I know he has been acquitted etc ...... but i cant help look at Sion and think he did it. I cant even explain why, i just feel he is guilty (but im obviously alone).
Whereas I always thought Barry George was innocent from day 1.
I always think we are very lucky to have a justice system in this country, imperfect as it may be, that depends on evidence other than 'I can't put it into words but I have a feeling he did it'.
I always think we are very lucky to have a justice system in this country, imperfect as it may be, that depends on evidence other than 'I can't put it into words but I have a feeling he did it'.
Dont get me wrong, me too. I have always said, never ask me to be a part of a jury, as i would have someone innocent or guilty before they walked through the door !
Sion Jenkins...I'm assuming as he was acquitted that we are allowed to talk abouot the Billie-Jo murder case?
He was on GMTV this morning talking about a book he has written, which he hopes will help to track down Billie-Jo's real killer. I've always been torn on this one, I can't make my mind up about him.
What does everyone else think?
I personally think he's innocent.
Legally, there are too many inconsistencies in the case to clearly point to certain guilt in his case. Therefore he had to be acquitted.
Legally, there are too many inconsistencies in the case to clearly point to certain guilt in his case. Therefore he had to be acquitted.
I also think this. It must be horrible to be a suspect in such a high profile case. Unless the police ever catch someone, the person who was originally suspected, will always have that air of doubt over their head in the publics eyes.
It will never leave him, for that I pitty the man.
I feel sorry for anyone who was fitted up by the filth. There are far too many of them.
Fitted up or wrongly assumed to be the perpetraitor ? There is a difference .
Oh and I assume with your feelings you will not be calling the "filth" if you are ever attacked or burgled etc ? Or are they just filth to some when they wish to slag them off but ok when they need them ?
He's just using an infamous, unsolved crime of the murder of a pretty young to girl to make money for himelf via the book and nothing else.
A girl he was raising and presumably had feelings for. He went to prison where he will have recieved a pretty hostile reception, has lost his job and his family and friends.
I saw him being interviewed on Sky News last week and was quite surprised at how aggresive the interviewer was towards him, she was asking him about his temper and about witnesses that had accused him of hitting them or something like that, it just seemed more of an interrogation than an interview.
I really haven't made my mind up about him but as it stands, he is an innocent man so that's that AFAIK.
I've never been able to work out how he was supposed to have had time to kill her while his other daughter ran upstairs to put her cello away - just a few minutes to walk through the house, decide for some reason best know to himself to kill her, walk round to the side of the house to pick up the weapon, kill her, clean himself up and compose himself again - totally unfeasible IMO !
I will never forget when Billie-Jo was killed and the foster parents (Sion Jenkins & wife) were appealing for help.
He was as cool as a cucumber and his wife was an absolute wreck - poor woman! It is VERY unusual for wives NOT to stick by their hubbies, but this lady had the sense to take their children and flee to the other side of the world.
People explained that away by saying "oh well he is a Deputy Head so he is used to public speaking" ... but he wouldn't have been a Deputy Head if he'd told the truth on his CV. There's a big difference between telling a few fibs to get a low paid, low profile job - but he was getting a very good salary and mixing with other teachers, parents and hundreds of children every day.
Didn't I read that the woman he has now married is VERY wealthy too?
I cannot believe the reasons given on here for thinking this man is guilty
His wife was convinced he did it from the forensic evidence - far too often scientists and doctors are trusted without questioning that 'expert' opinion - the blood spatter on his clothes was the same amount you would get from a sneeze - he tended to her before he ran for help
His wife being convinced of his guilt by the police then refused to let the daughters give evidence and he did not push it as he thought there was no chance he would be found guilty - when they were allowed to give evidence at the later trial they were able to show he could not have done it
Now that DNA testing has improved he wants the murderer caught - his life has been altered by this, he lost a child he was in the process of adopting from when she was just 9 years old
You should judge by looking at the evidence, not his personality
I think the main problem was, and still is, that he refuses to take a lie detector test to this day. I know they are not 100% but in his position you would clutch at any offered straw to prove your innocence.
What ? With Sion Jenkins ?
The problem with this case (as with so many others) is that we only really get to get a picture of him that the press want us to have. No-one actually knows him, and so everyone thinks they know whether he is arrogant, or shifty, or beady-eyed, or whatever, based on what they have (mostly) read. People believ they can extrapolate between a few fibs on his CV about his educational qualifications, to being able to kill his daughter. Even today, with him being on telly, he can be seen as coming across better than many people would think of him.
Even more marked is Colin Stagg. After his case was thrown out of court, the press narrative was very much that he had gotten away with it, and that he was the guilty (even though it was later proven completely that he was neither). Joanne Lees is another similar case.
