Gary Winter

How long had this murder victim been dead?
By Ken Norman.

Eighty-five-year-old Anthony Nevens, formerly a Tyne pilot, was found strangled in his home in South Shields on February 11, 1988. His death left the whole town stunned, for he was frail and half-blind. Mr Nevens was often seen shuffling around the town centre, bent almost double over his white stick. He had a habit of calling daily at the Balancing Eels pub for a half-pint of beer, and also chatted with friends at the Metro Grill and the Criterion pub. When he failed to turn up at the Balancing Eel, a barmaid became concerned and went with a police officer to his home.

Mr Nevens had often been visited by youngsters at his maisonette. He had served a five-year apprenticeship as pilot, beginning in 1918. he became an official Tyne pilot in 1933. A widower, he left a son, serving as a river pilot in Aberdeen, and a daughter living in South Shields.

The following year a jury at Newcastle Crown Court convicted Gary Winter, a 26-year-old South Shields father of four, of the murder, allegedly having strangled him for three or four minutes before stealing a watch and cash. The main evidence was that he had been identified on a pawnbroker’s video camera selling a watch which was claimed to have belonged to Mr Nevens. After reaching their verdict the jury learned that three years earlier Gary had been arrested and fined £40 for going to Mr Nevens’ home, stealing a watch and selling it in a betting shop for a few pounds. They must have gone home totally satisfied that their verdict was correct.

In 1990 the Court of Appeal refused leave for an appeal against the murder charge, yet Mr Jeremy Hawthorn, who by this time was solicitor for Mr Winter, said his client was convicted on thin, circumstantial evidence. The jury, he said, had disbelieved three witnesses who declared that they had seen Mr Nevens the day after Gary was alleged to have strangled him. There could have been eight witnesses brought before the jury giving similar evidence, but they were not called. “Often the defence will withhold witnesses because of tactical reasons,” said Mr Hawthorn. “It may work, or it may not.”

I definitely saw him on Tuesday
The South Shields Gazette published this report on May 6, 1993.

A South Shields man wrote the following statement on May 25, 1990, saying he saw Mr Nevens alive the day AFTER Winter was supposed to have killed him.The man, who lives near Winter’s parents in Wallington Grove, South Shields, was not called to give evidence at the murder trial. But Sunderland South MP Chris Mullin, the man whose efforts helped to free alleged IRA bombers the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, has a copy of the statement. It reads: “I know the deceased, Mr Nevens, by sight. I did not know his name at that time but because of enquiries and photographs and the like, I can say definitely that I knew this man and I knew him for between a year or two years, prior to his death. I know definitely that I saw the deceased on Tuesday the 9th of February in the Brigends (sic) Club in South Shields. I remember that day specifically because I had been to South Shields General Hospital to see a specialist and I was off work. During the week, I never go into the Club, because I am always at work and therefore I can remember that particular day, going into the club at lunch time on my way home from my appointment at the hospital.

I got into the club around lunchtime and I can remember that at 11.50 a.m., the man I now know to be Nevens came into the club. It was at that time that I left the club to come home. I have no idea what he was wearing. I have been asked if he was wearing a hat and I really can’t say whether he was or not. I am, however, certain in my own mind that the man I saw was Mr Nevens, I would be prepared to give evidence in this particular respect, if so required.”

His wife told the newspaper: “My husband has made a statement saying what he saw. He is not the only person who saw Mr Nevens the day after he was supposed to have been killed. I understand quite a few people saw him.” “If it is proved that Mr Nevens was alive on the Tuesday, the day after Winter is alleged to have committed the murder, the stolen watch and everything he did on the Monday become irrelevant,” said Mr Hawthorn.

The Appeal Court refused to hear evidence from another man making the same claim, and Gary said later that although, before his trial, eight witnesses had made statements to the police that they had seen Mr Nevens on February 9, he did not know their names. He appealed through the Shields Gazette for them to get in touch with him.

The Prosecution’s case was that Gary had throttled the old man with a television cord for three or four minutes before stealing the watch and cash. The cord was missing from the TV set and was never produced at the trial. The missing watch was a Sekonda (one of a batch of 30,000 sold in the UK that year, the court was told). It carried no special markings, and Mr Nevens’ daughter was unable to identify the one produced as evidence, except to say that it was similar to her father’s. It was too large to fit into the watchcase found in Mr Nevens’ home. Gary’s own claim is that he had bought the watch for £2 from a man in a betting shop. “I tried to sell to some lads I used to play football with for £5. I was aware it was stolen, but not from where. Would anyone in their right mind try to sell a watch knowing that it came from a murder victim, let alone if they had committed the murder?” he declares.

A new battery had been put into the victim’s watch in December 1987; the watch produced as evidence had a battery which had run out by the time of the trial (a period of only 13 months. A jeweller tells me that Sekonda batteries can last from 18 months upwards, those with elaborate movements and alarms expiring first. “Some people have told me they have lasted five years.” Another point put forward at his trial is that a fire was lit in his garden on the supposed day of the murder. But, he says, “the remains contained nothing but wood ash. A neighbour has stated that he burnt an old wooden cot at approximately midnight. " I did not murder Mr Nevens on February 8th, 1988, nor on any other date. I am totally innocent of this crime. The murderer is still out there.” Gary also claims that a newspaper delivered to Mr Nevens’ home and dated February 9 (the day after the alleged murder) had been opened and read, and was stained where a teacup had been placed upon it. This piece of evidence has now been destroyed by the police. He asks: “WHY?” A footprint found at the scene upon a carrier bag was said by the police to be his; it was a size 9 (he says), and he takes size 6.

The police examined the body on February 11th and found nothing untoward; the death was put down as natural. Because of this, no “scene of crime” evidence was sought, and Mr Nevens’ daughter was tidying the house when the funeral men arrived to remove the body. Not until it was taken to the mortuary was a mark noticed around the neck. It seems that employees called the funeral director who, noticing that the mark was blood-stained, contacted the police. They told him to return the body to Mr Nevens’ home. At that time the blood was still wet, but the funeral director, in a statement, said it was drying quickly on exposure to the air, and was perhaps fully dry by the time a pathologist arrived. This casts some doubt on the estimated date of death. If the Home Office pathologist is correct, the body had lain below an electric bar fire (still switched on) for three days, with blood still liquid. Is this feasible? The dating of death is not an exact science, and if the defence lawyers had sought opinion from a second pathologist, the jury might have heard conflicting evidence.

In 1992 this case was included in a dossier of more than 10 prisoners presented to the Home Office by Mr Chris Mullin, MP for Sunderland South, who at that time played an active role in fighting injustice, having helped to free the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. (Now he is too busy to take on new cases). In May 1994 the Home Office turned down a plea for an appeal or for the case to be reopened on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to justify reconsideration. It meant he would have to wait at least three years before being allowed to make another application. His parents, who live on Woodbine Estate, where the murder took place, had hoped that evidence which was not known at the time of the trial would bring freedom. Mary Winter, then 63, said: “Gary has always maintained he was innocent and I believe him. But he gets very depressed in jail. He was assaulted by one of the inmates and had to have his jaw wired up.” Since he was jailed his wife has divorced him (“I cannot blame her. It’s not her fault I’m stuck here. But I feel very bitter that a miscarriage of justice has cost me my marriage and my family).”

He freely admits his criminal past: “I was a buzzer but not a killer. I had no convictions for violence and I wouldn’t hurt anyone.” He spends most of his time working on ways to prove his innocence, and says he has now found 12 people who state that they saw Mr Nevens alive after the supposed day of his death.

TOP