Deek Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 After being found guilty of murdering his foster daughter Sion Jenkins was tried again twice and both juries failed to reach a jury resulting in an aquittal. He is now seeking ?500,000 compensation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7581151.stm http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/sion-jenkins-a-father-betrayed-907223.html The evidence of the microscopic blood spots found on his clothing is pushing me towards thinking he is guilty. His explanation for why the blood was on his clothing does not sit right. I suppose that is why two juries could not reach a verdict because of the slight doubt. His wife took his natural daughters to the other side of the world to make sure they had nothing to do with him, that for me is also telling. If he did kill her then I hope the old saying "what comes around, goes around" catches up with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upthehill Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 We must think of him as innocent, as he has not been proven to be guilty, his life has been terribly affected with death, family breakdown, 3 trials for murder & forever having the cloud of doubt hanging over him. 500,000 would not even begin to compensate someone for all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deek Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 We must think of him as innocent, as he has not been proven to be guilty, his life has been terribly affected with death, family breakdown, 3 trials for murder & forever having the cloud of doubt hanging over him. 500,000 would not even begin to compensate someone for all that. I know we should, but he has never been found innocent has he. He has however been found guilty and two other juries could not find it in them to find him not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Clearly the juries weren't sure that he did it beyond all reasonable doubt so it is right that the was acquitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seats Posted August 26, 2008 Share Posted August 26, 2008 Surely if the verdict was "not proven" rather than "not guilty" then his claim for compensation should be rejected as he has not actually been found innocent (or have I been reading too many american courtroom dramas?!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.