It was on his jacket, his trousers and his shoes. 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 the appellant 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 appellant 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, he contended, 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 deceased's leggings was consistent with her head when wet with blood being hit by a metal spike, and the spattering on her trousers looked the same size as that on the clothing of the appellant.
Mr Webster, another forensic scientist called by the defence, also said that the spots on the clothing of the appellant could have been from impact spatter. He thought that they were not completely typical, but there was nothing in the spots which was inconsistent with battering. On the day of the killing it was not known that the appellant's clothing was spattered with the blood of the deceased, but it was recognised that he was the last known adult to have seen her alive, and the first known adult to discover her body.
If anyone else killed her they must have stepped into the garden to do so some time after 3 pm on a February afternoon, and then disappeared quickly and virtually without trace.
There had been some talk of a prowler, and there was a suggestion that a gate at the side of the house, which was shut when they left for Do-it-All was open when they returned, but that was all.
Against that background it is instructive to see what the appellant said on the day of the killing and thereafter about his contact with the deceased, and what he did, and how the explanation for the spattering on his clothing evolved.
As we have said, the appellant called for an ambulance at 3. It was his first attempt to summon help, and he told the operator that he had just got back.
When the operator tried to find out when the incident had occurred the appellant suggested that it must have occurred in the last half to three quarters of an hour. At trial the appellant claimed to have no recollection of that conversation, but suggested that if he said what was alleged he must have been shocked and confused.
After making the first call he summoned Denise Franklin who, when she saw the deceased, encouraged the appellant to make a second call. He did so, and during that telephone conversation was asked if he had put the injured girl on her side. He said he had, but in fact he had not. Again he said if he spoke as alleged it was only because he was confused and shocked.
There was evidence that as soon as the ambulance arrived the appellant got briefly into his parked MG car. He says that if he did so if was for no other reason than in his state of shock to carry out the mundane task of putting up the roof. The prosecution suggestion was that he got in to provide a possible explanation for any blood that might be found later in the MG.
Denise Franklin and the ambulance men described the position of the deceased as being prone, flat on the patio, with the left hand side of her face on the floor facing the garden. There was a plastic bag, part of which was up her left nostril. Denise Franklin had removed that plug before the ambulance team arrived and blood poured out. Six days later, on 21st February , she tried to put Detective Constable Groombridge in the position in which she had seen the deceased.
She put that officer's chin a little off the ground in a position in which at first he was unable to relax without letting the chin drop, but when he put his left hand under his body he found a position where his chin could stay off the ground just a little bit, about half to one inch, in a position which satisfied Denise Franklin and he could relax.
Capon, who was there, said that the effect may have been to raise the nose up "just slightly. The police arrived soon after the ambulance, and according to PC Bruce the appellant told him that he had gone out with the two children at 2. As the prosecution pointed out at the trial, that was broadly consistent with what was said to the operator who received the first call, and it was untrue.
Furthermore the appellant said that when he and A had returned home after collecting L from her clarinet lesson only L had gone into the house. She had returned very quickly and the three of them had then gone off again to Do-it-All. That also was untrue because, as the appellant later accepted, he did go into the house between the two journeys. Furthermore the second journey was a curious one.
It involved a double circle around a large park, followed by a drive to the Do-it-All store, which the appellant said was to purchase white spirit, something he did not need because as a later search revealed he already had some. In fact nothing was purchased because, he said, he realised before he entered the store that he had no money, and he simply returned home.
The prosecution at trial contended that the appellant, having murdered the deceased was simply getting the children A and L away from the scene and giving himself time to think. PC Bruce was criticised because he did not note his conversation with the appellant or incorporate it into any statement until Tuesday 18th February , three days later.
As the judge said, the jury had to disregard the officer's evidence unless they were sure the appellant said what the officer alleged, but if they were sure then the question arose as to whether the appellant was simply mistaken or whether he was lying to try to distance himself from the murder.
On the day of the murder the appellant and his family went to stay with their friends the Gaimsters, and there was evidence that although it was cold the appellant was very reluctant to take the fleece jacket which was later found to be spattered with blood. On the evening of the same day the appellant told another police officer, DC Hutt, that he had not been in the house after collecting L from her clarinet lesson and before going to Do-it-All. On the following day, Sunday 16th February , Dr Hill, a very experienced pathologist, performed an autopsy on the deceased.
