Author Topic: Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell  (Read 14426 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
« 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.



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.




« Last Edit: July 21, 2012, 09:33:21 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Myster

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.
‘Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their heads off.’ Anthony Arlidge QC, closing speech at the Bamber trial, 22 October 1986

Offline John

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?



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
« Last Edit: July 21, 2012, 09:30:39 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

thedarkman

  • Guest
Re: Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2013, 01:19:28 AM »
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.

Offline Aunt Agatha

Re: Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2013, 09:20:13 PM »
Having met this guy Jeremy also thought him to be guilty too.

Offline Passer-by

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?



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.

Offline Passer-by

Re: Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2015, 01:36:35 AM »
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.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2015, 07:39:56 AM »
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?

Offline Passer-by

Re: Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2015, 09:49:55 AM »
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.

Offline Passer-by

Re: Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2015, 10:12:19 AM »
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

Offline Passer-by

Re: Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2015, 10:34:52 AM »
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.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2015, 10:36:11 AM »
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

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.

Offline Passer-by

Re: Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2015, 11:55:12 AM »
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.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2015, 12:09:44 PM »
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.

Offline Passer-by

Re: Lois Jenkins: The truth I was not allowed to tell
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2015, 03:41:22 PM »
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.