Editor’s Note

This article refers to the injustice suffered by the late Annette Hewins and Donna Clarke and Denise Sullivan and also the victims of the arson that claimed their lives: Diane Jones and her infant daughters, Shauna Hibberd and Sarah-Jane Hibberd. It and further articles relating to that injustice are being published on this site because of the connection to athletics, which will be made clear in future articles.

The Editor

By Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (October 19^th 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 11^th 1995 had been leaded – it is not disputed that Annette Hewins bought leaded petrol from Snow’s Garage that night – and that that was the petrol used in the fire, then TEL and arguably, the lead scavenger EDB would have been detected on the carpet sample tested. They were not.[1]

The compounds Lead Dibromide and Lead Dichloride would also have been detected if the petrol had reached the temperature that Lead Oxide may have posed a risk to an engine. None of these were detected. 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 up to 15 minutes when she left a friend’s place in Clover Road which was near the site of the fire – her only window of opportunity. The Crown’s case was that she went there, set the fire, went home, changed clothes and went back to her friend’s place in 10-15 minutes. But that is no longer the case against her.

On January 14^th 2000 there was a meeting with police and a forensic scientist regarding the plan to destroy the house. That plan was opposed by Clarke and Hewins. I put the argument above to the police and C. Michael 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 in tatters 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 petrol to Clarke and she put it in a Lucozade bottle for future use as the Crown claimed, it was not 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. 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 – its timings.

The prosecution cannot move the goalposts now and ignore the timings that its own case depended on. 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/