Re: Edinburgh man on trial for Murder without the body being found....INTERESTING!!

rainbow-fairy on Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:41 am

Here is a link;
www.norfolk.police.uk/missingpersons/danielentwistle.aspx

There is, I've just found, a section on Missing Madeleine and also on Websleuths (haven't checked that one yet!)

This really does show the similarities (and differences) between two UK children from differing economic classes who disappeared, four years apart.
The Entwistles SEARCHED for their son. The McCanns did not. The Entwistles sadly separate, the McCanns are 'together'.
It also shows how unfair the McCanns constant wittering of 'no police force is actively looking for our child' is. In Daniel's case, broadly in line with Maddies, pro-active searching was stood down in the August. Its simply not realistic to expect the police to carry on indefinitely - where is the cash? And where would they look???
There were no leads so the search was put on the 'back burner' - open, yet not alive.

This case also proves one Pro-claim wrong - that we are 'sicko's who love to harass the parents of missing children' - really? I have never harassed the Entwistles... Less than fifteen miles from me, so close - the truth is, we don't. As far as I'm aware, the Entwistles would've been looked into as are all parents. No conspiracy here! I wonder why... Hmmm...

aquila on Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:13 am

Habeas corpus...please TB explain this to us. I always thought it meant 'produce the body' but I just did a search and find out it's not that.

rainbow-fairy on Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:37 am

aquila wrote:Habeas corpus...please TB explain this to us. I always thought it meant 'produce the body' but I just did a search and find out it's not that.

'Habeas corpus' is a legal term aquila - its Latin meaning is 'you may have the body'.
It is a writ which can be served to stop detention when there is insufficient cause for said detention (that is a very simplistic explanation, sorry)

Jean on Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:03 pm

This is the link to the Norfolk Police information about him.

http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/coldcases/missingpersons/danielentwistle.aspx

Upsy Daisy on Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:10 pm

Ross wrote:@Upsy Daisy

As this is a Scottish court the jury has a third option of verdict. Between guilty and not guilt sits the verdict 'not proven' (pronounced pro-ven). I believe this is unique in the western systems of justice. It means that the jury thinks the defendant probably did commit the crime, but that the prosecution has not proved their case. The defendant walks free from court, but they cannot say they have been cleared as they could with a not guilty verdict. From what I've read above, the prosecution case seems to consist solely of circumstantial evidence, some of it pretty flimsy - buying black rubbish bags and air fresheners - so there could well be a 'not proven' verdict.

thanks for explaining Ross... I had heard of the not proven verdict but did not really understand as whole how it worked. Does that mean then that if he gets the not proven verdict and further evidence comes to light and if a body is found, could he be tried again like a double jeopardy case?? thanks.

Ross on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:12 pm

Upsy Daisy wrote:thanks for explaining Ross... I had heard of the not proven verdict but did not really understand as whole how it worked. Does that mean then that if he gets the not proven verdict and further evidence comes to light and if a body is found, could he be tried again like a double jeopardy case?? thanks.

I don't think so, unless things have changed recently as they have in English law. If you're interested Wikipedia has the background to the origin of 'not proven'.

Upsy Daisy on Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:51 pm

thanks for the info Ross. Just checked re. Scotland and found this on wikipedia . So I am wondering then whether there is further evidence to come. They must think they have enough to secure a guilty verdict now however if they found the body and new evidence they could have a re-trial.
Scotland

The double jeopardy rule no longer applies absolutely in Scotland since the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011
came into force on 28 November 2011. The Act introduced three broad
exceptions to the rule: where the acquittal had been tainted by an
attempt to pervert the course of justice; where the accused admitted his
guilt after acquittal; and where there was new evidence.^[38]

Upsy Daisy on Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:55 pm

very interesting turn of events in the ongoing trial....cadaver dogs used... read update and / or link from STV

http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/news/298782-dog-trained-to-look-for-bodies-found-areas-of-interest-in-suzanne-pilleys-office/
A dog specially trained to look for bodies found three areas of
interest in the building where missing bookkeeper Suzanne Pilley
worked, a court has heard.

Jurors also heard that two cadaver police dogs were used to search the
car of David Gilroy, the man accused of the 38-year-old's murder.

Mark Heron, a senior scene examiner with the Scottish Police Services
Authority, said one of the dogs showed "some interest" in the boot of
his car.

Gilroy, 49, denies murdering Ms Pilley on May 4 2010 in Edinburgh, or
elsewhere, hiding her body and driving with it in the boot of a car. He
also denies trying to cover up the alleged killing.

At the High Court in Edinburgh, Mr Heron said the specialist dog showed
interest in the parking bays in the garage of Infrastructure Management
where Ms Pilley and Gilroy had both worked.

But the defence told the court that no forensic link was found to
connect items in the staircase, basement and the garage of the building
to Gilroy.

Advocate depute Alex Prentice QC, prosecuting, showed the jury a
computer-generated image of the office block in Thistle Street,
Edinburgh, which Mr Heron said he first examined on May 9 2010.

The witness said he attended the scene with, among others, two dog handlers and two cadaver dogs.

Mr Heron, 47, said one of the dogs "made its way around the garage sniffing" and paused at three areas.

Mr Prentice asked if the dog handler marked them as areas of specific
interest. He replied: "We decided to chalk these specific areas for
further examination."

Jurors heard him describe two of the areas as being in parking bays and the other around a door.

Car boot

During cross-examination, defence QC Jack Davidson put it to Mr Heron
that there was no forensic link from the Thistle Street building to the
accused.

