Split Thread David Gilroy: murder conviction goes to Scottish Review Commission

[Rolfe]

It's difficult to do that without leaving some evidence on that undergrowth, but it's such a huge area and there could be any number of places with evidence of that having happened which were unconnected with the murder.

 

[anglolawyer]

And as you probably know, there are several hours unaccounted for in his trip to and from the place he went to which means at all points along the route from which one could rive an ordinary car off road he could have deviated making a large search area.

 

[anglolawyer]

I haven't the time to find the links right now but three cases of the police not finding bodies right under their noses occur to me:

1 the recent one where the Latvian guy followed the schoolgirl on his bike in Brentford and weighed her body down in a canal

2 the not quite so recent one of the pedophile who murdered his niece or stepdaughter and put her body in the attic of a small council house where it was not spotted in the course of two searches by the police

3 the Oxford student murdered by her boyfriend and found wrapped up under the stairs in the house she shared at university, weeks after her disappearance (which must have made sleeping in that house subsequently knowing the body had been there the whole time rather unpleasant)

 

[zooterkin]

There are exceptions to every rule.

Well, those seem particularly relevant to this case; bodies buried in large remote areas where few people visit.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, those seem particularly relevant to this case; bodies buried in large remote areas where few people visit.

True. I was only joshing.

 

[Rolfe]

So, if we take it as agreed that Gilroy had the opportunity to dispose of the body and there is evidence suggesting he actually did that, is the rest of the case strong enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[Duffy Moon]

If one was to dispose of a body - appropriately weighted etc - in Loch Ness, it would surely remain undiscovered under 200+ metres of water.
I wonder how many bodies have been hidden there over the years.

In a local case a year or so ago, a man confessed to a woman's murder.
There was no body because he had dismembered her and simply put her out for the bin men.
General waste in Coventry goes straight to the incinerator, so presumably in a few short hours, the poor woman was literally gone from the face of the earth.

As I recall, the fellow was of limited mental capability but he managed something that has been the downfall of some highly intelligent, calculating killers over the years - he successfully disposed of a corpse.
If he hadn't confessed, nobody would have been any the wiser as to his involvement.

In another case, Nicola Payne went missing 23 years ago and neither hide nor hair has been found of her.*

However, two men were charged this morning with her murder, so perhaps we'll learn what happened to her in due course.


* That we currently know of. The police decision to charge the two men might have been based on evidence which is not yet public.

 

[anglolawyer]

So, if we take it as agreed that Gilroy had the opportunity to dispose of the body and there is evidence suggesting he actually did that, is the rest of the case strong enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt?

I believe so. Here is the judgment in Gilroy's first attempt to disturb his conviction. It sets out numerous points of circumstantial evidence all of which point unerringly and cumulatively in the same direction. Read paras (2) to (11) and note that his appeal is principally of a technical nature concerning the admissibility of statements he made to the police and of a pathologist's report (not to say those things aren't important but they aren't the same as, say, challenging or offering innocent interpretations of the evidence). See paragraphs (37) to (43).

ETA I find this bit rather chilling (from the link):

The appellant had arrived in Thistle Street at 8.36 am on 4 May. He logged onto his computer at 8.40. Between 9.15 and 9.20 he was observed in the area of a photocopier at the end of the open plan office near the back stairs, which led down to the basement. According to some, but by no means all, of his work colleagues, he appeared clammy and sweaty as if he had been rushing around. He did not look his normal self and seemed to be in shock. His eyes were glazed and the pupils dilated. In due course, the jury would be asked to infer that, between 8.53 and 9.15, the appellant had met the deceased in the vicinity of the front door of 11 Thistle Street, spirited her down to the basement and murdered her.

 

[Rolfe]

If one was to dispose of a body - appropriately weighted etc - in Loch Ness, it would surely remain undiscovered under 200+ metres of water.
I wonder how many bodies have been hidden there over the years.

Maybe. But on the other hand, the place is constantly being scrutinised by monster-watchers, and it's a popular beauty spot crawling with tourists. And there is a main road right round the water. I'd go for somewhere a lot less civilised, even if it was a bit shallower. (Of course, Loch Ness isn't in the frame for Suzanne Pilley. Much further west and south. And extraordinarily uninhabited.)

