Chat – 25 July 2019

A car fire was

started to

destroy evidence

Gaut’s bloodied

body was found

in his flat

Thescrewdriver

usedinthe

brutalattack

LAST
IMAGE:

Gaut
on CCTV

Gautwas

heard

shouting

forhelp

WORDS:

JAMES

HANMAN.

PHOTOS:

REX

SHUTTERSTOCK,

GWENT

POLICE,

ATHENA

PICTURES,

GETTY

What do you think?

Turn for the verdict...

men dragged the body back to

Gaut’s flat, before trying to

dispose of incriminating evidence

by cleaning Osborne’s flat and

setting fire to a car said to

contain bloodied sheets.

One of the first officers to

enter Gaut’s flat after the

murder backed this up,

admitting they could see blood

smeared across the floor as a

result of a body being dragged.

Inside Osborne’s flat,

forensic teams discovered

blood spattered across the

walls, and Gaut’s DNA on

the handle of a knife on

the kitchen draining board.

But, while Evesham was

acquitted of the murder

charge due to a lack of

evidence, Osborne only

admitted to perverting

the course of justice by helping

to dispose of the body.

He pointed

the finger

at Harley,

claiming

that he was

the killer.

Osborne

told the court

he was in the

kitchen when

he heard Gaut

screaming for

help as Harley

attacked him

with a knife.

‘I could

hear some

arguing and

shouting,’

he said.

‘Then I heard Harley turn

around and call David a

paedophile. Then I heard a

sharp intake of breath.’

He added, ‘I could hear David

shouting out “help” and heard

him screaming. I felt scared.

I didn’t want to go into the lounge

because it sounded horrible.’

Osborne claimed that when

he finally did, he found Harley

standing over Gaut’s body with

a bloodied knife. But, instead of

calling the police, he admitted

going on a ‘drinking spree’.

He told the court, ‘It was

done. The police were going

to come anyway.’

Osborne and Harley were

caught on CCTV near a river,

where the police later found

Harley’s bloodstained clothes.

Harley’s

defence lawyer argued that

Harley had no idea how his

clothes came into contact with

blood, suggesting they might

have been stolen and worn by

the real killer.

They also told the jury the

evidence against Harley was

not conclusive.

‘His trainers

were tested

for blood,’ they

argued. ‘No

blood or DNA

attributed to

Mr Gaut was

retrieved on

either trainer.’

Harley’s

defence also

accused Osborne of telling

‘cunning lies’ to shift the blame

away from himself.

And Harley insisted that,

when he left Osborne’s flat to

go to bed, Gaut was still alive.

So was Osborne actually the

killer, blaming Harley

for a crime

he had committed?

The murder took

place in his flat,

after all, and blood

was found on his

walls and floor.

But the

prosecution drew

attention to another friend of

the three men, who’d been in

the pub with them the day

after Gaut died.

According to this witness,

the three defendants began

to speak about Gaut.

‘He heard them say that

Harley had

killed [Gaut]

because he

had murdered

a child...’

said the

prosecution.

‘They

said they

had carried

him back into

his flat but

they would have

to do something because

he was starting to smell.’

The next day, this witness

reported what he’d heard

to the police, leading to the

discovery and the arrests.

But how reliable was this

witness who’d been drinking

with the men? Was he just

covering for Osborne?

The defence argued Harley

was being unfairly blamed

• but what was the truth?
  Was he innocent or had he
  murdered Gaut as retribution
  for slaying an innocent child..?

15