Lord

A Man jailed Last Year for murdering a six-year-old schoolboy nearly 30 years ago has lost his appeal against his conviction.

Rikki Neave 's body was found in woods near his Peterborough home The Day after he disappeared in November 1994.

James Watson , now aged 42 but 13 at The Time , was convicted in April Last Year and was given a

A panel of three judges dismissed his case at The Court of Appeal.

Watson had at a Court of Appeal hearing in London in June.

Jennifer Dempster KC, leading Watson's appeal, had argued that a " wholesale loss and destruction of evidence" in the case meant a Fair Trial had not been possible for her client.

" It closed down completely any opportunity for the defence to explore the potential of other suspects, " She Said .

However, John Price KC, for The Crown Prosecution Service, had told appeal judges there was no evidence that Watson's case had been affected.

" The applicant failed to demonstrate that there was any prejudice caused to him by The Loss of The Material that has been identified, " He Said .

" If there was. . we do not accept that it was not capable of being ameliorated in the usual way. "

The Body of Rikki was found naked and posed star-shaped with his arms outstretched and legs wide apart, in woodland near where he lived on the Welland estate. He had been strangled.

His murder was among The Most high-profile cold cases on police files until.

Watson denied murder but was found guilty by a jury and sentenced at the Old Bailey in London last June.

Watson, who also lived on the Welland estate, was The Second person to stand trial for Rikki's murder, after The Boy 's mother Ruth Neave was cleared by a jury in 1996.

Three appeal judges - Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Morris and Judge Angela Morris - Said Watson's appeal against his conviction had failed and " must accordingly be dismissed".

In a written ruling, Lord Justice Holroyde Said lawyers representing Watson had argued his prosecution was an " abuse" of process because the " unavailability of important exhibits meant that it was impossible for him to have a Fair Trial ".

He Said Watson's lawyers had also complained about The Trial judge allowing " bad character" evidence to be considered by jurors.

Prosecutors had " applied to adduce" evidence showing that Watson had a sexual interest in young boys and in strangulation, He Said .

But The Trial judge had held that it was " open to The Jury to find that The Killing had a sexual element".

He added: " We Are . . satisfied that The Judge was correct to find that the appellant could and would have a Fair Trial .

" We Are satisfied that The Judge did not err in admitting the bad character evidence. "

Watson's lawyers also argued that remarks by The Trial judge placed " undue pressure" on The Jury to reach a verdict.

Lord Justice Holroyde Said : " Taking the remarks collectively, We Are satisfied that they could not have caused any juror to feel under any pressure to compromise his or her oath, and they do not render The Conviction unsafe. "

Source of news: bbc.com