This was all the information i could gather online about Eddie Gilfoyle, this has been an imalgamation of news report court reports and eye witness statements
The Case of Eddie Gilfoyle
On 4th June 1992 Paula Gilfoyle, eight and a half months pregnant, was found hanging in the garage of her home in Upton, Wirral. Her husband Eddie was convicted of her murder but maintains that he is innocent. His family and supporters have gathered compelling evidence - never seen by the trial jury - that Paula was not killed, and that the investigating police conspired to pervert the course of justice. Despite this evidence Eddie’s appeal against conviction was rejected and Eddie remains in prison. Eddie Gilfoyle has suffered doubly - losing first his wife and unborn child and then his freedom.
Eddie and Paula Gilfoyle’s marriage had been under a strain for some time. Paula was living with her parents and they were effectively separated. Eddie had started another relationship with Sandra Davies, a work colleague, although he really wanted Paula back. When she refused to return to their home, Eddie told her that Sandra would be moving in. Paula was hurt. She informed Eddie that she was pregnant and moved back into their house to try and make a go of the marriage. Eddie was very happy to have her back and to have a child on the way. He ended the affair with Sandra.
Within a few months however, Paula dropped a bombshell on Eddie. She wrote him a letter saying that she had been having an affair for the last fourteen months with a man called ‘Nigel’ and that the child was not Eddies. (DNA tests revealed later that Eddie was in fact, the father of the child). This letter was dubbed by the court as the ‘Nigel letter’ and has been referred to as such ever since. She was planning - she wrote - to move abroad to live with ‘Nigel.’ Paula was showing classic signs of depression.
At the time, Eddie had no reason to doubt that what Paula had written in the ‘Nigel letter’ was true.
In a distraught state, Eddie showed the letter to Sandra. Sandra showed it to her friend. Eddie also showed it to his boss and he was so distressed that she sent him home as he was unfit to work.
When Paula found out that he had shown the letter to others she was furious that the news of what she had written might spread. What would her friends or family think if they heard through the grapevine that she had admitted to Eddie that she had an affair and had alleged that Eddie was not the father of her baby. Also how could Paula explain to her family that she was intending to move abroad and live with ‘Nigel’ and that she had no intention of telling them until after she had gone.
Two of her friends claim that shortly after Paula gave Eddie the ‘Nigel letter,’ and while they were in the works canteen, Paula told them that Eddie was doing a course about suicide at work and that for his homework he had asked her to write letters which he dictated. Paula said that he told her to write about the affair, the baby not being his and that she couldn’t live with the guilt any longer. She also, allegedly, told the same story to another friend. But this time went one stage further saying that Eddie had taken her into the garage and shown her a noose tied to a beam and that she was terrified.
Eddie spent the next few weeks expecting his wife to leave. Although Eddie did not know it at the time, ‘Nigel’ had ended the affair. Eddie and Paula left notes for each other which confirm the
contents of the ‘Nigel letter.’ But Paula did not leave. On 2nd June, two days before she died, Paula dropped another bombshell. ‘Nigel’ was really Peter Glover, her brother-in-law. She thought he was the father of her baby. Paula was very distressed and not knowing what to do, Eddie tried to console her - making plans for them to move away and make a fresh start - he could not lift her out of the depression.
On the 4th June Eddie left for work around 11.20am, arriving there at 11.30am. Paula left the house at the same time to go to the Post Office. He came home from work early to take Paula shopping but she was not there. Eddie found a suicide note in the kitchen. But mistaking it for a letter saying that she was finally leaving him, he read only the first few lines before driving to his parents house to seek advice. He was distraught. He returned home with his parents at 6pm to begin phoning around to try and find Paula, while his brother-in-law, (a police sergeant), who they summoned to the scene to offer advice, searched the house. He found Paula’s body hanging from a beam in the garage.