The cause of death was severe head injuries. The lungs were hyper-inflated, and there was some blood in the airways going down to the two separate branches of the lungs. That blood was regarded by Dr Hill as the obstruction which prevented exhalation from the lungs.
On that same Sunday the police interviewed the two girls L and A. It is common ground that those interviews were properly conducted, and we shall look in more detail at the way in which the girls were treated when we turn to the children issue later in this judgment.
Nothing that they said formed any part of the evidence laid before the jury. On 22nd February the investigating officers received the preliminary view of the forensic scientists that the spots of blood on the appellant's clothing were typical of those to be expected following an impact on a surface that was wet with blood, and that the blood on the clothing appeared to be the blood of the deceased, but not the blood of the appellant.
He was arrested on 24th February, interviewed in the presence of his solicitor, and then, on 25th February, he was released on bail. On 13th March the appellant was re-arrested, interviewed further and then charged. The case was committed for trial, and the trial was due to begin on 22nd April Plainly it was most unsatisfactory that there should have been such late service of those two reports, which raised for the first time the suggestion that the blood on the appellant's clothing had been exhaled by the deceased.
The appellant's solicitor said that the late service was due to the defence awaiting confirmation from the prosecution that all evidence upon which the prosecution intended to rely had been disclosed.
We have not investigated that issue, but we note that the trial date had to be vacated, after which a report from a neurosurgeon, Mr Sinar, was served by the defence. The prosecution then obtained reports from Professor Southall, a paediatrician, and Mr McAughey, an aerosol chemist, to which the defence responded with a report from Professor Douglas, who specialises in respiratory diseases. His report was not received until after the start of the trial, which began on 2nd June The blood spattering on the clothing of the appellant clearly called for an explanation, and the explanation which was advanced was exhalation, which, according to the prosecution, was not acceptable in the circumstances of the case.
Mr McKirdy and Mr Webster had carried out experiments which showed that a substantial exhalation of air could expel blood from the nose so as to create a pattern of very fine blood spots on a target placed at an angle of about 45 degrees to the nose.
When he carried out the experiments Mr Webster exhaled 2. Mr Sinar said that where there is an open head injury the victim can go on breathing and making efforts to clear his or her airways for some time, and if, as in this case, there is a lot of bleeding that is some indication that the victim was alive for a time with her heart pumping blood. Mr Sinar "felt from what he had read" that the deceased was still alive when first seen by the appellant after his visit to Do-it-All.
Professor Douglas defined some of the terms used in physiology and pointed out that it did not matter how much air Mr Webster had expelled. What mattered was the speed of flow. It was not necessary to breath in 2. The starting point of the prosecution response to this body of evidence was the pathologist Dr Hill. He accepted that it is difficult to be precise as to the time of death, which can be highly variable, but said that where, as here, the brain injury is severe death is more likely to be instantaneous.
As to the respiratory function Dr Hill considered that any breathing by Billie after she received her injuries would have been very mild and very slight.
The blood in the airways would obstruct exhalation. Dr Hill accepted that movement of the body could have released trapped air, but he regarded the Webster and McKirdy experiments as wholly unrealistic. He said that an exhalation of 2. Had it happened anyone present would have seen a big breathing movement and generally from a physiological point of view Dr Hill considered the possibility of spraying of droplets by breathing to be so remote that it can be discounted.
It is clear from the summing-up that it was suggested to Dr Hill in cross-examination that he was not qualified to express an opinion in relation to expectation of life after head injury, or in relation to the possibility of blood being projected by exhalation after such an injury. In some cases it can be entirely appropriate to examine the limits of an expert's expertise but we question whether that line of cross-examination which was also adopted in relation to other expert witnesses assisted the jury in this case, any more than it has assisted us.
Dr Hill was, as we have noted, a very experienced pathologist, and he was the only expert called as a witness who actually examined the body of the deceased. The defence rightly obtained the services of another pathologist, who was given access to the body, but he was not called as a witness. Professor Southall was described by the trial judge as "a very experienced paediatrician concerned with respiratory physiological research for many years".
