Billie-joe case Jenkins aquittal

16 Mar 2004
Reaction score
United Kingdom
Seems that after the aquittal of Billie's stepdad that he and his new wife were set upon and punched and kicked by some of billie's aunts.
Seems like the courts decision is not enough in the eyes of some and having made their minds up are not about to forgive him or believe his innocence even though he has pleaded such since the start of it.
This making up of opinions is rife in society these days and it seems that once tarred with an accusation it sticks regardless of the truth.
Blame should lie in the media for publicising the accused names before a decision has been found, and if it takes a change in the law to force the media to censor their reports then so be it, you can't have freedom of reporting if it causes distress and actual bodily harm to someone who has always been innocent. Recent rape claims come to mind with the accused committing suicide because of the public condemnation and abuse only to find the accuser later admits to lying and only doing so for attention.
Salem witchunts still go on today.

If in the eyes of the law one is innocent before proven guilty then they should have the protection of anonymity until proven guilty.
Sponsored Links
ban-all-sheds said:
But in his case hadn't he been "proven guilty"? Wasn't this an appeal?
But the proven guilty verdict was overturned proving he was innocent not guilty yet the relatives still won't accept this.
See final sect.
I wonder if this was seen as counterproductive by prosecution 'woman scorned', proof etc?

Sh#t sticks ..
Sponsored Links
This sort of case fascinates me, and I must admit that I have always felt him to be not guilty, right from the beginning (thus of course making me guilty of exactly the sort of opinion-forming that Kendor is lamenting above, just in the opposite direction). This case feels a bit like Colin Stagg, where the police aren't acting maliciously as such, but do convince themselves that they have got the right answer and are blind to any other possibility - The evidence then 'fits' and I think in this case they even managed to convince Jenkins' wife of his guilt and her evidence became a bit more fruity as a result.

In the case of Stagg, even after he was exonerated, a lot of people still say things like 'Oh well, he was a bit odd anyway' as if that excuses an innocent man having the stigma of being the killer who got away with it hanging over him for ten years. The person who they later declared to be the real killer was an initial suspect, but the focus was all on Stagg and the real killer went on to kill another Mother & Child before his eventual conviction, and it should be remembered that Billy-Jo's real killer is still out there..

I notice that the police have issued a statement saying that they aren't going to look for anyone else, which is their code for saying they think jenkins has got away with it which, again, is exactly what happened with Colin Stagg as well.

I agree with Kenodr's point entirely above - The media in this country undertakes too much biased reporting, so that the man in the street thinks they know more about a case than the jury who sits on it day in, day out, and this sort of suspicion is going to hang over Jenkins forever.

Incidentally, why weren't the aunts and uncles arrested ?
The colin stagg case is a great example, The police were proved to have tried to coerce the accused into giving evidence against himself and with the correct technique any organization like the police will be able to use their skills in interrogation to get the required result.
It's then left to the accused's councel to prove to the court any underhandedness in obtaining the "confession"

Of course the british police are above any suspicion of underhandedness, same as the spanish inquisition were not guilty of obtaining confessions underhandedly :eek:
I thought the trial collapsed because the jury failed to reach a verdict and also evidence was omitted because it was submitted late?
They failed to reach a verdict, which means they failed to reach a guilty verdict, which means he's innocent. Of course, we don't know how the jury was split, but to be guilty you have to convince at least 10 of them beyond any reasonable doubt, and they couldn't.

My personal opinion is that if you were going to suddenly snap and kill your child, because they were being too annoying, it would be more of a strangling in a red mist moment. By all accounts this murder seems to have been committed by someone going absolutely mental, and by all accounts wasn't very pleasant at all. Then, of course, there is all this bin bag up the nose stuff, which doesn't fit particularly well with the prosecution case.
So the forensic tests which found fragments of her bone in the blood that was on him had no bearing on the case? I thought this evidence was omitted because it was submitted late and the defence would not be able to properly challenge it.
Haven't heard about that, so can't really offer an opinion, but given that they've had 9 years with his clothes and her blood, they maybe should've noticed it before now.

However, in the circumstances, it doesn't seem that unresonable for him to be covered in all sorts.....
Its interesting though that even though I think we're both quite reasonable rational people, we have both formed completely opposite opinions on the same thing, and inevitably that one of us must be wrong, which goes to show that this sort of thing will stick about with him indefinitely.

Given that there is no grey area in this - He is either completely innocent or has got away with it, I would be keen to know which side of the fence most people fall on.....
The blood came from her nose according to the report and as he found billie it was considered that the blood spots occured then
What about the alleged violence endured by first wife?

Times today said:
....His honesty was then questioned when it was discovered that he had lied on his CV. He had not, as he claimed, attended Gordonstoun or the University of Kent. He did not have a BA honours degree, a postgraduate certificate in education, an advanced diploma from the Open University or an MSc from King's College London....


February 15, 1997 Billie-Jo, 13, found dead

March 14, 1997 Siôn Jenkins charged

July 2, 1998 Mr Jenkins found unanimously guilty of murder and jailed for life

September 1999 Channel 4's Trial and Error programme throws doubt on conviction

December 1999 Appeal against conviction dismissed

April 2001 Mr Jenkins's legal team present file with new evidence

July 16, 2004 Conviction ruled unsafe over a technicality

August 2, 2004 Mr Jenkins released on bail

April 20, 2005 First retrial

July 11 Jury fails to reach verdict. Retrial ordered

November 1, 2005 Second retrial

February 9, 2006 Jury unable to agree. Mr Jenkins formally found not guilty

Actually helped by the media.... Bit of a fibber tho'

It has been said ... 'You know where you stand with a thief....... A liar / cheat is a different kettle of fish'
Especially in charge of our most prized possessions....

Comes back to the same old thing again - Just because you lie on your CV, doesn't automatically make you guilty of everything else you're accused of.

Same for giving his wife a slap - doesn't make him a good person, but doesn't make him a killer either. The only thing he can be tried on is the evidence in this case, and that got him found not guilty.
I think he did it, if I was on the jury I have to say not guilty as I'm not 100% sure and you cant convict someone on a gut feeling but I feel it was him wot did it. :rolleyes:
Sponsored Links