Onward and upwards.
The arrest of Siôn Jenkins in March 1997 satisfied a national clamour for a result, and took the pressure off Sussex police.
The case launched the celebrity career of Jeremy Paine, whose chief claim to fame was that he had solved the Jenkins murder. The following link to the BBC website used to highlight the fact . Once the second appeal was imminent, all reference to the Jenkins case was excised from his 'Crimewatch' presenter profile, though much was made of his role in the Sarah Payne case and the Abducted Children initiative. Today his BBC 'Crimewatch' profile no longer graces the BBC website.
Spin rules: the Jeremy Paine story has been carefully airbrushed for public consumption.
Today the role of Jeremy Paine - now Assistant Chief Constable of Sussex - invites close analysis. His meteoric rise to fame is rooted in one of the worst miscarriages of justice in legal history.
In 1997 he was driven by the desire to see Siôn Jenkins conivcted. That desire became a personal vendetta, an obsession which distracted him from what should have been his proper aim: to find the person responsible for the brutal killing of Bille -Jo Jenkins.
The reality is that he failed to do so. His opinion that Siôn Jenkins was guilty was far more powerful than any factual evidence. As a result, for the past nine years a murderer has walked free, remains free, and could still be a danger to children.
Yet Jeremy Paine has managed to slip the tether of the Jenkins case and soar to great career heights.
July 2004: protesting too much?
The immediate comment from Chief Superintendent Jeremy Paine following the appeal result was that Sussex police had not been criticised in any way. He barely alluded to the fact that Siôn Jenkins'conviction - till now a jewel in the crown of Sussex police - had been deemed unsafe. His reaction had a rather defensive tone.
The fact remains, though, that the way the police dealt with the children was criticised by judges on both previous occasions when this case has been before the courts.
It is important not to forget the prejudicial interview, conducted by police on 20 March 1997, with Siôn Jenkins' daughters, in the presence of their mother - but in the absence of the family's social worker. Ian Vinall had a statutory duty to be in attendance. He was meant to stand as an advocate, there to safeguard the best interests of the children. This was,in effect, a failure of child protection which had far-reaching consequences. At the very least, this disturbing experience was likely to have had some influence on the childrens' recollection and interpretation of events.
It is worth noting this extract from the appeal judgement of 1999, in which appeal judges refer to the comments of Mr Justice Gage at the original trial.
" 84. The judge said that it might have been better if the police officers themselves had not conducted the session of 20 March, and if matters such as the appellant's alleged deception to obtain his teaching post, and violence towards the children and their mother had not been mentioned. We agree, and would be inclined to express our concerns about this aspect of the investigation rather less circumspectly. "
The criticism of Sussex police voiced on those two occasions is no less serious today.
March 2004 :Jeremy Paine speaks.
In an article in The Independent on 06 March 2004 Jeremy Paine makes the emphatic statement " I would not have charged him with murder unless I was utterly convinced he was guilty of this crime. I remain convinced of it. "
Really ?
But then, he would say that, wouldn't he? That's been the problem all the time.
Somehow, though, his comment has a hollow ring to it.
The Gilchrist connection.
Stephen Gilchrist was a solicitor whose activities in Sussex during the 1990s were known to be questionable. There was documentary evidence of malpractice. In September 1997 a complaint was lodged with Sussex police by two men he had represented earlier in the decade. Both men had been convicted of murder ; both were serving life sentences ; both had always protested their innocence .
The decision was made to investigate the complaint internally. Gilchrist was never questioned. Identified witnesses were never interviewed. Yet within a short time came the announcement that there was 'insufficient evidence to prosecute Gilchrist.'
The statement was made by Jeremy Paine.
Because the investigation was an internal one, the Police Complaints authority was not involved, and the findings did not have to be passed on. The report of that investigation has never been seen by anyone outside the force. This is alarming, considering that the Sussex police force has since been investigated 3 times in one year by other forces and the PCA, and each time was castigated for its lack of integrity and rigour.
Today, both men who lodged that complaint in 1997, Stephen A Young and Colin Waters, are fighting their convictions through the courts. Gilchrist has been suspended by the Law Society a number of times, most recently for a 3 year period in 1999.
Something was deeply wrong in Sussex policing at that time. A Det. Supt Foster of Sussex police said in 1993 that in murder cases the pressure is on the police and they will 'do everything they have to' to secure a conviction : a disturbing statement when viewed in the light of these five cases, in which the accused have fought, and are still fighting, to clear their names.
On 4 November 2003, Colin Waters' conviction was referred to appeal by the CCRC .
Two convictions for murder in Sussex were referred to appeal by the CCRC in 2003: those of Siôn Jenkins and Colin Waters. There is a common factor: Jeremy Paine.