Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
I Killed Billie-Jo Confession  
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 2 months 12 hours ago) and read 1136 times:

THE HUNT for the killer of Billie-Jo Jenkins took a shock twist yesterday after a jailed murderer told a cellmate HE bludgeoned the schoolgirl to death.
During a series of lengthy discussions, the prisoner confessed to battering the 13-year-old with a metal tent peg before fleeing the scene.

The new evidence could finally clear the name of Billie-Jo's foster-dad, Sion Jenkins, who was acquitted after a third murder trial ended in a hung jury earlier this month.

News Of The World

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 1090 times:

He's been aquitted, let it rest. What a surprise that a jailed criminal would look to make a few quid from the NOTW.

User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 1075 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 1):
What a surprise that a jailed criminal would look to make a few quid from the NOTW.

people make all sorts of crap up for money, and to relieve the boredom of jail.

The police should quietly investigate it, but take it at face value. That it's probably some old lag bullshitting because he's got nothing better to do or was full of hooch.


User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1070 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 2):
That it's probably some old lag bullshitting because he's got nothing better to do or was full of hooch.

 checkmark   checkmark 


User currently offlineBDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1068 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 1):
He's been aquitted, let it rest.

He's been acquitted because the courts have decided that after a third trial with no verdict being decided upon, that there was no point in trying him again. the jury being unable to reach a verdict is a lot different to innocent.

However, Sion Jenkins is doomed to live a life of being assumed to be a child-killer, after all the Police spent so much time trying to have him convicted. Until his name is cleared once and for all, and another party found guilty, the rest of this man's life is going to be terrible for him. Just look at the reaction of the rest of Billie-Jo's family members when the Judge advised him that he was free to go!


Quoting 777236ER (Reply 1):
What a surprise that a jailed criminal would look to make a few quid from the NOTW.

Yeah and...??? If the NOTW pay up, it's going to be a hell of a lot less than what has been spent using tax-payers money, having been racked up by the Police, the CPS and the rest of the legal offices concerned with the case over the last nine years in an attempt to have this man convicted and being so blinkered to the fact that he could not be innocent, to dismiss the possibility of looking for anyone else in connection with the murder.

Perhaps a way could be found to have the money donated to a children's charity for example? I don't know, that's not my area of expertise, but maybe there's a way?

Even if there isn't, let him have the cash; after all he's going to be spending a lot more time behind bars than he originally thought and I'm quite sure that by the time of his potential release date that the government could come up a "new policy" (nudge nudge, wink wink) that would deny him access to the funds and then have the money donated to charity.

Just my  twocents 



Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1060 times:

Quoting BDKLEZ (Reply 4):
innocent.

In a criminal trial, you don't get innocent or guilty - you get guilty or not guilty. There is a difference, if you look into it, between not guilty and innocent.

It would, I believe, be utterly wrong and unjust to try him yet again in order to hopefully secure a conviction.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1052 times:

Quoting BDKLEZ (Reply 4):
He's been acquitted because the courts have decided that after a third trial with no verdict being decided upon, that there was no point in trying him again. the jury being unable to reach a verdict is a lot different to innocent.

It's not, it amounts to the same thing. The point of a jury is not to find a person innoncent or guilty, it's to find a person guilty. The last two juries in the last two trials didn't find him guilty, hence he's innocent.

I agree though that it's unfortunate that the jury couldn't decide on a verdict. This isn't really the best outcome for anyone involved.


User currently offlineBDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1045 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 5):
In a criminal trial, you don't get innocent or guilty - you get guilty or not guilty.

OK, fair enough, but not guilty can still be perceived as being a lot different than unable to reach a verdict.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 5):
There is a difference, if you look into it, between not guilty and innocent.

I'll take your word for it....  tired . Again, not my field of exprtise.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 5):
It would, I believe, be utterly wrong and unjust to try him yet again in order to hopefully secure a conviction

Entirely agree.  highfive 



Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1041 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 6):
point of a jury is not to find a person innoncent or guilty, it's to find a person guilty.

What nonsense. The entire purpose of a jury - which is, theoretically at least, a collection of 12 people from different backgrounds - is to consider the evidence and to decide, based on the evidence, whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty (not innocent). If the standard of proof is to be accurately and properly applied, the jurors must, if they have any reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt, return a not guilty verdict. A unanimous decision is the ideal outcome, but a majority verdict, where directed, will be acceptable in certain circumstances. A problem with the jury system is that no-one knows how they really decide: no form of reporting is permitted in the deliberation room. It is, simply put, surrounded by relative mystery.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1039 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 8):
What nonsense. The entire purpose of a jury - which is, theoretically at least, a collection of 12 people from different backgrounds - is to consider the evidence and to decide, based on the evidence, whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty (not innocent). If the standard of proof is to be accurately and properly applied, the jurors must, if they have any reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt, return a not guilty verdict. A unanimous decision is the ideal outcome, but a majority verdict, where directed, will be acceptable in certain circumstances. A problem with the jury system is that no-one knows how they really decide: no form of reporting is permitted in the deliberation room. It is, simply put, surrounded by relative mystery.

Uh, you might misunderstand what I meant. I was trying to say that the jury's role is to decide on the guilt of the defendant, not the innocence. The choice is between 'guilty' and 'not-guilty', not 'guilty' or 'innocent' (!).

The implication that there is some ambiguity about the result is wrong. He was not found guilty, hence in the eyes of the law, he is not guilty.


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1024 times:

Quoting BDKLEZ (Reply 7):
not guilty can still be perceived as being a lot different than unable to reach a verdict.

