he has no access to his kids, because he's "Sion Jenkins, the killer of a 13-year old girl"....
August 25, 200816 yr I mea, look at what this guy went through ffs... THREE trials????? LUDICROUS..... After all that, you cant really blame most people for thinking "well, he probably did it, he just got away with it.....".# I'm one of those.
August 25, 200816 yr I'm one of those. You would be Chris, you believe whatever gobsh!te the fukkin Tabloids tell you.... Yet you seem to be oh-so-forgiving of vile perverts like Paul Gadd, a PROVEN habitual sex offender.... <_< Sion Jenkins was formally acquitted after a trial, an Appeal, and two retrials which found NOTHING to prove that he killed Billie Jo..... And after all this, morons like you still wont believe him..... Christ, I really pity your kids....
August 25, 200816 yr I agree - I'll never know if he did it or not, but surely to God after all of this, if he HAD done it, we'd know about it by now. There's clearly no proof,so he probably didn't ... thus it makes anyone who does take the afforementioned attitude look like a real plank, IMO.
August 25, 200816 yr There's clearly no proof,so he probably didn't ... thus it makes anyone who does take the afforementioned attitude look like a real plank, IMO. In a nutshell... I sincerely doubt that anyone has had to go through the sort of legal nightmare than he did, it's WORSE than what Barry George went through... The fact that he had the full weight of the system throwing itself at him and they STILL drew a blank in the end, says it all..... The guy didn't do it despite all the efforts made to stitch him up.... And after 11 years of blaming the wrong guy, they'll NEVER find the real culprit, so there's always gonna be that certain section of society that'll continue to blame him, and naturally he's gonna suffer because of the stigma, he cant possibly live a normal life, have a family, hold down a steady job, so, as far as I'm concerned he's entitled to compensation for all that....
August 25, 200816 yr You would be Chris, you believe whatever gobsh!te the fukkin Tabloids tell you.... Yet you seem to be oh-so-forgiving of vile perverts like Paul Gadd, a PROVEN habitual sex offender.... <_< Sion Jenkins was formally acquitted after a trial, an Appeal, and two retrials which found NOTHING to prove that he killed Billie Jo..... And after all this, morons like you still wont believe him..... Christ, I really pity your kids.... I only have ONE kid actually. :P The OP asked if we thought he did it yet I get vilified and called names, as usual here, for stating my opinion. :( Edited August 25, 200816 yr by Crazy Chris
August 25, 200816 yr Well maybe if you tried to put some logical reasoning behind your points of view...
August 26, 200816 yr Well maybe if you tried to put some logical reasoning behind your points of view... Exactly... Sorry Chris, but you just tend to come on here, make incredibly glib statements and dont actually back them up with anything even remotely resembling logic or fact... This aint a Forum where we suffer fools gladly dude.... And the facts are, you probably have no logical argument to back up your theory do you...? Do you really think that you know better than all these lawyers, judges, jurors, etc who sat and pored over the hundreds and hundreds of hours of evidence....? What is your actual evidence to say that he's guilty...? Is it, as I suspect, a load of second or third hand Tabloid guff....? Or do you not actually believe that the system can and does make mistakes, or that coppers dont stitch people up....? Don't be so naive....
August 26, 200816 yr maybe dna could have solved this first time around! :P the case is confused and there barely any point speculating about the truth here as like the maddy case... we simply do not know the facts.
August 27, 200816 yr maybe dna could have solved this first time around! :P Er, how would that one work then....? Obviously Sion Jenkins' DNA would be in the house seeing as how he LIVED there..... :mellow:
August 27, 200816 yr the case is confused and there barely any point speculating about the truth here as like the maddy case... we simply do not know the facts. Facts are pretty clear to me - the bloke's innocent, he was stitched up the same as The Guildford Four or Barry George.... Three trials couldn't prove his guilt, and the Appeal Court quashed the original conviction...
August 27, 200816 yr Facts are pretty clear to me - the bloke's innocent, he was stitched up the same as The Guildford Four or Barry George.... Three trials couldn't prove his guilt, and the Appeal Court quashed the original conviction... he hasnt been found 'innocent', hes been found to be 'not proven guilty'... facts are that he MIGHT have done it, but probably not, we DONT KNOW. so this threads just hot air... opinion over something we know nothing much about.
August 27, 200816 yr he hasnt been found 'innocent', hes been found to be 'not proven guilty'... Nonsense.. He's been FORMALLY acquitted by the court, which means legally, he's totally innocent.... You're sounding a bit like Crazy Chris here.... -_-
August 27, 200816 yr Nonsense.. He's been FORMALLY acquitted by the court, which means legally, he's totally innocent.... You're sounding a bit like Crazy Chris here.... -_- no..it means that theres no hard core evidence to convict him, it doesnt mean he 100% didnt do it. i dont know wether or not he did or didnt do it, as i see it it was possible after all... where is his concrete alibi?.. but this speculation is exactly what i personally dont want, i didnt want it on the maddy thread and i dont want it here.
August 28, 200816 yr IN the eyes of the law he is a free man and has no convictions with regards to this murder I have not studied the evidence closely enough to judge whether he did it or not but in the eyes of the law he is an innocent man so should be entitled to compensation for time served
August 28, 200816 yr no..it means that theres no hard core evidence to convict him, it doesnt mean he 100% didnt do it. i dont know wether or not he did or didnt do it, as i see it it was possible after all... where is his concrete alibi?.. Er, didn't he actually find her body....??? Not long after the attack...? So, how, exactly would he have an alibi, he was there shortly after the attack happened...? So, he found the body, that means he must've killed her right....? :rolleyes: This aint "speculation" Rob, he was acquitted, he's innocent, there is no "Not Proven" verdict in English Law, he is innocent in the eyes of the law, end of story... Anyone who implies otherwise is laying themselves open for a possible LIBEL action..... -_-
August 28, 200816 yr no..it means that theres no hard core evidence to convict him, it doesnt mean he 100% didnt do it. i dont know wether or not he did or didnt do it, as i see it it was possible after all... where is his concrete alibi?.. Er, didn't he actually find her body....??? Not long after the attack...? So, how, exactly would he have an alibi, he was there shortly after the attack happened...? So, he found the body, that means he must've killed her right....? :rolleyes: This aint "speculation" Rob, he was acquitted, he's innocent, there is no "Not Proven" verdict in English Law, he is innocent in the eyes of the law, end of story... Anyone who implies otherwise is laying themselves open for a possible LIBEL action..... -_- the police work on the theory that the muderer was the last person to see the victim alive... :) anyway, im not bothered about this because i simply do not know the facts. he may be legaly 'innocent' but then again so is oj simpson and michael jackson! :lol:
Create an account or sign in to comment