In November 1994, six-year-old Rikki Neave went missing after leaving for school one morning. His body was discovered the next day at a nearby woodland to his home in Peterborough.

At the time, Rikki was known to social services after being placed on the ‘at risk’ child protection register. His mother, Ruth, quickly became the focus of the police investigation which culminated to her standing trial in 1996. Ruth was acquitted of the murder, but served a seven-year sentence for child cruelty offences.

A recent investigation by the BBC has unveiled that the police ‘ignored’ crucial scientific evidence during the original investigation. As a result of their omissions, it would be over 20 years until Rikki’s killer would be brought to justice.

The police instructed Professor Brown at Southampton University to act as forensic scientist in the original investigation. However, his findings were not used by the police, and neither were they heard as part of the court case against Ruth. Professor Brown said that he had never experienced his evidence being ‘disregarded’ on any other case previously.

One significant finding by Professor Brown involved the analysis of the mud placement on Rikki’s shoes. This indicated that he died in the woods, and not in his home as the prosecution alleged. Tests were also carried out on his clothes by forensic scientist Peter Lamb, who identified specific fibres without a “legitimate source”. However, because no items of clothing were taken from any person of interest, it was not possible to match these fibres with any potential suspects.

Rikki’s murderer, James Watson, was seen with him on the morning of his disappearance. Police questioned him and released him without charge. He was finally brought to justice in April 2022. Following a trial in the Old Bailey, Watson was sentenced to life with a minimum 15-year term for the murder. Watson, now in his early 40s, was just aged 13 at the time of the killing.

Chief Constable Paul Fullwood, who led the review, commented that ‘the way things were investigated in 1994 were very different from today…they were focused on trying to prove Ruth was responsible for the murder.’

Ruth states that whilst they have ‘destroyed’ her life, she is ‘just relieved the truth is finally out.’

For more on this story click here.