Eddie Gilfoyle "framed by Merseyside Police"

[woodman]

Many years ago, around 1995 when I was a taxi driver, I picked up a man quite regularly who told me of the time he'd spent in prison, his cell mate was Eddie Gilfoyle and this chap told me that Eddie always protested his innocence and that he used to cry himself to sleep every night, "in my mind, no guilty man does that" he used to say. I always doubted that Eddie was guilty, but I think whatever, there was more than a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, so he's innocent in my eyes, sadly, the lad done 18 years in prison!

Eddie Gilfoyle "I did not kill my wife and unborn baby

[holy vehm]

Make room on the convicted police thread woody, i suspect there are going to be a few more additions after this case is complete.

[woodman]

I certainly hope so, no innocent man should be locked up, especially for 18 years or more. Thing is, they can say ooops sorry and get away with it, or just plain and simply get away with it.

[holy vehm]

Aint that the truth.
How many involved in this cover up will now serve 18 years?

Im going out on a limb here but i think none.

[woodman]

That's likely to be a spot on comment, truth is though, the authorities still think of him as guilty, so he'll be waiting a mighty long time if he's ever to get justice, whatever that might be, he can't get back 18 years of his life like.

[Hoops]

Surely you are not all talking about a cover up based solely on the man's claims that he is innocent? Am I missing other info somewhere?

No disrespect meant, but imagine being locked in the same room for the best part of the next 2 days, and I think plenty of us would cry ourselves to sleep. Now factor in regret at something terrible and unforgivable that you have done...something you wish with all your heart you can take back but never can, and that will haunt you forever as you rot in your tiny cell. Plenty of reason to bawl like a baby.


Don't get me wrong, I know people serve time for crimes they didn't commit. But many people are also full of crap.

I have absolutely NO IDEA whether this man is guilty or not, but if this news report is all you are going on, plus the testament of a guy in a taxi, then I suggest neither do you. You must remain genuinely impartial, or you undermine your own position in any given argument or persuasion, surely? If he has been locked up in error it is a terrible injustice, but if he is a liar and a murderer, which he may be, his word is worth nothing.

apologies if this is a follow on thread and there is some substantial evidence or account that I have missed!

[Hoops]

i am going to find more stuff on this case and see what info there is.

The real tragedy of cases like these are his double loss - it is a bit like the dewani case going on now - if he murdered his wife it is despicable - but if he didn't and is ahvnig to cope with the loss as well as the horror of being accused, it is unimaginably cruel punishment. I can imagine little worse.

[woodman]

Woah there hoopsy!

Do some research first before you make comments like "Surely you are not all talking about a cover up based solely on the man's claims that he is innocent? Am I missing other info somewhere?", otherwise I may suspect that you think I believe someone is innocent on the basis of their say so.

I've followed the case since it happened back in 1992, when my daughter was born, Eddie's child if it had been born would have been the same age as my daughter, and that kind of brought home to me how much he has missed when I read his story in our local newspaper.

Obviously, I can't be certain if he's innocent, but after having read the in's and out's of the case throughout the years, my gut feeling has always been that he was innocent. Do some research and come back and prove me wrong hoops, betcha can't

[huntingross]

The interesting thing about guilt in the judicial system is that no one actually knows for sure except the parties directly involved...in many cases this might only be the accused.

In the Scottish system we have Guilty / Not Guilty / Not Proven.....the latter is considered the bastard verdict, as it is felt to be guilty but insufficient evedence.

In debates as to whether the Not Proven verdict should be ditched, the legal profession concluded that it is the Guilty / Not Guilty verdicts that should be on trial.

In a criminal case the evidence is weighed "beyond reasonable doubt".....guilt is never really known, left to the clever footwork or clumsy oversites and missed opportunities one can only say whether a case Proved beyond reasonable doubt or not.

Why am I seemingly going off thread here ?

Because I think we need to start considering the true meaning of guilt, compared to what was reasonably established or not.

And, as a foot note.

We are innocent until proven guilty, so why are you asked to plead not guilty or guilty prior to the evidence being presented....if one is innocent UNTIL proven guilty then you remain innocent UNTIL so proven beyond reasonable doubt....yet there is no plea of INNOCENCE and we are told it is the same thing.....I contest it is not.

[holy vehm]

Also just to add that a high ranking police officer has cast doubt on the credibility of the conviction and the case has also been brought before the house of lords.
This does not happen without serious consideration of 'new information'

So i will go with my initial comment for now.