The professor expressed the opinion that it was impossible for Billie in her state to expel 2. He doubted if she could have inhaled that amount, and agreed with Dr Hill that if she did so anyone present would be bound to see it happen. Mr Webster, he said, can be seen on the video to be actively exhaling air, which is not what a dying child would do, and there would be no gasping after the heart stopped.
Then there was Mr McAughey, the scientist, whose response to the experiments carried out by Webster and McKirdy was to perform some experiments of his own, with equipment and a female volunteer. He said that to get expulsion of blood droplets by force to hit targets 40 and 60 cm. He measured that 2. Obviously the prosecution witnesses attached significance to the fact that neither the appellant nor Denise Franklin nor the ambulance crew saw any sign of life.
As to that, and as to what the prosecution alleged to be lies told by the appellant in relation to his movements, the defence relied on Professor Trimball, an expert in psychiatric disorders following accidents, who had done work on post traumatic stress disorders. He gave evidence as to the effect of shock, which can impair memory. There can be flashbacks, and islands of memory, not in proper sequence. However, as he agreed in cross-examination, different people react in different ways, and at an early stage the appellant did prepare comprehensive notes which may suggest a clear and detailed memory of the occasion.
We have dealt with the history up to trial, and with the evidence given at trial, in some detail because it forms an essential background to the issues we must now address, but we emphasise that we have restricted ourselves to those matters which we consider to be of some significance for the purposes of this appeal. Many other matters were explored both before and at the trial. We turn now to the first of the issues raised in this appeal. The submission in relation to abuse of process was made without evidence being called, but by reference to statements and other documents disclosed by the prosecution, from which it emerged that L was interviewed by WDC Gregory and DC Cleverley on 16 February , and A was interviewed immediately afterwards.
Both interviews were video recorded. L said that, when they returned home from her music lesson, she ran upstairs to put her clarinet away. She did not see or hear Billie. The appellant went into the dining room and placed his keys on the mantelpiece. The appellant then came and "we were just outside so he just said "jump in" and we just got into the car", because he was going to Do-It-All to buy some white spirit.
In answer to the question whether there was any time between when she and her father left the house, she said: "No. I like came out and he came out just after me and then shut the door". She said that she noticed that the side gate was closed when they went to buy the white spirit, and that it was open when they returned. In her first interview, A said that on their return from L's music lesson, she went into the house and saw Billie painting near the patio doors. She A was in the hall, and thought that her father was with her as well, but she did not know page She did not know where her father went: "he could have been behind me in the hall, he might have been outside, I'm not sure page When asked again about her father's movements, she said "I think he was with me as well, but, I don't know.
I can't rememberI don't think he went upstairs. She and Billie said "hello" to each other, and then "we just all walked out" page 15 , but the appellant did not speak to Billie page She said that she and L were standing and talking near the MG, when their father came to them and told them to get into the car because they were going to go "somewhere else" to get some white spirit page When asked how long it was before her father came out to join them at the MG, she said "A few minutes.
About two minutes, one minute. You were standing by the MG with L is that right? Um, I think he was next to the Opel, next to our other car, But I'm not sure. He, um, I don't know. With me, just, don't know, just inaudible. Was he in the house with Billie at any time? She stated that during the journey the appellant said that he was willing to return home without buying the spirit, unless she A insisted that she wanted to do some painting. On 22 February, as we have said, investigating officers received the preliminary view of the forensic scientists.
The appellant was then arrested on 24 February. He was interviewed and then next day released on bail. A was interviewed again on 25 February. She told the officers that she had talked to the appellant about what had happened every day. She was asked further questions about the events of 15 February. She said that on their return from the music lesson, she went into the hall, and her father went "round the corner", and then into the kitchen page Then the two of them and L went out of the house page The appellant closed the door, and they walked down together and got into the car page He followed "a few seconds afterwards" page She was reminded that in her first interview, she had said that she and L had waited outside the house a "few minutes" for their father.
