Susan Hogan-Taft speaking on behalf of John Taft (Real video link - approximately 8 mins.)

Despite a flawed prosecution case based on purely circumstantial evidence, on 24^th November 1999, my husband John Taft was wrongly convicted, by a 10-2-majority jury verdict at Liverpool Crown Court of the murder of Cynthia Bolshaw. The murder was committed in October 1983. He is now serving a mandatory life sentence at HMP Gartree. The case was popularly called ‘The beauty in the bath case’ in the media.

My husband did not kill Mrs. Bolshaw. I believe that any reasonable person, after reading this report, will agree that he should be released from the terrible sentence which has been imposed on him.

In a criminal trial the burden is upon the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused. John’s defence demonstrated that he was not guilty of murder. At the very least it demonstrated that there was more than reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a fundamental principle of British criminal law. No realistic evaluation of the evidence presented in court should have led to John being convicted. The case demonstrates the fallibility at the heart of the entire judicial system, making gross miscarriages of justice such as this possible.

This is something we should all be concerned about. You and your loved ones could find yourselves in a similar terrible predicament, where an innocent person is convicted while the guilty go free. Although I am not in prison, as John’s wife I have also been given a life sentence through this appalling miscarriage of justice. I will not rest until he is freed from prison.

Although John and I had only been married for a few short weeks before he was arrested, we had enjoyed a close relationship for over twelve years. I know him better than anyone else in the world, and I know that he is incapable of violence, especially against a woman. Before his arrest John, who is aged fifty years, was an extremely hard working local businessman. He had left school with virtually no qualifications but had risen to be a director of a small business, which he had worked long and hard to build up. In his private life John had an interest in ecology, enjoyed reading and occasional trips to the theatre. Together we enjoyed a variety of music, and we liked to eat out at least once a month. Most of all we just enjoyed each others company and led a quiet life. Just a very ordinary couple, in fact.

People are bound to say that I am biased, which of course I am. But I believe in justice. Part of the reason for putting together this report is to demonstrate that not only my heart, but my head also, knows John is innocent.

Parole requirements involve a convicted person ‘confessing’ to his or her crime, showing remorse and addressing offending behaviour. Whilst John continues to protest his innocence he is unlikely to ever be released. This means we could both go on suffering for the rest of our lives for a crime committed by someone else.

This booklet sets out to summarise the main evidence presented in court, a great deal of which many people are unaware of. It has been put together by people who are not lawyers – it is a layperson’s view of what constitutes justice. Initially the case against John sounds very damning, which is what sticks in most people’s minds. However, a cool and intelligent analysis of the evidence presents a very different picture.

To me, it appeared from the outset that the police were convinced John was guilty of the crime. However, the jig saw pieces just do not fit together in the case that was constructed against him.

We have attempted to put together a fair and accurate account of the main points of the trial. In doing this, we are acutely aware of the feelings of Mrs. Bolshaw’s family. However, because we know an injustice has occurred and the wrong person has been convicted of this terrible crime, we have to speak out.

In allowing an innocent person to spend the rest of his life behind bars, and in allowing me to also suffer so appallingly, the state is guilty of a gross abuse of human rights. Please help me to right that wrong.

 

 

Susan Hogan-Taft