-
Body of Proof
- By: Sophie Ellis, Darrell Brown
- Podcast
Add to basket failed.
Add to wishlist failed.
Remove from wishlist failed.
Adding to library failed
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
Body of Proof
-
Summary
-
Sep 4 201934 minsAdd to basket failed.
Please try again laterAdd to wishlist failed.
Please try again laterRemove from wishlist failed.
Please try again laterAdding to library failed
Please try againFollow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
-
Sep 4 201935 minsAdd to basket failed.
Please try again laterAdd to wishlist failed.
Please try again laterRemove from wishlist failed.
Please try again laterAdding to library failed
Please try againFollow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
-
Sep 4 201932 minsAdd to basket failed.
Please try again laterAdd to wishlist failed.
Please try again laterRemove from wishlist failed.
Please try again laterAdding to library failed
Please try againFollow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
What listeners say about Body of Proof
Average customer ratingsReviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews.
-
Overall3 out of 5 stars
-
Performance4 out of 5 stars
-
Story4 out of 5 stars
- Lizzie
- 20-09-19
Gripping listen but missing chunks
I really enjoyed listening to this and found it to be well presented and interesting, however, I couldn't help feel that it was biased towards Gilroy in order to highlight the issues with the judicial system and make a point. This became frustrating for me. For example, there is a bit where they mention that all of his co-workers believe he was responsible and that he was a strange and difficult character. The presenter then comments that she hadn't picked up on that when talking to him, and the podcast moved on. We don't hear WHY they all think that, what has David done in order for them all to believe him guilty of MURDER? They also have a clip of Suzanne's friend saying that she told him that her and David often went to the basement. They then don't push this AT ALL with David when he says he has only been there once with a manager. I didn't understand why they didn't say to David that Suzanne said otherwise. That's a big deal. He says he hasn't got a key, but how is he getting in there with Suzanne?... Interesting listen, but chunks of information missing in my opinion.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
36 people found this helpful
-
Overall2 out of 5 stars
-
Performance3 out of 5 stars
-
Story1 out of 5 stars
- C. Vyse
- 15-09-19
Superficially entertaining but poorly researched
On the surface, at first listen, Sophie Ellis and Darrell Brown appear to have done their research. They speak to people directly involved in the case, they reach out to many others who chose not to speak to them. They travel to relevant locations. Production is of a general good quality and the flow of the podcast maintains engagement.
Unfortunately, however, it succumbs to common pitfalls many true crime podcasts do; bias, sensationalism, inaccuracies. While presenting itself as a balanced summary of a case shining light on information that wasn't available to the public, the presenters slide into bias, sensationalism, then at times outright acceptance of the narrative of the convicted's innocence (see episode 9 in particular). This could be forgiven if the listener was reminded that we're playing devil's advocate here and considering alternative scenarios. But the podcast instead insults the listener's intelligence, simply forgetting how obscenely implausible the alternative scenarios are in the grand scheme of things and asking us to not question what we're hearing.
The podcast touches on what it sees at some failings of the UK / Scottish justice system, namely the adversarial nature of it - accused is presumed innocent, prosecution makes their case, defence critiques the prosecution's case, jury decides essentially which side they believe is more plausible - the failings are seen to be that the truth falls by the wayside, and compelling stories from both sides are preferred.
Without irony, the podcast then ignores objective truth, forgets to ever mention large swathes of charges that were also levied against Gilroy at his initial trial - offences of violence towards his wife and children, (we never hear that these allegations include brandishing a knife at his wife, hitting her with a frying pan, threatening his children with violence - all dropped after his wife refused to take the stand). We never here about previous breach of the peace incidents at Crieff hydro. We never hear that Gilroy assaulted and threatened to stab and kill a neighbour of Suzanne's and brandished a fistful of car keys at him when he'd appeared concerned after overhearing an argument at her flat.
We never hear that David purchased a quantity of charcoal at a petrol station on his travels to / from Lochgilphead that were claimed to be for a BBQ. We never hear that his wife and children no longer stand by him, and have dropped the Gilroy name.
There's much much more that anyone with even a passing interest in the case from the Edinburgh area is well aware of, and is corroborated. However the purpose of the podcast isn't to inform the listener - it's to present a compelling, and on-the-surface plausible alternative revisionist version of events.
