murder in Eastenders
thedarkman
standing over the body of her dead father, and arrest her. I couldn't
help thinking of the dissimilarities with the way another force
handled Sion Jenkins - the murderer of his foster daughter. Okay, he
called the police there, but he was the only person who could have
done it, not so in this programme, and the woman arrested was far from
the only person with a motive, They don 't appear to have done much to
preserve the crime scene, and as far as other suspects are concerned,
their minds appear to be made up.
Special Care
> ... the way another force
> handled Sion Jenkins - the murderer of his foster daughter. Okay, he
> called the police there, but he was the only person who could have
> done it,
--------------------
You have a 'thing' about Sion Jenkins, for some reason.
He was arrested long after the event, when the cops were making no
progress at finding the real killer, so they went into "Dick Holland
mode."
For a start, if Sion killed Billie Jo, where and when did he change
out of his clothes, which would have been covered in blood (not just
invisible particles consistent with bending over the victim when
discovered), and why did his other daughters, who were present, and
were later turned against him by his wife, not testify that he changed
his clothes?
AlanG
You appear to have difficulty in differentiating between fiction and
real life
broadssailor
Darkman, Where were YOU on 15 February 1997?
thedarkman
>
> > ... the way another force
> > handled Sion Jenkins - the murderer of his foster daughter. Okay, he
> > called the police there, but he was the only person who could have
> > done it,
>
> --------------------
>
> You have a 'thing' about Sion Jenkins, for some reason.
I have a thing about all child murderers who are free to walk the
streets.
> He was arrested long after the event
so what?
, when the cops were making no
> progress at finding the real killer, so they went into "Dick Holland
> mode."
>
> For a start, if Sion killed Billie Jo, where and when did he change
> out of his clothes, which would have been covered in blood (not just
> invisible particles consistent with bending over the victim when
> discovered), and why did his other daughters, who were present, and
> were later turned against him by his wife, not testify that he changed
> his clothes?
Total nonsense - keep repeating this nonsense over and over again,
it's all you're good for. If tyou persist with this claim, don't
forget the mythical real killer would have had the same problem, and
would have left a trail.
thedarkman
> On 27 Dec, 07:52, Special Care <special.car...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > his clothes?
>
> Darkman, Where were YOU on 15 February 1997?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In Brixton Prison, check the article at the link: http://www.sendspace.com/file/4od04h
I have a report of my acquittal somewhere; that was syndicated. The
Filth didn't like this, and I was subjected to unbelievable harassment
afterwards. Now ask me where I was on April 26, 1999.
Special Care
---------------------------------------------
You haven't answered the points I raised.
The real killer, on foot, could have taken off his overcoat and folded
it and walked away through a leafy suburb where people are reserved
and aloof and avoid looking directly at strangers.
thedarkman
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> You haven't answered the points I raised.
> The real killer, on foot, could have taken off his overcoat and folded
> it and walked away through a leafy suburb where people are reserved
> and aloof and avoid looking directly at strangers.
The REAL killer fronted it out; there was no one - no one in the area
who could have done it besided Jenkins. Check
http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/murder_one.html
for the probable solution.
JackH
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:08:41 -0800 (PST), thedarkman
>
No, no... he was there?
He knows *exactly* what happened because he saw it all with his very
own eyes.
--
JackH
thedarkman
with the obsession with plastic, who was known to be in the area, only
he had an alibi, and no incriminating forensics were found.
Then there was all this talk about prowlers - that all came from
Jenkins, all of it.
The only logical conclusion is that he planned it, but like the bloke
in that Canadian play he came unstuck, he was too clever, and the
police didn't take the extra clues, which in any case led nowhere on
account of the other so-called suspect being in the clear. He would
have had to enter the premises, kill the girl, shove the plastic up
her nose then disappear. What a load of bollocks.
AlanG
Yebbut one of the incidents was a very bad bit of bbc script writing
that bares only the faintest resembleance to reality while the other
was a real crime about which he has a theory.
I was trying to tell him gently that Eastenders is not real. I had
trouble convincing my late Mother in law of that but she was in her
80s and fast on the way to senility so she had an excuse.
