There was no evidence that John, as asserted by Barbara Taft, had ripped any pages out of the works diary. However:-

• The prosecution then attempted to link Barbara Taft’s assertion about a works diary with the fact that half a page from the back of Mrs. Bolshaw’s pocket diary had been ripped out.
  
  
• On the top half of the ripped page was a hand written diagram which the prosecution claimed was of a fire canopy.
  
  
• Evidence from the previous owners of 5 Buffs Lane was that the fire canopy had been fitted after Mrs. Bolshaw had moved into the bungalow early in 1983.
  
  
• There was evidence from Mrs. Bolshaw’s record of accounts that she had purchased the canopy from MANWEB. There was no information as to who had fitted it in her account book.
  
  
• John had, several years before, worked for a fireplace company and had sometimes fitted fireplaces as ‘foreigners’.
  
  
• The speculation was that he was at Mrs. Bolshaw’s house to fit the fire canopy and the ripped out half of the page must have had his name on it below the diagram.
  
  
• Therefore, according to the prosecution, he had ripped the page out after the murder had been committed to cover his tracks.
  
  
• The prosecution produced the fire canopy in court on a number of occasions throughout the trial, even though it was clearly established that the fingerprints on the back of it, put there by whoever had fitted it, were not Johns.

The missing half page from the diary belonging to the deceased was consistently linked to the fire canopy, and was introduced into the trial on every possible occasion. Obviously, John was not the person who fitted the fire canopy, which is why his fingerprints were not on the back of it. It follows that there was no reason why his name would have been above the diagram in the diary. Therefore there was no reason why he would have needed to rip a page out. It was a complete ‘red herring’ but was used consistently as ‘evidence’ by the prosecution.

If the police were convinced there was a connection between the missing half page in the diary belonging to the deceased and the fire canopy, why have they not tried to find out who actually fitted the canopy and whose fingerprints are on it? If they acknowledge there is no connection why did the prosecution try to convince the jury otherwise?