Body Of Proof

by Darrell Brown, Sophie Ellis

A woman disappeared. A man was convicted. Case closed?

Body of Proof, a true crime podcast, examines the many unanswered questions surrounding the disappearance and death of Suzanne Pilley in Edinburgh in 2010 and the subsequent conviction of David Gilroy. Journalists and TV producers Darrell Brown and Sophie Ellis spent two years investigating the case and spoke exclusively to David Gilroy, who was convicted of murdering Suzanne Pilley and disposing of her body. Sentenced to life in a Scottish prison, Gilroy maintains his innocence. Although police believe they have the right man, key components of the prosecution’s case are missing: there is no body of the victim, no witnesses to the crime, and no physical evidence (no DNA, CCTV video, or murder weapon).

In this gripping, step-by-step investigation, Darrell Brown and Sophie Ellis uncover startling information not heard in court that might have changed the minds of the jurors. And they shine a light on aspects of the Scottish criminal justice system that might be keeping an innocent man behind bars.

A What’s the Story Films production for Audible.

Genres: Nonfiction, True Crime, Audiobook, Crime, Mystery, Scotland, History

10 pages, Audible Audio

First published September 5, 2019

Reviews

[Barbara · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Body of Proof” is a true crime podcast narrated by Darrell Brown and Sophie Ellis. It researches the 2010 disappearance of Suzanne Pilley in Edinburgh Scotland. David Gilroy was convicted of her death, in spite of the fact that there was no body and no forensic evidence. She disappeared allegedly on her way to work. Circumstantial evidence pointed to Gilroy, who reportedly had an affair with her. Yet, there was never any hard evidence or facts that involved Gilroy.

Producers Brown and Ellis do a fabulous job keeping the listener engaged while they thoroughly research this mysterious disappearance which resulted in a murder conviction. They educate the listener on Scottish law and how juries are mandated. It’s an interesting podcast, definitely worth the 5 hours of listening.

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

 Audible Original Selection for September 2019 5h 9 minutes 2 seconds

Well, this was a very intriguing true crime podcast that takes listeners to Edinburgh Scotland. The two journalists, Darrell Brown and Sophie Ellis are looking at the vanishing case of Suzanne Pilley and the subsequent murder trail and conviction of David Gilroy. Gilroy has always mantained his innocence and the body of Suzanne has never been found.

Brown and Ellis put forward in their ten chapter podcast the subject of the miscarriage of justice in the Scottish system and details that were never put forward to Gilroy's jury. Personally, when I hear no witnesses, no DNA, and no body, it boogles me that a jury could reach a conviction. Then again, I wasn't there in that courtroom.


Goodreads review 29/09/19

[BAM doesn’t answer to her real name · Rating 3 out of 5]

OMG! Shut up already so guilty

[Nancy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Please read the promotional description for the storyline.

Another Audible original free title, this one for September 2019. I'm giving this one 3.5-Stars. I had never heard of True Crime Podcasts until I read "Conviction" by Denise Mina. The impression I got from that book is they are popular in the U.K. The first two-thirds were interesting but it waned with the realization that this was not a work of fiction and nothing would be solved. The reporters did a good job with the podcast, very impressive. After listening to the Podcast I believe he is where he belongs but the prosection really needed more evidence.

[Crissy Brounce · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting case, well laid out and I was surprised by the the stark differences between the Scottish and US justice systems. I also wonder if there was evidence provided to the jury that wasn’t presented in this account as it seemed light for a 21? Day presentation by the prosecutors...

[Anthony Kozlowski · Rating 1 out of 5]

The investigators in this true crime podcast seem to reach a foregone conclusion that David Gilroy is an innocent man from the get-go. They do all sorts of mental gymnastics to discount the mountains of circumstantial evidence in this case, all in the service of capital “D” drama. The truth is that this isn’t a terribly interesting story and all the evidence (though not physical) is pretty damning. In posing tons of hypothetical and leading questions, Darrell Brown and Sophie Ellis stretch so far to sow the seeds of doubt, I was surprised neither of them snapped in half.