Theodore
<A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote:
>Look at the evidence; the defence raised this business about the bloke
>with the obsession with plastic, who was known to be in the area, only
>he had an alibi, and no incriminating forensics were found.
>
>Then there was all this talk about prowlers - that all came from
>Jenkins, all of it.
>
>The only logical conclusion is that he planned it, but like the bloke
>in that Canadian play he came unstuck, he was too clever, and the
>police didn't take the extra clues, which in any case led nowhere on
>account of the other so-called suspect being in the clear. He would
>have had to enter the premises, kill the girl, shove the plastic up
>her nose then disappear. What a load of bollocks.
Christ I've read some bollocks from people in this newsgroup but you
really win the prize.
I hope you're jailed for a murder you didn't commit.
Michael Swift
.com>, thedarkman <A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> writes
Erm, it's fiction, it isn't real life indeed from the few minutes of
Deadenders I've watched it doesn't even bare a passing similarity to
real life, it isn't even good drama.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
AlanG
My spelling is terrible in that.
Wife was bending ear at the time
thedarkman
Mark Dixie murdered Sally Ann Bowman, slashing her viciously with a
knife seven times; then he violated his corpse. After that he went
back to the flat where he had shacked up for the night with two young
women and crashed out on the sofa. They didn't even know he'd been
out.
If he could carry out a crime of that ferocity and leave no visible
traces then so could - and did - Jenkins. When the police arrested
the
victim's boyfriend they held him for two or three days with no
forensics. It was only when laboratory tests picked up Dixie's DNA on
the victim's private parts they realised they had the wrong man.
Now tell me again, who but Jenkins could have committed this crime?
Who else was there?
JackH
> Look at the evidence.
That you're a 'no life, attention seeking, delusional loser' ?
Yes... the evidence of that is pretty abundant around these parts.
Oh, and 'post at the bottom' old chap - you shouldn't find this too
confusing given you the amount of time you dedicate to talking out of
your arse.
--
JackH
JackH
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:36:12 -0800 (PST), JackH
>
>
>
> <jackhacket...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Dec 27, 11:04 am, AlanG <inva...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:08:41 -0800 (PST), thedarkman
>
> >> <A_Ba...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote:
> >> >Interesting the way this was handled. Plod turn up, find a woman
> >> >standing over the body of her dead father, and arrest her. I couldn't
> >> >help thinking of the dissimilarities with the way another force
> >> >handled Sion Jenkins - the murderer of his foster daughter. Okay, he
> >> >called the police there, but he was the only person who could have
> >> >done it, not so in this programme, and the woman arrested was far from
> >> >the only person with a motive, They don 't appear to have done much to
> >> >preserve the crime scene, and as far as other suspects are concerned,
> >> >their minds appear to be made up.
>
> >> You appear to have difficulty in differentiating between fiction and
> >> real life
>
> >No, no... he was there?
>
> >He knows *exactly* what happened because he saw it all with his very
> >own eyes.
>
> Yebbut one of the incidents was a very bad bit of bbc script writing
> that bares only the faintest resembleance to reality
Replace the words 'bbc script writing' with 'thinking on the part of
this, one of usenets finest 'conspiracy theory' village idiots', and
you're right on the money.
--
JackH
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
>
You've also read his pamphlets, writings and rantings, have you?
-- -
Culex -- the Infamous Culex
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
Or, better, sued by Sion Jenkins for libel.
Then Alexandra will be able to rant on about "evil Sionists".
thedarkman
by himself. Now answer the question without your stupid and deceptive
ad hominem. Who else but Jenkins could have committed this crime?
> JackH- Hide quoted text -
JackH
> A conspiracy requires a minimum of two participants, Jenkins did this
> by himself.
Humm, unless you were there, you cannot determine this.
Were you there?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if my memory serves me well, you seemed
to be championing that 'the filth' fitted Michael Stone up in the past
- you therefore cast doubt upon the reliability of police actions in
this instance.