She said page 27 that it "really wasn't long, it was like, it was really short. I think it was like an amount of time for someone to close the door and lock it and then follow on afterwards". At page 29, however, she said that she was not aware that he had locked the door, and she did not know where they were going. She thought that they were going outside to wash the cars, and was unable to explain why Billie had said good bye to them, or why her father had locked the door.
On 25 February, the officers decided to tell Mrs Jenkins about the bloodspots that had been found on the appellant's clothing. The relevant pocket book entry reads: "Told them to feed into Mum".
On the following day, Mrs Jenkins was informed. The pocket book entry records that the officers spent two hours convincing her that her husband had murdered Billie. It describes in vivid detail the distress that was being suffered by Mrs Jenkins and the children. On 3 March, Mrs Jenkins told the police that A had volunteered further information.
This included that it was odd that the appellant had run down the steps in a bit of a funny mood, and had told the two girls to get into the car quickly. On 4 March, Mrs Jenkins told the police that A had said that the appellant had been cross with Billie for screaming at her over who should do the painting, that when she A had tried to get back into the house from cleaning the car, the appellant would not let her, and that she had formed the impression that he was trying to keep Billie and herself apart.
On 7 March, Mrs Jenkins made a statement to the police. She said that the appellant had a bad temper, and had been violent towards her, and that he would use a slipper or stick on A and L: all of them were afraid of him. The appellant was arrested again on 13 March, and charged with obtaining a pecuniary advantage, namely his post as a deputy head teacher, by deception.
On 14 March, he was charged with murder. Both charges attracted a good deal of media attention. The children of the Jenkins family were hearing rumours at school. Mrs Jenkins had already told the police of the appalling emotional effect the murder and the subsequent events were having on her daughters. On 17 March, the police consulted Dr Bentovim, a consultant psychiatrist, and Mrs Bentovim, a social worker and family therapist, about the possibility of a further formal interview of A and L.
Their advice was given orally on 17 March. They advised that Annie had had her own thoughts reconstructed by the appellant, and now needed to have them deconstructed to allow what she knew to become evident. This should be done in a "therapeutic rather than an evidential mode". The children, therefore, needed a "debrief". The advice was confirmed in a report dated 21 March, at paragraph 9 of which, they said:. It was felt in our meeting that it would be helpful to explain to her the current situation, and what has led to the prosecution of her father in general terms.
It would be important for A to know that her statements that she made were not responsible for the prosecution of her father, and she needs the opportunity to understand something of the process which led her to make very different statements. Agreement was reached between the officers and Ian Vinall the Jenkins family's social worker as to how to proceed. They decided that the two children would be told that, although their interviews had been helpful to their father, he had been arrested following police tests that had been carried out on his clothing.
They would also be told that he had obtained his post as a deputy head teacher by falsifying his qualifications, and that he had chastised them too severely. Mrs Jenkins agreed that this approach should be adopted. She had already spoken to L about the forensic evidence, and L was aware that blood had been found on her father's clothing. On 20 March, the officers spoke to all four daughters in the presence of their mother.
Mr Vinall was not present. As planned, they were told that their father had not been arrested because of the interviews with A and L, but because of other evidence. Tests had been carried out on his clothing, and there was strong evidence to suggest that he had murdered Billie. In response to a question from one of the children, the officer said that when a person was murdered, the police carried out a whole range of tests.
L then interrupted and said "you're talking about the blood on his clothes aren't you? The officers went on to tell the children that their father had not been truthful when he got his job as a deputy head teacher. The children suggested that perhaps he had made a mistake: they did not think that he would be untruthful on purpose. Next, the officers raised the subject of the appellant's temper, and his excessive use of violence on them when they were naughty.
L became distressed, and defended her father, saying that it did not even hurt them. When the police added that he used to hit their mother, L said that this was not true, and she stormed out of the room in tears. During the following four months, nothing occurred that is material to the first three grounds of appeal. On 17 July, however, Mrs Jenkins reported to the police the substance of a conversation that she had had the previous evening with A.
She said that A had told her that she knew that the appellant had had an argument with Billie earlier on 15 February. A had also said that while she A had been cleaning the Opel car, she had tried three times to come back into the house, and had been refused entry on each occasion by her father; on their return from L's music lesson, she did not go into the house at all, but was waiting by the MG when the appellant came running down the steps and told both L and herself to get into the car; neither she nor L knew what was happening or why.
