Below is the latest press release from the CCRC.
I find this particular referral interesting and indeed I suspect will prove controversial ..... And wonder if the CCRC have chosen to use this case in order to prove a point to their critics and indeed those whom govern them?
"Gordon Park was cold, selfish and devoid of remorse but not as clever as he thought, says the detective who caught him
The detective who brought Gordon Park, the "Lady in the Lake" killer, to justice after 29 years described him yesterday as a "cold, calculating murderer" who was arrogant, selfish and devoid of remorse
Det Chief Insp Keith Churchman revealed that at the time of Park's arrest a year ago and during two days of interviews, he had in effect taunted the police, suggesting that they would never gather enough evidence to convict him.
In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Churchman, 46, who has served in the police for 27 years, spoke yesterday of his satisfaction at being able to clear the name of Mrs Park, who was 30 when she died.
"The biggest thing for me is that the record has now been put straight and Carol Park's good name has been restored. This isn't a woman who abandoned her children and her husband for another man but instead she was a murder victim, killed by the very man who had wrongly blamed her for all those things.
"We now know that Gordon Park was a cold, calculating murderer, who was a control freak and who was very selfish. Everything he has done since 1976 was for himself - to cover up what he did."
"He was a cold fish and very arrogant. His attitude towards us was, `You prove it' [that he had killed his wife]. In the two days of interviews that followed he had only one concern: self-preservation.
"There was not a flicker of emotion towards his wife and obviously, since he was denying everything, no remorse. He just tried to explain away every piece of evidence we had against him
Mr Churchman suspects that Park was so calculating that he murdered his wife on the first day of the summer holidays so as to give himself the maximum time - the six-week school break - before she would be expected back at work.
"Gordon Park wanted to stall the investigation so he could cover his tracks," he said.
Officers suspect that Park decided to murder his wife because she was threatening to leave him and deny him access to their three children, Vanessa, then 8, Jeremy, 6, and Rachel, 5. In August 1979 Park divorced his wife on the grounds of her desertion.
During his interviews with detectives, Park explained why he was apparently so little concerned by his wife's disappearance that he had failed to report her missing. "He said that because she had left him so many times before he was not concerned and that he thought she would just come back as she always did. But we were able to prove that she had never left before without letting him know where she was. So this was not the same as before."https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1482346/Prove-I-did-it-Lady-in-the-Lake-killer-taunted-police.htmlCommission refers the murder conviction of Gordon Park to the Court of Appeal 26th October 2018
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Gordon Park’s murder conviction to the Court of Appeal.
Gordon Park was convicted in January 2005 at Manchester Crown Court for the murder of his wife, Carol Park, 29 years after she went missing in the summer of 1976. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Carol Park’s body was found by amateur divers in Coniston Water, Cumbria, in 1997 and the case became known as the Lady in the Lake murder. (See below for a detailed chronology of the case).
Mr Park appealed against his conviction but the appeal was dismissed in November 2008. Little over a year later, on 25 January 2010, he committed suicide in his cell at HMP Garth in Lancashire. In November 2010 members of Mr Park’s family applied on his behalf to the CCRC.
Following an exhaustive investigation, the CCRC has decided to refer Mr Park’s murder conviction for a fresh hearing at the Court of Appeal.
The Commission is referring the case because it considers there is a real possibility that the Court will quash the conviction in light of new evidence. In the Commission’s view that real possibility arises from the cumulative effect of a number of matters including:
the non-disclosure of expert opinion undermining the consistent implication by the prosecution that Gordon Park’s climbing axe, Exhibit 1 at trial, could be the murder weapon.
the non-disclosure of information undermining the reliability of a prosecution witness who gave evidence of a prison confession.
new scientific evidence showing that Gordon Park was not a contributor to DNA preserved within knots of the rope used to bind Carol Park’s body.
renewed relevance of expert evidence, presented for the appellant at the first appeal, that a rock found in the lake near Mrs Park’s remains could not specifically be linked to rocks at Bluestones (the Parks’ home).
The Commission’s painstaking and detailed review has considered numerous issues and lines of enquiry and involved several visits to Cumbria, interviews with multiple witnesses old and new, the use of cutting edge DNA testing and the investigation of multiple potential alternative suspects.
During the review we have used our section 17[1] powers dozens of times to obtain material from the Forensic Archive, seven individual police forces, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, prison authorities, the Probation Service, and a number of other government agencies and public bodies.
Chronology of the case
Carol Park went missing in the summer of 1976 having been last seen in mid-July.
In August 1997 human remains were found by amateur scuba divers in Coniston Water, Cumbria. The remains were found at a depth of 24 metres, about 200 metres from eastern shore of the lake; they were tightly wrapped in bags and bound with knotted ropes. The body was later confirmed as that of Carol Park.
Gordon Park was arrested following the discovery of the body and was charged with Carol Park’s murder. The prosecution was discontinued in January 1998 on the basis that there was no realistic prospect of a conviction on the evidence then available.
New evidence came to light following the broadcast in September 2000 of a TV documentary called ‘A Very British Murder[2].
Mr Park was arrested on 13 January 2004 and again charged with murdering Carol Park “on or about” Saturday 17 July 1976.
Media coverage of his arrest generated new information which was used in the case against Mr Park.
His trial at Manchester Crown Court began on 25 November 2004 and the jury heard evidence over 27 days. At 3.45pm on Friday 28 January 2005, after deliberating for nine hours and twenty-seven minutes, the jury, by a unanimous verdict, found Gordon Park ‘guilty’ of Carol Park’s murder.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommended minimum prison term of 15 years.
Gordon Park’s appeal against conviction was dismissed at the Court of Appeal in November 2008.
On 25 January 2010, on his sixty-sixth birthday, Gordon Park took his own life in his cell at HMP Garth in Lancashire.
Members of Mr Park’s family, aided by his legal representatives, applied to the Commission for a posthumous review of his conviction on November 2010.
Mr Park’s family were represented in their application to the CCRC by Mr Maslen Merchant of Hadgkiss, Hughes & Beale Solicitors.
This press release was issued by Justin Hawkins, Head of Communication, Criminal Cases Review Commission, on 07947 355231 or e-mail press@ccrc.gov.uk
Notes for editors
The Commission is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for independently reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.
There are currently 11 Commissioners who bring to the Commission considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.
The Commission usually receives around 1,500 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) each year. Typically, around 3.5%, or one in 29, of all applications are referred to the appeal courts.
The Commission considers whether, as a result of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal. Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.
If a case is referred, it is then for the appeal court to decide whether the conviction is unsafe or the sentence unfair.
More details about the role and work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be found at ccrc.gov.uk The Commission can be found on Twitter using @ccrcupdate and on Facebook at
[1] Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 give the CCRC to obtain material from any public body.
[2] Broadcast on Channel 4 on Tuesday 12 September 2000.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-gordon-park/
