This is Robin Garbutt a man wrongly convicted of his wife's murder in 2011
The man pictured at the top of this report is described by his family and friends as a lovable, trusted, fun loving & genuine man who until being wrongly convicted of his wife's murder ran his own business in the quiet North Yorkshire village of Melsonay.
Robin rang the police on 999 on the morning of March 23rd 2010 to say that his wife had been attacked by robbers. The police arrived to find Diana Garbutt had been murdered by being bludgeoned with a metal bar.
Robin was taken to the police station and spent until 10pm that night with them going over everything and as he believed helping them to piece together the details of the robbery and his wife's murder.
The family say that Robin then spent 3 weeks with them and was visited on most days by liaison officers from the police so he felt he was being taken care of after such a terrible time, then it all changed. . .
Three weeks after the whole dreadful horror began the police arrested Robin at 0730 and carted him away for his wife Diana's murder. It took 3 days of questioning before the police even allowed the family to take Robin some clean clothes and to see him very briefly.
One of the flimsy items of evidence that the police relied upon in the early days of the 'enquiries' was a pair of boxer shorts that had been found in a dustbin with blood on them. Eventually the police had to concede and accept that Robin had told them the truth from the outset and the boxers were in fact confirmed as being out of a neighbour's dustbin. Unfortunately the information came somewhat too late as Robin had been remanded in custody and was in prison,
Ahttps://youtu.be/1FOJmgKyrxw
After a pre-trial hearing Robin was granted bail and returned home until his trial began in March 2011, obviously he presumed that the trial would show that he did not harm his wife and he would be found 'not guilty', sadly that did not happen.
The police had got their man and that was that after two and a half days of deliberation the jury returned a 10 - 2 verdict of guilty against Robin and he was convicted of his wife's murder. The wife whom Robin loved with all of his heart had been murdered and he was starting a 20 year prison sentence for a crime that he didn't commit.
The media try to paint a very different picture of Robin and of his marriage to Diana but the family bear out the true story and one that I am prepared to believe over the gutter press. Diana Garbutt had re-trained as a post mistress when her and Robin bought the shop and she very much ran the post office side of the business. They both worked hard and despite maybe having some financial struggles, like many businesses of the current times they were happy and building a lovely customer base.
The property that was once the Melsonay village post office, North Yorkshire where Diana was murdered in a robbery
There are so many discrepancies in the evidence that was used to convict Robin Garbutt of murder, for example; The prosecution say that Diana was murdered by 0430 yet a customer that visited the shop on that fateful morning clearly stated that at around 0645 he heard a female voice call from the family quarters of the shop, clearly calling "Robin" and Robin replied "Yes Di, in a minute". The police clearly dismissed this evidence as their forensic say Diana was already dead by that time, the simple question is "Couldn't the forensics have been mistaken"?
The witnesses statement was watertight as he worked full time and he knew that it was one of just two days that he took off from work as 'paid holiday' in order to do work to help the environment. As previously said the police clearly & intentionally chose to ignore the statement as it did not fit with their version of events and would have meant that they would need to look elsewhere for a suspect for Diana Garbutt's murder.
The late Diana Garbutt, murdered in her bedroom in 2010
There are reports of a clump of hair being found on the pillow next to a bloodied hand print from Diana, the hair was NOT from Diana or from Robin and so obviously could have belonged to the murder suspect and DNA from it would have almost certainly have proved that Robin was not the killer. Conveniently the clump of hair was 'lost' by North Yorkshire Police. There is also unidentified DNA on the pillow so this could well be that of the person to whom the clump of hair belonged and indeed committed the murder.
The murder weapon is believed to be a hollow metal bar which was found on the wall of the local garage on 25th March 2010, interestingly the police officer's report of such an important finding was not filed until 12th October 2010, why such a lengthy delay in reporting a murder weapon?? The weapon was found within three days of the murder so why not lodge a report straight away??
Even more interesting is that the bar did not contain any DNA belonging to Robin Garbutt, neither did it contain DNA from any murder suspect. In fact the only DNA found on the weapon was that of Diana and that of a police officer, so was this in fact even the weapon used to commit the atrocity?? I know a twitter contact of mine has recently reviewed this case and I hope that maybe he will either commit with thoughts surrounding the matter here or he may provide me with an update at a later stage.
In the meantime please share this blog, comment below and see the website where you can see full details of Robin's case and sign the e-petition.
Thank you for taking the time to read this please help by spreading the word via social media
Here are just a few thoughts of the author after due consideration of evidence. . .
Evidence says that Robin & Diana were booked to travel on holiday to USA to renew their marriage vows just a few days after the murder, so how is it possible for the prosecution to rely on circumstantial evidence that their marriage was unhappy or indeed that Diana had had affairs?
Witnesses from the close knit village admitted that if the local post mistress had been having a serious affair the village would know, yet they didn't
There had been a previous robbery at the post office on 17th March 2009, as far as we are aware no one was convicted of it so, it is perfectly possible that almost exactly one year later the same robbers could have returned.
The police say that is unlikely that robbers would have gone into the residential quarters of the shop but, there was another safe upstairs that the robbers may have known about and would not have known it was not used as the couple did not have the keys.
The financial troubles motive was dismissed after a post office audit which confirmed that there was no suggestion of any thefts or discrepancies, in fact the business was doing very well.
Even Justice Openshaw said: "The police's stewardship of the crime scene displayed a considerable lack of professionalism"
No comments:
Post a Comment