Man accused of murdering wealthy millionairess and burying her did not kill her, court hears 

A toy boy lover accused of murdering a millionaire pensioner and burying her in a cemetery is a ‘thoroughly dishonest man’ but he did not kill her, a court heard.

Lidl worker Serkan Kaygusuz, 42, admits plundering Norma Girolami’s bank accounts and hiding her body in a graveyard, but denies murdering her. 

Kaygusuz befriended the 70-year-old at a local swimming pool in north London and she gave him a fortune over the next three years in a ‘parasitic’ relationship.

After fleecing her out of £284,000 he buried the body in St James’s Churchyard in Friern Barnet where it remained hidden for 15 months, the Old Bailey has heard.

Ms Girolami, who lived alone in a £900,000 apartment in Highgate, had vanished after returning home from a day out at the seaside in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, on 19 August 2021.

Kaygusuz admits perverting the course of justice by hiding the body, theft, three counts of fraud and one of transferring criminal property.

But he denies murder and has chosen not to give evidence.

In his closing speech to the jury today (mon), Paul Mendelle, KC, defending Kaygusuz told jurors: ‘Most significantly, there has been no additional evidence called by the defendant.

‘If you were disappointed, or surprised, when the defendant said they would not be called that would be a perfectly normal human reaction.

‘It might be thought it puts you at a disadvantage, or it puts the defendant at a disadvantage.

‘It’s like Hamlet without the prince, you’ve heard no explanation from him – the central figure.

‘But what does the law say about his failing? What does the law say about his silence? The law says the defence does not have to provide anything.

‘You might think that the case is so strong that his answer adds nothing, but of course it is not just his silence in court that puts him at a disadvantage, because a lot of what you’ve heard about him and his behaviour reflects badly, very badly.

‘I am not referring to the nature of the relationship. Their relationship may have seemed strange to them, it may have seemed strange to you.

‘Norma Girolami craved company and she was prepared to pay for it.

‘She was prepared to pay for the defendant’s company and that was her business. He was a recipient of her generosity. She thought it made her happy, she thought that both were getting what they wanted from the relationship.

‘Norma Girolami never complained to police that she had been assaulted, never presented with bruising, never presented with any other injury. There is no evidence of ever being threatened by Serkan Kaygusuz.

‘Norma appeared very attached to this man. They would both talk about travelling. Norma would get excited when he was coming and introduce him as a friend. That’s the best evidence of the nature of the relationship really.

‘His hasty hiding of her body, to all of which he has admitted, that behaviour those offences are bound to prejudice against him.

‘On any view, as charitable as I can be, he has shown himself to be a thoroughly dishonest man capable of deceiving Norma’s friends, the banks, and the police.

‘He lied to friends, he lied to the bank and he lied to the police. No doubt had he given evidence he would be accused of lying to you. His credibility in your eyes would have been shot.

‘You don’t have to assess his credibility. You don’t need to assess how much you should believe a proven liar, because he’s saved you that bother. What’s at issue is not his dishonest character, it is whether Norma Girolami died at his hands, whether he committed murder, and we submit that what the defendant has pleaded guilty to does not assist that.

‘His actions show he sought to profit from her death but they do not prove he caused it.

‘Being sure is a state of mind. It is not a decision about your life, it is a decision about someone else’s life. Matters of sentence are entirely out of your mind, they play no part in your deliberation.

‘This is a decision that has profound consequence for the defendant, profound consequence for someone who is not you. The decision is irrevocable. You cannot change your mind after you bring your verdict.

‘After this trial when the doubts start to creep in and you begin to wonder whether you came to the wrong decision, that is far too late. If you’re not sure, if you allowed yourself to be swayed by others, it’s too late.

‘It’s a difficult decision, it’s a decision you have to get right once.

‘It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that she died in his presence, they have to prove that he killed her, that he caused the death and when he did so he intended to kill her.

‘If in fact she died of some natural cause, some supervening event not caused by him, he cannot be guilty of murder.

‘The prosecution is missing a vital piece of evidence and that vital piece of evidence is how did she died. We submit the gaping hole, the missing piece, is that from a purely scientific point of view Norma Girolami having a violent death at the defendant’s hands is not likely.

‘There is other non-medical, that is non-scientific, evidence that makes the prosecution evidence more likely.

‘You start and end with this position: the cause of death is unascertained. This is the position of the pathologist report and a second full report in January 2023.

‘There is no evidence of strangulation, no broken bones, no throat injury, no evidence of a ligature, no major head trauma, no evidence of restraint, no evidence of binding, no evidence of strike.

‘No neighbour heard shouting or screaming or signs of struggle. Of course, there are all sorts of reasons for the absence of that, but the answer to the single simple question of how did she die, you must say we don’t know.

‘You cannot rule out that Norma Girolami died not from the result of the actions of the defendant, but from an unrelated cause. A minor fall causing loss of consciousness or a heart attack.

‘It was said it was unlikely, but what does unlikely mean?

‘There is a 1 in 100 chance that she died of natural causes.

‘Five horses have won the Grand National at odds of 1 in 100.

‘In 20015/16 Leicester City won the Premier Championship at 5000 to 1 against. That’s pretty unlikely isn’t it?

‘Don’t be distracted by the fact that a natural occurrence is unlikely. Don’t be tricked into thinking unlikely is impossible.

‘We’re not dealing with an outtake from Final Destination. We’re talking about two perfectly well recognised medical causes of death that might have occurred.

‘What the defendant did was nothing short of despicable. He stole from Norma Girolami. He stole her documents, told lies to her friends, defrauded banks and lied to police.

‘Once he had crossed the room and taken the decision to bury her body, Everything he did thereafter was dishonest, deceptive and indefensible. He has not sought to defend his actions because he has pleaded guilty to his actions.

‘He got rid of the items he tried to purchase. Once police came to him, of course, he lied because he had buried her and stolen her jewellery and would no doubt be arrested for those offences.

‘His actions thereafter do not point unequivocally to murder. They indicate he was guilty of all these other crimes. Profiting from it, stealing her money and trying to escape undetected.

‘He is dishonest, deceptive and indefensible, but they do not prove murder, they do not fill the gap in the prosecution’s case.

‘Firstly, the pathology evidence means the cause of death is unascertained.

‘Second, regardless of the evidence that has been taken as his intention before and his behaviour afterwards, the prosecution cannot prove to the required standard that Norma Girolami did not die of natural causes.

‘Three, if that is or maybe is the case, then the defendant is not guilty of murder and that is the verdict you are asked to return.’

Kaygusuz, of Crouch Hall Court, Sparsholt Road, Islington, denies murder.

He admits perverting the course of justice by hiding the body, theft, three counts of fraud and one of transferring criminal property.

The trial continues with Judge Philip Katz, KC, expected to send the jury out to consider its verdict tomorrow.