In a local case a year or so ago, a man confessed to a woman's murder.
There was no body because he had dismembered her and simply put her out for the bin men.
General waste in Coventry goes straight to the incinerator, so presumably in a few short hours, the poor woman was literally gone from the face of the earth.
As I recall, the fellow was of limited mental capability but he managed something that has been the downfall of some highly intelligent, calculating killers over the years - he successfully disposed of a corpse.
If he hadn't confessed, nobody would have been any the wiser as to his involvement.

I blush to confess that's one method of disposal that was always at the top of my list. Dismember the body and get rid of it in small enough parts not to raise suspicions. Domestic waste that goes straight to incineration (not landfill) is a prime candidate.

I think you'd have to be very confident that you wouldn't be suspected, at least initially, to get sufficient time to carry out that plan.

In another case, Nicola Payne went missing 23 years ago and neither hide nor hair has been found of her.*

However, two men were charged this morning with her murder, so perhaps we'll learn what happened to her in due course.

* That we currently know of. The police decision to charge the two men might have been based on evidence which is not yet public.

Linky?

 

[Rolfe]

I believe so. Here is the judgment in Gilroy's first attempt to disturb his conviction. It sets out numerous points of circumstantial evidence all of which point unerringly and cumulatively in the same direction. Read paras (2) to (11) and note that his appeal is principally of a technical nature concerning the admissibility of statements he made to the police and of a pathologist's report (not to say those things aren't important but they aren't the same as, say, challenging or offering innocent interpretations of the evidence). See paragraphs (37) to (43).

ETA I find this bit rather chilling (from the link):

The appellant had arrived in Thistle Street at 8.36 am on 4 May. He logged onto his computer at 8.40. Between 9.15 and 9.20 he was observed in the area of a photocopier at the end of the open plan office near the back stairs, which led down to the basement. According to some, but by no means all, of his work colleagues, he appeared clammy and sweaty as if he had been rushing around. He did not look his normal self and seemed to be in shock. His eyes were glazed and the pupils dilated. In due course, the jury would be asked to infer that, between 8.53 and 9.15, the appellant had met the deceased in the vicinity of the front door of 11 Thistle Street, spirited her down to the basement and murdered her.

Oh God, Carloway. Mind you, he seems to have tried to recant some of his damaging stuff about "certainty and finality".

I'm having way too much fun reading that judgement. It's horrifying, really, but it's such an interesting sequence of events. How did they know about him taking his car to the basement and going in and out? If there was a CCTV camera, surely it would have shown him carrying a body?

 

[Duffy Moon]

Linky?

Here's a BBC link and this is a timeline of the case.
It's current news as the hearing was today, so just searching her name will give you several stories, I suspect they'll all say much the same thing though.

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks.

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh God, Carloway. Mind you, he seems to have tried to recant some of his damaging stuff about "certainty and finality".

I'm having way too much fun reading that judgement. It's horrifying, really, but it's such an interesting sequence of events. How did they know about him taking his car to the basement and going in and out? If there was a CCTV camera, surely it would have shown him carrying a body?

That I do not know. Maybe the CCTV coverage is limited and he managed to stay outside its range? I guess he must have used his car because carting her corpse over his shoulder in the middle of the day might have drawn stares. I like the fact he suddenly stopped texting her almost as though he knew what happened ...

 

[Rolfe]

Reading that appeal submission, he's trying to get off on technicalities, isn't he? I don't get a sense of an innocent man trying to prove his innocence, but of someone trying to find a handy loophole. The bit about him giving statements as a witness (without a caution) when there is some reason to believe he might actually be a suspect is rather familiar!

The chances of someone else having killed Suzanne in that tiny time window, or else of her having decided to head for Bali (without her passport) for a life on the beach are ludicrously remote.

I wonder if they'll ever persuade him to reveal where he disposed of her body?

 

[anglolawyer]

Reading that appeal submission, he's trying to get off on technicalities, isn't he? I don't get a sense of an innocent man trying to prove his innocence, but of someone trying to find a handy loophole. The bit about him giving statements as a witness (without a caution) when there is some reason to believe he might actually be a suspect is rather familiar!

Yes, I am sure I've seen that somewhere before ...

The chances of someone else having killed Suzanne in that tiny time window, or else of her having decided to head for Bali (without her passport) for a life on the beach are ludicrously remote.

