Beyond reasonable doubt is a fundamental principle of British criminal law. The report aims to show that no realistic evaluation of the evidence presented in court should have led to John being convicted of murder.

The authors believe that the defence effectively de-constructed the prosecution’s case, showing that the prosecution actually provided John with an alibi which proved he did not kill Mrs. Bolshaw.

The basis for this is that when John was allegedly seen burying clothing worn at the time of the murder, the victim was still alive. The report seeks to demonstrate this by analysing the evidence of eyewitnesses called by the prosecution, and also the evidence of two Home Office pathologists relating to the time of death.

The defence pointed this out in summing up. However, despite the fact that the prosecution’s case was heavily based on John being seen in his garden digging a hole, the prosecution asked the judge, in the absence of the jury, to have this alibi evidence ruled as inadmissible. They said that under rules of evidence John should have informed the police of his alibi. But he didn’t know he had one until it was established in court, although the witnesses who provided this alibi had been interviewed by the police and had given statements soon after John was arrested.

The authors go on to highlight what they believe was a misdirection by the trial judge in his summing up. The judge introduced a further speculation, which, although having no basis in fact, seriously undermined the alibi which had been established and provided a new route by which the jury could convict John.

The report also outlines other issues which cast further doubt on the conviction. These include ‘evidence’ relating to a missing page in a diary and a fire canopy, which was consistently portrayed throughout the trial by the prosecution as crucial to their case. In fact, this proved to be a complete ‘red herring’. Other facts, such as unidentified suspects, an unidentified fingerprint at the scene of crime, and unidentified DNA found at the scene are highlighted.

The authors point out that when a miscarriage of justice occurs there is a gross violation of human rights. This involves not only the rights of the wrongly convicted person, but also those of his or her family. Also, it does not provide a just outcome for the victims of crime when the wrong person is convicted.

The authors believe that what is outlined in the report demonstrates the fallibility at the heart of the entire judicial system, making gross miscarriages of justice such as this possible. A woman was killed and the murderer has not been brought to justice. An innocent man and his wife and family are the new victims.

But…’justice’ has been seen to be done. A long outstanding murder case has been ‘solved’ according to the police.