Murder at the Post Office.
Discussion
Just finished the last in a three-parter on Sky Documentaries.
It relates to the murder of Diana Garbuttt and the subsequent conviction of her Husband. Robin, for her murder. It also calls into question the validity of the prosecution evidence mined from the now discredited Horizon IT system.
A good watch…
It relates to the murder of Diana Garbuttt and the subsequent conviction of her Husband. Robin, for her murder. It also calls into question the validity of the prosecution evidence mined from the now discredited Horizon IT system.
A good watch…
We lived a mile away from Melsonby, moved in about a month after the murder.
There were folk in the village adamant that he hadn't done it.
And still are it seems.
To me, watching the three new programmes, the police cocked up but managed to railroad through the conviction and the appeals process was a bit of a sham too.
Almost looked like he'd been set up.
Part of the problem was that at one stage the case and subsequent appeals was concentrating on the relationship(s) the next on the money (lost or not) and the Horizon farce.
We left the area in 2018. The Black Bull pub was good, wonder if the same folk run it today.
There were folk in the village adamant that he hadn't done it.
And still are it seems.
To me, watching the three new programmes, the police cocked up but managed to railroad through the conviction and the appeals process was a bit of a sham too.
Almost looked like he'd been set up.
Part of the problem was that at one stage the case and subsequent appeals was concentrating on the relationship(s) the next on the money (lost or not) and the Horizon farce.
We left the area in 2018. The Black Bull pub was good, wonder if the same folk run it today.
They did seem to come together as a community to protest his innocence which spoke volumes.
I’m not a criminal practitioner - I’m civil litigation - but what struck me was the fact that they’d focused too much on proving the motive for the murder, opposed to actually proving the murder.
The issue being the murder weapon, which they couldn’t proved he’d handled in any way, shape or form. I thought it highly strange with the NYP PC having handled it, then he had conveniently forgotten where he was on the day of the murder, then with the key bit of evidence (hair) being seemingly lost by NYP in the evidential trail.
Did he do it? Not a clue. Did they prove it to the legal test, absolutely not.
I’m not a criminal practitioner - I’m civil litigation - but what struck me was the fact that they’d focused too much on proving the motive for the murder, opposed to actually proving the murder.
The issue being the murder weapon, which they couldn’t proved he’d handled in any way, shape or form. I thought it highly strange with the NYP PC having handled it, then he had conveniently forgotten where he was on the day of the murder, then with the key bit of evidence (hair) being seemingly lost by NYP in the evidential trail.
Did he do it? Not a clue. Did they prove it to the legal test, absolutely not.
With the wasn't there then was with the supposed murder weapon, had it been planted the following day?
The hair on the pillow was fairly incriminating evidence for someone but they "lost" it.
It almost looked like a stitch up to me.
Not that for one moment would I suggest the police are complicit .....
The hair on the pillow was fairly incriminating evidence for someone but they "lost" it.
It almost looked like a stitch up to me.
Not that for one moment would I suggest the police are complicit .....
Very interesting case.
I must admit I was thinking he was guilty because why would a robber go upstairs to kill the wife??
I also think the timing window from the safe unlocking, to the 999 call is very short.
However, my biggest reason to doubt is the photo taken on the day showing the wall but without the murder weapon. Coupled with the witness from the garage the other side of the wall.
I'm genuinely not sure.
I must admit I was thinking he was guilty because why would a robber go upstairs to kill the wife??
I also think the timing window from the safe unlocking, to the 999 call is very short.
However, my biggest reason to doubt is the photo taken on the day showing the wall but without the murder weapon. Coupled with the witness from the garage the other side of the wall.
I'm genuinely not sure.
Tighnamara said:
One part that didn t tie in was the time the safe was opened to when he made the call to emergency services, two minutes there was lot that had to happen in that timeframe.
It seems odd why the robber would kill the wife (in bed) but not Robin... who seconds later has dialled 999.I'm two episodes in. At the moment, leaving aside alledged finances, affairs, murder weapons etc, what doesn't add up for me is the paramedics view that rigor mortis had already set in when they arrived and the pathologist put time of death between 2.30am and 4.30am. If that is correct then he's lying saying robbers killed her. So my view is that he killed her but I'll wait to see what episode 3 brings (watching it later).