Personally, in the case of Sion Jenkins, I don't believe that he did it or 'got away with it'. If you were going to snap and kill your daughter, I could see how you could perhaps strangle them in a rage, or punch them, but this killing was a whole level more mental than that....
The difference between SJ and Collin Stag is marked.
Even by the standard of the day the police attempts to entrap Mr. Stag was puerile, it was clear to so many then as now that Mr. Stag was not the killer.
Not with standing this, Mr. Stag then and now cuts a lonely figure IMO and was betrayed by those he got to like.
I feel sorry for him all that media attention and cameras shoved in his face, while some of his out bursts were understandable I found it difficult to separate these from his tantrums.
I am also of the view that Mr. Stag courted some of the negative attention.
I will never forget when Billie-Jo was killed and the foster parents (Sion Jenkins & wife) were appealing for help.
He was as cool as a cucumber and his wife was an absolute wreck - poor woman! It is VERY unusual for wives NOT to stick by their hubbies, but this lady had the sense to take their children and flee to the other side of the world.
People explained that away by saying "oh well he is a Deputy Head so he is used to public speaking" ... but he wouldn't have been a Deputy Head if he'd told the truth on his CV. There's a big difference between telling a few fibs to get a low paid, low profile job - but he was getting a very good salary and mixing with other teachers, parents and hundreds of children every day.
Didn't I read that the woman he has now married is VERY wealthy too?
The problem with SJ as I see him is, that his idea of being calm and collective comes across as being indifferent.
If the truth be known there are a lot of people out there then and now in good jobs with good salaries who hope their CVs are not looked at closely.
However I do agree lying on your CV to get a job as a DH is a lie to far but clearly he must have been able to do the job and thought he could, I have never read anything official to the contrary.
I think the main problem was, and still is, that he refuses to take a lie detector test to this day. I know they are not 100% but in his position you would clutch at any offered straw to prove your innocence.
If I was accused of a crime I knew I was innocent of I wouldn't be rail roaded in to having one and the evidence is inadmissible in the courts in any case, there are some straws not worth having.
He may feel by having a lie detector test it might reveal other tensions he may have felt at the time.
I cannot believe the reasons given on here for thinking this man is guilty
His wife was convinced he did it from the forensic evidence - far too often scientists and doctors are trusted without questioning that 'expert' opinion - the blood spatter on his clothes was the same amount you would get from a sneeze - he tended to her before he ran for help
His wife being convinced of his guilt by the police then refused to let the daughters give evidence and he did not push it as he thought there was no chance he would be found guilty - when they were allowed to give evidence at the later trial they were able to show he could not have done it
Now that DNA testing has improved he wants the murderer caught - his life has been altered by this, he lost a child he was in the process of adopting from when she was just 9 years old
You should judge by looking at the evidence, not his personality
TThere was also the forensic evidence showing bone fragments that was not given at the last trial, for some bizarre reason.
this is another case where "no one" else will be arrested for the alledged crime. the police thought they had the right person all the pieces fitted nicely but alas something went wrong with the evidance. Its the CPS that brings the prosceutions not the police. So blame them >
what i think is another matter.
Its a fact that 99% of people found guilty and sent to prison are "Guilty" ahh its the other 1% that is worrying.
sometime police "fit" someone on a crime they didnot commit simply on the basis that they know the person has been guilty of other crimes (more serious) but cant get them on them. So they do a little bit of "false the eveidance " well no one will notice ! will they >>
I think the main problem was, and still is, that he refuses to take a lie detector test to this day. I know they are not 100% but in his position you would clutch at any offered straw to prove your innocence.
Why should he take a lie detector test he has been found not guilty, and there is always a chance that a lie detector test will be false anyway. There are totally unreliable. I dont know why Jeremy Vile uses them as it is a known fact they are totally unreliable.
I've never been able to work out how he was supposed to have had time to kill her while his other daughter ran upstairs to put her cello away - just a few minutes to walk through the house, decide for some reason best know to himself to kill her, walk round to the side of the house to pick up the weapon, kill her, clean himself up and compose himself again - totally unfeasible IMO !
Exactly non of it added up. If he wanted to get rid of her, and he is supposed to be a fairly cold and intelligent man with no feelings as the media would have us believe, then why didnt he plan it better. He allowed himself a few minutes to kill her and then clean up like you say, hardly possible. She was dead when they came home and he found her.
Comments
I always think we are very lucky to have a justice system in this country, imperfect as it may be, that depends on evidence other than 'I can't put it into words but I have a feeling he did it'.
Dont get me wrong, me too. I have always said, never ask me to be a part of a jury, as i would have someone innocent or guilty before they walked through the door !
