Ray's case is alarming for many reasons, he has a group on Facebook and I do hope many people will ofer solidarity and support
-1-
The Case of Ray Gilbert
Ray Gilbert has protested his innocence for thirty years and has known the full range of brutality and deception of which the system is capable. More than anything, I tend to think he is a victim of the blind unquestioning acceptance of bullying interrogation methods employed by the police and a lack of properly informed care in custody that is far from uncommon to this day
The offence occurred on Friday March 13th 1981. John Suffield, a Toxteth bookmaker is attacked by intruders and stabbed repeatedly. Two men were involved. The police Ray arrest three days later.
Raymond Gilbert was no stranger to the police and had past convictions over gang fights, robbery and other relatively minor matters. One of the things we share in common is having
undergone community service and, in a letter, Ray once asked me if I thought it worked. I have misgivings regarding this that I have documented elsewhere.
It is Ray’s questionable confession and the circumstances linked to it that I find particularly disturbing. Following arrest, he was alone in police custody. I have gathered that questioning continued relentless at various times of the night and day. There was little, if any, chance to rest.
Ray was a frightened and vulnerable young man. The environment was clearly uncontrolled and threatening. During this time, he made a confession under great pressure. The girl
friend Ray claimed to be with when Mr Suffield died changed her story. Yes, it does happen.
While on remand Ray retracted his confession. No evidence linked him to the crime, he has stated –
“Statements were made down to duress, assaults by the
Police, without any access to a solicitor during detention
in the police station, I think they were under pressure to
get a conviction”
A solicitor recalling seeing Ray shortly after the initial confession has said
“I recall that his clothing had been taken away from him
and that he was wearing either a blanket or white
disposable suit. I also recall that he had been in police
custody during which time he had been isolated from
his family and solicitors. He appeared to me to be
disorientated.”
Ray comes from a deprived inner city background; his mother is white and his father black. The chain of events leading to his conviction occurred against the backdrop of the Toxteth riots which Larry Nields of The Liverpool Daily Post reported as “..England’s worst ever inner city riots.”
Nields mentions the celebrated Liverpool Lawyer Rex Makin who represented who represented many victims of the riots – Makin told Neild –
“I acted for a number of people who were brutally treated and
assaulted by the police during the 1981 riots…I well remember
two black brothers who were in Liverpool Royal Infirmary
and they were handcuffed and manacled. It was just like
something you might see in Guantanamo Bay.”
It was a time of danger and tension between the police and black citizens. The chairperson of the Black Police Association has acknowledged widespread abuse of the black community and Ray himself has mentioned this in a recent letter.
The distinguished forensic psychologist Olive Tunstall examined Ray prior to his appeal process and what follows is extracted from her report dated April 1999 –
“In my opinion there is evidence to suggest that the confession
Mr. Gilbert made during the police interviews may have been
unreliable. I have based that opinion on the following
grounds. The first of these is as follows : Mr. Gilbert’s
personal vulnerability at the time (youth, limited
education, stammer, adverse social circumstances)
and, in my opinion, a profound fear of being physically
assaulted emanating from early childhood experiences,
his lack of access to legal advice and evidence that at the
time he made his confession he was in a high state of
anxiety.”
A key term here is “personal vulnerability.” The police interview is driven by a need for results with truth actually being of little in any importance. Ray was in a heightened state of
anxiety, he would have confessed to anything and from this situation alone ample grounds exist for challenging the integrity of his questioning and subsequent conviction.
Then, there is the stammer. People who stammer have difficulty in coordinating their speech muscles and need extra time to speak. How much ‘extra time’ was Ray allowed at the police interview? How much awareness was shown of the nature of this problem? Ray has commented in a letter –
“ No allowance was made for the fact that I had a speech impediment. Even now certain words come out as different ones…It is a point that should have been considered as a vulnerable aspect but police only interested in proving it was me by attitude of two interrogating police.”
The severity of a stammer can often relate to surroundings and in the police interview situation, it would inevitably worsen. In that same letter of 2/11/09 Ray has also commented –
“Exacerbated under stress, yes as I know from personal
experience how difficult I found it at times when placed
in situation that difficult just getting name our or asking
for a simple request.”