This story represents the worst tendencies of true crime pulp podcasts and seems downright disrespectful to the memory of Suzanne Pilley. Hard pass on this schlock. 1.4/5

[Alaina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Free on audible.

Body of Proof was an okay book to listen to. It's a little mystery that introduces you to a lot of characters. Some were okay but others, or at least their narrators, spoke too softly or way too fast for my brain to catch up to it. Luckily for me, I was so into the little podcast that it didn't really change my opinion on anything.

I do wish that it was a tad bit longer but definitely enjoyed every little detail and twist that came my way.

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I personally believe that David is innocent. If that's the case this man is wasting away in a Scottish prison for no reason while the abductor roams free and Susanne's family suffers. This was preformed perfectly. Well organized, well thought out, written in a way that grabs ahold of you and takes you along on the journey through case that has ZERO (as in NOTHING) scientific/forensic evidence.

[Kitty G Books · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid Audible series which reminds me of Serial :)

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first Audible Original I've tried and liked.

Author decided to revisit a murder conviction where there was absolutely no conclusive forensic evidence presented whatsoever. At the trial, the prosecution relied solely on implication via circumstantial evidence. Difficult to see how this meets the Reasonable Doubt level required?

I hadn't realized until now that unlike the rest of the Western world, Scotland requires a simple majority for a criminal conviction! Also uniquely, they have a third verdict of Not Proven, which seemed a total no-brainer in this case to me, but I suppose some jurors just did not want to see the defendant walk away on what they saw as a technicality.

My take away from this was that he was quite ill-served by his defense team. When the author's challenged the defendant regarding the prosecution's allegations of events, he sounded plausible enough to me in his refutations.

There were one or two places where I kind of wish they'd got on with it, finding those somewhat digressions, but overall I'm really glad that I listened.

[Alicia · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am not sure, if Scotts comprehend the concept of justice. There is no body, no evidence, no proof of murder, no blood, no DNA of the victim nor the perpetrator neither in his car nor in the office building under the stairs and jet he has been sentenced to life in prison - based on what? I am not saying he has not done it, but there is no evidence that could prove - beyond reasonable doubt - that a murder has been committed. And the concept of destroying evidence by the police after sentence is absolutely outrageous - I think Scotland is still ruled by the laws of dark ages. In a civilized country it would be unthinkable since appeals require reviewing the existing evidence. And one would imagine that the Middle East is would be the wrong place to get in trouble (Midnight Express). On the contrary- it is enough to travel to England to face injustice and get easily framed ...

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

This true crime podcast collected into an Audio original was only a little bit interesting. It's another one of those "kind of unsolved mysteries" - kind of because they actually convicted someone for the alleged murder.



In 2010, Suzanne Pilley, a bookkeeper in Edinburgh, went missing. Her body has never been found, but the police arrested David Gilroy, a coworker who had also been having an affair with her. Despite Gilroy's denials and a complete lack of forensic evidence, a Scottish court convicted him, and he is still in prison, having made several unsuccessful appeal attempts.

The narrators of this podcast dug into his case because they were interested in the Scottish justice system and concerned about whether it had made a mistake. There are no big reveals in their research and many interviews with David Gilroy, nor any solid conclusions. Suzanne Pilley remains missing; David Gilroy maintains his innocence.

The most interesting aspect of this case, of course, is the fact that there is literally no evidence that Pilley was even murdered, other than the fact that she disappeared. Given there is no other plausible reason why she would disappear, it's almost certain she is dead, but convicting her ex-boyfriend on what amounts to a "just so story" is concerning. The prosecutor constructed a scenario in which Gilroy was upset at her for leaving him (it's actually unclear who ended the relationship), strangled her, and took her body out into the hinterlands to bury it. With the timing and what little video footage they could recover of Pilley's whereabouts before her disappearance, it's a plausible scenario. It may even be a likely scenario. And yet the Scottish justice system, like the American system, requires certainty "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict someone. I have to say that based on what I heard, if I were on the jury I'd have felt like he probably did it, but certainly not beyond reasonable doubt. And it's hard to see how anyone could be convinced beyond reasonable doubt when there's no body, no evidence of violence, no forensic evidence at all, and Gilroy's alleged motive for killing her is pretty weak.

