Killer who threw wife down stairs has claim that intruder murdered her thrown out
A convicted murderer has lost his bid for freedom after top judges rejected his claim an 'intruder' could have killed his wife.
Alan Evans, aged 37, is serving life for the murder of his wife Louise, who was found at the bottom of the stairs of their family home in Stoney Lane, Kidderminster, in July 2012.
Family and friends of Evans' in the public gallery shouted, 'you're so wrong, you're so wrong' as Lady Justice Rafferty rejected his latest appeal at London's Appeal Court yesterday.
The couple had been married for 12 years, but Mrs Evans had discovered her husband was having an affair, the judge told the court.
Evans told his girlfriend the relationship was over on July 2, but a few days later said he still 'loved her'.
Part-time care assistant Mrs Evans had 49 separate injuries, many consistent with falling down stairs but one to an eye socket which indicated a punch or kick, said the judge.
The prosecution case was that Evans had caused his wife to fall and then either smothered her to death or left her to die.
He denied killing her, insisting he had fallen asleep on the sofa watching television before discovering her at the bottom of the stairs.
However, examination of his mobile phone and television set-top box showed both were in use during the time Evans said he was asleep, the judge said.
He was convicted of murder and ordered to serve a minimum term of 17 years at Worcester Crown Court in November 2013.
Evans' barrister, Thomas Schofield, told the appeal court the jury had been presented with a 'binary choice' - either Evans' had killed his wife or it was a 'tragic accident'.
But he said there was evidence - including text messages and an anonymous letter - supporting a 'third scenario', that Mrs Evans 'died at the hands of a third party or intruder'.
"The issue is whether this conviction remains safe in the light of the potential third scenario which the jury never heard," said Mr Schofield.
Lady Justice Rafferty, who was sitting with Mrs Justice Cox and Sir John Royce, told the court: "We disagree."
She said the material placed before the court could not be viewed as 'fresh evidence' and went 'nowhere near' undermining the safety of the jury's verdict.
