30th. June 2008

Despite the Successful Conviction of David Hodgson for Murder - We Still Don’t Know Where Jenny Is.

It was never our intention to use this blog site to have a go at anyone or any of the processes that we have been through. However, we believe the time has come to speak up on behalf of Jenny, whose very soul has been rattled and shaken to the core during the trial at the beginning of 2008. Jenny can’t speak for herself now and many inaccurate comments were made by the defence in court and the manner, in which certain aspects have been reported, leaves certain statements unchallenged, unchecked and hanging in the air. As parents, we simply want to put a few things right.

Whilst an appeal against his conviction is underway, we have decided that we will wait until that process is exhausted before we launch a more vocal and direct stance on any individual and numerous issues. For now, we will stick to only what has already been widely reported and we therefore, see no interference whatsoever in what we are saying. I mention this as David Hodgson’s defence tried every available means to stop people leaving messages of support on this BlogSpot, despite it never having carried any derogatory remarks about Hodgson or anything that would affect his trial. It didn’t seem to affect him by talking to the press before the case or any other aspects of his behaviour, though we don’t want to give any ammunition to his defence and listen to them griping about the blog like they did even before the trial had started. We have as much right as the media or anyone else that was in court to make comment and as I have mentioned, we will do more of that in the future but for now, we will do it on Jenny’s behalf.

To highlight the fact that Jenny has still not been found and for the benefit of a large number of people that do not live in the North East and may not have seen much of the coverage, a few aspects of the Judge’s sentencing speech are listed below:

Mr Justice Openshaw, the Trial Judge said:

“The defendant’s concealment of her body has prolonged the anguish and agony of her family and friends as they waited for news of her fate”

“After he killed her, the defendant retained her mobile phone and on two separate days sent bogus text messages from the phone - as if from her – first to her friends and then to her father, cruelly pretending that she was still alive and that she had run away. He was, of course, intending, thereby, to prevent the missing person inquiry turning into a murder investigation”

“Naturally, her family found any slight hope that the messages might be genuine and so their uncertainty extended from weeks to months, until the gradual realisation that she must be dead, and that she has been murdered.”

“Even now, they have been denied such solace as can be found from a funeral and from providing for her a decent dignified and reverent disposal of her remains as they wish. I do not doubt that the thought that she is lying somewhere up on the moors will continue to inflict further pain on her long suffering family. The defendant has shown not the slightest regret or remorse”

“Where he had hidden and disposed of her body only the defendant knows, because on these matters he has remained silent. No doubt, he buried her somewhere in the woods or threw her body down one of the many potholes or mineshafts which are found throughout Swaledale. The defendant then casually returned home in the morning greeting his wife as if nothing had happened.”

There are other parts of the Judge’s remarks that we would like to comment on and indeed various aspects of what was said in court, but we will wait until sometime in the future to have our say. For now, it is the picture that the defence tried to paint of Jenny, a 19 year old girl, that we feel is appropriate to remark on. From the outset, we are fully aware that any defence counsel has a duty to represent their client to the best of their ability. It is their job to put across the arguments that the defendant makes. However, it is a totally different story altogether when they appear to join in with the fabrication or make repugnant remarks of their own. We sat in court every single day of the trial and listened to some of the biggest tosh we have ever heard. Some may think this is necessary in our justice system, but we can assure you, when you see or hear such drivel first hand, about a daughter that has been murdered and you see the wry grins on the faces of the defence day after day when asking fastidious questions, it makes you wonder. Not very practicable, but very theatrical and sometimes it appeared as a nauseating game.

Many of Jenny’s close friends were reduced to tears in the witness box as the defence attempted to paint a picture of Jenny that she was a drunkard, a drug addict, a drug dealer, her hypothetical dating habits (there was an admission of lies about this later in the trial) and so on and on it went. I doubt very much that any of these young people would ever consider giving evidence to any investigation again as many of them were unnecessarily humiliated and intimidated into agreeing to what appeared to be ‘very selectable’ strands of truths or depraved allegations made by the defence. All this, in an attempt to blacken Jenny’s name....... why? So much claptrap was covered that after only a few days it was very, very noticeable that those sitting in the press area, suddenly perked up in their seats and began scribbling away, only when certain words were spoken. Words such as ‘sex, drugs, alcohol’ or just about any statement that may indicate a possible lurid or tabloid story would attract their attention. No such signs of activity or scribbles about certain other serious matters and we shall amplify on those in the future when we decide the time is appropriate.

It’s not right, particularly as it does not paint the correct picture and appeared to have no point. It could have been any 19 year old and indeed there are many ‘normal’ teenagers that would have had a character assassination much worse than the one the defence tried with Jenny. What did they hope to achieve? Were they trying to say to the jury that Jenny’s lifestyle was so bad that it didn’t matter that she had been murdered? Even if it had all been accurate, which it certainly was not, what did it achieve, what was the purpose?

Unfortunately, the ways in which certain things are reported by the media leave huge pieces hanging in the air. Absurd remarks during cross examination by the defence are reported in a manner such as......”the court heard today, that blah blah blah” or “the defence counsel told the jury that, such and such” and sometimes it is never put in the right context or is fully explained that the substance came from the defendant and indeed often a few days later, it would become obviously apparent that it could not have been true. Often, this would go unreported or it is just not joined up with other relevant material and it is appalling that such bitter statements about Jenny went unchallenged or unchecked. Many people have asked us questions since the trial and they are stunned when we explain it all in more detail. One person remarked to us; “Who is on trial here, David Hodgson or Jenny?”

Of course it is up to the prosecution to prove the case and the defence don’t have to do a single thing if they choose not too. However, if they do, it appears they can come up with all sorts of nonsense and sadly our criminal justice system allows it. Sitting in court, in the public gallery listening to endless baloney, it is frustrating when you hear lies; particularly when you know you could probably prove otherwise or offer other information..... and you have to sit there and bite your lip, saying nothing. How come the prosecution can remain dignified and polite to all concerned and still achieve their aim, yet the defence can attempt to rip witnesses to shreds in what appears to be a sardonic mocking fashion and much of it goes unchallenged? The defence also tried to ridicule the Police at every opportunity and it became blatantly obvious what their distorted methods were.

We guess it’s because it was just as we said earlier, its complete twaddle and unnecessary. It just makes us sad that it happens and as parents, we will continue to counter any scenario that anyone puts forward about Jenny if it goes unchecked or is not put in proportion. It’s the very least we can do.

Anyone who knew Jenny knows that she was fun and got on with everyone. She went out of her way to help others and was well liked and respected. We don’t need to justify that any further or disprove much of what the defence said. Suffice to say that it was nowhere near an accurate depiction of Jenny and she did not deserve to be talked about in the way they described. How dare they besmirch her memory....... shame on them!

Three Years On.

It will be 3 years on Monday 30th June 2008 since Jenny walked out of our home, and was never seen again. She is missed dearly. The family will mark this 3rd anniversary privately and in their own way. Jenny has still not been found and only time will tell if we will ever be able to put her to rest. In the meantime, she is always in our thoughts and prayers and we will never forget her.

More to say at an appropriate time in the future..........................

Ann & Brian Nicholl

Thank you to everyone who posts here, we appreciate all the kind words.