2000 Appeal

On 20^th December 2000 three Appeal Court Judges dismissed the appeal of Eddie Gilfoyle. This was despite the fact that the defence literally took apart the Crowns case and left it in shreds. Eddie and his family are outraged by what has been described as a dishonest and inhumane Judgement.

The appeal against conviction commenced in December and centered around new pathology, psychology and scientific evidence. For the defence Professor Crane, State Pathologist at the Queens University Northern Ireland and world famous Professor Knight a former Home Office Pathologist for over forty years gave evidence at the appeal. Mr Ide a Forensic Scientist for 30 years and a specialist in knots and ligatures also gave evidence on behalf of the defence.

The Judges refused to hear defence evidence from Professor Canter, Director of the Centre for Investigative Psychology at Liverpool University and Dr John Weir, formerly a Consultant Psychiatrist at St Marys Hospital London. Dr Weir was one of the few experts who had ever made a specific study of suicides in pregnancy. The Judges indicated that they would not allow evidence to be deduced from the Gooch Investigation, even though it formed part of Eddies appeal. They inferred that it was available at the appeal hearing in 1995 (even though it was not) and was therefore not new evidence in accordance with the appeal court rules. The evidence in the Gooch Investigation has never been heard in any court.

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.

Prior to the trial Professor Canter was consulted by the Crown and submitted a report indicating that Paula would not have taken her own life, that Eddie had dictated a series of suicide letters for Paula Gilfoyle to write and he questioned the method used by Paula to kill herself. Although he did not give evidence at the trial Professor Canters report provided the whole basis of the Crowns case.

But the Merseyside Police only provided Professor Canter with a fraction of the evidence he needed to provide the police with a proper opinion. They did not provide him with all of the evidence or witness statements.

Professor Canter was troubled by the trial. The Criminal Cases Review Commission provided him with all of the evidence he needed to properly evaluate the circumstances of Paulas death, taking account of her lifestyle, her psychological makeup, her medical history, her letters and her relationship with Eddie and her friends.

His new conclusion is a complete reversal of the opinion he gave in his original report and which he provided the police and prosecution for the trial.

His new report is eminently sensible and records from the evidence that Paula was a prime candidate for suicide. It concludes that she is 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 Crowns case at trial.

Dr Weirs report fully agreed with the report of Professor Canter and fully supported the fact that Paula committed suicide.

The main evidence brought to the appeal by the Crown was the expert opinions 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 and also an expert in ropes and Shiela Rossan, a psychologist, to give expert evidence about pregnancy, the authenticity of Paulas letters and statistical evidence regarding suicide and pregnancy.

The Appeal Court Judges decided that they would only hear expert evidence from both sides in connection with pathology and knots and cordage.

From the outset the defence had the Crown on the run. The Crowns own experts were agreeing in their reports with the defence case and the Crown knew it. Shiela Rossans evidence on statistics, although rejected by the Judges, would have stated that suicide in pregnancy was very rare. But, this was countered by the defence evidence that homicide by hanging is, virtually unknown.

Dr West, who did give evidence for the Crown, agreed with the case for the defence. Not surprisingly, the Crown decided not to call their other two experts Budworth and Rydyard as they also were unable to argue with the defence case.

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 were they had to decide whether Paula had taken her own life or whether Eddie had murdered her.

At the trial the most damming evidence against Eddie came from the Crowns pathologist, Dr James Burns. He stated that two small scratches on Paulas neck (one tenth and two tenths of an inch long) were striking in their appearance, almost certainly caused by Paulas fingernails and should also be regarded as an attempt by the deceased to remove the rope from around her neck.

At the trial 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.

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 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 until they were dead.

In the way described at the trial by Dr Burns, Paula would need to be standing on the ground and would also need to be fully compliant with Eddies request for her to go into the garage, see the rope already hanging down from the beam and agree to take part in the scenario. He also gave the opinion that if she had been standing on the ground and then commited suicide, it was very unlikely that Paulas feet would have ended up on the bottom step of the ladder. Paula was found suspended with her knees approximately fifteen inches clear of the ground with her feet bent at the knee and her feet on the bottom step of the stepladder. The suggestion he proffered was that Eddie had killed her in the manner described and placed her feet on the stepladder to make it look like suicide.

The defence barrister at the trial had effectively extracted in cross-examination from Dr Burns, a method for Eddie to kill Paula. The Jury were obviously influenced by the scratches and the suggestion that it would be easy and quick for Eddie to kill his wife. But the presence of the scratches, even though they were small and of little significance, have since been disputed. They were found by Dr Burn's, during his examination in the second post mortem. Professor Knight's view is that they could have easily been caused in the first post mortem because of the disturbance and surgery caused to the body during the examination.

Other evidence brought to trial by the Crown from Paulas 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 Court heard evidence from the two pathologists for the defence and from the Crowns own pathologist. All of the pathologists agreed that the scratches on the neck were insignificant and recounted cases of true suicide were they had found far more marks and scratches on a deceased neck and even fingers trapped under the ligature. It is common they said, that suicide victims grab at the rope involuntarily at the point of suspension. Again not surprisingly, the Crown did not call Dr Burns to give evidence at the appeal.

For the defence Professor Knight stated that it would be fantastic to believe that someone would permit a noose to be placed or tied around their neck when they were standing on the ground. It was a matter of common sense. Who would agree to do such a thing.

Professor Crane stated that he would expect more sever marks on the neck if this was a homicide. 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.

As the appeal unfolded it was clear that the Crown were desperately trying to show that Paula was standing on the ground when the rope went around her neck. This was because Professor Knight was saying that it was even more fantastic to believe that if Paula had of been up the ladder, she most certainly would not have agreed for a rope to be put around her neck. He said the fact that she was heavily pregnant meant that it was even more unlikely 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 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 for her to loose consciousness. Professor Knight said that this was even more fantastic than the other suggested scenario put forward by the Crown. Of course, this was all a complete departure from the method suggested by Dr Burns at the trial and upon which Eddie was convicted.

