Billie-joe case Jenkins aquittal

[empip]

I think he did it, if I was on the jury I have to say not guilty as I'm not 100% sure and you cant convict someone on a gut feeling but I feel it was him wot did it.

Been on jury and felt the same... But you cannot ever be 100% sure unless you are an eyewitness, and the situation not too complex.

To quote the BBC '...he not been acquitted by a jury but by a judge, he is unequivocally innocent in the eyes of law.'

 

[Slogger]

my money says the girls immediate family will have the last say in whether he is guilty

i would go as far as saying they will decide whether he lives or dies

 

[ban-all-sheds]

How will they decide that?

What right do they have to decide that?

 

[Moz]

I have also followed this trial ,
things that bug me ,
he had blood/(now bits of bone on him , )this was what convicted him !!!
this was answered easily as when he returned to the scene with his 2 daughters he cradled billie joe in his arms on his knees ,

his wife was in a very unhappy marriage when this "Chance" to escape from him ,an get custody of the 2 daughters
she took it fully an became a prosecution witness ,
these so called abusive charges were never filed ,
an the most he did ,
as reported in The Daily Mirror this morning
was he slapped her as he was fixing toilet roll holder many years before an he slapped her/not punch or beat her up ..lol ,
she says she was offering her logical advice about his DIY , lol...lol

hmmm an we have all had that from the wife havent we ,?

not to say its ever right to slap the wife but maybe he just had enough of her "logical advice "


she said he had beat her regular but when the police questioned her at the time of the murder she never said anything even though they had "SAID " he was "guilty"= Prime Suspect!!

maybe the Mirror had paid the wife for a big exclusive today
"
My Life With Billie Joes Killer ",

an the Mirror was very upset he was found not guilty hence some kind of story today the wife beater story (he slapped her over some DIY arguement ,lol)today ,lol
The Mirror did it self no favours with this cr*ppy "EXPOSE2 lol story today SHAME ON THEM ...
also...
wether he could of left house with 2 daughters,slipped away from them returned an then smashed her head in a huge rage ,then go out an meet up with the 2 an then return ..I doubt it ..

the huge problem is why was a piece of a white plastic carrier bag , stuck down her throat ...??

regarding the scumbag family of Billie Joe , well the real dad was not allowed to see her alone after sex abuse allegations on her ,an these "So Called Aunties " must be able to Smell The Compo Payout ,

 

[kendor]

excellent points made moz

 

[Nige F]

TV last night they were looking @ the crimescene back garden.said "no real access for intruder".......9 years of hedge growth ..1 fact that I`ve not seen in the media--.Not far away in the same road at the time was a "care in the community " house...anyone interviewed from there Several London Boroughs used Hastings as a "Dumping Ground" then, and may still .

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But in his case hadn't he been "proven guilty"? Wasn't this an appeal?

But the proven guilty verdict was overturned proving he was innocent not guilty yet the relatives still won't accept this.

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is this. You said "If in the eyes of the law one is innocent before proven guilty then they should have the protection of anonymity until proven guilty.".

But even if that was the system we had, he would have lost that anonymity after the first trial, and the situation at his subsequent appeals would have been identical.

 

[Moz]

btw at the time what happened to that tramp /ex mental patient who was picked up an only went on about suffocating /death fantasies etc ...
he was prolific burglar .. he was the Prime Suspect .. til the Police said it was the foster dad

an let him go ...

bet he has had a shave/hostel/job/flat/G-f with kids an is off radar now

 

[kendor]

But in his case hadn't he been "proven guilty"? Wasn't this an appeal?

But the proven guilty verdict was overturned proving he was innocent not guilty yet the relatives still won't accept this.

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is this. You said "If in the eyes of the law one is innocent before proven guilty then they should have the protection of anonymity until proven guilty.".

But even if that was the system we had, he would have lost that anonymity after the first trial, and the situation at his subsequent appeals would have been identical.

Oh fair enough i understand the angle you were thinking of.

