UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Sian Jenkins and the murder of his adopted daughter Billie-Jo. => Topic started by: Passer-by on August 19, 2015, 01:57:47 AM
-
This strikes me as a really important detail in this murder, and the one element that is hard to explain if Jenkins did it: there is absolutely no rational explanation for him putting a plastic bag "deep" inside her nostril. It may actually suggest someone tried to asphyxiate her and she inhaled the bag.
Bob Wodfinden has written about it:
ozOYLQC2&sig=8drzchx4jrdquTEAw32-yKkgS3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwA2oVChMIzJ_D7PazxwIV7RfbCh0gYgFp#v=onepage&q=murder%20plastic%20bag%20nostril&f=false]https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Zbj_AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT62&lpg=PT62&dq=murder+plastic+bag+nostril&source=bl&ots=[Name removed]ozOYLQC2&sig=8drzchx4jrdquTEAw32-yKkgS3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwA2oVChMIzJ_D7PazxwIV7RfbCh0gYgFp#v=onepage&q=murder%20plastic%20bag%20nostril&f=false (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Zbj_AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT62&lpg=PT62&dq=murder+plastic+bag+nostril&source=bl&ots=[Name removed)
which refers to another child being abducted, having a bag over her head in an attempted asphyxiation in a nearby park.
The neighbour who pulled the bag out described as 'deep' inside the nostril.
-
This strikes me as a really important detail in this murder, and the one element that is hard to explain if Jenkins did it: there is absolutely no rational explanation for him putting a plastic bag "deep" inside her nostril. It may actually suggest someone tried to asphyxiate her and she inhaled the bag.
Bob Wodfinden has written about it:
ozOYLQC2&sig=8drzchx4jrdquTEAw32-yKkgS3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwA2oVChMIzJ_D7PazxwIV7RfbCh0gYgFp#v=onepage&q=murder%20plastic%20bag%20nostril&f=false]https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Zbj_AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT62&lpg=PT62&dq=murder+plastic+bag+nostril&source=bl&ots=[Name removed]ozOYLQC2&sig=8drzchx4jrdquTEAw32-yKkgS3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwA2oVChMIzJ_D7PazxwIV7RfbCh0gYgFp#v=onepage&q=murder%20plastic%20bag%20nostril&f=false (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Zbj_AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT62&lpg=PT62&dq=murder+plastic+bag+nostril&source=bl&ots=[Name removed)
which refers to another child being abducted, having a bag over her head in an attempted asphyxiation in a nearby park.
The neighbour who pulled the bag out described as 'deep' inside the nostril.
I too used to think this detail was hard to explain if Jenkins was the killer, but its simple really - moments after he had bludgeoned her he had to divert attention away from himself and make it look like the work of a random nutcase.... and this was the first thing that came into his head bearing in mind he couldnt sexually assault her without incriminating himself
looking back, what was all this bollocks about a nutter on the loose with a penchant for black plastic bags ? I doubt he ever existed
-
This person did exist, he was spotted in the area around the time by several independent witnesses. If I recall correctly, one even noted that he had paint marks on his clothes. Surrey police wanted to interview him in the early days as a suspect. But the man's psychiatrist blocked it as he was too disturbed at the time. So definitely not 'bollocks'.
-
This person did exist, he was spotted in the area around the time by several independent witnesses. If I recall correctly, one even noted that he had paint marks on his clothes. Surrey police wanted to interview him in the early days as a suspect. But the man's psychiatrist blocked it as he was too disturbed at the time. So definitely not 'bollocks'.
The police obviously excluded him.
-
I refer to my original post...
Surrey police wanted to interview him in the early days as a suspect. But the man's psychiatrist blocked it as he was too disturbed at the time. So definitely not 'bollocks'.
This individual has never been eliminated from their enquiries. They simply were not able to get past the man's psychiatrist to interview him. Then having taken the original pathologist's report and 'fed it to mum', they simply gave up trying. He has never been interviewed to either confirm or deny his involvement in the case and to date his current whereabouts are unclear.
-
I refer to my original post...
This individual has never been eliminated from their enquiries. They simply were not able to get past the man's psychiatrist to interview him. Then having taken the original pathologist's report and 'fed it to mum', they simply gave up trying. He has never been interviewed to either confirm or deny his involvement in the case and to date his current whereabouts are unclear.
How do you know for a fact that he hasn't been interviewed ?