If you don't care about the real effects misinformation like this can have in the real world, with crowdfunding and public perception playing an ever greater role in the way justice is handled - crack on. With rational thought switched off this is an enjoyable listen. But in a world where the truth counts for less and less, this podcast and many like it represent a depressing and dangerous trend towards valuing unscrutinised stories that kind-of make sense only on the surface more than anything else.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
25 people found this helpful
-
Overall3 out of 5 stars
-
Performance5 out of 5 stars
-
Story4 out of 5 stars
- Paul Kelly
- 17-09-19
A good true crime podcast
This is quite a good podcast however I personally felt that the presenters were pushing a narrative, that Gilroy is innocent. There is no breaking outcome or answers from this podcast, nothing that made me think WOW! Further I felt they could have gone more into the odd/suspicious behaviour from Gilroy, rather than just taking his word during interviews. Also they could have pressed him during the interviews rather than trying to be friendly.
Overall quite a good listen, very well presented and put together podcast.
Other great podcasts on truecrime - Serial, Beyond Reasonable Doubt and True Crime Bullsh*
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
24 people found this helpful
-
Overall5 out of 5 stars
-
Performance5 out of 5 stars
-
Story5 out of 5 stars
- Jack Jarvis
- 05-09-19
The UK's answer to Serial!
I was completely hooked, and binged this in an entire day! Didn't know about the case beforehand, but I was gripped, horrified and terrified at times by this brilliant podcast. Very well put together, and it wasn't over the top like some American shows can be!
Anyway, this is well worth a listen if, like me, you're obsessed with true crime! Great to have a quality British listen, with two refreshingly British voices.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
21 people found this helpful
-
Overall5 out of 5 stars
-
Performance5 out of 5 stars
-
Story5 out of 5 stars
- Katherine Molyneux
- 10-09-19
Binge listened!
This was gripping from the start - and once I'd started to listen, I couldn't stop. It's a well thought out account and analysis of what appears to be a rather wobbly conviction. Sophie and Darren are thoughtful in their research and have empathy with the people they interview. They show no judgement or bias in their narration, so I didn't feel I was being led in a particular direction by them. Thoroughly enjoyed it - looking forward to the next one, please!
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
14 people found this helpful
-
Overall4 out of 5 stars
-
Performance5 out of 5 stars
-
Story5 out of 5 stars
- Anonymous User
- 08-09-19
Great!
If you love "discovery investigation tv programme" you will love this. It is very similar as if you were watching a TV programme.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
13 people found this helpful
-
Overall2 out of 5 stars
-
Performance2 out of 5 stars
-
Story4 out of 5 stars
- L MCVICAR
- 08-10-19
I wouldn't bother
The narration is very contrived and there seems to be many gaps in the story. Very selective on the information provided. Becomes very unbelievable, as if they are clutching at straws to make an alternative story fit
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
11 people found this helpful
-
Overall3 out of 5 stars
-
Performance3 out of 5 stars
-
Story3 out of 5 stars
- Jennifer Chennell
- 24-10-19
Great Story
This is "beyond a reasonable doubt" a great listen but unbiased, wholly truthful and reliable? No, huge amounts of info that is in the public domain corroborated and pertinent to the case that all points to the perpetrator being guilty and therefore doesn't fit the predetermined narrative of this podcast has simply been ignored. The jury were right.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
9 people found this helpful
-
Overall1 out of 5 stars
-
Performance1 out of 5 stars
-
Story1 out of 5 stars
- heidi.olivia
- 04-03-20
Guilty
Just hearing the guy speak, I have no doubt in my mind he did it, I don’t think I’ve ever felt that way. It’s kind of annoying how they are leaning to his innocence with really poor explanations. He’s not even putting much effort into lying, there is no emotion behind anything he says, does that seem like someone who has been falsely accused of Murder? He just knows that all the evidence is circumstantial so he’s going along with it.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
6 people found this helpful
-
Overall5 out of 5 stars
-
Performance5 out of 5 stars
-
Story5 out of 5 stars
- Alexandru Taradaciuc
- 13-09-19
Binged all
Interesting. Keep up the good work. Followed all this on google maps :p got me hooked and made my wheels spin :)
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
5 people found this helpful
-
Overall1 out of 5 stars
-
Performance1 out of 5 stars
-
Story1 out of 5 stars
- GCS18
- 20-01-20
So desperate for counter argument!
