Jeff Gilham’s case is complex, and on some issues it can be confusing.
Here we try to address the most common questions asked about the circumstances of the tragic events of August 28, 1993, the police investigations and the legal case. This is divided into sections for ease of navigation.
If your own questions are not answered here, we invite you to ask them of us, using the contact form on this site.
Events of August 28, 1993
1. What is Jeff’s version of events for the night?
2. Is there any physical evidence to show that Christopher might have stabbed his parents?
3. What is the explanation for Jeff having his mother’s blood on his foot?
4. Why was there no blood or fingerprints found on the knife used in the stabbings?
5. If Jeff is innocent of killing his parents, why did he chase and stab his brother so aggressively?
6. Why did Jeff try to prevent firefighters from entering the burning house?
Police investigations
1. Why were the investigating police so convinced of Jeff’s guilt?
Supplementary facts and events
1. Did Jeff try to take his Nana’s house when the estate was settled?
2. How do you explain Jeff’s clothing found in the lounge room?
3. Why would Christopher attempt suicide by overdosing on paracetamol? This seems unlikely.
Post court rulings
1. Has Jeff been released on a “technicality” following the decision the Court of Criminal Appeal?
_________________________________
Events of August 28, 1993
1. What is Jeff’s version of events for the night?
Jeff was sleeping in his bed in the boat shed at the back of the family house. He was woken some time after 4am by his mother’s desperate voice, calling on the intercom from the house. He quickly put on a pair of shorts and ran barefoot up to the rear entry of the house to see his brother Christopher standing over the body of his mother and setting it alight with a lit match. The fire grew over the body of his mother and began to spread throughout the room. Christopher told Jeff, “I’ve killed mum and dad”.
Shocked and overwhelmed with the urge to ‘get’ his brother, Jeff picked up the discarded knife that lay next to his mother’s body and chased him down the internal stairs of the house. Jeff stabbed Christopher multiple times and fatally, in the downstairs room of the house. He left the knife near Christopher’s body and returned upstairs, where the fire had now already taken hold of the room. He left the house by the same side/rear door that he had entered and ran to a neighbour’s house for help.
After an indeterminate time, the neighbour called emergency services and a fire engine was sent to the house. Jeff interacted with police, fire and ambulance personnel on the scene, even attempting to help firemen extinguish the fire. He was examined by ambulance officers on the scene and eventually taken into custody by police, who questioned him at length about the circumstances of all three deaths.
(Back to questions)
2. Is there any physical evidence to show that Christopher might have stabbed his parents?
Unfortunately, little physical evidence from the scene was collected and properly examined, and certainly none remains now. However, there are a number of observations about blood spatter that show evidence that Christopher attacked his parents. Furthermore, the carbon monoxide levels found in Christopher’s blood indicate that he was most likely alive and upstairs when the fire started.
(Back to questions)
3. What is the explanation for Jeff having his mother’s blood on his foot?
A small sample of the blood from a droplet collected from Jeff’s right foot was held in storage and not tested for DNA until 5 years after the murders. At trial, the expert who carried out the tests reported that “the results from the swab were below the laboratory report level, however, there was some indications that the DNA could be from Helen Gilham” (T2.557.16).
It is possible, on Jeff’s own explanation, that he had come into contact with his mother’s blood because he describes coming up alongside his mother’s body. A Police blood spatter expert gave evidence that it’s possible that Jeff brushed against something soaked in Helen’s blood, or that a drop fell from the knife as he picked it up.
It is not known whether Christopher’s feet were tested for the presence of blood. Other areas of his body were not tested for blood. Furthermore, it is unlikely such testing at the time would have been possible given the primitive nature of DNA testing in 1993 and the huge amount of water that washed over Christopher’s body in the course of the fire-fighting effort.
The blood on Jeff’s foot is completely consistent with his own account of what happened in the house.
(Back to questions)
4. Why was there no blood or fingerprints found on the knife used in the stabbings?
The knife was never tested properly and it was in the path of the water from the fire-fighting effort. This is discussed more completely on a separate page.
(Back to questions)
5. If Jeff is innocent of killing his parents, why did he chase and stab his brother so aggressively?
This is one part of Jeff’s account that many people have difficulty understanding because it is way beyond their own experience.
In short, unless we are faced with a situation like that ourselves, none of us know how we’d react (click here for a longer answer).
(Back to questions)
6. Why did Jeff try to prevent firefighters from entering the burning house?
He didn’t.
Firefighters gave evidence that someone on the scene had attempted to dissuade them from going into the house because “someone had a knife”. This was one or more of the neighbours that were standing outside on the street. However, one of the firefighters incorrectly attributed the warning to Jeff. This is another detail presented by the Prosecution that misled the jury.
(Back to questions)
Police investigations
1. Why were the investigating police so convinced of Jeff’s guilt?
We don’t know all the background to this. Police are trained to look and question beyond the obvious in unusual cases like the one presented at the Gilham family home in August 1993. The unusual circumstances apparently led to the assumption of guilt, and unfortunately opinions once formed can be hard to change, even in the face of evidence against those opinions.
Furthermore, the interpretation of minor circumstantial details can then be distorted to fit a person’s assumption of guilt. One example of this is the mini cassette recordings apparently found at the scene that supposedly reveal a brooding Jeff reflecting privately on how his older brother was the favoured one in the family. In fact, the cassette recording is not of Jeff’s voice at all. But to a suspicious investigator, circumstantial details like this can contribute to the illusion of guilt.
(Back to questions)
Supplementary facts and events
1. Did Jeff try to take his Nana’s house when the estate was settled?
No. This has been widely mis-reported and misunderstood. A more complete explanation of the estate settlement can be found on a separate page here.
(Back to questions)
2. How do you explain Jeff’s clothing found in the lounge room ?
The prosecution speculated that Jeff removed his clothes so they would not get blood on them during the attack. The less sinister truth is that Jeff commonly left his clothes in the house, as his mother did the family laundry. This is discussed in more detail on a separate page here.
(Back to questions)
3. Why would Christopher attempt suicide by overdosing on paracetamol? This seems unlikely.
Research studies have shown that, sadly, at least up until the 1990s, paracetamol overdose was one of the more common means for suicide attempts. This seems to be because it has been easy to obtain and the perception that, as a analgesic, it would result in a painless and peaceful death. While the latter isn’t true, Christopher, like so many others who have tried this method, probably didn’t know that. The findings on the Panadol paste are discussed further on a separate page.
(Back to questions)
Post court rulings
1. Has Jeff been released on a “technicality” following the decision the Court of Criminal Appeal?
No. Expert opinions on the forensic evidence findings have demonstrated that the Crown case against Jeff is wrong. As summarised by a question from one of the appeal judges, “…the facts are closer to the appellant’s case than what the Crown put to the jury”. In other words, Jeff’s account is supported by the evidence. The case against him never has been.
Innocence is not a “technicality”.
(Back to questions)