Russell Causley : The body of evidence?
Paul C. Dickie
of a murder victim to convict his/her killer.
But I do believe it would be *nice* if the prosecution could actually
prove that the alleged victim was actually dead. In the case of the
twice-convicted Russell Causley, they seemed unable to do that. So
instead, it was claimed that Causley embarked on "an elaborate charade"
to prove that his missing wife was still alive.
I've no idea why the 11 person jury found him guilty for a second time;
his first conviction was quashed because of "problems" with evidence and
alleged confessions to fellow prisoners whilst on remand for a separate
and unconnected charge.
But his daughter stated [1] that she'd seen a note from her mother to
the effect that she had "had enough and was going" and that her mother
had apparently left her wedding ring on top of the note.
<quote>
Giving evidence at Exeter Crown Court, Mrs Gillingham said that in early
1985 her mother was "very sad, very upset" and drinking heavily.
The 35-year-old property manager said: "On the day I last saw her I went
to London with my father. He said we were meeting Patricia Causley [his
mistress] for lunch."
She recalled that when she and her father returned to Ipswich Road
"there was a note and my mother's wedding ring on the note on the work
top.
"The note said words to the effect she had had enough and she was
going."
<unquote>
Another witness -- the brother of the alleged victim -- stated [2] that
she had telephoned him:
<quote>
At Exeter Crown Court on Tuesday, Brendan Thornton said the last time he
saw his sister, known as Carol, was around 1975.
But in mid-1985 he received a telephone call from her "out of the blue"
in which she "intimated she might be going abroad to start work".
He said she told him that "life begins at 40" and that she was "getting
a new life".
<unquote>
Then there's the behaviour of Causley himself: from sometime after his
wife vanished until (at least) August 1996 -- some eleven years -- he
had been paying storage charges for his wife's belongings. Had he known
her to be dead, would he not have disposed of those items?
On March 23, Prosecutor Bruce Holder QC had alleged that it was not long
before Mr Causley murdered his wife that he moved his lover Patricia
Causley into the then marital home at Ipswich Road, Bournemouth.
The next day, that claim was shown to be mistaken, when Mrs Gillingham
stated that she'd last seen her mother in June 1985 and that, about a
year before that, Patricia Causley had moved into the family home in
Ipswich Road, Bournemouth, where her father was operating an insurance
business for which she worked.
Having "the other woman" residing in the same house might seem to be a
good motive for the wife to depart and/or seek a divorce which latter
she had actually started [3]:
<quote>
On the last day anyone had heard from her, 15 June, 1985, she had
consulted a solicitor about a divorce from what the prosecutor suggested
was a "ruthless and utterly determined man".
Since that date her solicitor had not heard from her and his £23 bill
remained unpaid, the jury at Exeter Crown Court was told.
<unquote>
But then, Mr Causley had also considered a divorce [3]:
<quote>
Mr Causley too had started consultations over a divorce, but, after June
1985, he stopped those attempts.
"If he thought his wife was alive why not pursue the divorce?" said Mr
Holder, adding that Mr Causley told the lawyer his wife had "gone
walkabout".
<unquote>
One might wonder how divorce papers could have been successfully served
on a woman who had completely disappeared. That might indeed have been
part of the "elaborate charade" claimed by the prosecution -- but an
alternative explanation might be that he didn't want to marry his
mistress or that he may indeed have thought his wife was still alive.
But the most astounding statement was made by Christopher Lee, the
Deputy Chief Constable of Dorset Police, after Mr Causley had been
convicted and sentenced [4]:
<quote>
Evidence has always pointed to Russell Causley being responsible for the
murder, and the verdict of the court today reflects the evidence in the
case."
<unquote>
What "evidence"? They can't even prove she's dead, let alone murdered.
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3565095.stm
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3562105.stm
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3558721.stm
[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3589561.stm
--
< Paul >