UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Siôn Jenkins and the murder of his adopted daughter Billie-Jo. => Topic started by: John on July 21, 2012, 08:48:06 PM
-
Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
The Ex-Wife of Sion Jenkins today reveals the truth about his violent rages - and finally tells the story she was prevented from putting before the jury in the Billie-Jo Jenkins murder trial.
(http://i.imgur.com/Y9qM1.jpg)
Lois Jenkins, 43, says her husband was a liar with a frighteningly controlling nature, who beat both her and their children. Mrs Jenkins was not allowed to reveal the truth about their home life when Sion stood trial for the murder of their stepdaughter Billie-Jo.
Lois Jenkins detailed in public for the first time his explosive rages and mood swings, how he beat her and their daughters, and how he repeatedly lied about his past.
She also told of the moment Jenkins coldly told his four daughters: "Billie's dead". Mrs Jenkins revealed: "It had no trace of emotion. He offered no comfort."
Soon afterwards, she said, it dawned on her that her husband might be the killer. Nine years later, as she struggles to rebuild her life with a new partner in Australia, she fears that the nightmare of what happened that day in February 1997 may never leave her.
Read more. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-376915/Lois-Jenkins-The-truth-I-allowed-tell.html#ixzz21Hw3doMK)
-
I've always felt there was something fishy about this case..., incriminating evidence was sadly lacking and his wife's revelations have not proved as powerful as Julie Mugford's testimony. Where have you seen that knowing look in her eyes before, I wonder?
And also whether his daughters in Tasmania will reveal anything more now their grown adults.
-
I've always felt there was something fishy about this case..., incriminating evidence was sadly lacking and his wife's revelations have not proved as powerful as Julie Mugford's testimony. Where have you seen that knowing look in her eyes before, I wonder?
And also whether his daughters in Tasmania will reveal anything more now their grown adults.
We must be clear though that just because someone has a quick temper and beats his wife and kids doesn't necessarily make them a killer...just a low life.
I wonder how his new bird gets on with him?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/18/article-0-042608300000044D-608_468x455.jpg)
Unquestioning love: Tina Jenkins has no doubt that her husband Sion is innocent of the murder of his daughter, Billie-Jo.
Isn't that what Debbie Garlick said about Adrian Prout?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1304282/Why-Sion-Jenkins-new-wife-asked-killed-Billie-Jo.html#ixzz21I6hZ9B2
-
I wrote a short story about this guy awhile back
http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/murder_one.html
Michael Stone wasn't impressed with him, his exact words were if bullshit could fly, Jenkins would be a wing commander.
-
Having met this guy Jeremy also thought him to be guilty too.
-
We must be clear though that just because someone has a quick temper and beats his wife and kids doesn't necessarily make them a killer...just a low life.
I wonder how his new bird gets on with him?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/18/article-0-042608300000044D-608_468x455.jpg)
Unquestioning love: Tina Jenkins has no doubt that her husband Sion is innocent of the murder of his daughter, Billie-Jo.
Isn't that what Debbie Garlick said about Adrian Prout?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1304282/Why-Sion-Jenkins-new-wife-asked-killed-Billie-Jo.html#ixzz21I6hZ9B2
My first instinct is I can't trust that face: I felt the same when when he was interviewed on TV with this woman - he seemed to be playing the perfect puppy dog to her. But then if he's got a violent temper at home he's bound to know how to put on a different face in public - however as John says that doesn't automatically mean he's a murderer. I certainly think she is a relationship of convenience: she lends him credibility and I believe is very wealthy.
-
Next reaction. I don't doubt he was an arsehole at home - but I'm surprised that if Lois thought he chastised her own children too harshly (beating them with a stick is, after all, a criminal offence) even if she couldn't bring herself to leave him (often difficult in domestic abuse) why would she knowingly bring a foster child into her home?
And if there were violent rages and other things amiss, why would she leave him alone with her own children, let alone someone else's?
All a bit rummy.
-
Well, I can understand why two, or was it three, Juries had trouble deciding.
I think he did it. I don't like the look of him.
And then I think his wife fitted him up. I don't like the look of her either.