Of course. If you're unable to reach a verdict, then you've deliberated and still don't have everyone agreeing or haven't met the majority verdict requirements. This neither means you think the person is guilty or not guilty; it merely means you've been unable to reach a unanimous verdict or met the requirements of the majority verdict direction. In this situation, a retrial is ordinarily expected with a new jury - but that is costly and time-consuming (cost and time must be considered because it's unrealistic to assume that there's an infinite pool of finance or time, although ideally it shouldn't be a consideration). But you must ask yourself: at what point do you stop? I ask this because I believe it would be unreasonable and unjust to continually re-try someone until you get the result you want.

You must remember that the jury system is effectively a theory - no-one, bar them, knows what really goes on in the decision-making process.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1019 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 9):
The choice is between 'guilty' and 'not-guilty', not 'guilty' or 'innocent' (!).



Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 5):
In a criminal trial, you don't get innocent or guilty - you get guilty or not guilty. There is a difference, if you look into it, between not guilty and innocent.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1015 times:

Yeah, which is exactly what I said perviously. Leading to you 'what nonsense'?  Sad

User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1015 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 12):
Yeah, which is exactly what I said perviously. Leading to you 'what nonsense'?

You just didn't make it clear in your earlier reply. No worries.  Smile



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineBDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1008 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 10):

Indeed, however I'm more intersted in how the verdict will be viewed by the public in the outside world, and how the "lack of" a conclusive verdict will be perceived, and how through that lacking, will Sion Jenkins be treated by those in the normal day-to-day living of life. Will he face dirty looks in the corner shop when he calls in for a pint of milk and a packet of fags, for example, because he wasn't found "not guilty"?

I know I'm maybe talking about human nature, but I wouldn't like to see a witch-hunt against him because of the way that the case ended, and if there is a way to pursue an investigation into a potential new culprit, then as well as getting the right man, we'd also be clearly exhonorating Mr. jenkins.



Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 1003 times:

Has it been decided yet whether he'll be re-tried? If he won't be, he should ideally be permitted to get on with his life like anyone else. In reality, the stimga will undoubtedly remain. The local gossipers will probably give him shifty looks, as if to ask: 'Did you really do it?' A lot of paedophiles after serving their sentences probably get funny looks and comments - 'ewww, you better not come near MY child' - just like burgulars probably get shifty looks after serving their sentences. So, can you ever fully be placed back into the position you were in prior to committing the crime? Probably not - unless you take big steps, for instance by moving away or changing your name or whatever. A rather revengeful society, you might say. Perhaps you should ask yourself: does an offender ever fully serve his or her sentence?

[Edited 2006-02-19 15:16:30]


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineBDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 988 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 15):
Has it been decided yet whether he'll be re-tried?

As far as I'm aware he won't be because the Police will not be pursuing the case against him any further.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 15):
If he won't be, he should ideally be permitted to get on with his life like anyone else. In reality, the stimga will undoubtedly remain

This is my point, the more chance he is given be being declared innocent/not guilty/whatever, then the less chance there is of unreasonable or unjustified "comment", and the less chance that that stigma will last.



Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 981 times:

Quoting BDKLEZ (Reply 16):
This is my point, the more chance he is given be being declared innocent/not guilty/whatever, then the less chance there is of unreasonable or unjustified "comment", and the less chance that that stigma will last.

I agree - because of the uncertainty. But it's not that clear-cut: if someone was foung guilty, some people would say he or she wasn't guilty; if someone was found not guilty, some people would say he or she was guilty. In short, nothing will satisfy everyone. It would probably be even worse for Jenkins.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineBDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 973 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 17):
But it's not that clear-cut: if someone was foung guilty, some people would say he or she wasn't guilty; if someone was found not guilty, some people would say he or she was guilty.

Yes, but regardless of a definitive verdict, certain people will always think as such anyway; ignorant people overcome by the emotion of the circumstances (especially when it involves a family member) who just cannot accept the facts and have convinced themselves of what is actaully the case and what is not.

All I'm saying is that as well as having the case dismissed through lack of a verdict, I would also like to see the real perpetrator (if it is this guy already in jail or not) caught and punished, in order to minimise the potental of such a campaign again Mr. Jenkins taking place.



Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 971 times:

Quoting BDKLEZ (Reply 18):
I would also like to see the real perpetrator (if it is this guy already in jail or not) caught and punished, in order to minimise the potental of such a campaign again Mr. Jenkins taking place.

Surely the main reason to catch the killer would be to lock up someone who battered to death a little girl with a tent peg?


User currently offlineBDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 967 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 19):
Surely the main reason to catch the killer would be to lock up someone who battered to death a little girl with a tent peg?

Of course, but what I say above would be a justified post-script to that



Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 927 times:

What is a "prison supergrass" as the article says?

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Billie-Jo. Will We Ever Know The Truth? posted Fri Feb 17 2006 19:50:42 by Cosec59
Miami Hurricanes Football Player Shot, Killed posted Wed Nov 8 2006 04:09:19 by KingAir200
Lekker Mango Jo'Burg A.net Braai In March/April? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 13:06:13 by Birdwatching
Ex-boxing Champ Trevor Berbick Killed posted Sun Oct 29 2006 00:11:22 by Virgin744
My Cat Was Killed By A Coyote. posted Fri Oct 27 2006 18:42:40 by IFEMaster
British Reporter Killed By US Marines posted Fri Oct 13 2006 21:32:50 by Cosec59
Journalist Opposed To Russia's Chechen War Killed posted Mon Oct 9 2006 05:33:48 by N229NW
24 WWF Representatives (leaders?) Killed In Crash. posted Mon Sep 25 2006 21:34:22 by Thom@s
The Effing Bitch Killed Him! posted Tue Sep 19 2006 19:53:38 by TedTAce
Four Canucks Killed In The Ghan posted Mon Sep 18 2006 20:12:20 by Skookum