When they returned from their abortive drive, she said, the door was open; she thought that this was because he had left in such a hurry that he did not have time to close the door properly. She had also said that later on 15 February, her father said to her: "we'll be alright; we were together weren't we, A?
On 27 November , Mrs Jenkins reported to the police that A had told her, after the committal hearing earlier that month, that she could not recall going into the house after returning home from the clarinet lesson, but that, if she did, it was probably only as far as the hallway.
Editorial video. Well, in the last, I don't know, half an hour; three quarters of an hour? Sion Jenkins acquitted of murder at third trial : Stock Footage Video.
Contact your company to license this image. All Royalty-Free licences include global use rights, comprehensive protection, and simple pricing with volume discounts available. Newspapers and magazines except for covers , editorial broadcasts, documentaries, non-commercial websites, blogs and social media posts illustrating matters of public interest.
Book or magazine covers, commercial, promotional, advertorial, endorsement, advertising, or merchandising purposes in any media e. Anyone in your organisation can use it an unlimited number of times for up to 15 years, worldwide, with uncapped indemnification.
Accessing the content may take some time and may be subject to additional fees. Approvals and clearances are based on the intended use. Please contact us to tell us about your project or to request a preview. Easy-access agreement. Images marked as Easy-access downloads are not included in your Premium Access or subscription package with Getty Images, and you will be invoiced for any images that you use.
Easy-access downloads let you quickly download hi-res, non-watermarked images. Unless you have a written agreement with Getty Images stating otherwise, Easy-access downloads are for comp purposes and are not licensed for use in a final project.
The prosecution could offer no real motive for him to have behaved in this way, and suggested that it would always remain a mystery. With the exception of one splash on the trouser leg, these were microscopic spots; none was visible to the naked eye. To support this contention, the prosecution said:.
He did not check to see if she was still alive before dialling , and indeed did not display any initiative in dealing with her — failing to check either if there was any pulse, or if she was still breathing. In these two calls, he deliberately exaggerated the length of time he and the children had been away from the house. By the time the emergency services arrived, he had dismissed the tragedy to the extent that he considered the care of his car more important, and the ambulance men noticed him sitting in it.
The police said they had no record of complaints about prowlers. This would have helped in providing some background motive for what they thought had taken place. However, the prosecution could not do so because there was no evidence whatever to support that suggestion. The postmortem examination revealed that Billie-Jo had not been sexually assaulted, neither immediately prior to her death nor at any time during her life. In the absence of evidence, none-too-subtle hints were dropped.
Nudge, nudge. He put his hand on her right shoulder and pulled her face up towards him. He then went back to Annie and Lottie, who were screaming and crying, before returning again to Billie-Jo.
He felt her neck and smoothed her hair. He cradled her, putting his hand in the small of her back, under her clothing. The defence stood by its thesis. This was the expert opinion of an eminent neuro-surgeon who gave evidence at the trial. It is clear that, against all odds, people — and children — can cling on to life in the most extraordinary circumstances. The most compelling example is provided by the Russell murders in Kent. Lin and Megan Russell were murdered, but it was about 45 minutes before a police officer attending the scene noticed that Josie Russell was actually still alive.
Although a trained and experienced observer, even he had not realised that she was still breathing. The final part of this defence argument is an obvious one. Billie-Jo was cruelly battered. Her blood was splashed around the area of the killing; it was on both the patio doors and the adjacent trellis.
The killer had obviously stood very close to her. They apparently held this view with some certainty. There was a white paint stain on the cuff of his fleece jacket which Billie-Jo earlier had laughed about.
Nor were there any visible bloodstains. The notion that the killer could have walked away from the attack without any conspicuous marks on him contradicts not only the original police assumptions, but also common sense. The first emergency call was timed at 3. Someone may, in trying circumstances, lose control completely; a different personality may, in those same circumstances, maintain control and keep his composure.
He can be either of those personalities; he simply cannot be both. Moreover, it would not be possible for anyone to compose themselves so instantaneously after carrying out such a frenzied attack. The police were not able to obtain fingerprints from it. A number of points can be made here:.
0コメント