There is also the question of pain. Muscles used for speech are the same as those used for eating and receive their nervous impulses from the trigeminal nerve and tension in the facial nerve pathway would inevitably lead to pain.
People who stammer often feel embarrassed about it and this affects their sense of worth and self-respect. We noted Ms
Tunstall’s reference to fear of assault perhaps linked with childhood experience and childhood trauma can be a signfifcant causative factor with stammering. While stammering is more common among children it is found in adults too and I wonder how Ray’s outcome would have been affected if those dealing with him displayed even a rudimentary awareness of this significant issue.
Among psychologists who have raised substantial issues regarding police interrogations is G.H. Gudjohnson among them the matter of coercion. Three types of false confession have been identified by Gudjohnson –
1) Voluntary – A person will admit to an offence of which they are innocent while believing they are guilty. In the main this will relate to mental disorder where, for example, a schizophrenic may admit to a murder they have heard about.
2) Coerced Internalized - A person may mistrust their memory and be easily convinced of their guilt by the police
3) Coerced Compliant - An innocent and vulnerable person will
confess in order to escape from the
pressure of the coercive interview
situation
GudJohnson has cited as the most authoritative guide to interview techniques as Criminal Interrogations and Confessions – by F.E. Imbau, J.A. Reid and J.P. Buckley – Williams and Wilkins: Baltimore 1986. Here, nine steps are identified as leading to a “successful” interrogation. Within the context of Ray (and others) I find steps three and four of particular concern and wonder also how they define “successful”? is this in terms of truth or just the desired result –
3. HANDLING DENIALS The suspect is not allowed to
repeatedly deny the offence. The
interrogator intercepts denials
to prevent the suspect gaining a
psychological advantage
4. OVERCOMING OBJECTIONS - The interrogator does not
acknowledge reasons for
the suspects innocence.
Once the suspect realizes
objections get them nowhere
they stop making them
I know that unreliable confessions are frequently ignored especially when made by vulnerable and stressed people. The
system is as dysfunctional as that. People in Ray’s position must keep going and keep fighting and I wonder how much longer things will remain as they are before those with eyes to see and a will to respond will dig their heels in and declare “No, enough is enough.”
George Coombs
The Case of Ray Gilbert
Ray Gilbert has protested his innocence for thirty years and has known the full range of brutality and deception of which the system is capable. More than anything, I tend to think he is a victim of the blind unquestioning acceptance of bullying interrogation methods employed by the police and a lack of properly informed care in custody that is far from uncommon to this day
The offence occurred on Friday March 13th 1981. John Suffield, a Toxteth bookmaker is attacked by intruders and stabbed repeatedly. Two men were involved. The police Ray arrest three days later.
Raymond Gilbert was no stranger to the police and had past convictions over gang fights, robbery and other relatively minor matters. One of the things we share in common is having
undergone community service and, in a letter, Ray once asked me if I thought it worked. I have misgivings regarding this that I have documented elsewhere.
It is Ray’s questionable confession and the circumstances linked to it that I find particularly disturbing. Following arrest, he was alone in police custody. I have gathered that questioning continued relentless at various times of the night and day. There was little, if any, chance to rest.
Ray was a frightened and vulnerable young man. The environment was clearly uncontrolled and threatening. During this time, he made a confession under great pressure. The girl
friend Ray claimed to be with when Mr Suffield died changed her story. Yes, it does happen.
While on remand Ray retracted his confession. No evidence linked him to the crime, he has stated –
“Statements were made down to duress, assaults by the
Police, without any access to a solicitor during detention
in the police station, I think they were under pressure to
get a conviction”
A solicitor recalling seeing Ray shortly after the initial confession has said
“I recall that his clothing had been taken away from him
and that he was wearing either a blanket or white
disposable suit. I also recall that he had been in police
custody during which time he had been isolated from
his family and solicitors. He appeared to me to be
disorientated.”
Ray comes from a deprived inner city background; his mother is white and his father black. The chain of events leading to his conviction occurred against the backdrop of the Toxteth riots which Larry Nields of The Liverpool Daily Post reported as “..England’s worst ever inner city riots.”