THE POLICE INVESTIGATION
A police constable and a Coroner’s officer were called to the scene. They did not take any photographs or measurements or carry out any forensic tests, simply cutting down the body and laying it on the floor. Without taking any details of how the rope was tied around the beam, they removed it to keep it for the Coroner. A post mortem found nothing suspicious - no drugs, alcohol, marks of violence or restraint. The portion of the rope that was still tied around Paula’s neck was removed by the morticians assistant. He is still certain that it was not a slipping knot, but had two knots tied one on top of the other. The distinction later came to be of vital importance in what followed, but the assistant’s assertion could not be proved as he was told that the rope was not needed and it was destroyed.
SUSPICIONS
Over the weekend following Paula’s death family and friends met at ‘Peter Glover’s house’ and a meeting took place to ‘help clear Paula’s name.’ Glover had already gone to extraordinary lengths to obtain a copy of the suicide letter, including attending at the Coroners Office demanding a copy. His demands were turned down.
They then began to approach the police with concerns about her death. She was - as far as they knew - happy and looking forward to the birth of her baby. They could not accept that she had committed suicide. An atmosphere of hysteria was growing in which the police were told stories about Paula saying that Eddie had cut the brake pipes on her car three times. This was completely untrue, but soon the story about Eddie’s so-called ‘suicide course’ and the letters he had supposedly dictated to her, emerged. Her friends and family could not believe that she was having an affair or that the contents of the letters were true.
Her work friends recounted to the police the story that Paula had allegedly told them - about Eddie asking her to write a letter for homework. What they recounted to the police was the contents of the ‘Nigel letter.’ They were already aware of the content of the ‘Nigel letter’ as immediately after Paula died sections of the letter became common knowledge to both sides of Paula’s family. This letter had nothing to do with suicide. They were unable to recount the contents of any suicide letter because this was in the hands of the Coroner. The statements made by her friends were not presented at the trial and there is a very good reason for this. This type of evidence is inadmissible because it is hearsay. The truth of it cannot be tested or proven. Without testimony from Paula herself the allegation that Eddie was pretending to be on a suicide course only amounted to gossip and rumour.
Eddie was arrested and the police investigation began. In a search of his house a notepad bearing impressions of a removed page was found. ESDA tests revealed that it was another suicide note (other than the note found at the scene on the day of her death) which said that the father of the baby had ended their 16 month relationship and that Paula could not live without him. A third, unfinished suicide letter was found in a footstool.
The Crown’s case is that although all the letters are written in Paula’s own handwriting, the contents are fictitious. They said Eddie had dictated them to Paula and told her what to write, claiming that he needed her help to do them for homework for his ‘suicide course.’ (No such course was ever run in the hospital where Eddie worked and no evidence was found which would substantiate that Eddie was pretending to his wife to be on any course).
The police had to assert that the contents of the ‘Nigel letter’ was also dictated by Eddie. This was because if the contents of this letter could be proven to be true, it would mean that the other suicide letters were also genuine.
MARKET RESEARCHER
In his first police interview Eddie told the police that a woman had called to the house about 11am and that he and Paula had filled in a survey about wines. He also told the police that Paula was intending to go the shops, the Post Office and Ante - Natal Clinic. Within a few weeks the police traced Maureen Brannon, the market researcher, who confirmed she had called to Eddies house that morning between 11am and 11.20am and conducted a market research survey with Eddie and Paula. Eddie told the police that just after Brannon left, he left for work and Paula left for the Post Office. Eddie had an 8 minute drive to his place of work and he was seen in work at 11.30am by two people. At the trial, the Judge concluded that because Paula failed to make her afternoon appointment at the Ante-Natal Clinic and taking account of the other corroborative evidence, Paula must have been dead before 2pm. Eddie was left with no opportunity in that day to murder his wife. But the Judge in his summing up cast a doubt on the timings given by Brannon.
Brannon however, is still certain of her timings and this was later corroborated by the Lancashire Police who conducted a full re-investigation into the case after the trial.
