Sion Jenkins refused compensation - IMO he's Innocent....

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Sion-Jenkins-Loses-Compensation-Claim-After-Being-Acquitted-Of-Foster-Daughter-Billie-Jos-Murder/Article/201008215680054?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15680054_Sion_Jenkins_Loses_Compensation_Claim_After_Being_Acquitted_Of_Foster_Daughter_Billie-Jos_Murder

Billie-Jo 'Dad' Fails To Win Compensation

Former teacher Sion Jenkins has been refused compensation for the six years he spent in jail before being acquitted of his foster daughter's murder.

Mr Jenkins launched a claim for up to £500,000 damages but his case was rejected by the Ministry of Justice.

Billie-Jo Jenkins, 13, was found dead with severe head injuries on the patio of the family's large Victorian home in Hastings, East Sussex, on February 15, 1997.

Mr Jenkins, who was the headteacher-designate at a local boys school, maintained his innocence and insisted Billie-Jo must have been killed by an intruder.

In 1998 he was convicted at Lewes Crown Court of murdering her and jailed for life but won a retrial in 2005.

However, the jury failed to agree a verdict and when a second retrial ended the same way in 2006, he was allowed to walk free.


Billie-Jo 'Dad' Fails To Win Compensation

* Share
*
*
o Share
*

6:56am UK, Tuesday August 10, 2010

Graham Fitzgerald, Sky News Online
Former teacher Sion Jenkins has been refused compensation for the six years he spent in jail before being acquitted of his foster daughter's murder.

Mr Jenkins launched a claim for up to £500,000 damages but his case was rejected by the Ministry of Justice.

Billie-Jo Jenkins, 13, was found dead with severe head injuries on the patio of the family's large Victorian home in Hastings, East Sussex, on February 15, 1997.

Mr Jenkins, who was the headteacher-designate at a local boys school, maintained his innocence and insisted Billie-Jo must have been killed by an intruder.

In 1998 he was convicted at Lewes Crown Court of murdering her and jailed for life but won a retrial in 2005.

However, the jury failed to agree a verdict and when a second retrial ended the same way in 2006, he was allowed to walk free.

timeline of crime and trials

In a newspaper interview in 2008, after the publication of his book The Murder of Billie-Jo, Mr Jenkins said he met "all the criteria" for a payout.

"I believe the Government should compensate me for taking away my liberty for six years, which also meant I lost the childhood of my daughters," he said.

Following the killing, his ex-wife Lois emigrated to Tasmania with their four daughters, who chose to have no contact with their father.

The Ministry of Justice said it was unable to comment on the compensation claim.

and here's why he's innocent.

Billie-Jo was found with a piece of big bag packed in her nostril.
There was a local man with mental health problems who had a fascination with bin-bags, who was seen near the murder scene that afternoon.
The mans parents even visited police with concerns about their son.

Will have to see if l can find the article where the mans parents actually visisted the police concerned their son may have been the murderer, it doesn't mention that here

=====

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/convicted-of-murdering-his-stepdaughter-but-will-new-evidence-clear-sion-jenkins-572278.html

Convicted of murdering his step-daughter, but will new evidence clear Sion Jenkins?

The Victorian house on Lower Park Road in the East Sussex seaside town of Hastings has recently undergone a transformation. Both front and back gardens have been given a smart makeover.

The Victorian house on Lower Park Road in the East Sussex seaside town of Hastings has recently undergone a transformation. Both front and back gardens have been given a smart makeover.

Some 250 miles away in a cell in Wakefield high security prison in West Yorkshire lives the home's former owner, Sion Jenkins. He too is hoping for a fresh start.

It was at the back of the semi-detached property in February 1997 that a crime was committed which caused national revulsion and led to Jenkins becoming one of the country's most vilified figures.

The deputy headteacher was convicted in July 1998 of bludgeoning his 13-year-old foster daughter, Billie-Jo, with a metal tent peg in a fit of rage. He was sentenced to life for the murder.

But nearly six years after the trial,startling new evidence is beginning to emerge which raises disturbing questions about Jenkins' guilt, and which could lead to his acquittal later this year.

