The trial of Sion
Jenkins
Sion Jenkins, who was acquitted for murdering his
stepdaughter Billie-jo, after spending 6 years in prison
was refused compensation.
On the 15th of february 1897, billie-jo was painting the
patio doors in her large, semi-detached home in hastings.
A home in which she shared with her foster family, her
foster father, sion jenkins, her foster mother, lois jenkins
and her four siblings. On the day in question Billie was brutally murdered right in her own back
garden, she had been battered to death with a metal tent peg, leading to advanced exhalation.
On the day in question, mrs jenkins had been shopping with the two youngest daughters for a
majority of the day whilst mr jenkins had the task of hid do-it-all day, as well as picking his
daughter L and her friend Ellen up from a clarinet lesson at a music teachers home. At around
3pm Mr Jenkins and his other daughter, A, went to pick up L and Ellen from the music teachers
house and then swiftly dropped Ellen home by around 3:15. Following their arrival back to the
home, a journey which would have taken around 4 and a ½ minutes, the girls and mr jenkins all
went inside of the house, L rushed upstairs to put her clarinet away and A was preparing to wash
the MG, jenkins claimed during his time inside the house he had not seen Billie however he did
hear her speaking and even heard A say goodbye to her. It was at this point Jenkins decided that
he needed a bottle of white spirit, and had the girls, L and A come with him they left the house and
went to do-it-all and around 15 minutes later he returned to find Billie-Jo bleeding, face down on
the patio with the back gate swinging open. At 3:38 jenkins called for an ambulance, and then
immediately called for a friend, Denise Franklin, who lived just down the street.
Evidence
In due course an examination of jenkins clothing revealed blood on his shoes, his trousers and
his jacket which was identical to Billie’s blood.The spattering, which was not readily visible, was
similar to fine spray which was observed on the front of the leggings worn by the deceased, and
neither Denise Franklin nor the ambulance crew paramedics had clothing which was similarly
affected. There was blood on the shoes of one of the paramedics, but that was all. The nature and
distribution of the blood spattering on the clothing worn by Jenkins was consistent with him
being the attacker. Mr Wain, the forensic scientist called by the prosecution, said that the marks
were "typical" of what he would expect if the wearer inflicted blows to a wet surface. The larger
spots would travel forwards towards the French windows, and the fine spray would travel
backwards and upwards. Although the jenkins is right handed, Mr Wain was not troubled by the
predominance of spots on the left jacket sleeve, or by the uneven distribution on the legs,
because much would depend on how the weapon was held, whether both hands were used, and
how the assailant was positioned at the moment of impact. Mr Russell Stockdale, another forensic
scientist called by the prosecution, gave evidence to the same effect. Mr McKirdy, a forensic
scientist called by the defence, was a little more cautious. His experience indicated that in cases
of battering there can be a considerable range in the size of droplets, but the spattering on the
Jenkins
Sion Jenkins, who was acquitted for murdering his
stepdaughter Billie-jo, after spending 6 years in prison
was refused compensation.
On the 15th of february 1897, billie-jo was painting the
patio doors in her large, semi-detached home in hastings.
A home in which she shared with her foster family, her
foster father, sion jenkins, her foster mother, lois jenkins
and her four siblings. On the day in question Billie was brutally murdered right in her own back
garden, she had been battered to death with a metal tent peg, leading to advanced exhalation.
On the day in question, mrs jenkins had been shopping with the two youngest daughters for a
majority of the day whilst mr jenkins had the task of hid do-it-all day, as well as picking his
daughter L and her friend Ellen up from a clarinet lesson at a music teachers home. At around
3pm Mr Jenkins and his other daughter, A, went to pick up L and Ellen from the music teachers
house and then swiftly dropped Ellen home by around 3:15. Following their arrival back to the
home, a journey which would have taken around 4 and a ½ minutes, the girls and mr jenkins all
went inside of the house, L rushed upstairs to put her clarinet away and A was preparing to wash
the MG, jenkins claimed during his time inside the house he had not seen Billie however he did
hear her speaking and even heard A say goodbye to her. It was at this point Jenkins decided that
he needed a bottle of white spirit, and had the girls, L and A come with him they left the house and
went to do-it-all and around 15 minutes later he returned to find Billie-Jo bleeding, face down on
the patio with the back gate swinging open. At 3:38 jenkins called for an ambulance, and then
immediately called for a friend, Denise Franklin, who lived just down the street.
Evidence
In due course an examination of jenkins clothing revealed blood on his shoes, his trousers and
his jacket which was identical to Billie’s blood.The spattering, which was not readily visible, was
similar to fine spray which was observed on the front of the leggings worn by the deceased, and
neither Denise Franklin nor the ambulance crew paramedics had clothing which was similarly
affected. There was blood on the shoes of one of the paramedics, but that was all. The nature and
distribution of the blood spattering on the clothing worn by Jenkins was consistent with him
being the attacker. Mr Wain, the forensic scientist called by the prosecution, said that the marks
were "typical" of what he would expect if the wearer inflicted blows to a wet surface. The larger
spots would travel forwards towards the French windows, and the fine spray would travel
backwards and upwards. Although the jenkins is right handed, Mr Wain was not troubled by the
predominance of spots on the left jacket sleeve, or by the uneven distribution on the legs,
because much would depend on how the weapon was held, whether both hands were used, and
how the assailant was positioned at the moment of impact. Mr Russell Stockdale, another forensic
scientist called by the prosecution, gave evidence to the same effect. Mr McKirdy, a forensic
scientist called by the defence, was a little more cautious. His experience indicated that in cases
of battering there can be a considerable range in the size of droplets, but the spattering on the