I find this SHAMELESS. That poor family. I hope they never have to listen to this ridiculous defense of their daughter’s murderer.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
3 people found this helpful
-
Overall5 out of 5 stars
-
Performance5 out of 5 stars
-
Story5 out of 5 stars
- Gina day
- 28-08-20
Sad
So frustrating! Such an interesting story, because its true makes it so good! I feel like the reporters found more evidence than the defence
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
2 people found this helpful
-
Overall2 out of 5 stars
-
Performance3 out of 5 stars
-
Story2 out of 5 stars
- booklover
- 08-10-21
Unnecessary
I have listened to the first six episodes and I'm tired of this show. It goes nowhere and has nothing new to offer. The case is compelling in itself because a man has convicted of a murder with no evidence but the show doesn't seem to add anything new to this troubling story
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
1 person found this helpful
-
Overall5 out of 5 stars
-
Performance5 out of 5 stars
-
Story5 out of 5 stars
- Cliente de Kindle
- 31-08-20
Nice investigation
Interesting documentary that made me stay there, listening, all the way to the end. Good narrators and a great case.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
1 person found this helpful
-
Overall5 out of 5 stars
-
Performance5 out of 5 stars
-
Story5 out of 5 stars
- Christian Fullerton Amendola
- 08-02-23
Exceptional.
I didn't want it to end. I am hoping for a sequel, or some form of a follow up.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
-
Overall1 out of 5 stars
-
Performance1 out of 5 stars
-
Story1 out of 5 stars
- belinda r.
- 30-11-22
Ridiculous and waste of time!
This is not a case worthy of review; he was convicted by a jury and lost an appeal. He has an answer, however ridiculous or incredulous, for everything. If two reporters want to reinvestigate a crime and prosecution, at least have a retired top investigator as part of the reporting, otherwise stick to journalism. Otherwise stick to journalism instead of trampling on the victim and her family’s rights.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
-
Overall5 out of 5 stars
-
Performance5 out of 5 stars
-
Story5 out of 5 stars
- Karen
- 23-06-22
Very interesting
An unsolved cold case in Scotland is explored in detail. This is not a gory or particularly disturbing listen, except for the fact that a body has never been found. If you enjoy mysteries that don’t get resolved but are explored in depth, you’ll like this podcast
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
-
Overall5 out of 5 stars
-
Performance5 out of 5 stars
-
Story5 out of 5 stars
- DarkDragonFury420
- 01-02-22
Neutral? Objective?? Not even close.
While I was riveted the entire time I listened to this, I was on the fence about the entire case, so I did some research of my own.
***SPOLIERS***
These reporters did a great job at adding doubt to an already closed case. However, why did they not include damning evidence that WAS in the trial? Such as Gilroy showing up to the police station with makeup on his hands and arms covering numerous scratches. Also, added to the damage to the springs on his vehicle, freshly torn vegetation was found in the undercarriage of his vehicle. And lastly, the trip he took that took him almost 2 hours longer than it should have... There were 124 unaccounted for miles on his vehicle once he reached his destination.
I loved this podcast, but being objective was absolutely NOT the route this expose took in the least. None of us were there during the trial, but most of us are able to do our own research into what is absolutely public information. I garnered all the facts I have stated here from actual transcripts from the trial (some of these facts were in this narrative, but severely cut or omitted in their entirety). All in all, this is a great listen. However, don't be cowtowed into thinking that this is anywhere near a true or accurate representation of all of the evidence that was presented to the 15 jurors over the 21 days the prosecution used to make the case that convicted Gilroy of murdering Pelley in 2012.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
-
Overall4 out of 5 stars
-
Performance4 out of 5 stars
-
Story4 out of 5 stars
- A.M.A
- 12-01-22
listening in Mayberry
the story interesting, the great details , although sad to relive the telling of someone loss of life ,still compellede to listen till the end, come to your own conclusions
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
-
Overall5 out of 5 stars
-
Performance5 out of 5 stars
-
Story5 out of 5 stars
- Devin
- 22-10-21
I'm disturbed by the conviction
Don't expect to come away from this podcast with any answers to the disappearance of Suzanne Pilley. It's a deep dive into the prosecution's case against her alleged killer and they find reasonable doubt every step of the way, but no answers.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!