Suzanne Pilley trial: Accused stays silent as court told Suzanne dumped in lonely grave

David Gilroy, 49, could have testified yesterday, as the case in his defence was presented to the jury at the High Court in Edinburgh.

However, Gilroy’s QC, Jack Davidson, told the court that, having received legal advice, the accused “has elected not to give evidence”.

In its closing speech to the jury, the Crown claimed a “convincing and compelling” case against Gilroy, who had kept Ms Pilley’s body in the boot of his car at home overnight, before taking it to a lonely grave somewhere in Argyll, “where she is now,” said the advocate-depute, Alex Prentice, QC.

Gilroy, 49, of Silverknowes Brae, Edinburgh, denies murdering Ms Pilley, 38, of Whitson Road, Edinburgh, on 4 May, 2010, by unknown means, and hiding her body in the premises of Infrastructure Managers Limited (IML), in Thistle Street, Edinburgh, where they both worked, before transporting it in the boot of his car to various locations in Scotland.

Her remains have never been found.

After Mr Davidson announced that Gilroy would not give evidence, witnesses called by the defence spoke of having seen nothing unusual in the office on the day Ms Pilley disappeared on her way to work.

A policeman who had searched Gilroy’s car said there had been no distinctive smell in the boot. Earlier in the trial, Crown witnesses had spoken of a fresh, clean smell.

Mr Prentice opened his speech to the jury by describing Ms Pilley as a woman who had been looking for someone to settle down with, and perhaps have children. She had made a routine journey to work on the morning of Tuesday, 4 May, 2010, and had been seen on closed circuit television a few yards from the IML office.

“She has never been seen since. The Crown case is that Suzanne Pilley met David Gilroy, that they went to the basement in that building together, quite possibly with the consent of both, and that he killed her,” said Mr Prentice.

“He placed her body in the recess [under an internal staircase]. He got his car from home, brought it to the garage, placed her dead body in the boot, took her home and next day transported her to a lonely grave somewhere in Argyll where she is now.”

Mr Prentice said there was no direct evidence, making it a circumstantial case. One way of looking at a circumstantial case was to think of a cable made of lots of individual strands. Those strands could each be weak and thin, but together they could be built up into a very strong cable.

He conceded that the prosecution could not say what had happened to Ms Pilley.

“You might say, ‘How do you expect us to convict a man of murder when you cannot say she was strangled, poisoned, shot, suffocated?’ Looking at the whole evidence, you can conclude she was murdered, and it is not necessary for the Crown to demonstrate the precise mechanism of death,” Mr Prentice said.

Gilroy was not to be judged because he had an affair with Ms Pilley and had been unfaithful to his wife, but the intensity of the relationship was important.

In the weeks before her death, Ms Pilley had received more than 430 texts and 49 telephone calls from Gilroy, up to the day before she went missing.

She had started seeing another man, and a possessive and manipulative Gilroy, the jury might think, was not happy about it and did not want to let go.

“There is nothing on the day she goes missing. He does not contact her. Why not? Why does he not get in touch and leave a message, like others have done, ‘Suzanne, where are you? We are worried. Give us a call.’ Nothing from him. I suggest the most glaringly obvious reason is he knows there is no purpose in doing that because she is dead and he has her phone,” said Mr Prentice.

“Taking all the evidence together, the only just conclusion in this convincing and compelling case is to return a verdict of guilty.”

Mr Davidson will address the jury today.

The trial continues.