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 Paulas neck would have been very different.

The Crown then tried to persuade the court to believe, that Paula could have been sitting on the stepladder and Eddie could have pushed her in the back with the front of her neck pressing against the rope.

But Professor Crane stated that to do this would mean that Eddie would have had to take the weight off her feet by keeping them in the air whilst simultaneously pushing her from the back. He stated that he could not imagine how anyone could do this without great difficulty.

Dr West recounted that he had personally been involved in the murder or attempted murder by hanging of three compliant victims in prison. However, the circumstances of these cases were very different from Eddies case.

The court then heard from Mr Ide, the expert for the defence in knots, ropes 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 the individual knots and the ligature would have tightened. She could not have been sitting on the ladder because if that were the case, her knees would have been found much lower to the ground than the estimated fifteen inches. He said that the ligature was not the classic running noose, it was a tied knot, which had collapsed into a constricting loop under the weight of the body. Had it been a classic running noose, then Paula when found would have been lying on the ground. He concluded that the rope had been tied around Paulas neck. If the suggestion was that Paula was up the ladder and Eddie had tied the rope around her neck, then, how could he have reached Paulas neck from his position on the ground. Clearly, Paula had tied the rope around her own neck. He also stated that after she climbed the ladder and fixed the rope around the beam, Paula turned herself around at the top of the ladder before tying the rope around her own neck.

The original investigation had involved video reconstructions carried out by the Merseyside Police. The Crown at trial had attempted to show that it was impossible for a pregnant woman to throw a rope over the beam and tie it.

On the evening of Paulas death, the Coroners Officer, DC Jones, untied the rope that was around the beam in the garage in which Paula was found. He said at the trial that he thought the rope was wrapped around the beam three times and was tied in a knot at the side of the beam. He said he could just barely reach the knot to untie it from the top of the stepladder. He was taller than Paula.

Having said that, this officers reliability to recall facts was questionable, because when giving evidence from the witness box at the trial, he described Paula as facing completely the wrong way when he first inspected the body. His reliability as a witness was very questionable. Also, both sides accepted that (during another video reconstruction), DC Jones snapped the rope when he threw it over the beam. This was after he applied very little pressure by pulling on either end. It was obviously a gentle hanging as opposed to a sudden jolt. A sudden jolt would have caused the rope to break.

Nevertheless, 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. In a sense, this would be correct, as Paulas overall reach when standing on the top of the stepladder was too short. There again Eddie, who is the same height as Paula, would not have been able to reach either. The hopeless reconstructions attempted by the police could have been helped by an expert in knots and rope. Trial and Error consulted such an expert for the documentary. He demonstrated how easy it would be to pass the rope over the beam simply by using a longer piece of rope rather than the short piece used by the policewoman in the reconstruction. He simply looped the rope back on itself making it stiffer and considerably longer. He was able to show with extreme ease how simple it was to pass the rope over the beam.

Mr Ide demonstrated at the Appeal Court that once thrown over the beam the knot could have been tied much lower down 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.

The Crown stubbornly maintained that it was impossible for Paula, whilst pregnant, to have stood at the top of the stepladder and to have passed the rope over the beam three times. The video reconstruction prepared by the police for the trial, was shown to the Judges at the appeal.

The video reconstruction portrayed a policewoman (who can hardly be described as independent), in the same state of pregnancy as Paula and the same height, 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 pregnant 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 and hooked it over the beam.

The evidence as it unfolded in the appeal 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, then persuade her to climb a stepladder, persuade her to turn around at the top of the ladder, then to tie a rope around her own neck and then persuade her to gently slump downwards 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. Pushing her off the stepladder could not have happened, because the rope Paula used would have broken under any sudden jolt, as it did when DC Jones snapped it during a reconstruction.

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.

At the appeal the Crown were in great difficulty. The Crowns 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 circumstantial evidence to prove that Paula was not suicidal. She would not have committed suicide and who else could have killed her apart from her husband.

The appeal was adjourned until December 2000.

On 20^th December 2000 Eddies family and supporters returned to the Court of Appeal to hear the Judgement given by the three Appeal Court Judges.

In their lengthy Judgement, Eddies appeal against his conviction was dismissed.

But, the Judgement is factually wrong in a number of respects. It mentions a friendship Eddie had at work with a girl named Sandra Davies. The circumstances of this relationship, has been completely misconstrued in the Judgement and has been taken completely out of context. The Judgement makes reference to alleged noises coming from the direction of the garage during the early hours of the morning of the death of Paula. This is wrong there were no noises from the direction of the garage at all and the assumptions made regarding the garage key being allegedly removed from Paula's keyring is also totally wrong.

The Judgement wrongly assumes apparent facts from the letters written by Paula, when close examination of the letters reveal the true facts of the case and the reasons for Paula committing suicide. The Judgement also refers to Paulas letters being typed, including her suicide letter. This is completely wrong and makes you wonder what, if anything, the Appeal Court Judges knew about the case. The information contained in these letters is of vital importance to prove Eddies innocence and must be read in conjunction with the other evidence and witness statements in the case. It is obvious that the Appeal Court Judges had no idea of the significance of these letters and the other evidence when taken as a whole.

The Judgement refers to evidence given at the trial from various witnesses. These witnesses were totally discredited at trial and shown to be telling lies. Yet the Appeal Court Judges accepted this evidence without any regard for their reliability.

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 Judgement describes the events of the morning of her death and remarkably the Judges do not allow sufficient time for Eddie to carry out the crime.