Nields mentions the celebrated Liverpool Lawyer Rex Makin who represented who represented many victims of the riots – Makin told Neild –
“I acted for a number of people who were brutally treated and
assaulted by the police during the 1981 riots…I well remember
two black brothers who were in Liverpool Royal Infirmary
and they were handcuffed and manacled. It was just like
something you might see in Guantanamo Bay.”
It was a time of danger and tension between the police and black citizens. The chairperson of the Black Police Association has acknowledged widespread abuse of the black community and Ray himself has mentioned this in a recent letter.
The distinguished forensic psychologist Olive Tunstall examined Ray prior to his appeal process and what follows is extracted from her report dated April 1999 –
“In my opinion there is evidence to suggest that the confession
Mr. Gilbert made during the police interviews may have been
unreliable. I have based that opinion on the following
grounds. The first of these is as follows : Mr. Gilbert’s
personal vulnerability at the time (youth, limited
education, stammer, adverse social circumstances)
and, in my opinion, a profound fear of being physically
assaulted emanating from early childhood experiences,
his lack of access to legal advice and evidence that at the
time he made his confession he was in a high state of
anxiety.”
A key term here is “personal vulnerability.” The police interview is driven by a need for results with truth actually being of little in any importance. Ray was in a heightened state of
anxiety, he would have confessed to anything and from this situation alone ample grounds exist for challenging the integrity of his questioning and subsequent conviction.
Then, there is the stammer. People who stammer have difficulty in coordinating their speech muscles and need extra time to speak. How much ‘extra time’ was Ray allowed at the police interview? How much awareness was shown of the nature of this problem? Ray has commented in a letter –
“ No allowance was made for the fact that I had a speech impediment. Even now certain words come out as different ones…It is a point that should have been considered as a vulnerable aspect but police only interested in proving it was me by attitude of two interrogating police.”
The severity of a stammer can often relate to surroundings and in the police interview situation, it would inevitably worsen. In that same letter of 2/11/09 Ray has also commented –
“Exacerbated under stress, yes as I know from personal
experience how difficult I found it at times when placed
in situation that difficult just getting name our or asking
for a simple request.”
There is also the question of pain. Muscles used for speech are the same as those used for eating and receive their nervous impulses from the trigeminal nerve and tension in the facial nerve pathway would inevitably lead to pain.
People who stammer often feel embarrassed about it and this affects their sense of worth and self-respect. We noted Ms
Tunstall’s reference to fear of assault perhaps linked with childhood experience and childhood trauma can be a signfifcant causative factor with stammering. While stammering is more common among children it is found in adults too and I wonder how Ray’s outcome would have been affected if those dealing with him displayed even a rudimentary awareness of this significant issue.
Among psychologists who have raised substantial issues regarding police interrogations is G.H. Gudjohnson among them the matter of coercion. Three types of false confession have been identified by Gudjohnson –
1) Voluntary – A person will admit to an offence of which they are innocent while believing they are guilty. In the main this will relate to mental disorder where, for example, a schizophrenic may admit to a murder they have heard about.
2) Coerced Internalized - A person may mistrust their memory and be easily convinced of their guilt by the police
3) Coerced Compliant - An innocent and vulnerable person will
confess in order to escape from the
pressure of the coercive interview
situation
GudJohnson has cited as the most authoritative guide to interview techniques as Criminal Interrogations and Confessions – by F.E. Imbau, J.A. Reid and J.P. Buckley – Williams and Wilkins: Baltimore 1986. Here, nine steps are identified as leading to a “successful” interrogation. Within the context of Ray (and others) I find steps three and four of particular concern and wonder also how they define “successful”? is this in terms of truth or just the desired result –
3. HANDLING DENIALS The suspect is not allowed to
repeatedly deny the offence. The
interrogator intercepts denials
to prevent the suspect gaining a
psychological advantage
4. OVERCOMING OBJECTIONS - The interrogator does not
acknowledge reasons for
the suspects innocence.
Once the suspect realizes
objections get them nowhere
they stop making them
I know that unreliable confessions are frequently ignored especially when made by vulnerable and stressed people. The
system is as dysfunctional as that. People in Ray’s position must keep going and keep fighting and I wonder how much longer things will remain as they are before those with eyes to see and a will to respond will dig their heels in and declare “No, enough is enough.”
George Coombs