I wonder if they'll ever persuade him to reveal where he disposed of her body?

Not, I suspect, if a small army of gullible supporters coalesces into a support group to sustain him.

 

[Rolfe]

Carloway's reasoning is quite interesting. Even though that was quite an interrogation, actually an all-nighter, the police were only at the stage of gathering information and couldn't reasonably have regarded him as the suspect. Hmmm. But in fact he didn't say anything incriminating and actually denied the crime in the statement. He relied on it in court rather than give evidence in the witness box. It was helpful to him rather than a hindrance.

I had wondered if this was pre-meditated, but it wasn't, was it? He's met her on her way into work and they've had some sort of super-quarrel and he's strangled her in a rage. I mean who would choose to murder someone right in the middle of a city at their mutual place of work in the morning, with all the attendant difficulties of disposing of the body?

It's a bloody miracle he managed to dispose of the body and leave as little evidence of what he'd done as he did. I suppose in his panic, and all the planning about setting off on the trip to Lochgilphead, he didn't realise he should have continued to send her text messages.

Hey, could we have some innocentisti to make this an actual debate? Cos I can't see this lasting long, it's too one-sided. (I still don't trust these cadaver dogs, but even a stopped clock and all that....)

 

[anglolawyer]

Carloway's reasoning is quite interesting. Even though that was quite an interrogation, actually an all-nighter, the police were only at the stage of gathering information and couldn't reasonably have regarded him as the suspect. Hmmm. But in fact he didn't say anything incriminating and actually denied the crime in the statement. He relied on it in court rather than give evidence in the witness box. It was helpful to him rather than a hindrance.

I had wondered if this was pre-meditated, but it wasn't, was it? He's met her on her way into work and they've had some sort of super-quarrel and he's strangled her in a rage. I mean who would choose to murder someone right in the middle of a city at their mutual place of work in the morning, with all the attendant difficulties of disposing of the body?

It's a bloody miracle he managed to dispose of the body and leave as little evidence of what he'd done as he did. I suppose in his panic, and all the planning about setting off on the trip to Lochgilphead, he didn't realise he should have continued to send her text messages.

Hey, could we have some innocentisti to make this an actual debate? Cos I can't see this lasting long, it's too one-sided. (I still don't trust these cadaver dogs, but even a stopped clock and all that....)

I think you can forget the dogs. He's guilty without them. The purchase of armfuls of air freshener makes up for the dogs. I agree, he did a bloody good job in the circs. If I murdered someone I am sure I would go all to pieces and walk straight into the arms of the police. No way would I back myself to blag my way out of it.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, I am sure I've seen that somewhere before ...

Now if the police had slapped him about the head and forced a confession out of him, this could all be so different. But they didn't. They treated him politely and faithfully recorded his tale of ignorance and non-involvement.

Not, I suspect, if a small army of gullible supporters coalesces into a support group to sustain him.

*Rolfe looks out of the window in the general direction of Edinburgh*

Nope, not seeing one. I really haven't heard of anyone trying to stick up for him. The case sounds very threadbare at first hearing, but the more detail you discover, the more guilty he looks.

 

[Rolfe]

I think you can forget the dogs. He's guilty without them. The purchase of armfuls of air freshener makes up for the dogs. I agree, he did a bloody good job in the circs. If I murdered someone I am sure I would go all to pieces and walk straight into the arms of the police. No way would I back myself to blag my way out of it.

Yes, that was the conclusion I was coming to. You don't need the dogs. It's the rest of the evidence that suggests the dogs were probably right.

Did the police have the receipt for the air freshener?

 

[anglolawyer]

Now if the police had slapped him about the head and forced a confession out of him, this could all be so different. But they didn't. They treated him politely and faithfully recorded his tale of ignorance and non-involvement.




*Rolfe looks out of the window in the general direction of Edinburgh*

Nope, not seeing one. I really haven't heard of anyone trying to stick up for him. The case sounds very threadbare at first hearing, but the more detail you discover, the more guilty he looks.

It is a great example of circumstantial evidence at work and a very useful comparator for other cases, especially the Knox case, where the guilters are always wittering on about such evidence (the osmotic case) without having the first idea what they are talking about. In Gillroy it all stands up and it all points one way to a coherent picture. Neither applies in the other case.