I was no longer living in Britain when this happened. No Internet, and I didn't buy newspapers. So I am completely ignorant of this case.
Three things stand out for me.
He doesn't appear to have had blood splatters when he went to The DIY.
Two of his daughters were in the house when he supposedly did it.
One of his daughters said he didn't hurt them or beat his wife.
On balance I think he is probably innocent. In so far as Not Proven.
Can anyone enlighten me further?
-
Ditto all of that!
I must admit I thought the odds of the random tramp doing it were utterly ridiculous but now I'm reading up about this Mark Lynam bloke and have heard there was an empty house next door I'm certainly starting to wonder.
-
This Article in the Daily Mail says they had an au pair who made a statement to the police saying she never saw any unpleasantness in the household. Having been an au pair myself briefly I'd say it's going to be impossible to hide from someone actually living in the house.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1038737/Tried-THREE-times-murder-foster-daughter-Sion-Jenkins-written-book-says-looked-killer-eye.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1038737/Tried-THREE-times-murder-foster-daughter-Sion-Jenkins-written-book-says-looked-killer-eye.html)
-
My impression is that when someone is killed because their murderer had a fit of uncontrollable rage they are spectacularly beaten-up and their intention is to vent anger, not necessarily to kill. There is a trigger that makes them 'snap' and they lash out. To this end, if Sion Jenkins attacked Billy-Jo because she answered him back etc I would have expected him to punch her, or shoulder-charge her etc. If as his ex-wife claims (and we have no reason to doubt her) her had hit them all before, without the outside world knowing it, he must have been adept at controlling his rage and only hitting them enough to scare them, and in a manner that didn't leave visible marks. the purpose of the outbursts, if you read up on domestic violence, is to control the victim.
Coupled with the very small window of opportunity to do the murder, if it was Sion Jenkins I'd have thought it must surely have been premeditated. Likewise if it was a random stranger they must have been observing B-J so it will have been premeditated.
It is possible Sion Jenkins had a reason unknown to us for killing B-J (we'd have to speculate). He would have been taking a hell of a risk with his daughters there though. I believe his daughters testified that they weren't actually allowed inside the house during the brief period they were back, they stayed at the front with the car. This possibly opens the window of opportunity and she may already have been dead. It seems hard to imagine that much violence could be inflicted close to someone's head and the perpetrator not get visible blood on them. However the blood on his clothing wasn't visible to the naked eye. If he had killed B-J earlier he would have had an opportunity to change/wash/dispose of his clothes.
-
This Article in the Daily Mail says they had an au pair who made a statement to the police saying she never saw any unpleasantness in the household. Having been an au pair myself briefly I'd say it's going to be impossible to hide from someone actually living in the house.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1038737/Tried-THREE-times-murder-foster-daughter-Sion-Jenkins-written-book-says-looked-killer-eye.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1038737/Tried-THREE-times-murder-foster-daughter-Sion-Jenkins-written-book-says-looked-killer-eye.html)
Thanks for that. Interesting. The Police aren't looking for anyone else? They always say that rather than admit that they could have been wrong
And I wondered about Billy Joe's family. Why was she put into care?
Not that this has anything to do with her murder.
And most certainly Yes, an au pair would have had at least some idea.
So why did his wife say those things? Did she convince herself of his guilt? Or was she simply after the house from a not particularly good marriage?
Anyway, I still don't like the look of either of them. He was probably a control freak, and she probably got fed up with it. But hardly grounds for murder.
-
Thanks for that. Interesting. The Police aren't looking for anyone else? They always say that rather than admit that they could have been wrong
And I wondered about Billy Joe's family. Why was she put into care?
Not that this has anything to do with her murder.
And most certainly Yes, an au pair would have had at least some idea.
So why did his wife say those things? Did she convince herself of his guilt? Or was she simply after the house from a not particularly good marriage?
Anyway, I still don't like the look of either of them. He was probably a control freak, and she probably got fed up with it. But hardly grounds for murder.
Domestic abuse can be very frightening: quite possibly there were incidents in the past that made her lose her ability to trust him, so when this popped up she had no doubts in her mind. We all have it in U.S. If the circumstances are right, though.