The Court of Appeal has ordered a new investigation into the actions of a mentally ill man who was the police's first suspect for the murder. Lawyers for Jenkins have also obtained expert forensic analysis that challenges the prosecution's key evidence about bloodstains found on the teacher.

The third plank of the Court of Appeal challenge by Jenkins' legal team is two of his daughters, who the defence claim can provide their father with an alibi. They will be cross-examined and will give live evidence for the first time at the appeal hearing later this year. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates suspected miscarriages of justice, referred the case to the Court of Appeal last year after re-examining the evidence given at the trial, and the fresh evidence produced by the defence.

Nevertheless the police are adamant that they got the right man and the Crown Prosecution Service will be defending the conviction in court.

If Jenkins were to be freed at the hearing, which is expected to take place in the summer, it will be hugely controversial and lead to the obvious question: if he did not murder Billie-Jo, then who did?

The brutality and apparent randomness of a crime committed by a churchgoer and a respected member of the community shocked the nation. At his trial in Lewes Crown Court, the jury heard that Billie-Jo's body was discovered on the patio at the back of the family home, where she lived with her foster family: Sion, his wife Lois, a social worker, and their four daughters.

The prosecution successfully argued that Jenkins, now 46, had returned to the house in the afternoon of Saturday 15 February 1997 with two of his daughters, Annie and Lottie.

He entered the house, where Billie-Jo had been painting the patio doors, and in an uncontrollable rage bludgeoned her death. He then took his two daughters out to a DIY store in order to create a false alibi for himself. On their return to the house he found the body and called 999 for help.

The prosecution was unable to suggest any reason why Jenkins might have committed the murder, although after his conviction it emerged that he had struck out at his wife on a number of occasions and had once kicked his stepdaughter. The police suggested that he simply lost his temper, possibly provoked by Billie-Jo playing loud music.

The crucial forensic evidence against Jenkins at his trial was the discovery of 158 microscopic bloodspots on his clothing. A forensic scientist successfully argued that the thin mist of droplets was created as Jenkins swung the 18in tent peg, striking his foster daughter at least nine times.

Jenkins' legal team challenged the forensic evidence in an appeal in 1999, but the court rejected the challenge. Since then, fresh evidence has emerged following inquiries by the defence team, headed by the lawyer Neil O'May, and investigators from the CCRC.

One of the principal issues surrounds a paranoid schizophrenic man who had been seen sitting in a park within eight minutes' walk of the murder scene at the time of Billie-Jo's death.

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was arrested by the police after a guesthouse owner living on Jenkins' road reported that he had been behaving strangely on the night of the murder. He was later eliminated from the inquiry after Sussex Police found at least three witnesses who said he was in the park at the time of the murder.

But it has since emerged that when the man was arrested and placed in cells he tried to stuff into his mouth a piece of plastic that he had been keeping hidden in his clothing. It was later confiscated by police. This is considered potentially significant because part of a plastic bin liner was found buried deep in Billie-Jo's left nostril. The CCRC has now been asked to investigate whether the man had a fixation with plastic bags.

The man, who resisted arrest, was never questioned because he was considered medically unfit. Items of his clothing were forensically tested, but no bloodstains were discovered. But the defence believes that he may have destroyed some clothing. There are also questions being asked about the accuracy of the timings given by witnesses who saw him in the park.

There is also a dispute over the evidence given by Jenkins' daughters, Annie and Lottie, now aged 19 and 17. Neither the police nor the defence called the girls to give evidence at the trial, instead relying on a police video interview, which was interpreted as giving Jenkins a few minutes' opportunity to murder Billie-Jo.

The CCRC re-interviewed the girls in 2002 and the defence now believes that the original defence team were "wrong-footed" or misled at the trial and that the teenagers' testimony provides their father with an alibi for the time of the murder. Annie and Lottie will be cross-examined at the Court of Appeal in the summer and it will be up to the judges to decide whether their evidence is admissible.

The third area of dispute is over the forensic evidence. In the appeal court, two professors from Sheffield University will argue that evidence given at the original trial was wrong. The forensic specialists will say that air trapped in Billie-Jo's dead body, possibly by a blood clot, could have been released by her foster father as he attended her, and thus have produced the thin mist of blood droplets. They will also question why Jenkins did not have more blood on him considering the huge amount of fluid lost during the savage attack.