MAUREEN PIPER
Several weeks after Paula’s death, Maureen Piper mentioned to Paula’s sister, Susan Dubost, that she had been speaking to Paula in the Post Office at 12.40pm on the day she died. Dubost told her to make a statement to the police and she arranged for Piper to telephone the police from Paula’s mothers house. The statement was taken the same day by Detective Constable Gregson. Because Eddie was at work at 11.30am and well alibied, the police were desperate. Maureen Piper’s statement threw a spanner in the works. If the case against Eddie was to be sustained action had to be taken. DC Gregson acted swiftly. On the same day that he had taken Piper’s statement, DC Gregson returned to Eddie’s house. The following is an extract from a Lancashire Police Report arising from a re-investigation of the case supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. (PCA):
"The forensic scientist, Phillip RYDEARD, states that when he was in attendance at the scene on 23rd June he discussed with officers present the possibility of finding other significant items such as other ropes. Later that day DC GREGSON found the ‘practice’ rope in the drawer…"
In the drawer of a cabinet in the garage DC Gregson ‘discovered’ a piece of rope tied into a slipping noose. This was, the police contended, a rope used by Eddie to practice tying the noose with which he murdered his wife. But would Eddie leave such a damming piece of evidence for the police to find ? The Lancashire Report continues:
"The officer who conducted the search of the garage on the 8th June, PC CARTWRIGHT, is adamant that the rope was not there at the time. He recalls looking in the drawer in which the rope was subsequently found and it was not there."
DC Gregson visited Maureen Piper at home two days later to tell her she was mistaken about her meeting with Paula. It was in fact - DC Gregson told her - Susan Dubost that she had seen in the Post Office. Piper knew both women very well. She lived within a few doors of Paula’s parents and across the road from Susan Dubost. She argued with DC Gregson, maintaining that she was not mistaken. DC Gregson told her "We are scrubbing your statement." Later that same day Susan Dubost made a statement that it was herselfwho was in the Post Office at 12.40pm on 4th June.
BLATANT DECEIT
In September a meeting took place between the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the prosecuting barrister, and Detective Chief Inspector Baines. DC Gregson was also present. The CPS were told that Piper had confused the two women. DC Gregson failed to inform the CPS that Piper was still adamant that she had sighted Paula in the Post Office on the 4th June. Gregson, as the junior officer at the conference, did not think it was his place to inform the prosecuting lawyers that Piper was vigorously asserting that she had seen Paula on the day of her death and at a time when Eddie was well accounted for in work. Susan Dubost’s statement was recorded as being taken by DC Phillips. It later transpired that DC Phillips told the Lancashire Police, who re-investigated the case, that he was on holiday at the time and had never spoken to Susan Dubost about this matter. Yet it is his name that appears on the bottom of the statement.
The CPS never checked the Piper evidence, or questioned the finding of the ‘practice rope’ or investigated the startling contradictions in the police’s own records. From the September to the following June, when the trial started, the police knew that Piper was still adamant in her sighting. The police did nothing to inform the CPS of this ‘mistake.’Pipers evidence was placed in the ‘unused material’ files. Eddies former defence took no steps to confirm Piper’s sighting and relied on the police version that Piper had confused Paula with Dubost. The trial jury knew nothing of Piper’s evidence. Piper’s statement was raised at the Appeal hearing. The court ruled that her memory was faulty, not in identifying the wrong sister, but in the timing of her meeting with Paula. She had seen Paula, but on a different week! No evidence was offered to substantiate this and Piper remains convinced that she was not mistaken. The Lancashire Police discovered that Piper was in company with her friend when she saw Paula. She remembered Piper talking to a pregnant woman in the queue. The Lancashire Police also discovered that Piper learnt of Paula’s death on the 5th of June from another friend. She said to her friend, "I was only talking to her yesterday in the Post Office." The Appeal Court when turning down Eddie’s appeal refused to listen.
COMPUTER COURSE
Paula wrote in the ‘Nigel letter’ that she had secretly been meeting with Nigel when she was supposed to be on a computer course which was run from her place of work. Paula wrote that she had only ever attended the course on two occasions. The police asked her friends if she had been on such a course at the place where they all worked. They all said that she had not and if she had have been, they would definitely have known. The Merseyside Police accepted this without any further investigation.
