Talk:Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins

Merge
The Billie-Jo and Sion articles should be merged as they're both about the same case, and Sion has zero notability apart from the murder trial, which obviously belongs on the Billie-Jo article. --Dtcdthingy 15:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not especailly against a merge, but note there are plenty of people/bio articles where the person in question is only notable for a single thing (e.g., Kimveer Gill, for a recent well known case). Mdwh 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I say merge as per reasoning above.--Lucy-marie 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely - sorry to be blunt - Billie-Jo Jenkins has no notability apart from being murdered...? So it's not clear which way the merge would go, based on this reasoning. Also, much of the notability surrounded the trials and wrongful convicition, so I'm tempted to say that any merge should be into Sion Jenkins. Would this article exist if she'd been murdered, but there hadn't been all this controversy? Mdwh 22:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"On 4 December 2007, Southall was struck off the medical register after being found guilty of professional misconduct by the General Medical Council.[1]"
This entry sounds like Southall was struck off because of this case, but reading the article on Southall it seems that he was struck off because of another case or cases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.64.150 (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed this as the whole paragraph was inadaquatley sourced.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexander McLeod-Lindsay
I’m struck by how similar this is to the case of Alexander McLeod-Lindsay. How likely is it that a woman would be thrown in gaol for tending to a dying murder victim? There is a pattern of sexism here. 122.150.211.240 (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Confession
After an estimated 10 Million pounds have been spent on a trial, a jailhouse confession is reported by the tabloid "News of the World." http://notwats.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-killed-billie-jo.html

Some days pass and another newspaper WalesOnline.co.uk, report that the police will not interview the confessor. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_objectid=16723324&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=-i-killed-billie-jo--claim-dismissed-name_page.html

I cannot find confirmation that the DNA testing suggested in the first article was ever conducted. Confirmation of testing, not testing, or test results would if obtainable contribute to a readers conclusions from the article.Pendare (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs editing
It doesn't mention that Sion Jenkins was even a suspect before information about an appeal in 1999.Owain meurig (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I inserted this and rearranged the material more clearly. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150926164236/http://innocent.org.uk/cases/sionjenkins/index.html to http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/sionjenkins/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrials section
I removed [] the material which states:

There had been rumours that Jenkins had been having an affair with a 17-year-old girl at the time, but this was not heard by the jury.

As we can see, the material is sourced but unfortunately the source cannot now be checked; at least on the website of NLJ articles prior to 2007 are not available.

We do have to be very careful in WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

I removed the material for three reasons: 1) This rumour was explicitly not part of the retrial. 2)  Adding it is POV: it amounts to an implication of actual guilt. 3) To give 25% of the section about the trial to a rumour which was not heard by the jury amounts to WP:UNDUE WEIGHT.

Grateful for the views of other authors.

With respect to all,

Springnuts (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * it is very disappointing that you do not trust a fellow editor over sourced content! The source can absolutely be checked because otherwise where do you think I got the content from? It can be accessed through academic journal websites such as the Lexis Library (the law journal collection) which is where I accessed it from: . The journal article states in the opening lines of the summary of the case:

"All of the juries heard evidence of falsehoods concerning Mr Jenkins' qualifications, evidence of particular acts of violence towards Billie-Jo and evidence, from Billie-Jo's friends, concerning other violent behaviour to Billie-Jo. However, rumours of an affair with a 17-year-old girl, that there had been a history of marital violence and angry outbursts, and that one of his daughters had accused him of punching her in the stomach, were not heard by the juries."


 * As you will see, the fact that the evidence surrounding this affair and other information was not included in the trial was in itself notable as this journal points out. The fact that this rumour was explicitly not part of the retrial was itself noted on by the academic writer, so it is neither irrelevant to the section on retrials nor my POV. Whether readers interpret this as implying guilt or not is irrelevant, since we are an encyclopaedia and are simply here to document what reliable secondary sources say about the retrials. On Wikipedia there is almost nothing more reliable than an academic overview, in this case an academic journal. It is therefore a bit perplexing that you cite the fact that Wikipedia should not be "a tabloid", when this is from an academic journal, the least sensationalist, tabloid-like type of source out there! If this fact was included in academic summaries of the retrials, then we as an encyclopedia should also do so. The Good Dante (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. The statements are defamatory and unproven. They were not heard in court. He is - in the eyes of the law - an innocent man. How is this appropriate to include in our article? Springnuts (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could agree to it being in the "controversy over evidence not admitted" section? The Good Dante (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If appropriately included it would fit there. But is it appropriate in a BLP? I’ll have a look at the policy. Springnuts (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the relevant policy is here: BLPCRIME: "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed ... a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." But I will take it over to the WP:BLPN. Springnuts (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you really think that it is improper then I am fine with it not being included, since we came to a compromise last time. It's not that important in all honesty. The Good Dante (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and removed the content for the sake of compromise. The Good Dante (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks - the BLPN is at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Springnuts (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinishRadish
User:ScottishFinnishRadish why did you not just remove the content that was discussed on the noticeboard page then 212.187.244.69 (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * To bring it back to the status quo while it is worked out what is appropriate detail and WP:DUE coverage, while still maintaining WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * when I removed the content it wasn't vandalism, I removed a collection of edits I'd made over the last few weeks as there were concerns over a part of the content, specifically this part about a rumour. When I spoke to Kieronoldham he said  that removing all of it was unnecessary though. I think the concerns are over content over allegations, so perhaps some of the content specifically about the facts of the case could be reinstated? The Good Dante (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of it can certainly be put back in, but in my opinion, a lot of it was over detailed. We also need to keep BLP in mind, and as someone was acquitted, we need to be careful about making it seem as if they're guilty, or providing nothing but negative evidence and statements.
 * For example Family friends also stated that Billie-Jo had once been kicked aggressively in the ankle by Siôn while on holiday in France in August 1996, despite her ankle being sprained at the time. One family friend said that he had "kicked the living daylights out of her". He had apparently been infuriated by her being injured, and believed that she had done it on purpose. Two sentences on kicking, the one sentence assuming his motive and taking the kicking as fact.
 * This whole section It later materialised that he had lied about his qualifications on his CV to get this job, and had recently repeated the lies on a new application to become the head of the school, which was taking a long time to be processed as it was subject to references being checked. Had it become known he had lied about his qualifications he would have faced being sacked. As a result, he was said to have been under "considerable stress" at the time. His new job was due to start the next September. Jenkins had claimed that he had obtained ten O-levels in 1973, but in fact had obtained only three grade C O-levels in art, English and history, one D grade in arithmetic and E grades in French and physics. He also had claimed he had a teacher qualification in English with drama, but in fact it was in physical education, and had claimed he had attended the University of London when he had actually attended the less prestigious University of East London. He had been suspended from his school as a teenager due to behavioural issues. He had stood as a local Conservative Party candidate in local elections. is completely unnecessary, and casts them in a negative light with no context related to the murder, which is the subject of the article.
 * That's why I reverted the whole edit. There's a lot here that needs to be looked at to see if it really belongs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree the first part should be altered. However, the second section you discuss is about evidence that was a key part of all three trials. It was all a key part of the case in court and so the context is related to the murder. You probably don't need the bit about him being suspended from school (although Jenkins was the one that insisted on discussing that in court) or the bit about him being a Conservative councillor. A wiser decision would be to include some of that content in the sections about the trials rather than the background, as I can see that it is not quite clear there why that context is being given there. Also bear in mind that Jenkins himself confessed to have faked the CV for the jobs. The Good Dante (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)