Planet Claire said:
I'm two episodes in. At the moment, leaving aside alledged finances, affairs, murder weapons etc, what doesn't add up for me is the paramedics view that rigor mortis had already set in when they arrived and the pathologist put time of death between 2.30am and 4.30am. If that is correct then he's lying saying robbers killed her. So my view is that he killed her but I'll wait to see what episode 3 brings (watching it later).
Have you seen episode 3 yet? Interested in how your perspective may have changed.Very interesting viewing. I had a way out theory at the end that there were possibly two crimes here, one beign his wife being murdered by 'someone' while she slept and the other crime (totally unconnected) was the robbery. All very unlikely but an idea.
Like others have said above though, the time difference between the safe opening and the call to 999 just isn't plausible but so many other parts of this just don't add up I really don't know where I stand with it now after watching all 3 episodes.
Like others have said above though, the time difference between the safe opening and the call to 999 just isn't plausible but so many other parts of this just don't add up I really don't know where I stand with it now after watching all 3 episodes.
tele_lover said:
Have you seen episode 3 yet? Interested in how your perspective may have changed.
Yes, I've watched it now.There's obviously a lot of unanswered questions but episode 3 didn't do enough to change my opinion. The robbery story just doesn't feel right - too many 'why would they do that'?What do they always say? You're more likely to be killed by someone you know...
My personal view - and it is just that - was there were too-many mistakes made by North Yorkshire Police which should not have been made - and one has to question the motives behind those mistakes…
1. The clump of hair going missing - it was forensically collected and the exhibit disappeared when in their custody and control.
2. The fact that the murder weapon reappeared on the wall when the whole scene was locked down - and had been for some time. If the scene is locked down with a cordon on - and one assumes, police personnel manning that cordon, then how did it get there?
3. The two pieces of DNA evidence on the murder weapon - the victims and the warranted Constable who handled it, and collected it.
4. The fact that the warranted Constable who ‘contaminated’ the evidence could offer no other information as to their whereabouts at the time of the murder.
My biggest take out was that it was almost like the investigation was being hampered from the inside out, evidence disappearing and reappearing and I can only draw my own conclusions as to who may have been in that bedroom with Diana.
Who did it? We don't know and we’ll never know.
1. The clump of hair going missing - it was forensically collected and the exhibit disappeared when in their custody and control.
2. The fact that the murder weapon reappeared on the wall when the whole scene was locked down - and had been for some time. If the scene is locked down with a cordon on - and one assumes, police personnel manning that cordon, then how did it get there?
3. The two pieces of DNA evidence on the murder weapon - the victims and the warranted Constable who handled it, and collected it.
4. The fact that the warranted Constable who ‘contaminated’ the evidence could offer no other information as to their whereabouts at the time of the murder.
My biggest take out was that it was almost like the investigation was being hampered from the inside out, evidence disappearing and reappearing and I can only draw my own conclusions as to who may have been in that bedroom with Diana.
Who did it? We don't know and we’ll never know.
Just watched this, no idea how the jury found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, there are questions over timing / digestion / motivation but equally questions over DNA, the policeman who touched the weaon, the weapon appearing and I just couldn't see how anyone could find him guilty based on what the programme showed.
Too many grey areas to send a fella down for me.
Too many grey areas to send a fella down for me.
Planet Claire said:
tele_lover said:
Have you seen episode 3 yet? Interested in how your perspective may have changed.
Yes, I've watched it now.There's obviously a lot of unanswered questions but episode 3 didn't do enough to change my opinion. The robbery story just doesn't feel right - too many 'why would they do that'?What do they always say? You're more likely to be killed by someone you know...
The bar still needs to be explained.
FredericRobinson said:
I don't think they proved there wasn't a money issue, more that they couldn't prove that there was, and Horizon casts great doubts
I'm sure the cousin (or the union guy) said they re-analysed the figures after adjusting for the Horizon bugs and there were no financial discrepancies.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff