A VERY DISHONEST JUDGEMENT
On 20th December three Appeal Court Judges dismissed the second appeal of Eddie Gilfoyle.
This was despite the fact that the defence literally took apart the Crown’s case
and left it in shreds. Eddie and his family are outraged by what they describe as
an obscene and inhumane judgement.
After a thorough investigation which lasted two
years, the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) referred Eddies case back to the
court of appeal. The CCRC uncovered fresh evidence and the appeal against conviction
centred around new pathology, psychology and scientific evidence. The CCRC received
expert reports from Professor Crane, State Pathologist at the Queens University,
Northern Ireland and world famous Professor Knight a former Home Office Pathologist
for over forty years. Reports were also submitted from Mr Ide a Home Office Forensic
Scientist for 30 years and a specialist in knots and ligatures, Professor Canter,
Director of the Centre for Investigative Psychology at Liverpool University and Dr
Weir, formerly Consultant Psychiatrist at St Mary’s Hospital London. Dr Weir is one
of the few experts who has made a specific study of suicides in pregnancy.
Prior to
the trial Professor Canter was a prosecution witness. He was consulted by the police
and submitted a report indicating that Paula would not have taken her own life. He
said that Eddie had dictated a series of suicide letters for Paula Gilfoyle to write
and questioned the method used by Paula to kill herself. Although he did not give
evidence at the trial Professor Canter’s report provided the whole basis of the Crowns
case. But the Merseyside Police only provided Professor Canter with a fraction of
the evidence he required to provide the police with a proper opinion. They did not
provide him with all of the evidence or witness statements.
Troubled by the trial, he was provided by the CCRC with all of the evidence he needed
to properly evaluate the circumstances of Paula’s death. He was able to take account
of her lifestyle, her psychological makeup, her medical history, her letters and
her relationship with Eddie and her friends. His conclusion was a complete reversal
of his opinion in his original report provided for the trial. His new report is eminently
sensible and records from the evidence that Paula was a prime candidate for suicide,
she was the sole author of the letters and the circumstances of her death points
firmly to suicide. The effect of his report to the CCRC dismantled the Crown’s case
at trial.
The report provided to the CCRC from Dr Weir, the defence psychiatrist,
fully agreed with the report of Professor Canter and fully supported the fact that
Paula committed suicide.
The appeal court judges refused to hear the defence evidence
from Professor Canter and Dr Weir. It is scandalous that the report from Professor
Canter was good enough to be used at the trial to convict Eddie, yet at the court
of appeal his new report was rejected. The evidence from Professor Canter and Dr
Weir was a crucial part of the defence case. The fact that the appeal court has the
power to refuse to take account of new expert evidence is a fundamental flaw in the
appeal court process.
The main evidence brought to the appeal by the Crown was from
Dr West a Home Office Forensic Pathologist, Mr Geoffrey Budworth an expert in knots
and cordage for over 50 years (and a former police officer), Mr Rydyard a Home Office
Forensic Scientist (also an expert in ropes), and Sheila Rossan, a psychologist,
to give expert evidence about pregnancy, the authenticity of Paula’s letters and
statistical evidence regarding suicide and pregnancy.
As they had refused to hear
evidence from Professor Canter and Dr Weir the appeal court judges refused to hear
evidence from Shiela Rossan. She would have given evidence about the fact that suicide
in pregnancy is rare, but this would have been countered by the defence evidence,
that homicide by hanging is virtually unknown.
The evidence at trial.
In order to have
a successful appeal the lawyers need to dismantle the case as it was put at trial.
At trial the jury were told that this was a case where they had to decide whether
Paula had taken her own life or whether Eddie had murdered her.
At trial the most
damming evidence against Eddie came from the Crown’s pathologist, Dr James Burns.
He stated that two small scratches on Paula’s neck (one tenth and two tenths of an
inch long) were striking in their appearance, almost certainly caused by Paula’s
fingernails and should also be regarded as an attempt by the deceased to remove the
rope from around her neck. However, Dr Burns conducted the second post mortem and
the scratches were not found by Dr Gillett, during the first post mortem. It is possible
that the scratches were caused by Dr Gillett during his examination of the body or
by the mortuary assistant when he removed the ligature. The defence barrister questioned
Dr Burns about these scratches. Dr Burns went on to tell the defence barrister that
in 10 years whilst working in Liverpool he had not seen a single case of scratches
on the neck of a deceased in a true suicide. He stated he dealt with about ten hangings
a year. (A total of 120 cases in all). He also gave the opinion that Paula’s feet
would not have been found on the bottom step of the ladder. It was significant that
when Paula was found her knees were approximately fifteen inches clear of the ground
with her legs bent at the knee and her feet on the bottom step of the stepladder.
Although
Dr Burns agreed that there were no signs of a struggle and that there was no evidence
that Paula had been incapacitated in any way, he told the jury that there were three
ways in which Paula could have met her death. Firstly, he told the jury that having
regard to the length of the rope and the height of the noose above the ground, if
Paula had stood on the stepladder with the noose around her neck and jumped, she
would have landed on her feet and therefore not hanged. Also, if she had jumped,
the rope would have broken as it would not have taken her body weight. Having landed
on the ground he would not expect her feet to finish up on the bottom step of the
stepladder. Secondly, if she had stepped off the ladder she would have still landed
on her feet, but if she then stumbled, loosing her balance, then the noose could
strangle her. Again, he would not expect her feet to finish up on the bottom step
of the stepladder. Thirdly, he told the jury that an easy and quick way to kill a
person would be to stand behind them, take the person by surprise by suddenly dropping
a noose over their head and quickly grabbing their legs and holding them suspended
in mid air until they were dead.
The suggestion he proffered was that Eddie had killed
her by the third method and placed her feet on the stepladder after he killed her,
to make it look as though she had committed suicide. Crucially, for this method to
work, Paula must have been standing on the ground when Eddie killed her. Taking her
by surprise by pushing her off the stepladder could be discounted, because any sudden
jolt or drop would have caused the rope to snap.
The mortuary assistant who removed
the ligature, (but later threw it away), told the jury that the ligature around her
neck was very tight and was tied in a knot as opposed to a classic running noose.
The trial judge discounted this by inferring to the jury that the ligature must have
been a running noose. It was hardly likely that Paula would have stood there and
either tied a rope around her own neck or allowed Eddie to tie a rope around her
neck. It was a matter of common sense
Up until this point in the trial, the prosecution
had not offered any method as to how Eddie could have murdered his wife. The defence
had opened up this line of questioning, and had no expert available to argue or refute
anything that Dr Burns said. The scenario put forward by Dr Burns to the jury was
left unchallenged. The jury were obviously influenced by the scratches, the feet
being placed on the ladder by Eddie and the suggestion that it would be easy and
quick for Eddie to kill his wife. Other evidence brought to trial from Paula’s friends
and family to suggest that they thought it very unlikely that she would have, or
was the type to commit suicide, only added fuel to the fire.
The Appeal
Despite the
fact that the appeal court judges had refused to consider the evidence of Professor
Canter and Dr Weir, the defence still had the Crown on the run. This was because
defence knew that they were able to disprove the three scenarios put forward by Dr
Burns at the trial.
The defence were in the position of being able to prove, (through
expert evidence), that Paula was not standing on the ground when the rope went around
her neck but was on the top of, or near the top of, the stepladder. The experts would
prove that the ligature around her neck was a tied knot and not the classic running
noose. Therefore, Eddie’s conviction must be unsafe, as the jury had made up their
mind on the scenario put forward by Dr Burns.
The defence took the view that it was
unbelievable that Paula would have climbed the stepladder at her husbands request
put a rope around her neck and then gently slumped downwards to avoid any breakage
of the rope. How has Eddie persuaded Paula to do this? Surely, this new evidence
would have had a significant impact on the juries deliberations.
The defence knew
that the Crown’s own pathologist and scientific experts were agreeing in their reports
with the defence case. The Crown were clearly in a great deal of difficulty.