 

[Stoday]

The jury didn't find him innocent; they found him not guilty.

Scottish law makes it plainer by having a third possibility - not proven.

 

[Softus]

...Blame should lie in the media for publicising the accused names before a decision has been found...

But in his case hadn't he been "proven guilty"? Wasn't this an appeal?

But the proven guilty verdict was overturned proving he was innocent not guilty yet the relatives still won't accept this.

If in the eyes of the law one is innocent before proven guilty then they should have the protection of anonymity until proven guilty.

kendor, the point I believe b-a-s was making is that SJ could not have remained anonymous until this latest trial, because his case was well known as a result of his previous conviction.

Also, until his release from prison last year, his supporters maintained a web site and published a periodic newsletter containing words written by SJ.

 

[pickles]

Billie jo was found with a bit of bin liner stuck up her nose. The other suspect was a mentally ill tramp who was obsessed with sticking plastic bags up his nose and in his ears

If SJ had the presence of mind to try and fit the tramp up for it, and hide the rest of the bin liner in the few minutes he had, he's the coolest most collected murderer in history

 

[Softus]

pickles, if you had been SJ's wife at the time, would you have done more to help him? And, putting yourself in the position of the judge at the original trial, was the conviction safe, in your opinion?

 

[pickles]

pickles, if you had been SJ's wife at the time, would you have done more to help him? And, putting yourself in the position of the judge at the original trial, was the conviction safe, in your opinion?

If you love someone you have to help. the problem she seems to have had was that she wasn't 100% sure she loved him. She was the one who went to the police and told them the history of domestic violence which made them arrest him in the first place. It's a very long way from whacking the kids and smacking the wife to bashing someone’s head in with a tent peg. There aren't many people male or female around who can honestly say they haven’t smacked the kids or had an exchange with their other half at some point in their lives which didn’t involve a bit of pushing and shoving at least so I can’t see that’s much use in convicting him. She obviously thought he did it and probably hasn't changed her mind. Her background in social work/nursing seems to have tipped the balance as to what she believed. You don’t have many illusions left about human nature after that sort of career.

I like to think I would help my missus but, if she’d topped one of my kids I probably wouldn’t . Doing a thing like that murders the marriage at the same time. What I would have done if I was her is believed him when he said he didn’t do it

Was it a safe conviction. No I don’t think so. Most of the evidence was pretty thin, it hinged on stuff like his behaviour after the discovery, he went and sat in his car instead of hyperventilating in a traditional fashion. The problem is, people faced with incredible discoveries sometimes can’t take it in and do weird things. The police made a lot of his alibi trip to a diy store to buy white spirit. They found some white spirit in a cupboard and said he had just used the trip as an alibi. What they didn’t say was that it was hidden behind a load of other stuff, he just said he forgot he had it which is perfectly believable, I’ve done that.

The only bit of evidence worth tuppence happeny was the microscopic blood evidence on his jacket and how it got there and no one could agree about that at all, when you have scientists arguing in public about something as esoteric as whether dead people can have air pressure in their lungs because air has been forced between the lobes of their lungs during the attack it’s difficult to see how you can say someone can be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bashing someone’s head in is usually a messy business, typical evidence includes blood sprays on the walls ceiling and floor as well as on peoples clothes. What’s curious is the lack of blood in SJ’s case

When you couple all this with the bin liner up her nose and the other suspect who was mentally ill and stuck bags in his nose, you haven’t got much of a case. He is supposed to have had an alibi but I doubt if the police would have charged SJ if it hadn’t been for the wife’ saying he was violent

He's had an article published in the Sunday Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/nsion12.xml[url] which doesn't really say much but makes pretty harrowing reading

 

[Richardp]

ok from reading these threads I've changed my mind which was only based on personal prejudice in the first place and as I've said, I wouldn't have proclaimed him guilty if I was a jury member.

Pushing and shoving the other half? no way not even the thought.
I'm not even sure about smacking kids but did (i think)