Open Letter by Dr Mike Naughton

Published February 17, 2026 | By LozandSam

Dr Mike Naughton has written an open letter in support of Robins ongoing CCRC application which we have detailed below:

To Dame Vera Baird, Chair, Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, and the Public at Large

Date: 11 February 2026

Dear Sirs and Madams,

As an independent forensic investigator and advocate for miscarriage of justice cases, I am compelled to publish this open letter to highlight critical unresolved issues in the conviction of Robin Garbutt for the murder of his wife, Diana Garbutt, on March 23, 2010. Garbutt, now 60, has served over 15 years of a life sentence while steadfastly maintaining his innocence, claiming an armed robber was responsible. His case has gained renewed scrutiny amid the Post Office Horizon scandal, which has exposed systemic flaws in evidence relied upon for hundreds of wrongful convictions. This letter draws on case documents, forensic analyses, witness testimonies, and newly corroborated evidence to argue that Garbutt’s conviction is unsafe and warrants immediate referral to the Court of Appeal.

Garbutt’s fourth CCRC application, submitted in 2025, remains under active review by a new case manager, with reports indicating a thorough examination is underway. However, the cumulative weight of evidential anomalies, many unaddressed at trial, in his prior appeal or applications to the CCRC, demands transparency and action. Below, I outline key findings from my investigations, including specific thoughts on overlooked aspects such as the murder weapon’s placement, neighbour movements, and forensic oversights, as well as new potential evidence supporting a revised time of death (TOD).

1. The Horizon Scandal and the Fabricated Financial Motive

The prosecution’s core narrative, that Garbutt murdered Diana to conceal theft and false accounting from the Post Office, relied heavily on Horizon system data showing alleged discrepancies of over £16,000. Yet, Garbutt was never charged with any financial offenses, rendering this motive speculative and unproven. The question I find myself asking, did the Post Office choose not to push for the charge of theft as they were already aware of issues with the Horizon software?

The Horizon scandal has since discredited such data, with faulty software causing false shortfalls in hundreds of cases. This omission breaches principles of fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR and precedents like R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631, where uncharged misconduct must be handled cautiously. Without a valid motive, the conviction rests on circumstantial evidence that crumbles under scrutiny.

2. The Murder Weapon: Evidence of Planting and Forensic Mismanagement

The alleged murder weapon, a rusty iron bar, was “discovered” by police on March 25, 2010, two days after the murder, atop an 8-foot-high wall opposite the post office, near Bill Nixon’s garage. The prosecution claimed Garbutt planted it post-murder, but this is untenable:

ITV Footage and Corroborating Evidence: Time-stamped ITV (Tyne Tees) footage from March 23-25, 2010, including un-broadcast material authenticated by ITV, shows no bar on the wall on the day of the murder or the next. A specific highly pixelated (allowing close examination) image captured at 12:15 on March 23 clearly confirms its absence. Journalists and locals, including those perched on the wall for photos, corroborate this. Garbutt, removed from the scene by police and staying 70 miles away with family (confirmed by witness statements), could not have placed it later.
Garage Witness Testimony: A male employee from Bill Nixon’s garage provided evidence aligning with the ITV footage, stating he never saw the bar prior to its “discovery” and noting its position was inaccessible from the public side without aid (e.g., a telegraph pole, which tests show is impossible for someone of Garbutt’s height). Nixon himself testified similarly at trial. The bar’s sudden appearance suggests staging, possibly from the garage side (only 3-4 feet high), possibly by someone with access.
DNA Anomalies: The bar bore Diana’s DNA, an unidentified male’s, and PC Darren Thompson’s (the discovering officer). Thompson’s DNA also appeared on the pillow where Diana’s head lay, with no Garbutt DNA on either. Thompson claimed possible contamination via sneeze or gloves, but this indicates chain-of-custody breaches or negligence by North Yorkshire Police (NYP). No blood spatter on Garbutt or his clothing further exonerates him.

Why place a weapon so near the scene? This defies logic for a fleeing robber or Garbutt himself.

3. Neighbour Movements and Unexplained Forensic Findings

North Yorkshire Police (NYP) failed to corroborate neighbours’ movements on the murder morning, despite discrepancies warranting scrutiny. A close neighbour refused an initial DNA sample. Blood from that same neighbour was later found in the post office bathroom/living area, unexplained and unprobed. This neighbour misled police about their movements (e.g., claiming they sat in their car listening to music post-murder). They had potential access to the garage side of the wall (3-4 feet high), facilitating weapon placement. Why was this role not explored more thoroughly? This breaches PACE 1984 duties for balanced investigation.