The Crown
then suggested that Paula could have been sitting on the stepladder and Eddie could
have pushed her forward. There was no need for the rope to be tied tightly around
her neck. The rope could have pressed against her throat until she lost consciousness.
Of course this was a complete departure from the method suggested by Dr Burns at
the trial and upon whose evidence Eddie was convicted. The Crown also told the court
of appeal that it was impossible for Paula to have thrown the rope over the beam
three times and then tied a knot at the side of the beam.
A video film, which was
prepared by the police for the trial, was played to the appeal court. It reconstructed
a policewoman (who can hardly be described as independent), in the same state of
pregnancy as Paula, trying to pass a rope over the beam three times. At first the
policewoman did not seem to be trying very hard but suddenly the rope went over the
beam easily and she was then easily able to pass it back over the beam two more times
in very quick succession. She was stopped from trying to tie the rope either underneath
the beam or at the side of the beam and the video ended.
This attempt by the police
to prove the impossibility of a pregnant woman passing a rope over the beam was quite
pathetic. More alarmingly, the rope used by the policewoman in the reconstruction
was not the same rope that was used by Paula. The rope given to the policewoman was
very floppy and limp yet the rope Paula used was quite stiff and far more rigid.
You could have almost bent it into a hook to hook it over the beam.
The Crown argued
at both the trial and the appeal that Paula would have been unable to reach the side
of the beam to tie a knot in that position. This is absolutely correct, as Paula’s
overall reach when standing on the top of the stepladder was too short by a matter
of a couple of inches. There again Eddie who is the same height as Paula would not
have been able to reach either. However, the defence knew that the rope experts brought
to the appeal would be able to show that it was not necessary for the rope to be
tied in a knot in the position at the side of the beam. It could have been tied lower
and then moved up to the side of the beam when the rope tightened.
Expert testimony
All
of the pathologists agreed that the scratches on the neck were insignificant and
recounted cases of true suicide where they had found far more marks and scratches
on a deceased neck and even fingers trapped under the ligature. It is common that
suicide victims grab at the rope involuntarily at the point of suspension.
The first
expert witness for the defence was Professor Crane. Professor Crane stated that if
this were a homicide, he would expect more severe marks on the neck. The victim would
have fought for her life. He had personal knowledge of a case were a pregnant woman
had committed suicide by hanging herself. The possibility that Paula had been sitting
on the ladder was very unlikely. Eddie would have had to take the weight off her
feet by keeping them in the air, whilst simultaneously pushing her forwards from
behind, with rope pressing at the front of her neck until she lost consciousness.
He stated that he could not imagine how anyone could do this without great difficulty.
Professor
Knight said that it would be fantastic to believe that someone would permit a noose
to be placed or tied around their neck when they were either standing on the ground
or sitting on the ladder. It was a matter of common sense. Who would do such a thing?
He said the fact that she was heavily pregnant meant that it was unlikely in the
extreme that she would have climbed the stepladder and put her head in a preformed
loop or tied the rope around her own neck all at the request of Eddie.
The defence
then called Mr Ide, an expert in knots and ligatures. He told the court that Paula
was not standing on the ground when the rope first went around her neck. She was
up the ladder standing near the top. This was because tests proved that the rope
would have stretched and individual knots and the ligature would have tightened thereby
lengthening the rope. If she had not been up the ladder Paula would have been found
in a different position. In other words, much closer to the ground.
He said that the
ligature was not the classic running noose. The rope went around Paula's neck and
was then tied in a knot, which collapsed into a constricting loop under the weight
of the body. She could not have been sitting on the ladder because if that was the
case, her knees would have been found much lower to the ground than the estimated
fifteen inches. She would have finished in a kneeling position on the ground. Had
it been a classic running noose then Paula would have been found lying on the ground.
He
then dealt with the position of the knot at the side of the beam. He demonstrated
at the appeal court that once thrown over the beam the knot could have been tied
much lower and because of the rotation of the rope around the beam when put under
strain, (such as the weight of the body), the knot could have moved up to the position
on the side of the beam. He also stated that after climbing the ladder and fixing
the rope around the beam, Paula turned around at the top of the stepladder before
tying the rope around her neck. If the suggestion was that Eddie had tied the rope
around Paula's neck then how could he have reached her neck from his position at
ground level. Clearly Paula had tied the rope around her own neck whilst standing
at or near the top of the stepladder.