Who is to say that said 'filth' weren't as unreliable in the instance
of the Jenkins case, either?
Not you, that's for sure - you'd need to pull your head out of your
arse first, and if you did there would surely be a worry that you may
actually realise the error of your ways and get a life!
Anyway... if you expect me to reply directly to you rather than at you
in response to any more of your ramblings, be a good chap and
recognise the usenet convention of posting at the bottom, rather than
in your case, from the bottom.
TIA
--
JackH
AlanG
I glanced at some a few years ago. Something about Michael Stone IIRC
thedarkman
> On Dec 28, 11:22 pm, thedarkman <A_Ba...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote:
>
> > A conspiracy requires a minimum of two participants, Jenkins did this
> > by himself.
>
> Humm, unless you were there, you cannot determine this.
>
> Were you there?
>
sort of crime unless there was at least one eyewitness. I have
determined this; if you have a better explanation, shout it to the
world.
> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if my memory serves me well, you seemed
> to be championing that 'the filth' fitted Michael Stone up in the past
> - you therefore cast doubt upon the reliability of police actions in
> this instance.
>
> Who is to say that said 'filth' weren't as unreliable in the instance
> of the Jenkins case, either?
>
When the police do a good job, thorough and meticulous, they deserve
praise. When they fit up innocent people with fabricated confessions
and similar nonsense they deserve condemnation. I judge each case on
its merits.
>
> Anyway... if you expect me to reply directly to you rather than at you
> in response to any more of your ramblings, be a good chap and
> recognise the usenet convention of posting at the bottom, rather than
> in your case, from the bottom.
>
#
In other words you can't refute either my facts or my logic so you
will continue with your ad hominem. Nuff said.
Special Care
1. There were only invisible, microscopic particles of blood on Sion's
clothing, whereas the killer would have been clearly stained with
blood and brain tissue. The miscroscopic particles are consistent with
Billie-Jo either being still barely alive and breathing imperceptibly,
or with Sion bending over the dead Billie-Jo and raising her head so
that air was exprelled through her nostrils, blowing the invisible
particles of blood onto Sion's jacket.
2. His other two daughters, who had been turned against him by his
wife before the trial, never testified that he changed his clothes
that morning.
http://www.justiceforsionjenkins.org.uk/bw.html
thedarkman
> You still have not accounted for the two pivotal facts:
>
> 1. There were only invisible, microscopic particles of blood on Sion's
> clothing, whereas the killer would have been clearly stained with
> blood and brain tissue. The miscroscopic particles are consistent with
> Billie-Jo either being still barely alive and breathing imperceptibly,
> or with Sion bending over the dead Billie-Jo and raising her head so
> that air was exprelled through her nostrils, blowing the invisible
> particles of blood onto Sion's jacket.
>
where did this ectoplasmic entity come from and where did he disappear
to? There were only ever four people in that house at the time: the
victim, Jenkins and his two daughters. Rule out the girls, and who
does that leave?
Occam's Razor at its simplest.
Special Care
--------------------------------------------------------
Illogical. Diversionary.
First, the purpose of the trial was not primarily to speculate on how
the real murderer might have got away, but to determine whether there
was proof beyond reasonable doubt that Sion Jenkins was the killer.
There was no proof at all that Sion was the killer, but the opposite,
as there were only invisible particles of blood on him, and his other
daughters, who had been turned against him by his wife, never
testified that he changed his clothes that morning.
As to the elusive 'ectoplasm,' there were a lot of transients in
Hastings. Perhaps an unknown maniac was sleeping in a garden nearby
and saw a lone girl, an easy target, then folded his overcoat and
walked away in an area where people were reserved and aloof and
reluctant to stare at strangers.
JackH
> In other words you can't refute either my facts or my logic so you
> will continue with your ad hominem. Nuff said.
Not at all.
I'm merely pointing out an ignorance amongst ignorances on your part.
I can't be arsed to get into a debate about Jenkins or Stone or
whoever it is you're rooting for / riling against, this week.
For the record, I wasn't at either event and nor were you, ergo we
don't know what really happened, despite your constant insistences to
the contrary on your part..