4. New Potential Evidence Supporting a Revised Time of Death

The prosecution’s TOD estimate (2:30-4:30am, based on digestion of a fish and chips meal) was contested at trial but remains pivotal. New analysis of witness statements, a far more senior pathologies and scene details supports a later TOD, closer to 8:30am, aligning with Garbutt’s account of an armed robber, not to mention the account of Mr Brian Hurd who clearly recalled hearing a female voice shout from above the post office shop area, “Robin” to which Garbutt replied either “yes Di” or “yes dear”.

Upon discovering Diana’s body face down in bed, Garbutt rolled her onto her back to check for signs of life. He reported that her body was still warm to the touch, inconsistent with death hours earlier (rigor mortis and cooling would have set in). A significant amount of blood then bled out from her wounds, not only covering the pillows and soaking through them, but also penetrating the bed sheet and leaving a substantial stain on the mattress below. Although it is known that blood pooling can cause blood to continue to “bleed out”, this volume of fresh, ongoing bleeding indicates circulation had only recently ceased, post-mortem bleeding of this extent would be minimal if death occurred at the latest around 4:00am, as it suggests the heart was still pumping or had stopped very recently.
A neighbour who attended the scene immediately after Garbutt’s call clearly stated she thought she saw Diana’s hand move, implying possible residual life or post-mortem twitch, but crucially supporting a very recent death. This was not fully explored at trial, where the focus was on earlier estimates.
Cadaveric Spasm Consideration: One of the paramedics who attended the scene stated they believed rigor mortis had already begun. In cases of sudden, violent trauma, such as the tragic and extreme circumstances of Diana’s attack, cadaveric spasm (also known as instantaneous rigor mortis or postmortem spasm) can occur. This rare phenomenon involves immediate muscular stiffening at or very near the moment of death due to intense physiological stress, extreme emotion, or violent struggle, skipping the normal flaccid phase before standard rigor mortis sets in. I am not an expert in pathology, however, it is well-documented in forensic pathology literature (e.g., Knight’s Forensic Pathology) as associated with violent deaths and can mimic early rigor. We must agree that Diana died under very tragic violent circumstances, which could explain the paramedic’s observation and aligns with the warmth, fresh bleeding, and possible hand movement, further supporting a much later TOD than the prosecution timeline.

These details, combined with customer testimonies of Garbutt’s normal behaviour that morning and a woman’s voice (possibly Diana’s) heard around 6:45am, undermine the prosecution’s timeline. If Diana died at or before 4:00am, Garbutt would have needed to clean up blood spatter (no traces found on him or recovered clothes), dispose of evidence (never found), precisely place the bar at 90 degrees on the wall with equidistant overhangs (impossible without ladders or a miraculous throw, and the bar wasn’t there anyway), and open the shop and act perfectly normally with a large number of customers. Compiled, this sequence is impossible, especially with the bar’s confirmed absence until March 25. Personally, this evidence, the ongoing blood flow, warmth, possible movement, paramedic observation, and timeline implausibility, is by far the strongest to prove Garbutt’s innocence. Independent forensic re-evaluation is essential, as initial pathology (by a less experienced expert) may have overstated precision.

5. Other Evidential Failings

Untested Items and Investigative Oversights: A heavy knit balaclava and replica handgun (ball-bearing gun) were found less than 20 miles away (behind a pub in Thornaby) on the evening after the murder (March 24, 2010). Cleveland Police notified North Yorkshire Police, but NYP never requested or collected the items for forensic examination (e.g., DNA or fingerprint testing). As far as is known, they remain in Cleveland Police’s evidence locker. This clear failure to pursue potentially exculpatory evidence, directly relevant to Garbutt’s armed robber claim, demonstrates breaches of PACE 1984 (investigative duties), CPIA 1996 (disclosure and pursuit of relevant material), and College of Policing guidelines on conducting full, fair, and proportionate investigations. Hair on the pillow (photographed but missing from logs) was never analysed that did not match the hair of either Diana Garbutt or Garbutt.
Handedness Inconsistency: Wound patterns suggest a left-handed attacker; Garbutt is right-handed.
Scene Staging: Bedside lamps found in the wardrobe post-murder indicate possible interference.
Ignored Leads: Suspicious individuals reported in the area were not pursued, favouring a focus on Garbutt.The cumulative effect, non-disclosure under CPIA 1996, ineffective defense, and investigative bias, renders the conviction unsafe. Garbutt’s case echoes Horizon victims like Seema Misra, wrongly imprisoned amid faulty evidence.

I call on the CCRC to expedite its review and refer the case, and urge the Justice Secretary to investigate NYP’s handling. Public support is vital, sign petitions at robingarbuttofficial.com and share this letter.

In the interest of justice,

Mr Michael Thomas Naughton – Forensic Investigator – Lewis Legal Ltd

Open Letter by Dr Mike Naughton

54 Signatures