Mr Davidson asked the witness about the various scientific methods used
to examine the garage, basement and stair area of the office building.

Jurors heard that Mr Heron had been to the address "as many as 10 or 15" times.

Mr Davidson asked him if an "extensive and meticulous" inquiry had been undertaken and he agreed that it had.

He asked: "There was no forensic link from examination of items in the
staircase, basement and the garage to Mr Gilroy in relation to this
inquiry?"

Mr Heron replied: "Not as far as I am aware."

The jury was then shown photos of Gilroy's silver car, impounded at a garage used by police for examining vehicles.

Mr Prentice asked: "When you opened the boot of the car, can you tell us what you experienced?"

The witness replied: "I could smell either a cleaning fluid or air
freshener-type smell, a fresh, clean fragrance, when I opened the boot."

Asked what happened after that, he said: "The dog went into the boot and showed some interest in the boot."

"What is it you saw?" asked Mr Prentice.

The witness replied: "My observation was that at the top-right corner
and the left-front corner the dog paused and showed interest in these
areas."

Asked what the dog did at this point, Mr Heron replied: "(It) just paid
particular attention, sniffing at that particular area."

Mr Davidson, defending, asked the witness why the smell was not
recorded by colleagues who had examined the car when it came into police
custody days earlier.

Mr Heron replied: "I am 100% certain I could smell it."

Gilroy, of Edinburgh, denies all the charges against him.

The trial before Lord Bracadale continues.

Upsy Daisy on Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:37 pm

see below..............

http://www.scotsman.com/news/suzanne-pilley-trial-murder-accused-had-finger-nail-scratches-1-2157963

Published on Wednesday 7 March 2012 14:59

THE man accused of murdering
missing book keeper Suzanne Pilley had injuries which he could have
suffered after ‘grappling’ with another person, a court has heard.

Dr Nathaniel Cary, 54, told the High
Court in Edinburgh that David Gilroy, 49, had scratches on various parts
of his body which could have been sustained through struggling with
somebody.
The consultant pathologist told prosecution lawyer Alex
Prentice QC that he studied photographs which were taken of Mr Gilroy
by police in the days after Suzanne, 38, went missing.
He said that the images showed a number of injuries which Mr Gilroy had sustained.
On
Wednesday, Mr Cary told the court that he thought some of the marks on
Mr Gilroy’s body could have been caused by another person’s finger nails
coming into contact with him.
And he also told Mr Prentice that he also thought that a “skin tone substance” had been used on one particular injury.
Mr Cary told the court that the substance was a “very unusual feature” to see on a man.
Dr
Cary was giving evidence on the 13th day of the trial of Mr Gilroy, who
denies murdering his former lover Suzanne in Thistle Street, Edinburgh
or at another place in Scotland by a means unknown to the prosecutor on
May 4, 2010.
Gilroy, of Silverknowes, Edinburgh, also denies four other charges which allege he committed a number of crimes.
One
of the charges being faced by Gilroy includes an allegation that he
attempted to defeat the ends of justice on May 7, 2010 by applying make
up on his hands during a police photography session.
The charge
alleges that he did this in a bid to disguise the full extent of his
injuries and to frustrate the police and procurator fiscal’s
investigation into Suzanne’s disappearance.
On Wednesday, the
court heard from Dr Cary, who lives in Oxfordshire, about how he has
spent the last 19 years acting as a pathologist in criminal
investigations.
He told Mr Prentice that he had experience of cases in which people had been strangled.
Mr
Cary said that in his professional experience, the victims of
strangulation sometimes struggle with and injure their attackers.
Dr
Cary then told the court that he studied a series of photographs that
had been taken of Mr Gilroy just days after Suzanne went missing in May
2010.
The images showed that Mr Gilroy had a number of injuries on his face, hands and body.
Dr
Cary said that it was his opinion that Mr Gilroy could have sustained
the marks to his body from “grappling” with somebody or from coming into
contact with “sharp foilage”.
On Tuesday, the court heard how
200 volunteers joined with police to search remote woodland in Argyll in
the months after Suzanne went missing in a bid to find the divorcee.
Dr Cary also told the court that he thought that a “skin tone substance” may have been used on one injury.
He said: “It’s a very unusual feature to see in a male.”
After
Mr Prentice finished questioning Dr Cary, defence QC Jack Davidson
asked whether it was possible that Gilroy could have sustained the
injuries through gardening.
Dr Cary agreed that it was possible.
Earlier
in the day, the trial heard from PC Simone Thompson,44, the South
Yorkshire Police dog handler whose canine Buster was used in the search
for Suzanne, 38.
On Tuesday, the court heard about how Buster is trained to smell for decomposing human remains and blood.
PC
Thompson also told the court that Buster searched parts of the building
that housed IML and indicated that he could smell human remains.
On
Wednesday, PC Thompson told Mr Prentice that Buster was also used to
search Mr Gilroy’s car - the animal indicated that he could smell
decomposing human remains or blood at two sections of the motor’s boot.
PC
Thompson told Mr Prentice that he also gave “a full blown positive
indication” that he could smell human remains or blood on the outside of
Gilroy’s motor.
Gilroy denies a total of five charges which
allege he committed a series of criminal activities at various addresses
in Scotland between August 2009 and June 2010.
The trial before judge Lord Bracadale continues.

Edinburgh man on trial for Murder without the body being found....INTERESTING!!