That wouldn't stop his alibi being confirmed though.
but if they police couldn't talk to him how would they get an alibi?
I personally think he's innocent.
Legally, there are too many inconsistencies in the case to clearly point to certain guilt in his case. Therefore he had to be acquitted.
I also think this. It must be horrible to be a suspect in such a high profile case. Unless the police ever catch someone, the person who was originally suspected, will always have that air of doubt over their head in the publics eyes.
It will never leave him, for that I pitty the man.
Fitted up or wrongly assumed to be the perpetraitor ? There is a difference .
Oh and I assume with your feelings you will not be calling the "filth" if you are ever attacked or burgled etc ? Or are they just filth to some when they wish to slag them off but ok when they need them ?
He's just using an infamous, unsolved crime of the murder of a pretty young to girl to make money for himelf via the book and nothing else.
A girl he was raising and presumably had feelings for. He went to prison where he will have recieved a pretty hostile reception, has lost his job and his family and friends.
I don't blame him, I would too
I really haven't made my mind up about him but as it stands, he is an innocent man so that's that AFAIK.
He was as cool as a cucumber and his wife was an absolute wreck - poor woman! It is VERY unusual for wives NOT to stick by their hubbies, but this lady had the sense to take their children and flee to the other side of the world.
People explained that away by saying "oh well he is a Deputy Head so he is used to public speaking" ... but he wouldn't have been a Deputy Head if he'd told the truth on his CV. There's a big difference between telling a few fibs to get a low paid, low profile job - but he was getting a very good salary and mixing with other teachers, parents and hundreds of children every day.
Didn't I read that the woman he has now married is VERY wealthy too?
His wife was convinced he did it from the forensic evidence - far too often scientists and doctors are trusted without questioning that 'expert' opinion - the blood spatter on his clothes was the same amount you would get from a sneeze - he tended to her before he ran for help
His wife being convinced of his guilt by the police then refused to let the daughters give evidence and he did not push it as he thought there was no chance he would be found guilty - when they were allowed to give evidence at the later trial they were able to show he could not have done it
Now that DNA testing has improved he wants the murderer caught - his life has been altered by this, he lost a child he was in the process of adopting from when she was just 9 years old
You should judge by looking at the evidence, not his personality
I agree, so do I.
I can also see why he has refused to take a lie detector test as well.
The difference between SJ and Collin Stag is marked.
Even by the standard of the day the police attempts to entrap Mr. Stag was puerile, it was clear to so many then as now that Mr. Stag was not the killer.
Not with standing this, Mr. Stag then and now cuts a lonely figure IMO and was betrayed by those he got to like.
I feel sorry for him all that media attention and cameras shoved in his face, while some of his out bursts were understandable I found it difficult to separate these from his tantrums.
I am also of the view that Mr. Stag courted some of the negative attention.
The problem with SJ as I see him is, that his idea of being calm and collective comes across as being indifferent.
If the truth be known there are a lot of people out there then and now in good jobs with good salaries who hope their CVs are not looked at closely.
However I do agree lying on your CV to get a job as a DH is a lie to far but clearly he must have been able to do the job and thought he could, I have never read anything official to the contrary.
If I was accused of a crime I knew I was innocent of I wouldn't be rail roaded in to having one and the evidence is inadmissible in the courts in any case, there are some straws not worth having.
He may feel by having a lie detector test it might reveal other tensions he may have felt at the time.
TThere was also the forensic evidence showing bone fragments that was not given at the last trial, for some bizarre reason.
This was not available at the earlier ones.
wasn't most of the forensic evidence discredited by the time the last trial was held
No. An alternative reason was given, but the bone fragment evidence wasn't heard, because it was produced too late, and no one wanted an adjournment.
what i think is another matter.
Its a fact that 99% of people found guilty and sent to prison are "Guilty" ahh its the other 1% that is worrying.
sometime police "fit" someone on a crime they didnot commit simply on the basis that they know the person has been guilty of other crimes (more serious) but cant get them on them. So they do a little bit of "false the eveidance " well no one will notice ! will they >>
Why should he take a lie detector test he has been found not guilty, and there is always a chance that a lie detector test will be false anyway. There are totally unreliable. I dont know why Jeremy Vile uses them as it is a known fact they are totally unreliable.
Exactly non of it added up. If he wanted to get rid of her, and he is supposed to be a fairly cold and intelligent man with no feelings as the media would have us believe, then why didnt he plan it better. He allowed himself a few minutes to kill her and then clean up like you say, hardly possible. She was dead when they came home and he found her.
Did this young girl meet someone she shouldnt?
Poor little lass.
It was NOT a pleasant occasion and he is extremely arrogant.