The Smoking Gun of Innocence Part Nine

By Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (October 26^th 2025)

Extremely Flawed Case Hypothesis

In the early hours of October 11^th 1995 a fire spread through 62 Marigold Close on the Gurnos Estate in Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales. Trapped upstairs, Diane Jones, 21, and her infant daughters, Shauna Hibberd, 2, and Shauna-Jane, 13-months, could not be saved. It was a high-profile crime that horrified that nation and resulted in pressure to solve it, but there were no quick solutions.

Instead, an extremely flawed case hypothesis was developed – one that went off at a tangent to credible evidence and kept doing so until it got further and further away from credible conclusions. Donna Clarke had had an affair with Jones’ partner, Shaun Hibberd – there was no doubt about that, but did that explain this appalling crime?

Clarke’s affair was the closest to a motive that was ever provided, but while it establishes that Jones, who had known about the affair and had every reason to dislike Clarke because of it and even that Clarke may have wanted Jones out of the way, there were serious flaws in the case against Clarke and even more against her co-defendants. While many ‘spare’ lovers may resent their rivals – want them out of the way even – how many actually act upon those feelings? Even if the ‘spare lover’ decides to act, the opportunity and means to commit the crime has to present itself. Did it?

An Odd Method of Entry

The prosecution case never suggested that Clarke, or anyone else for that matter had entered the premises to set the fire? Why not? Surely it would have been easier to climb through an open or not securely shut window to the toilet on the ground floor, or perhaps get inside through the back door if it was not locked – there is no undisputed evidence proving how the petrol was introduced to the inside of the house, although the seat of the fire was near the front door and downstairs toilet. There was evidence that the window of the downstairs toilet was open.

Nevertheless, the Crown’s case is that the wooden panel that had been nailed to the front door after it had been damaged in an attack a couple of weeks before the arson was the point of entry for the petrol. It had allegedly been prised open sufficiently with some conveniently located tool or tools that just happened to be nearby to create a large enough gap to throw some petrol and a lighted match into – there had to be enough accelerant thrown inside to spread the fire and trap the occupants upstairs, so they could not escape and nor could rescuers reach them.

Eliminating Alternatives

Wasn’t it possible that the perpetrator had spread the petrol from inside the house, set it on fire and quickly made good their escape. What is the evidence that this possibility was eliminated? Somehow, the accelerant was introduced to the inside of the house. The prosecution never conducted reconstruction experiments to establish what was possible, let alone that the method adopted in the case hypothesis was likely to have happened. A very limited reconstruction was conducted – just the burning of a door with a wooden panel on it. That was the basis of establishing the duration of the fire. It was nowhere near extensive enough to reach credible conclusions on the duration of the fire and when it was likely to have started.

How was the possibility that entry had been secured by the perpetrator by other means – a ground floor toilet window or the back door – eliminated? After all, both would have been able to explain any scorch pattern discovered and course of the fire while the prised open door panel may not have even been probable unless reconstruction verified that possibility. It remains a mystery why such tests are conspicuous by their absence.

Unanswered Questions

Depending on how secure the house was – was the backdoor unlocked – could it or the toilet window have been the point of entry? What was done to eliminate them as points of entry? Years later, we still await answers even though after the meeting of January 14^th 2000 the forensic scientist, C. Michael Jenkins visited the burnt-out shell of that house prior to it being destroyed to collect samples for future forensic testing.

It remains unclear over a quarter of a century later what samples were collected and what tests, if any, were conducted. Despite a recent request for clarification on this matter, South Wales Police not only have not provided answers, but also made it clear that they have no intention of doing so. Apparently, more than 25 years is not long enough to answer the questions: what samples were obtained during that visit? What tests were conducted? When were they done? And were any results obtained from these tests that may help to finally solve this terrible crime?