You wanked on incessantly about Stone being wrongly convicted and yet
you aren't in possession of the full range of facts / evidence that
the police were and still are.
With regards to Jenkins, you keep discussing the matter from the
perspective of 'this is most definitely what happened', and yet you
weren't there, and again you don't have access to the full range of
evidence / facts, that the police had and continue to have access to.
In short, you appear to be under the illusion you're so much more
intelligent than those pesky imbeciles that happen to work for the
police or preside on or over juries in courts of law etc.
Your history in respect of pressing such issues beyond the pale and
seemingly without the ability to accept anything other than your own
personal take on something therefore reflects far more on you and your
character than anyone you're discussing... and I can assure you,
decrying anything which doesn't fit exactly with the path you wish for
a conversation in here to follow as 'ad hominem' merely reiterates why
you are by enlarge only worthy of dismissal, regardless of how good or
compelling any of the points you may have put forward, are.
Oh, and for the record... I found it highly amusing when the press
couldn't be arsed to spell your name correctly - tis one of the most
wounding things that can happen to someone with a chip as large as you
have on your shoulder, that.
LOL
--
JackH
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> On 27 Dec, 11:08, broadssailor <graham.trim...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Darkman, Where were YOU on 15 February 1997?
>
>
> I have a report of my acquittal somewhere; that was syndicated.
Do you also have a certificate somewhere that declares you to be
"sane"?
The
> Filth didn't like this, and I was subjected to unbelievable harassment
> afterwards. Now ask me where I was on April 26, 1999.
Why should anyone and why should anyone care?
Apart from your being an arrogant self-publicist with what seem to be
delusions of adequacy, why should anyone believe that you were rightly
acquitted yet Sion Jenkins was not?
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
Look at http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/barons_guide_1.html , which
is utter crap from beginning to end.
Here's Alexandra doing some in-depth research on the matter -
http://www.tinyurl.com/58wun
thedarkman
believed he was guilty and they still do.
Nor were the juries imbecilic; the first one convicted him, and the
other two did not acquit him, but with the passagee of time and with
clever flim flam by lawyers his defence were able to muddy the waters
to such an extent that they didn't feel sure enough to convict.
While Jenkins may be legally not guilty, historians will almost
certainly see him in a different light.
Re Stone, the ONLY "evidence" against Stone is Daley's witness
statement, but if you check out the website you will find a few legal
documents on it.
I have seen a great deal more documents than that because I've been on
the case for the best part of a decade.
As for your stupid cartoons as with your ad hominem - fuck you.
Special Care
> There was nothing imbecilic about the police in the Jenkins case; they
> believed he was guilty and they still do.
>
> Nor were the juries imbecilic; the first one convicted him, and the
> other two did not acquit him, but with the passagee of time and with
> clever flim flam by lawyers his defence were able to muddy the waters
> to such an extent that they didn't feel sure enough to convict.
>
> While Jenkins may be legally not guilty, historians will almost
> certainly see him in a different light.
------------------------------------------------------------
It's a widespread human trait that if people go a long way down the
wrong road, they will refuse to admit their mistake and turn back. You
can see that everywhere, on a personal and tribal level.
Regarding Sion Jenkins, you still refuse to focus clearly on the only
two issues that matter for determining his guilt or innocence:
1. There was none of the blood stains and brain tissue on Sion's
clothing that would have been on the killer;
2. His other two daughters, who had been turned against him by his
wife, did not testify that Sion changed his clothes that morning.
Therefore Sion Jenkins is innocent.
---------------------
The prosecution revealed the bankruptcy of their case by focusing on
irrelevencies such as Sion's lack of emotional display at the scene,
his forgetting to bring cash, forgetting he had white spirit at the
back of the cupboard, his 'creative' CV for job application, his
allegedly domineering family regime - all of which had no bearing on
proving him guilty or innocent of murder.
