The Smoking Gun of Innocence (Part Three)
October 20, 2025
The Smoking Gun of Innocence Part Five
October 20, 2025
By Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (October 19th 2025)
Vindicated?
Any impartial review of the boiling points of the relevant components demonstrates that if the petrol used in the fire that took the lives of Diane Jones and her infant children Shauna Hibberd and Sarah-Jane Hibberd in the early hours of October 11th 1995 had been leaded, then TEL (tetraethyl lead) and arguably, the lead scavenger EDB (Ethylene Dibromide) would have been detected on the carpet samples that were tested. They were not.[1]
It is not disputed that Annette Hewins bought leaded petrol from Snow’s Garage that night, and that the petrol that was used in the fire was, according to the evidence, unleaded. The compounds Lead Dibromide and Lead Dichloride would also have been detected if the petrol in the carpet samples had reached the temperature that Lead Oxide may have posed a risk to an engine. This, after all, was the point of using TEL (the anti-knock component to protect the engine). None of these compounds were detected in the petrol obtained from the carpet samples. That suggests the petrol used in the fire was unleaded.
The grossly non-scientific test conducted by Andrew Sweeting on a portion of his lab-coat in no way contradicts this. The irresistible inference of this is that the petrol used in the fire was unleaded. That means that the petrol she bought that night was not used in the fire, so the case against Annette Hewins cannot survive scrutiny, but it also ruins the case against Donna Clarke.
The prosecution case was that Clarke already had the petrol from Hewins and that she was out of sight of Denise Sullivan and Carly John for between 10-15 minutes when she left a friend’s place in Clover Road which was near the site of the fire – 2 minutes 05 seconds away, according the timings submitted by Detective Sergeant (DS) Philip Jones. The Crown’s case was that she went there, set the fire, went home, changed clothes and went back to her friend’s place within a maximum of 15 minutes. That,.according to the Crown’s case that was presented at trial, was her only window of opportunity. But that is no longer the case against her.
On January 14th 2000 there was a meeting with police and a forensic scientist, C. Michael Jenkins, regarding the plan to destroy the house. That plan was opposed by Clarke and Hewins. I put the argument above to the police and Jenkins. Superintendent Jim Kerr asked him if my argument made sense. Jenkins said, ‘Yes, it does.’ That demolished the case against Hewins as it was clear through enhanced CCTV footage from Snow’s Garage in Merthyr Tydfil that Hewins had bought leaded petrol and put it in her car.
The Crown’s case that she bought petrol and gave it to Clarke was unsustainable as the irresistible inference was that the petrol used in the fire was unleaded and that Hewins had not bought unleaded petrol that night. Consequently, even if Hewins gave the petrol that she bought that night to Clarke and she put it in a Lucozade bottle for future use as the Crown claimed, it was not the petrol used in the fire. Therefore, there is no case against Hewins. For reasons detailed below, there is no case against Clarke either.
Even taking the higher amount of time suggested by the Crown, Clarke now has to get petrol within that 15-minute window as well. The nearest garage is a 6-minute drive away. That means 6 minutes back as well. Consequently, 12 minutes is used up on travel that had not been previously allowed for by the Crown and that is if a convenient car turned up to drive her there and back just when it was needed – that is according to the Crown’s timings.
The prosecution cannot move the goalposts now and ignore the timings that its own case depended on then. Clarke, therefore, only has 3 minutes to siphon the petrol, make an entry point to pour the petrol into the house, or enter it, pour it, set the fire, go to her home, get changed and go back to her friend’s home. And she has to do that without a change in demeanour in three minutes.
In short, the case against her should not lie on the file as it does not bear scrutiny any longer.
[1] For further information see The Smoking Gun of Innocence Parts 2 and 3 at https://empowersmag.com/empowersmagwp/2025/10/19/the-smoking-gun-of-innocence-part-two/ and https://empowersmag.com/empowersmagwp/2025/10/19/the-smoking-gun-of-innocence-part-three/
