Concluding the case-

Firstly in my case, two different conclusions were made. The first conclusion made was in July 1998, this is when the police accused Sion Jenkins of being guilty of the murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins. He was then sent to prison for being responsible for the murder of Billie-Jo. This was the first conclusion made. This was because the investigation team all came together in order to find enough evidence and information for Sion Jenkins to be known as guilty. The first piece of evidence found was the witness statement which was taken by the police officer who was the FAO. This information was stating Sion Jenkins story and how he was with the two other daughters and went the shop at the time and wasn’t at home. But his story was known to have changed throughout time after his first statement to say he didn’t go to the shop he got half way and realised he had brought no money. Because of this piece of evidence it made a conclusion of the case, because they believed what the officer had said and thought that Sion Jenkins had been lying throughout his statements. The strength of using this evidence was that it was a statement which was taken from Sion Jenkins, straight after the case had occurred which would mean his memory was at his best ability and that it could be compared to future statements, which is what happened and which caused an acquittal of Sion Jenkins. The weaknesses are that the evidence wasn’t collected or secured properly by the police officer and shouldn’t have been used against Sion Jenkins, but was. The witness statement was collected by the police officer because he was talking to Sion Jenkins about it, but he didn’t record or write down what was said anywhere. This means that the statement wouldn’t have been valid evidence and shouldn’t be used in the case against Sion Jenkins. The police officer could have forgot what Sion Jenkins correctly said which would mean that the witness statement wouldn’t be valid as it would also include the police officer trying to recall evidence, this gives the police officer opportunity to change and pretend Sion Jenkins said certain things. This piece of evidence could have been improved if the police officer followed the regulations and collected it properly. This piece of evidence caused an acquittal of Sion Jenkins alongside other pieces of evidence. The other piece of evidence which went against Sion Jenkins and was a main piece of evidence against him, was the 128 microscopic blood spots found on his t-shirt. This piece of evidence was under debate and was eventually the reason why Sion Jenkins was released. But firstly it was one of the reasons that Sion Jenkins was convicted. It started off that the blood splatters were on Sion Jenkins shirt because he battered Billie-Jo with the tent peg and caused the blood of her to go on his shirt.  This piece of evidence was taken by the SOCO’s and then analysed by the forensics. The forensics analysed it to identify that it was Billie-Jo Jenkins blood that was present on Sion Jenkins shirt. This piece of evidence made the investigators come to the conclusion that it was Sion Jenkins who committed the attack on Billie-Jo because this evidence was showing her blood on him and they believed the only way the blood got there was when he attacked her. The strength of using this piece of evidence is that it is a clear piece of evidence which represents that there was Billie-Jo Jenkins blood on Sion Jenkins shirt. The weaknesses are that there was no information on when this blood was on Sion Jenkins shirt, because it was claimed that Sion Jenkins went over to hug Billie-Jo Jenkins in order to say goodbye to her and when she exhaled the blood splattered onto him. This wasn’t believed by the officers as they did no further research onto it and this meant that he was arrested and convicted due to this piece of evidence. This was a weakness of the evidence that it was unknown at the time how it actually got onto Sion Jenkins shirt so the only decision made was that it happened when he battered her with the tent peg.

In the overall analysis of this conclusion an acquittal was made of only two pieces of evidence, which one was not valid due to the police officers incorrect regulation procedures. The other piece of evidence was unsure how it actually occurred but due to opinion and thought was said that Sion Jenkins obtained the blood splatters when he battered her. This conclusion reached from the investigation team wasn’t well prepared and researched into and due to all interviews with the family was a biased opinion. This could have been improved by doing further research into how the blood splatters could have been caused and ensuring that all members of the investigation team are properly educated, in order to ensure that they approach evidence they are collecting correctly.

Then in 1999 an journal investigative called Bob Woffinden believed that the justice of Sion Jenkins had been miscarriage and applied for an appeal but it failed. Then in May 2003 another attempt of an appeal was done and this caused the case to be referred back to the court of appeal. This took another two year investigation which analysed further into the evidence that was shown in the court. The evidence of the witness statement was forgotten about because it was recalled that the police didn’t record it correctly and that it shouldn’t be used against Sion Jenkins in court. This made the conclusion of this evidence be abolished and then there was a focus on the blood splatters instead. The strength of this is that it meant the valid and beneficial evidence could be focused on, rather than a piece of evidence which wasn’t valid. The weaknesses of this is that the case then had less evidence to back it up and because it happened 7 years ago it make it difficult for them to get any more evidence on it. The investigation team then decided to take the evidence the forensics analysed which was the shirt with blood splatters on and send it to a specialist to be analysed further into, to allow more information on the case to be found out. From the information given from Sion Jenkins saying ‘The blood splatters where caused when Billie-Jo Jenkins exhaled’ the idea of this was taking to an aerosol chemist. From this they performed an experiment using a pig to see whether it was possible and it turned out to be true. Then this evidence was presented in court and Sion Jenkins appeal was successful in August 2004 to say he could be released. The court declared that there was no clear evidence to say he committed the crime. The strengths of the investigation team doing further analysis and investigating into the blood splatters meant that it proved Sion Jenkins statement could have been true. This then made the court understand that there could have been a wrongly made decision and that by reviewing the evidence and producing further information from it, a right decision can be made. The weaknesses of this are that by finding out more information it meant that it made the case more complex and it was unsure what the actual cause of the blood splatters where. Both statements made could have been true.

I would recommend to make the correct conclusion that the case should have been further investigated into when it first occurred. This is because when the case occurred Sion Jenkins was the only suspect due to the blood splatters found. If the investigators did the research on the blood splatters earlier on it would have meant that they could of understood Sion Jenkins statement and realised that it was possible to get the blood splatters, when Billie-Jo exhaled. If they realised this at an early time it would have meant that they would have looked into other possible suspects. Once Sion Jenkins was released other suspects were looked into and it was found that it could possibly be ‘Imelia’ who was known as a rapist in that area and was known to be following Billie-Jo Jenkins after school. He had been arrested a number of times during the time due to having raped young girls and murdered them with weapons that were usually improved. If they had researched into this case earlier it could of meant that the correct person was arrested and prevented a wrong acquittal to be made.