For the Crown, Dr West stated that Paula was
not on the ground but on the stepladder. He stated that if she had of been on the
ground then the marks left on Paula's neck would have been very different. His evidence
on this point was very damaging to the Crown's case. The Crown could not now have
Paula standing on the ground and being tricked by Eddie to put her head in a noose.
He recounted that he had personally been involved in the murder or attempted murder
by hanging of three compliant victims in prison. Although the circumstances of these
cases were very different from the present case.
All of the pathologists stated that
for this to be a murder then Paula must have been a compliant victim in her own death.
The
Crown were in great difficulty. The evidence as it unfolded was that in order for
Eddie to have murdered Paula, he would first need to prepare the scene by tying a
rope around the beam leaving it hanging down. He would then need to persuade his
wife to go into the garage and then persuade her to climb a stepladder. He would
then need to persuade her to turn around at the top of the ladder and to tie a rope
around her own neck. Finally he would then need to persuade her to gently slump downwards
(to avoid breaking the rope) with her feet tripping down the steps to finish in the
position on the bottom step of the ladder as she was when she was found.
The conclusion
seemed obvious. As Professor Knight put it, it was too fantastic to believe that
Paula would have done all this at Eddies request. It was pure common sense that told
you that Paula had committed suicide by hanging herself in the garage of their home.
She climbed the stepladder herself, put the rope around the beam and tied it underneath.
She then tied it around her neck and gently lowered herself into position. The knot
rotated around the beam due to the weight of her body and finished at the side of
the beam and the ligature tightened around her neck to make it almost invisible as
it bedded into her skin. Her feet gently tripped down the ladder and finished on
the bottom step.
Not surprisingly, the Crown did not call Dr Burns to give evidence
at the appeal. Furthermore, because their own rope experts were agreeing with Mr
Ide, they chose not to call their own rope experts either.
The Crown's case, as it
was put at trial, was in shreds. Would the jury have convicted Eddie had they have
known what he would have had to do in order to carry out the alleged murder? Unable
to concede defeat the Crown then told the appeal court judges that it was not for
the Crown to prove what went on in the garage. They said that there was other sufficient
and circumstantial evidence to prove that Paula was not suicidal, and who else could
have killed her other than her husband.
The Judgement
On 20th December 2000 Eddies
family and supporters returned to the court of appeal to hear the judgement given
by the three appeal court judges. The judgement is factually wrong.
One very serious
error the judges make is they refer to Paula's letters and the suicide letter as
being typed. They had mistaken the typed transcripts of Paula’s letters as the original
letters inferring that Eddie typed the letters and persuaded Paula to sign them.
All of Paula's letters, including the suicide letter, were written in her own handwriting.
If the judges cannot get this basic fact correct, then it makes you wonder what,
if anything, the appeal court judges actually know about this case. The information
contained in these letters is of vital importance to prove Eddies innocence. They
must be read in conjunction with the other evidence and statements just as Professor
Canter did when he prepared his report for the defence. It is obvious that the appeal
court judges had no idea of the significance of these letters and the other evidence
taken as a whole. Close examination of the letters reveal the true facts of the case
and the reasons for Paula committing suicide.
As the court did at the previous appeal
in 1995 they refer to hearsay evidence from three of Paula's friends. The three friends
told the police that Paula had told them that Eddie had her writing suicide notes
for a supposed course at work connected with suicide. On the face of it this evidence
from Paula’s three friends appears very damaging. But, if this evidence was ever
given in a court by these three women it could be shown to support Eddies case and
not damage it.
