• Through his cross-examination of the Evans family, the defence barrister was able to establish that Mrs. Evans and her daughter had seen John in his garden at 11.30pm on Saturday 8th October.

• This was the same time that Mrs. Bolshaw’s car was seen on her drive by her neighbour, Mrs. Elliott. (See 2.7 Background Information)
  
  
• Sarah Evans had a calliper removed from her leg on Wednesday 21^st September 1983. (Medical records show this to be the case.) Shortly after this the family had embarked on a two-week holiday in France.
  
  
• Therefore they were not in the country on the previous weekend, Saturday 1^st October, so it had to be the weekend they returned home. (8th/9^th Oct. 1983) (See p.7, bullet points 8 & 9)
  
  
• Mr. Evans, in those days, went to the ‘pub on Saturday and Sunday evenings.
  
  
• In 1983, public houses only had late night opening on Saturdays. Mr. Evans said it had to be the Saturday night because of the time he returned home. (Approx. 11.45pm.)
  
  
• Therefore it was not possible that John could have killed Mrs. Bolshaw, taken her car, walked 8 miles home, and have been seen in the garden burying his clothes at 11.30pm on Saturday 8^th October. Mrs. Bolshaw’s car was still on her path.
  
  
• And, according to the two Home Office pathologists who had examined the body, Mrs. Bolshaw was still alive! They estimated the time of death as between 3.00-6.00am on the following morning. (See 4.5 Time of Death)
  
  
• The brown fibres attributed to the killer were found on the driver’s seat of the abandoned car which could not have been removed from the driveway of the deceased until some time after 11.30pm on the Saturday when seen by a neighbour.
  
  
• If the clothing which had shed the tell tale fibres on the drivers seat had already been buried in the ground by John at 11.30pm, he would have to be wearing different clothes when he took the car. So how did the same fibres come to be on the driver’s seat? Clearly impossible, unless John could be in two places at the same time.

The way the police statement was written it was not possible for the defence to establish the actual night John was seen in the garden without talking to the family.

Not only was the prosecution’s reasoning totally flawed, their speculative theory actually provided John with an alibi. After this was highlighted in the defence’s summing up, despite the fact that John being seen in his garden digging a hole and burying clothes was a central part of their case, the prosecution unsuccessfully attempted to persuade the judge (while the jury was out) to have this piece of alibi evidence ruled inadmissible. They said John should have notified the police that he had an alibi. Surely this should have been the other way round? John did not know until it was established through cross-examination of the witnesses that he had an alibi. But, it was the police who had taken the witness statement! (See appendix 5)