-
Well if he has been interviewed, then both the fact that he has been along with any information gleaned has been kept a closely guarded secret. (If so, why?). It is repeatedly stated in publicly available information, that the person referred to as Mr B in the original trial and Mr X in the appeals has not only never been interviewed, his current whereabouts are unknown.
The original investigation team were blocked from interviewing him by Mr B's psychiatrist as he didn't consider him to be in a fit state of mind to answer their questions.
-
Well if he has been interviewed, then both the fact that he has been along with any information gleaned has been kept a closely guarded secret. (If so, why?). It is repeatedly stated in publicly available information, that the person referred to as Mr B in the original trial and Mr X in the appeals has not only never been interviewed, his current whereabouts are unknown.
The original investigation team were blocked from interviewing him by Mr B's psychiatrist as he didn't consider him to be in a fit state of mind to answer their questions.
surely they would have been entitled to obtain an independent report ? did they obtain one? was the person sectioned? was the person "at large"?
-
surely they would have been entitled to obtain an independent report ? did they obtain one? was the person sectioned? was the person "at large"?
I have no idea about the powers of the police to overrule the judgement of a psychiatrist. All I know is their attempts to interview Mr X were blocked. And yes he was at large. The previous day, some people in authority (I can't recall who now, either police, social services, someone like that) turned up at his house to take him into care. But he wasn't in, so they left.
-
I have no idea about the powers of the police to overrule the judgement of a psychiatrist. All I know is their attempts to interview Mr X were blocked. And yes he was at large. The previous day, some people in authority (I can't recall who now, either police, social services, someone like that) turned up at his house to take him into care. But he wasn't in, so they left.
Incredible! But that’s not the end of the story he will no doubt have been in contact with social services and I’m amazed that the police haven’t interviewed him by now if he was at large then he’s well enough to be interviewed you would think
Not doubting what you say it’s just not very good that this isn’t being investigated it seems
-
Incredible I know, but true. (Or if not true, some serious misinformation is taking place and we are being lied to. I only have publicly available information). The problem is now that apparently no-one knows where he is. Or more specifically, no-one involved in the case. What would be interesting to know is during the original investigation if the police could have got a court order or something and forced the psychiatrist to hand the suspect over for questioning. If that were an option, they didn't bother and just pinned it on Sion.
-
Incredible I know, but true. (Or if not true, some serious misinformation is taking place and we are being lied to. I only have publicly available information). The problem is now that apparently no-one knows where he is. Or more specifically, no-one involved in the case. What would be interesting to know is during the original investigation if the police could have got a court order or something and forced the psychiatrist to hand the suspect over for questioning. If that were an option, they didn't bother and just pinned it on Sion.
Someone will know where he is , if he had such a serious mental health issue they would have kept tabs on him.
If the police wanted to pursue this they could, they can get an order requiring information as to his whereabouts and they could also have him for questioning , they would be able to approach his psychiatrist again, I guess with all the resources issues the police are facing these days they don't have enough money in the budget to be dealing with "old" cases ?
-
Someone will know where he is , if he had such a serious mental health issue they would have kept tabs on him.
They might, but it wouldn't be the first time a MH patient has gone awol. Besides which even if they are keeping tabs on him it doesn't necessarily mean they would be aware that he was a suspect at all. In the case he's only known as Mr X (or Mr Y later on as I recall). But his case workers would know him by his medical record. It wouldn't be the first incidence of a lack of sharing of information.
If the police wanted to pursue this they could, they can get an order requiring information as to his whereabouts and they could also have him for questioning , they would be able to approach his psychiatrist again, I guess with all the resources issues the police are facing these days they don't have enough money in the budget to be dealing with "old" cases ?
Could they have done? Do you know this for certain? If you do, I'd like to know. It's not been mentioned before, only that the suspect's psychiatrist blocked any attempts to interview. If this is the case, it is pretty damning as it shows the investigating team - rather than being unable - simply neglected to do so. They also didn't bother interviewing the witnesses that saw Mr X in the area acting strangely. They simply sent them away stating they already had their man.
-
They might, but it wouldn't be the first time a MH patient has gone awol. Besides which even if they are keeping tabs on him it doesn't necessarily mean they would be aware that he was a suspect at all. In the case he's only known as Mr X (or Mr Y later on as I recall). But his case workers would know him by his medical record. It wouldn't be the first incidence of a lack of sharing of information.