Eddie’s family subsequently found a letter from Paula’s employers asking why she had not been attending the course she had enrolled on. Paula it seems, had been keeping secrets from her friends. If Paula wasn’t attending her course, where was she going ? Realising the importance of this discovery, Eddie’s family took the letter to the police. They never saw it again. It was never produced as evidence at the trial. The police said that it had been lost. When the Lancashire Police conducted a re-investigation into the case they discovered that Paula had enrolled on a computer course at work. In April, when she wrote the ‘Nigel letter’ she had been on the course for fourteen months, in June she would have been on the course for sixteen months and the records show that she only attended the course twice - THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT SHE WROTE IN HER LETTERS. The ‘Nigel letter’ is not a suicide letter. It does not mention suicide. The content talks about real events. The ‘Nigel letter’ discusses Eddies relationship with Sandra Davies. So how does this fit the Crowns theory that Eddie tricked Paula to write this letter for a pretend suicide course ? From all of this evidence the Authorities are well aware that these letters are genuine and true. They know that these letters have not been made up for any homework or any fictitious course.
PROFESSOR BERNARD KNIGHT
Eddie’s defence commissioned an analysis of the case from Professor Bernard Knight, a world famous pathologist. (He is particularly famous for his grim detective work in the cellars and burial pits of Cromwell Street, when he literally pieced together the case against Rosemary West). His evidence in the Gilfoyle case was never presented at trial. This was because there was a complete lack of preparation for the trial by Eddies former defence, who were trying to obtain expert reports to refute the prosecution case while the trial was in progress. They did not approach one single civilian witness to give evidence including Maureen Piper who’s existence they were well aware of.
Because Professor Knights evidence was available at the time of the trial, the Appeal Court refused to hear it. Professor Knight’s report comprehensively dismantled the case built by the Crown. The scenario presented by the prosecution - which was the only theory they were able to put forward - had Eddie taking Paula into the garage, surprising her by snatching a noose over her head, (the other end already tied to the beam), lifting her feet up and holding her until she was dead. Hence the importance of the Crown’s argument that the rope was tied into a running noose. Despite the evidence to the contrary from the mortuary assistant, it was described as a running noose throughout the trial. But why would Paula enter the garage with Eddie ? According to her friends, Eddie had terrified her by showing her ropes tied to the beams in the garage on a previous occasion.
Professor Knights report concluded that the forensic evidence disproved the Crown’s theory. Some of his criticisms of the prosecution case, in particular the lack of any bruising or signs of a struggle, had been raised by the trial judge, forcing the Crown’s pathologist, Doctor Burns to conclude that Paula "must have been a willing victim!" In other words she must have assisted her husband in her own death, by standing there while he tied a rope around her neck. The Crown’s case went from the bizarre to the ridiculous.
Professor Knight also criticised the Crown’s assertion that suicide in pregnancy could be virtually excluded on statistical grounds. He conducted a survey of colleagues in other countries and obtained computer listings from medical literature which contained numerous references to such suicides. He showed that, in fact, if anything could be excluded on statistical grounds, it was homicide by hanging. In forty years experience he had never encountered such a murder or heard about one from his colleagues.
PAULA'S MEDICAL HISTORY
In building a case of murder and not of suicide, the prosecution told the jury that Paula had no history of depression. Many witnesses were called to give evidence that she was in good spirits in the weeks before her death. Paula’s GP, Doctor Barbour, told the court that he had never known her suffer from depression. He had treated her on one occasion with valium when she was sixteen. She had ended a long term relationship with her then boyfriend, who, within a few days, raped and murdered an 18 year old girl in a local park. He had strangled his victim with his belt and dragging her across the park by the ligature, threw her body into the lake. Is it likely therefore, that Paula would have allowed somebody to put something around her neck after that ? Her doctor and family had told the court that she soon recovered from the trauma. The police investigation revealed that this was far from the truth. In 1975, when Paula was 15 years old, she was diagnosed as anorexic. Her medical notes are incomplete and so there is no record of what treatment, if any, she was given. This in itself is most unusual and suspicious. In 1986, ten years after the rape and murder in the park, Paula was again prescribed valium. Two years later she visited her GP again and was given Mellarill, a drug prescribed for personality disorders. Paula’s true medical history was never presented to the jury.