-
Domestic abuse can be very frightening: quite possibly there were incidents in the past that made her lose her ability to trust him, so when this popped up she had no doubts in her mind. We all have it in U.S. If the circumstances are right, though.
But there is no proof of domestic abuse. Far from it as far as I can see.
-
But there is no proof of domestic abuse. Far from it as far as I can see.
There rarely is, that's how it continues. All we know is he definitely told promise on his CV (admittedly, who doesn't) whereas her integrity is, as far as we know, in tact. We need more info to decide if there were other reasons why she would drop him in it and take her children to the other side of the world.
-
Thanks for that. Interesting. The Police aren't looking for anyone else? They always say that rather than admit that they could have been wrong
And I wondered about Billy Joe's family. Why was she put into care?
Not that this has anything to do with her murder.
And most certainly Yes, an au pair would have had at least some idea.
So why did his wife say those things? Did she convince herself of his guilt? Or was she simply after the house from a not particularly good marriage?
Anyway, I still don't like the look of either of them. He was probably a control freak, and she probably got fed up with it. But hardly grounds for murder.
The police are definitely not looking for anyone else.
His book with Woffinden is quite fascinating, especially at the end. Well worth reading if anyone hasn't yet.
-
He's a highly intelligent guy who makes many very relevant points in the book about being on remand, but about the case itself he doth say too much.Imo %£&)**#
His interview with Trevor McDonald is quite illuminating too (McDonald is super skeptical).
-
The police are definitely not looking for anyone else.
His book with Woffinden is quite fascinating, especially at the end. Well worth reading if anyone hasn't yet.
Gosh, I don't think I am that interested. And it all fell by the wayside anyway, in a Court of Law.
But one might ask what on earth was going on in that family. He was beating them all, but no one actually said that he was until the child was murdered.
So they were all complicit. And none of his children actually agreed that he was a violent man.
Actually, I wouldn't give you tuppence happeny for any of them. So, Not Proven.
-
Gosh, I don't think I am that interested. And it all fell by the wayside anyway, in a Court of Law.
But one might ask what on earth was going on in that family. He was beating them all, but no one actually said that he was until the child was murdered.
So they were all complicit. And none of his children actually agreed that he was a violent man.
Actually, I wouldn't give you tuppence happeny for any of them. So, Not Proven.
Oh, definitely, he's as innocent as you or I now and should get his compensation. It's not possible to proclaim Barry George should, but Jenkins shouldn't.
I'm just saying anyone interested in the case would benefit from reading his book. We're all interested in true crime, or we wouldn't be here. Psychologically the book is very interesting.
-
Oh, definitely, he's as innocent as you or I now and should get his compensation. It's not possible to proclaim Barry George should, but Jenkins shouldn't.
I'm just saying anyone interested in the case would benefit from reading his book. We're all interested in true crime, or we wouldn't be here. Psychologically the book is very interesting.
I am not sure about the compensation because I don't understand that facet of The Law. But his book is never going to be of any interest to me. It is only his side of the story. And I would rather read a fantasy. Presuming that I had the time.
I think that he was capable, but there has never been any proof or even the possibility within the time frame.
Do you think he was Psychologically capable?
I don't like him. But that isn't reason enough. I don't like her either.
Dear God, I should know better at my age.
-
I am not sure about the compensation because I don't understand that facet of The Law. But his book is never going to be of any interest to me. It is only his side of the story. And I would rather read a fantasy. Presuming that I had the time.
I think that he was capable, but there has never been any proof or even the possibility within the time frame.
Do you think he was Psychologically capable?
I don't like him. But that isn't reason enough. I don't like her either.
Dear God, I should know better at my age.
she didn't take long to clear of to New Zealand when the shit hit the fan
-
But there is no proof of domestic abuse. Far from it as far as I can see.
No, there was never any indication of domestic abuse prior to the incident. This is despite Lois working as a social worker and Billie having regular meetings with social workers to check how she was settling in to her foster family. So both had ample opportunity to report anything. When it was first suggested to the girls, they flatly denied any impropriety.
