catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
In 2011 a sub-postmaster in Britain, Robin Garbutt, was convicted of the murder of his wife Robin at their home in North Yorkshire in 2010. The alleged motive for the killing, and faking of an armed robbery was that Diana had learned that Robin was stealing money from the post office.
The basis for this motive was the discredited and generally abominably unreliable computer system, Horizon. Evidence from this system, provided by the Post Office, was introduced in court.
Garbutt has always maintained his innocence.
Diana Garbutt was found bludgeoned to death in the couple's flat above the post office they ran together in the village of Melsonby in North Yorkshire. She had been repeatedly struck over the head by a metal bar.
Robin Garbutt claimed he and his wife were the victims of an armed robbery, that an armed man forced him to open the post office safe at gunpoint and took approximately sixteen thousand pounds in cash. He later discovered his wife's body.
A similar robbery had occurred about a year earlier.
The prosecution case what that he staged the robbery and had been stealing money from his branch, killing his wife to cover it up, supposedly fearing he was about to be discovered. They claimed Garbutt was in financial difficulty and their relationship also had problems. The court was told Diana had been unfaithful and up until the night she died she had been logging on to an internet dating site.
There was, and is, no physical evidence linking Garbutt to the murder. The most important element of the case against him was the supposed motive; this relied entirely on data from the Horizon system, and it's interpretation by the Post Office. They also stated that, based on Post Office interpretations, that Garbutt was concealing long running theft by making false declarations on the amount of cash he was holding in his Post Office safe and that there was never £16,000 in the safe.
Two Post Office witnesses testified against him, relying on data from the Horizon computer system.
Garbutt's lawyers, Martin Rackstraw and James Sturman KC, have continued to represent Garbutt and state:
We believe that fresh evidence and other important developments that have come to light since the original trial, now mean that Mr Garbutt’s conviction is not safe.
[Quote tags not working for some reason]
The Horizon system is not the only piece of dubious evidence in the case.
Establishing the time of death of Diana Garbutt relied significantly on an analysis of her stomach contents, performed by Dr Jennifer Miller. However Dr. Miller on digestion speed has contradicted herself in several cases. The evidence was accepted by the CCRC as unreliable. The evidence of the pathologists is less definite on the time of death (establishing ToD from purely medical data is complex and unreliable, outside fiction).
Numerous customers of the post office gave evidence that Garbutt was his "usual cheery self” that morning, and one telling the jury he heard a woman’s voice calling “Robin” from the door to the couple’s living quarters at about 6.45AM, when (according to the prosecution case) Diana Garbutt was dead. Further, the shop's till roll which showed a steady stream of customers right up until Garbutt called the police just after 8.30AM, suggesting he lacked the opportunity to murder his wife in the manner described by the prosecution.
The trial judge described the police investigation as displaying "a regrettable lack of professionalism". Mr. Justice Openshaw. also referred to the loss of key crime scene evidence and probable cross contamination on the murder weapon.
Specifically:
1. The police "lost" a clump of hair photographed next to the body of Diana Garbutt, which was a different colour to her own and her husband.
2. DNA from a police officer who had searched the outside of the property but not entered it was found on the murder weapon (which was found discarded outside) but also on the pillow of the bed in which Diana Garbutt was murdered.
Overall, the police investigation was a shambles, NYP are very defensive about their failings and the judicial censure, and the case is weak to the point of tenuousness. The conviction was a 10:2 majority jury decision.
Comments?
The basis for this motive was the discredited and generally abominably unreliable computer system, Horizon. Evidence from this system, provided by the Post Office, was introduced in court.
Garbutt has always maintained his innocence.
Diana Garbutt was found bludgeoned to death in the couple's flat above the post office they ran together in the village of Melsonby in North Yorkshire. She had been repeatedly struck over the head by a metal bar.
Robin Garbutt claimed he and his wife were the victims of an armed robbery, that an armed man forced him to open the post office safe at gunpoint and took approximately sixteen thousand pounds in cash. He later discovered his wife's body.
A similar robbery had occurred about a year earlier.
The prosecution case what that he staged the robbery and had been stealing money from his branch, killing his wife to cover it up, supposedly fearing he was about to be discovered. They claimed Garbutt was in financial difficulty and their relationship also had problems. The court was told Diana had been unfaithful and up until the night she died she had been logging on to an internet dating site.
There was, and is, no physical evidence linking Garbutt to the murder. The most important element of the case against him was the supposed motive; this relied entirely on data from the Horizon system, and it's interpretation by the Post Office. They also stated that, based on Post Office interpretations, that Garbutt was concealing long running theft by making false declarations on the amount of cash he was holding in his Post Office safe and that there was never £16,000 in the safe.
Two Post Office witnesses testified against him, relying on data from the Horizon computer system.
Garbutt's lawyers, Martin Rackstraw and James Sturman KC, have continued to represent Garbutt and state:
We believe that fresh evidence and other important developments that have come to light since the original trial, now mean that Mr Garbutt’s conviction is not safe.
[Quote tags not working for some reason]
The Horizon system is not the only piece of dubious evidence in the case.
Establishing the time of death of Diana Garbutt relied significantly on an analysis of her stomach contents, performed by Dr Jennifer Miller. However Dr. Miller on digestion speed has contradicted herself in several cases. The evidence was accepted by the CCRC as unreliable. The evidence of the pathologists is less definite on the time of death (establishing ToD from purely medical data is complex and unreliable, outside fiction).
Numerous customers of the post office gave evidence that Garbutt was his "usual cheery self” that morning, and one telling the jury he heard a woman’s voice calling “Robin” from the door to the couple’s living quarters at about 6.45AM, when (according to the prosecution case) Diana Garbutt was dead. Further, the shop's till roll which showed a steady stream of customers right up until Garbutt called the police just after 8.30AM, suggesting he lacked the opportunity to murder his wife in the manner described by the prosecution.
The trial judge described the police investigation as displaying "a regrettable lack of professionalism". Mr. Justice Openshaw. also referred to the loss of key crime scene evidence and probable cross contamination on the murder weapon.
Specifically:
1. The police "lost" a clump of hair photographed next to the body of Diana Garbutt, which was a different colour to her own and her husband.
2. DNA from a police officer who had searched the outside of the property but not entered it was found on the murder weapon (which was found discarded outside) but also on the pillow of the bed in which Diana Garbutt was murdered.
Overall, the police investigation was a shambles, NYP are very defensive about their failings and the judicial censure, and the case is weak to the point of tenuousness. The conviction was a 10:2 majority jury decision.
Comments?