PAULA'S DIARY
In court a picture was painted of Paula as a happy, bubbly person who was full of life and most unlikely to commit suicide. However, she kept a five year diary which reveals a somewhat different person. In it she writes of the abuse she suffered at the hands of a previous boyfriend and of her recurring depression. Paula Gilfoyle, it appears, concealed much about her true feelings and actions from those around her.
The jury were also kept in ignorance that Paula had confided to a friend shortly before she died that she did not want the baby she was carrying and was sorry that she did not have an abortion when she had the chance to.
RE-INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE
After the trial. Eddie’s family lodged a complaint with the PCA about the conduct of the investigation, listing over 100 irregularities. Prior to the appeal, John Cartwright of the PCA told C3 Department of the Home Office that the PCA considered Eddie’s conviction to be unsafe. Superintendent Gooch of the Lancashire Police and who headed the re-investigation also shared the PCA’s opinion. The Gooch investigation could find no evidence that a crime had been committed.
THE APPEAL
Appeal Court Judge Beldham opened the hearing by stating that he would not allow any criticism of the Merseyside Police or the former defence. He refused to hear any of the evidence uncovered by the PCA investigation including the planted rope and sent Eddie back to prison. As the prison officers took him down to the cells Eddie shouted "I’m Still Innocent."
TRIAL AND ERROR
After the appeal failed the Channel 4 television
series broadcast an hour long documentary about the case. They described the investigation conducted by the Merseyside Police as a ‘Keystone Comedy of Errors.’ It was those ‘errors’ that prevented the jury from hearing all of the evidence that was available in this case and resulted in the conviction of Eddie Gilfoyle.
They commissioned a report from Dr Jack Weir, a former Consultant Psychiatrist at St Mary’s Hospital, London, and an expert in suicide during pregnancy. He concluded that the suicide letters written by Paula were genuine and the second highest incidence of suicide in pregnant women occurred, as with Paula, in the last weeks of pregnancy.
The programme also highlighted the fact that there was money worries. Paula was the main breadwinner and with the baby on the way their financial prospects were bleak. Paula ran a catalogue agency and when she died there was an outstanding balance of £2,500.00. Some of her customers were bogus. Having already re-mortgaged the house to pay for the refurbishment’s that Paula had set her heart on the drop in the family income was going to be major. Jackie King of Southwark Consumer and Money Advice Centre said "I would think that somebody like her who obviously is very careful about her finances would know that she was going to be in big trouble in the next few months."
Another expert in the documentary showed that Paula would have been able to easily have tied the rope around the beam from where she was found hanging. Professor Knight said "Medically speaking there is nothing about this case which prevents this from being a suicide by hanging." Eddie’s solicitor, Campbell Malone who was responsible for the overturning of the conviction of Stefan Kiszco stated "I feel embarrassed that the system has worked so badly in this case - I think it has worked even worse in this case than the Stefan Kiszco case - At every stage it has been defective."
DISCIPLINARY HEARING
As a result of the PCA inquiry Detective Superintendent Harrison, Detective Chief Inspector Baines and Detective Constable Gregson faced disciplinary charges of Neglect of Duty and Falsehood and Prevarication. It took three years from the conclusion of the PCA inquiry for the Chief Constable of Merseyside to hold a disciplinary hearing and five years from when the original complaints were made. The Chief Constable of Merseyside heard the evidence at the disciplinary hearing and dismissed all of the charges against two of his officers finding them not guilty on all counts. The Detective Superintendent did not face the charges at all, as he had retired from the Force before the hearing took place. Incredibly, the planted rope was not mentioned throughout the disciplinary hearing and did not form part of any of the charges.
CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION
The view taken by the CCRC is that all the evidence uncovered by the PCA investigation cannot now be considered by the Court of Appeal.
This means that the PCA evidence, including the planted rope, was not allowed to be heard at the last appeal, cannot be heard at any future appeal and was not dealt with at the police disciplinary hearing. The Authorities have left no forum available for Eddie to raise any of the corruption in his case.
