Britain: Covered-up inquiry reveals errors in investigation of jailed man

Nine blunders were made by police investigating the death of a woman whose husband claims he was wrongly jailed for her murder, an inquiry report seen by The Times shows. The contents of the internal inquiry by Merseyside Police were not disclosed to the defence at Eddie Gilfoyle’s trial and the background notes have been destroyed.

Desmond Browne, QC, the Bar Council chairman-elect, is the latest high-profile figure to say he believes that the conviction of Gilfoyle, who has spent 15 years in jail, is unsafe. David Canter, the criminal profiler who helped the police investigation, wrote in The Times in February that new research had persuaded him to reconsider his opinion and he now believes that Gilfoyle is innocent.

Paula Gilfoyle was found hanged in her garage in Upton, Wirral, in June 1992. She was eight months pregnant. An apparent suicide note, written in her handwriting, was discovered and there were no signs of a struggle. After friends told police that she had not appeared to be depressed, Gilfoyle, a hospital porter, was arrested and accused of dictating the note by tricking his wife into thinking he needed it for a course in the study of suicide. He was charged with murder.

Because the death was initially treated as suicide, valuable scientific evidence was lost or destroyed. Merseyside Police asked Detective Superintendent E. Humphreys to review the initial police response and he produced his findings in August 1992. Gilfoyle was convicted of murder in July 1994 but his defence team was unaware of the contents of the report. “All the police officers who were involved have given a detailed account of their recollection of events,” Superintendent Humphreys wrote. But notes of these interviews, taken by an assisting officer, were destroyed. Superintendent Humphreys identified nine areas in which “the actions of personnel involved in the initial investigation of this matter contributed to an unsatisfactory result”. Gilfoyle has had two appeals rejected, but the Humphreys report has never been raised as an issue.

Mr Browne became involved when he represented a Channel 4 programme about miscarriages of justice. The channel was sued by a policeman who had investigated the Gilfoyle case. Channel 4 apologised. The barrister and his colleague, Matthew Nicklin, sent a 20-page report to the Criminal Cases Review Commission urging a fresh appeal. A copy has been passed to The Times. Among the concerns, it points to a failure to preserve evidence at the scene, a “conclusion-driven” police investigation and Mrs Gilfoyle’s privately depressed mental state.

The barristers conclude: “Neither of us believes that his conviction can be regarded as safe or satisfactory. Neither appeal involved the wide-ranging consideration of the efficiency of the investigation by Merseyside Police.”

Other high-profile observers have raised doubts about Gilfoyle’s guilt, including Alison Halford, a Merseyside assistant chief constable at the time of Gilfoyle’s arrest, and Graham Gooch, a retired superintendent who investigated the handling of the case for the Police Complaints Commission. Matt Foot, Gilfoyle’s lawyer, intends to use Mr Browne’s submission in a fresh appeal. He is studying whether the non-disclosure of the internal Merseyside investigation may provide grounds for a new hearing. Merseyside Police declined to comment.

Procedural blunders that may have stifled truth

“Incorrect prioritising of the call out by the divisional control room staff”: The first constable asked for CID and scenes of crime. But control room called coroner’s officer and police surgeon, who arrived before detectives

“Lack of scene-preservation and destruction of potential evidence”: Mrs Gilfoyle was said to have been found hanging with her feet resting on a pair of step ladders. But the ladders were taken from the garage into the house before a detective arrived. Sand by the door was trampled, destroying possible footprints

“The coroner’s officer making crucial decisions about the investigation and mode of death before the arrival of the CID”: The first policeman to arrive was the coroner’s officer, who decided that Mrs Gilfoyle took her own life

“The cutting down of the body by the coroner’s officer” He lay Mrs Gilfoyle on the floor to “preserve her dignity”: No detective saw her hanging, although exact details would be important to establish murder or suicide

“The decision of the coroner’s officer with regards to photographic evidence”: He said there was no need for photos as the coroner did not require them

“The lack of consideration to the advanced pregnant condition of the deceased”: This should have been suspicious enough for a full inquiry.

“The lack of communication”: When the detective inspector did arrive, he was mistakenly told that photographs had been taken

“The destruction of the ligature following post-mortem”: No officer attended the post-mortem examination. The ligature was burnt by the mortuary assistant. Experts could have deduced who tied the knot

“The initial officer allowing Edward Gilfoyle and his parents to leave before the arrival of the CID”: No one was questioned

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)