Besides, if anything unsettling was going on, then it surely very irresponsible of Lois to suggest fostering the two Jenkins children in the first place (Billie had an elder brother who moved in for a while, but social services took him away again after a short period).
-
Gosh, I don't think I am that interested.
Not to worry, I have read his book for you and written a synopsis on it. You may care to read that instead:
https://www.facebook.com/paul.gardner.125323/posts/10154318845057022
-
Not to worry, I have read his book for you and written a synopsis on it. You may care to read that instead:
https://www.facebook.com/paul.gardner.125323/posts/10154318845057022
Has anyone ever told you that you look just like Stephen K Amos, Brigadier?
-
Has anyone ever told you that you look just like Stephen K Amos, Brigadier?
Err, you are joking right!? That is Stephen K. Amos I am standing next to. And Jon Richardson is on my left.
-
Err, you are joking right!? That is Stephen K. Amos I am standing next to. And Jon Richardson is on my left.
Yes, I'm joking! (Which is more than S.K.A. can usually manage 8(8-)) )
I do like Jon Richardson though. 8((()*/
-
Whew, that's a relief!
Neither of them are my favourite comics or anything, but I find them amusing enough. They were however very pleasant and amiable during the day's filming that they spent with the group of us.
But anyway, we are going slightly off topic here!
-
Just to say I am reading the book at the moment, having never believed that Sion killed Billie-Jo. The conduct of the investigating police leaves much to be desired, eg, they never really considered other possible suspects. As for Lois, I wonder if the shock of it all gave her some kind of breakdown, for her to behave as she did.
Had Sion been a violent man, the au pair, or the social workers, or students at his school, or the staff at his school would have noticed, surely.
-
Just to say I am reading the book at the moment, having never believed that Sion killed Billie-Jo. The conduct of the investigating police leaves much to be desired, eg, they never really considered other possible suspects. As for Lois, I wonder if the shock of it all gave her some kind of breakdown, for her to behave as she did.
Had Sion been a violent man, the au pair, or the social workers, or students at his school, or the staff at his school would have noticed, surely.
Thank you! At last, someone else that realised this. How did you get on with the book?
-
Thank you! At last, someone else that realised this. How did you get on with the book?
I found the book very interesting!
-
I found the book very interesting!
Good! Harrowing is the word I would use to describe it. When I finished my copy, I lent it to my mum so that we could discuss the case. She found she had to read it in reverse chapter as a coping mechanism! She found it too traumatic otherwise.
I also find it interesting that that is rare for one of Sion's detractors to have bothered to actually read his account.
-
Good! Harrowing is the word I would use to describe it. When I finished my copy, I lent it to my mum so that we could discuss the case. She found she had to read it in reverse chapter as a coping mechanism! She found it too traumatic otherwise.
I also find it interesting that that is rare for one of Sion's detractors to have bothered to actually read his account.
Really? i'm surprised. I thought lots of people interested in the case would have read the book!
Richard Camden-Pratt, the prosecution lawyer at Sion's first trial, went to college with my husband! The latter met him at a reunion some years ago, and Mr Camden-Pratt was convinced that Sion was guilty.
Sion taught at the McEntee school in Walthamstow, London, which is near to where I grew up, so I suppose that fuelled my interest. it is spelt wrongly in the book!
-
Really? i'm surprised. I thought lots of people interested in the case would have read the book!
That would be a reasonable assumption wouldn't it!? However, my experience is that those that want to condemn Sion will insist on doing so at any cost. Even if it requires ignoring any facts of the case, basic logic or applying the most basic bit of research effort.
Instead they will call upon the most spurious sources in order to bolster their claim. For example body language analysis of his Trevor McDonald interview 10 years after the event.
My closest association with the case is that I have some cousins that live in Little Common which is a few miles down the coast from Hastings. But as I have no links to the case means I have looked upon the unfolding of events with an un-impassioned viewpoint. if he were guilty of the crime, then so be it. But having looked at the publicly available information, it is quite clear to me that he is not and all attempts to prove otherwise have resulted in a complete disaster for everyone.
-
I've read the book, the thing that gets me is the time line for that reason i have doubts he did it
its a strange case though if he didn't do it , then who did ? random stranger doesn't ring true to me