The judgement relies on evidence from witnesses given at trial. These
witnesses were totally discredited at trial and shown to be telling lies. Yet the
appeal court judges accepted that evidence without any regard for the reliability
of such witness testimony. They completely ignored the mysterious appearance of the
so called practice noose found by a detective in the garage drawer after the drawer
had been previously searched by a specialist police search team. Maybe this issue
was too difficult for the judges to deal with. They completely ignored the evidence
of Maureen Piper who saw Paula in the post Office at 12.40pm which is a time after
the Crown say Eddie had killed her. Evidence that Paula was depressed in the months
leading up to her death was completely disregarded and the judgement gives the impression
that Paula did not have a care in the world.
The judges agree that a wine canvasser
called to the house at 11am and left between fifteen and twenty minutes later. The
wine canvasser spoke to both Eddie and Paula. Also, the judges accept that two witnesses
saw Eddie in work at 11.30am. Eddie has an eight minute drive to work. The judges
ignore the fact that Eddie does not have sufficient time (at the most a matter of
a couple of minutes) to carry out the crime.
The judgement creates a cloud of suspicion
with regard to the keys for the garage in which Paula was found. Again this issue
has been completely misunderstood and has been twisted to suit the Crowns case.
The
judges disregarded Mr Ide. This was because in June 1998 when Mr Ide wrote an initial
report for the CCRC he said at that time that the evidence he saw indicated to him
slightly more to support murder rather than suicide. Since that report Mr Ide conducted
a series of tests with the Crown’s experts and because he did not amend his earlier
opinion in that report (simply because he was never asked to) the judges used that
against him and simply disregarded all of the important scientific tests and results
which Mr Ide presented to the appeal court.
The judgement states that if Paula was
a compliant victim the pathology evidence does not prove murder or suicide. The fact
that murder or suicide can not be proven one way or the other must mean that this
in itself must render the conviction unsafe.
The judgement concludes that Paula was
a compliant victim in her own death and died at the hands of her husband. The mechanics
as to how she died are irrelevant. The judges say that the jury would not have been
persuaded if they had heard the experts say that she went up the ladder at her husbands
request and was persuaded by her husband to put a rope around her neck and then persuaded
to gently lean off the ladder or gently slump downwards.
Faced with the evidence as
it unfolded in the appeal it is fundamentally wrong for the judges to second guess
what the old jury, or for that matter a new jury, would make of this new evidence.
The court of appeal is a court of review and is not allowed to step into the role
of a jury. As a tribunal they must act impartially. They did not act impartially
and this is evidenced by the fact that they undermined the function of the jury,
by deciding that this evidence would not have made a difference to the jury’s deliberations.
Yet again the appeal court judges have ignored and sidestepped any evidence to prove
Eddies innocence in order to sustain the verdict of the jury.
Eddie has been through
every procedure to correct this wrongful conviction from the Police Complaints Authority
right through to the CCRC. All of the government bodies between the trial and the
appeal court have investigated this case and concluded that the conviction is unsafe
and that there is no evidence of a crime. There has been a massive amount of evidence
uncovered by all of these bodies that has never been heard or tested before any court.
How can the appeal court judges ignore such evidence? How can that be right? There
is clearly something fundamentally wrong in the whole appeal process. The whole approach
of the judges at the court of appeal towards new evidence is completely wrong and
that needs changing.
Eddies lawyers are preparing an application for the European
Court. Presently, the lawyers take the view that because of the way the judges stitched
up the appeal in their written judgement, there is no legal point to take this case
to the House of Lords. They remain determined to get this conviction overturned.
They are convinced of Eddies innocence and will leave no stone unturned.
What next
Eddies
campaign will continue and we will fight for as long as it takes to secure his release
and his return to his family.
The rejection of Eddies appeal has had a significant
impact on not only his supporters but also on the legal profession. Eddies lawyers
have spoken to a number of their colleagues, who have expressed concern and dismay
in the approach the court of appeal are taking towards evidence presented to the
appeal court. It is clear that for some considerable time there has been significant
disquiet amongst the legal profession about this very issue.
At a recent campaign
meeting we decided to challenge the role of the appeal court and the approach the
judges are taking towards appeals. In case after case they have blatantly undermined
the role of the jury, by second guessing what the jury would do in the light of new
evidence. The appeal court judges simply refuse point blank to overturn a verdict
brought in by a jury. The jury should have the benefit of being able to consider
all of the evidence in any particular case.