Throughout his campaign to prove his innocence, Jenkins has maintained the support of his parents David and Megan, and a small group of supporters.

But his relationship with his wife, Lois, has deteriorated. Soon after Jenkins' conviction she remarried and moved her family to Australia. She has also written a newspaper article complaining about the "self-righteous justice industry".

The time away from his daughters has clearly been hard for Jenkins. He said last year: "My eldest [daughter] is now an adult woman and my other three daughters are maturing teenagers. This has been an aspect of my imprisonment that I've found impossibly difficult to bear - it's something I think about every day."

But despite the new appeal, the man who helped put Jenkins behind bars, Chief Superintendent Jeremy Paine, the detective who headed the inquiry, is unimpressed. He said yesterday: "I would not have charged him with murder unless I was utterly convinced he was guilty of this crime. I remain convinced of it."

Evidence that convicted Jenkins

¿ More than 150 microscopic dots of the teenager's blood found on his jacket were consistent only with Jenkins being the attacker

¿ He had up to three minutes alone in the house with Billie-Jo when he could have murdered her

¿ He made a bogus trip to a DIY store - taking an unnecessarily long route to buy white spirit that he already had - to establish an alibi

The grounds for appeal

¿ Two forensic specialists argue that the blood on Jenkins could have come from trapped air in the victim's body

¿ His two daughters may provide Jenkins with an "alibi" showing he did not have enough time to commit the crime

¿ A mentally ill man seen minutes away from the murder scene may have had a fixation with plastic bags. A piece of a bag was found up Billie-Jo's nose

and actually a wealth of info about the man named Mr.X here:

http://www.justiceforsionjenkins.org.uk/mrb.html

Why should this man get compensation, he was NEVER found innocent...However, the jury failed to agree a verdict and when a second retrial ended the same way in 2006, he was allowed to walk free.



Thats not INNOCENT.....he walked free because the jury couldnt make up their mind whether he killed her or not..first trial....found guilty...next trial....failed to agree a verdict and the next.....the same.

I agree with the judge.....WHY SHOULD HE GET MONEY WHEN WE DONT KNOW WHETHER HES INNOCENT OR GUILTY.....the family think hes guilty, they are the ones closest to him...they know more than any off us.

I don't think, he's innocent. He is a man with a history of dishonesty (faked his CV to get his post as Deputy Head) and violence-as attested by his ex-wife, whose testimony was not available to the jury who produced the hung verdict. There seems to be an idea these days that the police are forever fabricating evidence and pinning crimes on innocents, but I don't believe this to be the case. He is guilty IMO, and the decision not to pay him compensation proves that those with all the facts, unlike the jury at the time of his re-trial, also feel he's guilty.

Poor Billy-Jo...

But he wasn't covered in blood the way you would be if you'd sttacked someone with an iron bar, the blood he had on him was microscopic, someone else was seen running down their street though covered in paint and blood and making a strange noise, Mr.X?

I agree SJ's an unpleasant man, a bully, a wife beater, dishonest, even his own children don't want to know him, but not a murderer.

Poor Billie-Jo, still hasn't received justice.

Did you also see police are searching somewhere for Suzy Lamplughs body after a tip-off. It would be lovely if they found her and could finally lay her to rest.

Other things were referred to in this case but im not going to go into it or repeat it.



As i have said, i dont find him innocent off any wrongdoing....the family were the closest to him and his foster daughter, they know better than us.

kitti wrote:Why should this man get compensation, he was NEVER found innocent...However, the jury failed to agree a verdict and when a second retrial ended the same way in 2006, he was allowed to walk free.



Thats not INNOCENT.....he walked free because the jury couldnt make up their mind whether he killed her or not..first trial....found guilty...next trial....failed to agree a verdict and the next.....the same.

I agree with the judge.....WHY SHOULD HE GET MONEY WHEN WE DONT KNOW WHETHER HES INNOCENT OR GUILTY.....the family think hes guilty, they are the ones closest to him...they know more than any off us.

