The conviction of Timothy Evans should be overturned

While preparing my column this week on cognitive dissonance and the family courts I came across a fact that I was unaware of. And found completely shocking.

The conviction of Timothy Evans for murdering his baby Geraldine has never been quashed.

Timothy Evans was hanged on March 9th 1950. He was found guilty of murder when his wife Beryl and daughter were found in the wash house of 10 Rillington Place in Notting Hill, a house the Evans's shared with John Reginald Christie (pictured).

Evans provided the police with a number of inconsistent and impossible confessions, but by the trial he was pleading not guilty. His story was that Christie had killed her while carrying out an illegal abortion.

Christie appeared as the main prosecution witness. Evans was doomed.

Then in 1953, Christie left Rillington Place. The new tenant discovered three bodies sealed behind the wallpaper of the kitchen pantry. A search of the premises unearthed three more bodies, including that of Mrs Christie. Some of the bodies had been wrapped in the same way as the Evans bodies.

Clearly had these facts been known at the trial, Evans would not have been found guilty.

Yet his conviction has not been overturned.

An inital review persisted in the argument that he was guilty, and a further inquiry ridiculously suggested that while he was not guilty of murdering Geraldine, he was, most probably, guilty of killing Beryl.

Using this as a basis. Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary swiftly issued a pardon.

However, a pardon is not the same as quashing a conviction. The conviction stands, along with the suggestion that Evans was likely to have killed his wife. It is therefore entirely inadequate.

The Evans family has been trying to get the case reviewed in order that justice can finally be done. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, however, refuses to send it back to the Court of Appeal.

They argue there would be no tangible benefit, even though there was a "real possibility" that the conviction would be quashed. They say the pardon is enough.

Am I alone in thinking this scandalous? There is tangible benefit to his family. But more than that there is tangible benefit to all of us, because overturning the verdict means the law, not just a liberal Home Secretary, admitting it got things wrong.

This injustice should not be allowed to stand.

Comments

[Peter Steadman]

On the contrary, the injustice should be allowed to stand as a reminder to all those who want to believe that British justice is the best in the world. This shameful omission can only have been perpetuated with the connivance of the Establishment. The sheer longevity of this ignoble act speaks volumes and should be allowed to fester and ferment . One only hopes that it will cause a moments hesitation to those who spout the government's mantra ' if you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear'. Closure would mean that the lesson fades.