All roads lead to the appeal court and
it does not matter whether it is your first appeal or subsequent appeal there seems
little point in devoting a great deal of hard work and effort to have the judges
run roughshod over crucial evidence.
Eddies solicitor, Campbell Malone, is determined
to promote serious discussion amongst his professional colleagues with regard to
this issue. He has spoken to a number of eminent barristers and solicitors who have
for a long time been concerned about the way judges are dealing with cases at the
court of appeal. A number of professionals within the legal system have pledged their
support and are willing to speak out against the present system.
As campaigning groups
and organisations we need to show support for those lawyers who are prepared to speak
out against the appeal court system. We need to actively campaign to bring the public’s
attention to the deficiencies in the appeal court process. The judges have for too
long got away with covering up the evidence and covering up police malpractice and
corruption in order to sustain the public’s confidence in the judicial process.
To
campaign for change in the appeal court process may seem like a tall order. But we
believe we can do this in a number of ways and if we all stand together on this issue
we can force a change in how the appeal court judges approach the evidence presented
to them at criminal appeals.
Firstly we can encourage our own solicitors and barristers
to support Campbell Malone. We can encourage them to promote a serious discussion
on this issue through legal journals and similar publications. If any change is forthcoming
then it is the legal fraternity who are best placed to draw attention to the problem
to force that change.
Secondly, as campaigners, we can draw the public’s attention
to the diabolical way the judges treat our evidence at the court of appeal. There
are many ways we can do this but with everything else there must be a first step.
A
meeting on this issue has been organised for:-
12 noon on Saturday 21st April 2001
at the Haigh Building, John Moores University, Maryland Street, Liverpool.
The meeting
will be addressed by Campbell Malone. He will explain how we can push this issue
and force a change in the approach the court of appeal are taking towards criminal
appeals. As mentioned above, in the judicial system all roads lead to the court of
appeal. There seems little point in making the journey if when you get there you
are unable to have a fair hearing.
All campaigners and all campaigning groups are
invited to the meeting on the 21st April. This is an important step and you should
not miss the opportunity to attend this meeting. Discussions are already taking place
for a further event after the meeting in April.
Remember, this issue affects all of
us. Eddies case has left the appeal court behind and is on its way to Europe. But
the appeal court remains in place and will be visited or revisited by many others
who follow Eddie. Please attend the meeting in April. Use this appeal court issue
to promote you own case either locally or nationally. Help us to help you. Further
details can be obtained from the campaign address below.
Finally, Eddie and his family
would like to thank all those who have supported us over these past eight years.
We hope you will continue to support us in our fight for justice for Eddie.
Eddie
wants you to know that no matter how long it takes or how hard it is for him he will
never give up hope. He said he would rather die in prison rather than admit to something
he has not done. Everything that was ever dear to him has been stripped from him.
He says the only thing he has left in the world is his innocence and the authorities
cannot take that from him.
Eddie receives an enormous amount of strength from the
numerous letters and cards he receives. He said “its about the only thing that keeps
me going” The prison rules mean that he is only allowed £10.00 per week to spend,
which he uses to buy telephone cards to keep in contact with his father who is in
very poor health. In defiance and by way of protest he refuses to work in the prison
workshop and therefore spends many hours alone in his cell replying to his mail.
He tries hard to respond to all his letters and has asked us to mention that in order
to enable him to respond that stamped addressed envelopes are enclosed with your
letters.
He is contemplating changing his name by deed poll to "Innocent Eddie Gilfoyle"
That way, every letter he receives will have the words innocent in the address. We
suggest that you include that word in his address in any event. (Just to remind the
prison authorities about the way we all feel).
As ever funds are desperately needed to sustain our fight for justice. You can help
by sending cheques or postal orders made payable to:
THE EDDIE GILFOYLE CAMPAIGN FUND
C/O
Eddie Gilfoyle Campaign, Susan Caddick, PO Box 1845, Stoke On Trent, ST7 4EG
www.slimeylimeyjustice.org