In this country the way that justice works is "innocent until proven guilty". This man was set free and was therefore not proven guilty, therefore he is innocent in the eyes of the law.

He was set free on because the jury couldnt come to a decision.


When someone is found and convicted and it is proven that jenkins didnt do it, THEN he can claim compensation.

kitti wrote:He was set free on because the jury couldnt come to a decision.

twice.

correct, marky....

I, personally, do not believe he is innocent and I'm glad he has lost his
claim for compensation. Yes, his family know better than anyone about
this person, I'll rely on their insight.

Nah I dont think this guy is innocent, this reminds of the Dando murder they were quick to arrest a guy who lived near by who had an obsession with Ms Dando, its so easy to blame the ones that have mental problems or are backward, how do you know that Jenkins didnt know about this backward guys thing of black plastic bags.

There was blood markings/dna on Jenkins that the police didnt believe came from him just hugging her when she was on the floor. I remember the documentry about this case and jenkins family speaking about him.............imo he is guilty as sin.

buildersbum wrote:Nah I dont think this guy is innocent, this reminds of the Dando murder they were quick to arrest a guy who lived near by who had an obsession with Ms Dando, its so easy to blame the ones that have mental problems or are backward, how do you know that Jenkins didnt know about this backward guys thing of black plastic bags.

This is what I thought as well. I was also reminded of Stefan Kiszko.

The fact his own wife and kids spoke out the way they did speaks volumes. I just wonder why they never got enough to convince a jury. I'm pretty sure if the wife and kids testimonies had been allowed he'd be inside now.

Had the jury had the testimony re his violent abusive behaviour and mood swings as attested by his ex-wife, then they may well have found him guilty. To be honest, I think it's wrong that such vital information is not given to juries.

This man is guilty as sin, IMO, and the real scandal isn't that he's not received compensation, but that he's paid so little for the young life he took in such a brutal manner.

I would also argue that his previous dishonesty concerning his CV is quite telling. Many murderers have a similar history of seemingly insignificant instances of dishonesty which say a lot about their lack of morals and conscience IMO. Wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't this sort of thing that George Laird referred to in his blog concerning McCann...

Mr.X had a history of violent outbursts.

But say Jenkins did do it, he was not covered in blood so that meant he had to change his clothes or put some others on to commit murder then change back again and also get rid of those bloodied clothes when the house was then a crime scene with people crawling all over? Then putting the bin bag piece up the nostril (which was actually up so far you coulnd't visably see it) it's an odd thing to do when you don't have a prediliction for it and you're in a terrible rage you've just murdered someone.

Still don't believe it. As l said thoroughly unpleasant man but l don't think he murdered Billie Jo. Also, don't think Mr.X or the bin bag evidence was heard at the first trial?

Sorry for typos my 4 year old is being v.naughty tonight trying to type and get him to sleep!

I dont know whether he killed her, if he did, their must off been a reason, perhaps she wanted to 'reveal' something.

kitti wrote:I dont know whether he killed her, if he did, their must off been a reason, perhaps she wanted to 'reveal' something.

'
Could well be. Anyway, to me it speaks volumes that his own wife suspected he might be guilty very quickly (already at the time of a televised plea for information) and that she and their daughters have cut all ties with Sion Jenkins.

Sion Jenkins is a control freak, a violent wife beater, a devious liar, and ultimately a murderer of a school girl entrusted to his care. He is no better than Ian Huntley (imo)

It shows his true character, hes thinking off money not the dead child and today what statement comes out.....'its not the money that im interested in, we have to find her killer'...

Should off thought off that before you went to court to get money....

pennylane wrote:Sion Jenkins is a control freak, a violent wife beater, a devious liar, and ultimately a murderer of a school girl entrusted to his care. He is no better than Ian Huntley (imo)

'
I quite agree and the supposed intruder Jenkins claims to have surprised in his home, but didn't bother to tackle either verbally or physically, sounds about as plausible as the one McCann reckoned could've been hiding behind the door when he did his superficial check on the children. McCann ,at this moment, said he had some rather profond thoughts on Maddie..but sounds like invention to me and you have to wonder about his motives.