Like you, the police and the prosecution refused to deal with the two
vital issues stated above, but peddled irrelevancies and went to work
on his dimwitted, impressionable wife to browbeat her into believing
the invisible, microscopic particles of blood on his jacket 'proved'
he killed Billie-Jo, when in fact the absence of visible blood stains
and brain tissue on his clothes, together with the fact that his other
two daughters did not observe any change of clothes - proved him
innocent.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
his feet, had a temper tantrum and wrote:
> There was nothing imbecilic about the police in the Jenkins case; they
> believed he was guilty and they still do.
They also thought the same of Colin Stagg, until the real culprit was
convicted.
They probably thought - or even still think - much the same of you.
In my previous response, I asked whether or not you had a certificate
somewhere declaring you to be "sane", for which I now sincerely wish
to apologise. I have since read the press clipping you posted about
your trial in 1997 and also Sean Gabb's account of what happened:
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/freelife/flhtm/fl27jott.htm
It is therefore self-evident that anyone who write to the police
anything that they might construe as "a death threat" would be most
unlikely to have such a certificate unless he had made one up himself.
> Nor were the juries imbecilic; the first one convicted him, and the
> other two did not acquit him, but with the passagee of time and with
> clever flim flam by lawyers his defence were able to muddy the waters
> to such an extent that they didn't feel sure enough to convict.
The first jury in the Sion Jenkins case was not given all the evidence
that the subsequent juries were, and was also bamboozled by the patent
nonsense of a fine mist or miasma of blood from the attack having
caused the microscopic blood stains on his jacket. I do not know why
that nonsense was not challenged at the time, but it certainly should
have been, as Billie-Jo's killer would have been liberally splattered
with her blood if not also bits of bone and brain tissue and _not_
just the fine mist that the prosecution claimed.
Then there is the curious evidence of the bit of plastic bag that had
been shoved up her nose. Quite apart from no traces of the rest of the
bag having been found and no rational explanation having been offered
for it being there at all, it would have been difficult (if not
downright impossible) for the killer to have done that without his
clothes becoming saturated in the fresh blood of someone who was
bleeding copiously from a head wound.
Sion Jenkins did not even change his jacket between returning to the
house for his money and going back to his car.
> While Jenkins may be legally not guilty, historians will almost
> certainly see him in a different light.
I expect they will regard him as an innocent, in the truest sense of
that word.
> As for your stupid cartoons as with your ad hominem - fuck you.
Calm down, Alexandra. You don't want to turn queer again, do you?
thedarkman
Special Care
> oh yeah
>
> http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/jenkins-trial-missed-facts/VV0niYZ3...
Alleged "bone fragments" on Sion's jacket is the only thing new
there.
Mentioned only at the final appeal. What size were they?
And no visible blood on him.
And no change of clothes.
On finding the dead or almost dead Billie-Jo, the likelihood is that
he put his hand under her head to straighten and raise her head, to
see if she was alive. This would expel a mist of invisible blood
particles, while minute, invisible fragments of skull bone would get
onto his hand and transferred to his jacket.
Nigel Brooks
"thedarkman" <A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:83c23ad5-f2f5-4c96...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Al old pal.
I have a question.
If you recall, On May 29, 2009, in uk.local.kent, in a thread entitled "
Were you in Maidstone on July 9, 1996?" you said the following in response
to a post by Don't Think Twice:
As I've told you before, fuckwit, your "information" about me comes from
proven liars, but in about four weeks from now you will be left with egg all
over your face. Watch this space."
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.local.kent/msg/e7a8a4614f4913f9?hl=en&dmode=source
Well Al old bean, that four weeks has long passed (in fact it's about 6
months since you made that prediction).
I hope you think I'm not being impolite by asking when we can expect the egg
event to occur.
Nigel Brooks
p.s. how about old Ahmadinajad and his crack down on folks seeking the
ability to peaceable petition their government for redress? One heck of a
statesman huh?
Nigel Brooks
news:680e26d6-6052-4423...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Oh, and for the record... I found it highly amusing when the press
> couldn't be arsed to spell your name correctly - tis one of the most
> wounding things that can happen to someone with a chip as large as you
> have on your shoulder, that.
>
> LOL
>
> --
> JackH
They did spell his name right in this one though