Author Topic: Eddie Gilfoyle. Police cover-up exposed 23 years after husband’s murder trial.  (Read 1405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Alfie

  • Guest
I'm very surprised there hasn't been a sub-forum dedicated to the following case on this forum, any reason why not?


A police force covered up evidence of flaws in its investigation into a convicted wife-murderer who has spent almost a quarter of a century fighting to clear his name.



Newly uncovered documents about Eddie Gilfoyle, who was given a life sentence in 1993 for killing his pregnant wife Paula, show how Merseyside police officers deliberately withheld an internal report from his defence team.

The report recorded serious institutional failings by the force at the scene of Mrs Gilfoyle’s death. Officers failed to seal off the area, resulting in potential forensic evidence being lost. The force also repeatedly misled the Police Complaints Authority when it tried to uncover errors in the murder investigation.

Gilfoyle’s wife, who was 32, was found hanged in the garage of their home in Upton, on the Wirral, in 1992. She was eight-and-a-half months pregnant and had left a handwritten suicide note.

Prosecutors convinced a jury that her husband, a hospital orderly, tricked her into writing the letter and hanged her. Gilfoyle served almost 18 years of a life sentence before being released on licence. Now 54, he remains a convicted murderer.




The suppressed report of the inquiry by Chief Superintendent Ted Humphreys details how the force flagrantly breached its own rulebook at the scene of the death, with even basic instructions ignored. No photographs were taken of the body or garage. Instead of sealing the scene, officers were said to have trampled through sand, destroying potential footprint evidence.

A record has now emerged suggesting that it was the head of Merseyside CID, Detective Chief Superintendent Tom Baxter, who decided to withhold these findings from the defence. He had been involved with the Gilfoyle case.

Shortly before the trial in 1993, a lawyer for Gilfoyle asked police for the internal report. According to a force record written by another officer, Mr Baxter “felt it inappropriate to supply a copy of the report, and that the defence were on a fishing expedition and if they wanted a copy of the report they would have to apply for a production order”.

Observers suggest the suitable procedure would have been for police to give the document to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether the defence should receive it. Mr Baxter, now retired, told The Times: “I have got no recollection of it so I can’t really comment.”

He pointed out that he had not been the senior investigating officer. After Gilfoyle was convicted, his relatives made a formal complaint about the handling of the investigation. The PCA sent Detective Superintendent Graham Gooch from Lancashire police to look into the investigation. Mr Gooch was alarmed by the mistakes made by Merseyside and became convinced that Mrs Gilfoyle took her own life.

In a statement provided to the defence three weeks ago, Mr Gooch outlined the obstacles put in his path. At first the force denied the existence of the Humphreys report. When it finally provided him with a copy, it wrongly denied that any notes from the inquiry existed. The notes came to light only after he finished his investigation.

Many errors arose because the local coroner’s officer took charge of the death scene. Mr Gooch was never told by the force that this was a policy peculiar to the Wirral division of Merseyside. Unknown to the Gilfoyle family, an officer who had enforced this policy was handling their complaint.

Freshly uncovered documents show that the officer in charge of the murder investigation, Detective Chief Inspector Paul Baines, continued to have access to sensitive material after the family had lodged their complaint. He collected an envelope containing the Humphreys notes although he has stressed he never viewed its contents.

Merseyside police said that it had provided all its documentation to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. A spokeswoman said: “The matter is still being considered by the CCRC as a result of the concerns put forward by Mr Gilfoyle’s representatives and therefore it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.”

dkennedy@thetimes.co.uk

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/police-cover-up-exposed-23-years-after-husbands-murder-trial-t2k50xjrl
« Last Edit: June 10, 2016, 09:03:47 PM by John »

Offline John

I'm very surprised there hasn't been a sub-forum dedicated to the following case on this forum, any reason why not?


We normally feature claimed miscarriage of justice cases when requested to do so.  No such request has ever been received in respect of Eddie Gilfoyle.

Anyone wanting to reads the facts of the case can do so by clicking on the link below.

http://www.eddiegilfoyle.co.uk/#!5-the-trial/cd49
« Last Edit: June 10, 2016, 09:45:29 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Nicholas

Interestingly Eddie Gilflyle lost his appeal/JR today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-42114917
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 12:32:53 PM by John »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Gilfoyle said: “In 2000 when the CCRC referred my case to the Appeal court they did so because they believed my case was a miscarriage of justice. I was one of the first cases they referred.

The CCRC called on Gilfoyle to make public a document outlining their reasons for refusal — something that legally they cannot disclose. The organisation said it was still waiting for a fresh application from him.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/westminster-commission-miscarriages-justice

Why won’t he make public their SOR?

« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 12:08:34 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Gilfoyle said: “In 2000 when the CCRC referred my case to the Appeal court they did so because they believed my case was a miscarriage of justice. I was one of the first cases they referred.

The CCRC called on Gilfoyle to make public a document outlining their reasons for refusal — something that legally they cannot disclose. The organisation said it was still waiting for a fresh application from him.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/westminster-commission-miscarriages-justice

Why won’t he make public their SOR?

77. Further, the Commission noted that though his two appeals were dealt with by fresh counsel, at neither had the claimant raised any issue about his failure to give evidence. Moreover, what the claimant now said about his receipt of medication was inconsistent with what he had said to the Commission in 1998 during its first review of his conviction, and with had been said on his behalf at the Commission’s second review. Thus, at an interview between the Commission and the claimant in 1998, conducted during its first review, the claimant said: “I didn’t have any medication for the first few days of the trial.”

78. At the second review, a 16-page document from a Dr Bruce, a psychologist, made submissions on the claimant’s behalf in a non-professional capacity. This document said amongst other things that the claimant was affected by the fact that his medication had been stopped suddenly on the Sunday before trial; that by the time he was told by his counsel of the possibility he might have to give evidence, he was back on his regular medication and this possibility alarmed him “but only because he was aware of his condition under medication, and because of the shock of it being put to him so immediately and bluntly. By Monday [the claimant] had concluded it was so inevitable that he was going to be convicted…that he could see no point in going back into the witness box…He was still on the medication referred to, and was not thinking clearly…” In the light of this material, the claimant’s case to the Commission at the time of the second review was that as a result of the medication he was on at the time of the trial, he was unable to participate properly, and the judge should have ordered a retrial.

79. The Commission said that Professor Kopelman was content to accept that the claimant had been deprived of his medication during the trial, as the claimant alleged, and appeared to have based his conclusions largely on the claimant’s self-reporting. However, the Commission did not consider that the Prescription Charts could be interpreted as indicating unequivocally, that the claimant did not receive his medication on those days when he attended court. For example there was no record in the Prescription Charts of the medication the claimant received on 11 June 1993.
80. The Commission went on to analyse in some detail a number of potential relevant discrepancies in the accounts given by various persons, including the claimant over the years. Further, it said that the claimant had not raised the issue with his legal team at the time. The Commission said it was unclear why he was not capable of doing so, especially after 11 June 1993 once he was aware the court would intervene, and when he was capable of arguing with prison staff in reception in an attempt to get medication (as he claimed he had done in his 29-page statement to the Commission). In addition, in his most recent statement, the claimant described being in an extreme mental state whilst on remand before his trial, presumably, at a time when he was in receipt of regular medication; and this account was inconsistent with what was said about his mental state by Dr Tucker. Moreover, a number of arguably different reasons had been given as to why the claimant had chosen not to give evidence; and his submissions about his inability to follow proceedings at his trial and mental incapacity arguably conflicted with other statements made by him (indicating, in summary, attention to detail, and an ability to raise specifics with his legal team).

Conclusion
90. In all the circumstances, I reject the submission that the Commission’s Final Decision of 23 July 2016 was arguably flawed and it follows that I would dismiss the renewed application to apply for judicial review.
Mr Justice Sweeney

91. I agree. For the reasons that my Lady has given, I too would dismiss the renewed application.


https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/R-Gilfoyle-v-Criminal-Cases-Review-Commission-2017-EWCA-Crim-3008.doc
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 12:17:11 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Gilfoyle said: “In 2000 when the CCRC referred my case to the Appeal court they did so because they believed my case was a miscarriage of justice. I was one of the first cases they referred.

The CCRC called on Gilfoyle to make public a document outlining their reasons for refusal — something that legally they cannot disclose. The organisation said it was still waiting for a fresh application from him.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/westminster-commission-miscarriages-justice

Why won’t he make public their SOR?

If Eddie Gilfoyle were innocent he’d have no problem making public the CCRC’s statement of reasons

There are so many cases like this and the CCRC appear to be regularly calling out those individuals who are claiming innocence - where I suspect they know they are guilty.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 12:19:42 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

If Eddie Gilfoyle were innocent he’d have no problem making public the CCRC’s statement of reasons

There are so many cases like this and the CCRC appear to be regularly calling out those individuals who are claiming innocence - where I suspect they know they are guilty.

During this interview he slips up when he refers to Paula’s diaries saying; “she tried to commit suicide herself.”

Approx 2.12

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-16447836
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

77. Further, the Commission noted that though his two appeals were dealt with by fresh counsel, at neither had the claimant raised any issue about his failure to give evidence. Moreover, what the claimant now said about his receipt of medication was inconsistent with what he had said to the Commission in 1998 during its first review of his conviction, and with had been said on his behalf at the Commission’s second review. Thus, at an interview between the Commission and the claimant in 1998, conducted during its first review, the claimant said: “I didn’t have any medication for the first few days of the trial.”

78. At the second review, a 16-page document from a Dr Bruce, a psychologist, made submissions on the claimant’s behalf in a non-professional capacity. This document said amongst other things that the claimant was affected by the fact that his medication had been stopped suddenly on the Sunday before trial; that by the time he was told by his counsel of the possibility he might have to give evidence, he was back on his regular medication and this possibility alarmed him “but only because he was aware of his condition under medication, and because of the shock of it being put to him so immediately and bluntly. By Monday [the claimant] had concluded it was so inevitable that he was going to be convicted…that he could see no point in going back into the witness box…He was still on the medication referred to, and was not thinking clearly…” In the light of this material, the claimant’s case to the Commission at the time of the second review was that as a result of the medication he was on at the time of the trial, he was unable to participate properly, and the judge should have ordered a retrial.

79. The Commission said that Professor Kopelman was content to accept that the claimant had been deprived of his medication during the trial, as the claimant alleged, and appeared to have based his conclusions largely on the claimant’s self-reporting. However, the Commission did not consider that the Prescription Charts could be interpreted as indicating unequivocally, that the claimant did not receive his medication on those days when he attended court. For example there was no record in the Prescription Charts of the medication the claimant received on 11 June 1993.
80. The Commission went on to analyse in some detail a number of potential relevant discrepancies in the accounts given by various persons, including the claimant over the years. Further, it said that the claimant had not raised the issue with his legal team at the time. The Commission said it was unclear why he was not capable of doing so, especially after 11 June 1993 once he was aware the court would intervene, and when he was capable of arguing with prison staff in reception in an attempt to get medication (as he claimed he had done in his 29-page statement to the Commission). In addition, in his most recent statement, the claimant described being in an extreme mental state whilst on remand before his trial, presumably, at a time when he was in receipt of regular medication; and this account was inconsistent with what was said about his mental state by Dr Tucker. Moreover, a number of arguably different reasons had been given as to why the claimant had chosen not to give evidence; and his submissions about his inability to follow proceedings at his trial and mental incapacity arguably conflicted with other statements made by him (indicating, in summary, attention to detail, and an ability to raise specifics with his legal team).

Conclusion
90. In all the circumstances, I reject the submission that the Commission’s Final Decision of 23 July 2016 was arguably flawed and it follows that I would dismiss the renewed application to apply for judicial review.
Mr Justice Sweeney

91. I agree. For the reasons that my Lady has given, I too would dismiss the renewed application.


https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/R-Gilfoyle-v-Criminal-Cases-Review-Commission-2017-EWCA-Crim-3008.doc

Kopelman was also involved in the Barry George case as was ‘Professor of Forensic Psychology Gisli Hannes Gudjonsson

Neuropsychiatry Professor Michael Kopelman, who has appeared as an expert witness in a number of Appeal Court cases, will discuss psychiatric cases which have involved a miscarriage of justice
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/miscarriage-justice-event
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 12:46:20 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

During this interview he slips up when he refers to Paula’s diaries saying; “she tried to commit suicide herself.”

Approx 2.12

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-16447836

80. The Commission went on to analyse in some detail a number of potential relevant discrepancies in the accounts given by various persons, including the claimant over the years. Further, it said that the claimant had not raised the issue with his legal team at the time. The Commission said it was unclear why he was not capable of doing so, especially after 11 June 1993 once he was aware the court would intervene, and when he was capable of arguing with prison staff in reception in an attempt to get medication (as he claimed he had done in his 29-page statement to the Commission). In addition, in his most recent statement, the claimant described being in an extreme mental state whilst on remand before his trial, presumably, at a time when he was in receipt of regular medication; and this account was inconsistent with what was said about his mental state by Dr Tucker. Moreover, a number of arguably different reasons had been given as to why the claimant had chosen not to give evidence; and his submissions about his inability to follow proceedings at his trial and mental incapacity arguably conflicted with other statements made by him (indicating, in summary, attention to detail, and an ability to raise specifics with his legal team).
https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/R-Gilfoyle-v-Criminal-Cases-Review-Commission-2017-EWCA-Crim-3008.doc


Another chancer imo and no doubt recognised by the CCRC
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes