Getting away with murder

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4661252.stm

After the verdict he was attacked by two female members of Billie Jo's family, though unfortunately neither was able to cave his head in with a tent spike.

Justice sux.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Thursday, 9 February 2006 12:58 (nineteen years ago)

it's not quite so b/w but this is wrong.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:02 (nineteen years ago)

Were you there? Do you have proof that Jenkins did it? If so you should be going to police and putting everybody out of the long misery this case has become, not posting to ILE about it. If not, then why are you pronouncing on it? Maybe you would prefer a legal system where guilt and innocence was decided by you on your own, but most of us probably wouldn't.

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:10 (nineteen years ago)

hahaha, ok, right, once the court has decided no-one can talk about it because our legal system is INFALLIBLE.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:12 (nineteen years ago)

Not at all. But do you think you have more information than the jury? I doubt it.

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:13 (nineteen years ago)

Er sorry, not 'you' so much as Sunshine.

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:13 (nineteen years ago)

i'm interested in why people think he did/didn't do it. the article doesn't go into ANY detail here.

― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:14 (nineteen years ago)

I think he probably did do it. Perhaps all three of the juries involved thought so too. But thinking or even KNOWING is not enough, is it?

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:18 (nineteen years ago)

oh people just want someone to face their anger. jenkins is as good as the next guy.

― mint, Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:19 (nineteen years ago)

most of me thinks actually going to jail is the least painful consequence of killing somebody.

― mint, Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:21 (nineteen years ago)

O.J. ?

― Mr Jones (Mr Jones), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:22 (nineteen years ago)

O.J.? Dude, he signs his t-shirts at horror conventions. Karma and all that shit.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

Nine jurors thought he did, three did not. If 10 had thought he did it and two did not, he'd be back inside by now.

He's also a lying, cheating, wife-beater, so I don't have a vast amount of time for him.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:34 (nineteen years ago)

Presumably now the police will have to re-open the case?

― Ned T.RIfle II (Ned T.Rifle II), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:38 (nineteen years ago)

That's what a very smug-looking Jenkins just said. Sussex police have just said that they will review it, though they basically think they already have the right man.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:41 (nineteen years ago)

is he gonna sue the lady who punched him repeatedly in the face?

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:46 (nineteen years ago)

Does anyone remember the BBC Rough Justice on the case? Basically they had hardly any forensic evidence, just a tiny fleck of blood on a coat, and I think that was called into question because of the way that the evidence had been handled. Apart from that it was all circumstantial and I don't think any new forensics have come to light since the original trial. So it makes 'beyond reasonable doubt' pretty difficult, but not impossible to reach.

He did it obv.

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:55 (nineteen years ago)

I was shocked when I heard he'd been acquitted. But as has been said, reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt. Forgive me for saying so, Sunshine, but unless you know the bloke personally calling him "a lying, cheating, wife-beater" feels a bit Tabloid to me. It's immaterial to the case.

― Abu Hamster (noodle vague), Thursday, 9 February 2006 15:13 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think the system is perfect but what's the alternative?
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/images/04/cteq/witchfinder_general.jpg

― Ned T.RIfle II (Ned T.Rifle II), Thursday, 9 February 2006 15:18 (nineteen years ago)

child killer is the 21st century's witch

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 9 February 2006 15:20 (nineteen years ago)

oh oops wrong thread

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 9 February 2006 15:21 (nineteen years ago)

unless you know the bloke personally calling him "a lying, cheating, wife-beater" feels a bit Tabloid to me. It's immaterial to the case.
-- Abu Hamster (noodle_vagu...), February 9th, 2006.

i don't think the reason why you can't bring this stuff into trials is because it's actually immaterial; it's another principle entirely.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 9 February 2006 15:22 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't mean with regard to the case, Henry, I just meant that if you believe the bloke was those things it shouldn't have anything to do with whether he was found guilty or not.

― Abu Hamster (noodle vague), Thursday, 9 February 2006 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

He looks very much like Rupert the Bear in that picture.

― Paul Kelly (kelly), Friday, 10 February 2006 03:07 (nineteen years ago)

Okay, it's late, I'm tired, I can't remember anything about when I originally heard about the case, but from that article, please compare:

In one incident, three years before Billie-Jo's death, he hit his wife hard around the face.

and

A woman hurled herself at him, repeatedly punching him in the face, until police stepped in to restrain her.

Please feel free to shout at me now. I'll be back in the morning.

― emil.y (emil.y), Friday, 10 February 2006 03:22 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.