Also interesting to me was the reaction of both Pilley's family and Gilroy's. Pilley's family is utterly convinced Gilroy is guilty, and would not speak to anyone for the podcast because they didn't want to cooperate with anyone who might cast doubt on Gilroy's guilt. Emotionally, this is understandable, but how can they be so certain? I think honestly, they can't. Conversely, of course David's parents are sure he's innocent, but again, would even more compelling evidence convince them otherwise?

So this Audible original does raise some interesting questions, but it's ultimately a fairly uninteresting case.

[Liz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This one is for fans of true crime. It highlights what appear to be some glaring problems in the judicial system in Scotland. David Gilroy was convicted of murdering his co-worker ex-girlfriend. There was no body, no forensic evidence, and no one who had seen the two of them together. Apparently in Scotland you can be found guilty of murder if eight out of fifteen jurors believe it is proven beyond reasonable doubt; even when all of the evidence is circumstantial. So, eight years after the case, two reporters decide to look at the case with 'fresh eyes' and review all of the 'evidence'. This is a really fascinating case history. Was David Gilroy a weird guy? Probably. Did he kill Suzanne Pilley? Who knows. Was there actually any evidence against him? Nope. The reporters go over all of the 'evidence' for and against Gilroy. They interview various experts who comment on the situation. This was really interesting and piqued my interest in the judicial system in the UK.

[Jacob Steckbeck · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Scottish justice system is a wee bit screwed

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don’t know if the guy is guilty or innocent exactly but, if the facts are as they're presented here, I don’t think he’s been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While a couple of lines of circumstantial evidence appear to point to his guilt, most of it doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. How he could've carried out the murder and disposed of the body in the way that the prosecution claimed without leaving behind any physical evidence at all would have been quite an incredible magic trick.

The legal system here in Canada is by no means perfect, I’ve seen plenty of evidence of that, but it seems like the Scottish system is particularly broken, at least when it comes to any country that claims to adhere to rule of law.

One thing I don’t care for with true crime stuff of this sort is that there is no closure. I don’t know if David Gilroy will ever get another shot at proving his innocence and it’s very unlikely that I will ever find out what really happened to Suzanne Pilley.

Still, it did draw me in and keep me interested.

[Marsha · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think that I would be a horrible juror in this type of case. And I am a strong believer in the US's form, rather than Ireland's,They had 15 jurors, and conviction was based on "MAJORITY RULE" as opposed to unanimity! Seriously? And they had NO EVIDENCE against him! All that they had was a proposed theory of what might have happened! The case was totally ridiculous! There was a possibility, I suppose BUT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE! But, the more someone says "her did it!", the more difficult it is to hold against back conviction! Just because there is a SUGGESTED method that he MIGHT have used, that does not prove the case!
I appreciate that the authors observed the whole case, from start to end and attempted to keep an open mind. They pointed out others' views and suggested different interpretations. But still, the whole case was lacking, at best.

[Jennifer Bernardini · Rating 3 out of 5]

In Body of Proof we follow the true story of David Gilroy who was convicted of the murder of Suzanne Pilley in Scotland. What stands out about this conviction is that he was found guilty with absolutely no forensic evidence or body. No eye witnesses saw him doing anything. No one ever saw him hurt her or anyone else. And yet, he sits behind bars, convicted through a chain of circumstantial evidence.
This book goes through, step by step, all of the evidence ( and lack of) as well as the court case that followed.
It doesn't seem like there's any evidence at all that would be enough to convict him, however there are "suspicious" circumstances that leave doubt in your mind as to his innocence.
Did he kill Suzanne? I have no idea and it doesn't seem like anyone else does either. Was there enough evidence to convict him? You'd think not, but he was convicted none the less.

[Denise · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 2010, Suzanne Pilley vanished without a trace on her way to work. Eventually, her colleague David Gilroy with whom she'd been having an affair was arrested for her murder and sentenced to life in prison - without a body, a shred of forensic evidence, a witness or a confession. He has maintained his innocence ever since. The presenters of this podcast spent two years digging into the case and trying to solve the mystery of Suzanne Pilley's disappearance and David Gilroy's guilt or innocence once and for all. An intriguing true crime case.

[Chalay Cragun · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a classic podcast on trying to exonerate a imprisoned man. I always enjoy looking into cases and citizens taking time to investigate crimes as well as the police. I found it pretty interesting because they were in Scotland and did a good job explaining some differences in the UK justice system. I don't feel like the case itself was as interesting as some other cases I've followed but it did leave me with questions on if the guy had really done it because of lack of forensic evidence.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well-done and full of interesting information about Scotland's legal system, as well as many questions about one particular case and whether or not the person convicted was wrongfully accused. At times, it was a little bit repetitive, but overall not bad; although, I do wish it had a more satisfying, or at least a conclusive ending.

[Kelly_Hunsaker_reads ... · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting listen, that shows why journalists need to be part of the system. Some of them dedicate years of their lives to understanding one event. I was very impressed with the dedication these people had to finding the truth and getting justice.

[Girish · Rating 3 out of 5]

A woman disappeared. A man was arrested. He was adjudged guilty by a jury on circumstancial evidence. No body was found, no forensic evidence and the prosecution case is full of holes. 

The audible original focuses on exploring the different strands of the prosecution case and tries to establish 'reasonable doubt'. It also critiques the legal process which allows for a circumstancial case to determine the fate of the accused.

What was painful was that at the end of the procedural there is absolutely no change in the result. True crime investigation procedurals are more informative than exciting. And that means you've established one of the prosecution aspect doesn't hold - it is easy to disparage the rest of it. That's what the book does.

A decent production which could have been edited better.

[Sorrell · Rating 2 out of 5]

This 10 episode investigation could have been one long episode. Considering they investigated it for 2 year, they basically came up with nothing that they didn’t already have at the beginning of the case. Really really strung out non-evidence and boring lines of questioning. All the avenues that they could’ve taken to make this an interesting listen were lost.
The two journalists are so uncharismatic.
The only good thing we’re a couple of the experts which they talked to, even though these were left dry and they did pursue them with good lines of questioning.
Sounds like a couple of basic journos listened to Serial and thought “we can do that!”… doesn’t look so easy on the other side does it?

[SheriC · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting true-crime audio, really more of a podcast than book. The authors re-examine the evidence convicting a man of murdering the woman who had been having an affair with her. It's an interesting look at Scotland's criminal justice system, which has some startling differences from the American system I'm more familiar with, but seems similarly broken. What most resonated with me is the authors' assertion that your average person believes in the fairness of their justice system, until they actually have first hand experience with it.

This was one of Audible's monthly freebies for members

[Ralph · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars out of 5 - Another free True Crime podcast from Audible.

True Crime is a genre that I don't frequently visit, but since Audible Originals has offered a couple of British podcasts recently, I decided to give this one a listen.

A woman disappears on her way to work. A man is convicted of her murder. Reporters investigate inconsistencies in the case to determine whether or not the right person was convicted.

Mostly interesting, but some of the theories presented seemed forced and didn't seem to be compelling. Although Darrell Brown is credited as the sole author and narrator, it was a collaboration with Sophie Ellis, who appeared to be the stronger investigator of the two.

[Martti · Rating 1 out of 5]

I find getting more and more bored of various iterations of true crime. Now in this podcast series and/or Audible DRM only form. It's like this John le Carre novel of digging in the past, but only it's more sad, tragic and there's nothing you can do about it. Do you need another story of helplessness?

[Kara Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

I guess my streak of nonfiction books continue. I saved this one for my thriller month since it was about a murder. I enjoyed it overall but found it slightly disjointed and I wished the recordings could have been cleared up a bit better. Not a terrible dive into true crime.

[Mary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting crime investigation in Scotland. Did he do it or didn't he?

[Sara (A Gingerly Review) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Now this was a good listen.

[Rachel England-Brassy · Rating 1 out of 5]

It doesn’t go anywhere or add any thing to the story.