Could they have done? Do you know this for certain? If you do, I'd like to know. It's not been mentioned before, only that the suspect's psychiatrist blocked any attempts to interview. If this is the case, it is pretty damning as it shows the investigating team - rather than being unable - simply neglected to do so. They also didn't bother interviewing the witnesses that saw Mr X in the area acting strangely. They simply sent them away stating they already had their man.
yes there's no reason why they couldn't ask to question him again,
-
Well they haven't. They don't even know where he is.
-
Well they haven't. They don't even know where he is.
how do you know they don't know where he is ? or whether they may have interviewed him and discounted him as a suspect?
-
how do you know they don't know where he is ? or whether they may have interviewed him and discounted him as a suspect?
Well, all publicly available documentation on the matter state that he has not been interviewed and that his current whereabouts are unknown. So I'm going with that.
-
Well, all publicly available documentation on the matter state that he has not been interviewed and that his current whereabouts are unknown. So I'm going with that.
and how up to date are those? do you have a link ?
-
and how up to date are those? do you have a link ?
it's on the Justice for Sion website for one. He is referred to as Mr X and Mr B at different stages in the case documents.
Here you go: http://www.justiceforsionjenkins.org.uk/mrb.html (http://www.justiceforsionjenkins.org.uk/mrb.html)
If Sussex police had managed to interview and eliminate him from their inquiries, they would be singing it from the rooftops. Why restrict that information?
-
it's on the Justice for Sion website for one. He is referred to as Mr X and Mr B at different stages in the case documents.
Here you go: http://www.justiceforsionjenkins.org.uk/mrb.html (http://www.justiceforsionjenkins.org.uk/mrb.html)
If Sussex police had managed to interview and eliminate him from their inquiries, they would be singing it from the rooftops. Why restrict that information?
According to the latest docu, Sussex Police did just that and examined all his available clothing for blood traces, found none and eliminated Mr B from their suspect list as he was also nowhere near the crime scene at the time... unless, that is, you choose to believe Dennis Eady.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10520603/Billie-Jo-troubling-clues-new-Channel-5-documentary-25-years-later.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10520603/Billie-Jo-troubling-clues-new-Channel-5-documentary-25-years-later.html)
-
True, I found that interesting. It was the first time I'd heard about him being investigated. Although as was pointed out later in the programme, it's not clear how definite the witnesses were in getting the timings right. it is not the first time, someone has been incorrectly eliminated as a suspect. That's exactly what happened with Robert Napper. He was ruled out due to his height (ignoring that he walked with a stoop), thus enabling him to commit hundreds of rapes and several murders.
As for the clothing, he was interviewed the following day. Giving him plenty of time to dispose of what he had been wearing. Other witnesses offering statements of seeing him in the area with paint on his clothes were ignored by the investigating team.
-
I too used to think this detail was hard to explain if Jenkins was the killer, but its simple really - moments after he had bludgeoned her he had to divert attention away from himself and make it look like the work of a random nutcase.... and this was the first thing that came into his head bearing in mind he couldnt sexually assault her without incriminating himself
looking back, what was all this bollocks about a nutter on the loose with a penchant for black plastic bags ? I doubt he ever existed
Exactly this. He was well aware of the mentally unwell man who was known to have a fetish for plastic bags.
The question for me is how did the mentally I’ll man get into her house (without alerting her) to silently attack her from behind. As soon as she saw a stranger like that she would of ran inside and locked the door.
The man was also interviewed and in custody they found black bags stuffed up his nose and up his bottom. It’s very clear in the appeal this man was spoke to, what’s not clear is what happens to rule him out!!
It didn’t happen imo.
-
Exactly this. He was well aware of the mentally unwell man who was known to have a fetish for plastic bags.
The question for me is how did the mentally I’ll man get into her house (without alerting her) to silently attack her from behind. As soon as she saw a stranger like that she would of ran inside and locked the door.
The man was also interviewed and in custody they found black bags stuffed up his nose and up his bottom. It’s very clear in the appeal this man was spoke to, what’s not clear is what happens to rule him out!!
It didn’t happen imo.
He wouldn't have needed to get inside. The old gate/door at the side of the house leading to the rear was allegedly unlocked, so he could easily have sneaked silently along the ginnel and blugeoned Billie-Jo from behind as she was painting the patio doors, without her being aware at all. As shown in the CS photos...
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12320.0 (https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12320.0)