UK UK - Jill Dando, 37, Fulham, London, 26 Apr 1999

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Not sure if it's been posted before but JDs partner on crimewatch wrote an extensive piece.

 
Popular BBC TV presenter Jill Dando was shot dead outside her London home


*I just started Episode 1. I’ll let you know how it goes…
 
Not sure if it's been posted before but JDs partner on crimewatch wrote an extensive piece.

Really interesting and well written piece.
 
How was he supposed to have been able to ambush her at her home when she rarely even went there? How could any investigative team have believed they had the right man? They all had to know it was bs as well as the re-trial court did 8yrs later.The point being there is only one reason to deiberately fit someone up like that - to end the investigation before it uncovers who and what was really behind what happened to her.
Respectfully I disagree. I think the police were just under pressure and had tunnel vision on BG.
 
I'm leaning towards the Serbian theory. They only discounted it because it was never claimed (except multiple phone calls did claim.....) .

I agree with someone earlier who said they pushed her down and then shot because the garden walls would provide some minor privacy, before leaving. However, I would expect a professional to walk away calmly, not run.
 
Last edited:
If one believes the ex-offender in the new Netflix documentary does know something about this, then his comment that for him to say why she was killed would tell you who had her killed is pretty clear.

The only source of information he'd have would be prison gossip. The only reason I can think of whereby saying why she was killed reveals who did it would be if she was killed because of Crimewatch. This I conjecture would lead to a search for anyone featured in CW and jailed who would have the pull and malice to order a hit. The implication is that this is only one person. Ex-con declines to provide the reason she was killed. If you believe he does indeed know this.

Circumstantially what we know of the shooting fits. Some crime lord with a grudge engages someone to kill her, but that someone is a small time crook with no access to firearms. Crime lord isn't providing any in case this goes back to himself. So small time south London criminal alters a disarmed weapon, starting pistol etc and uses that - having perhaps learned how through his own stint in chokey.

The reward didn't work because the only people who have evidence that would secure it are the guy who ordered the killing and the guy who did it. Anyone else knows what happens to you if you cross the former, and stays stumm.

JMO
Not just CW, but also the whole JS affair....
 
Interesting that Nick Ross mentioned the american criminal profiler, Pat Brown, too, and her take on Jill's murder. I saw it on You-Tube. As much as I find this case a bit of a mystery, I am now leaning towards BG being the culprit. IMO. Allegedly.
I don't think BG. He seems less weird/more normal on every documentary since. I think he genuinely is frustrated the police won't find the real killer, which would exonerate him.

And if I had to guess I reckon his sexual assault charge was probably related to his learning difficulties? Mixed signals etc?? I wouldn't be surprised.

The worrying part of his background was the Kensington Palace stunt.
 
The Nick Ross piece does set out quite well why there was a case against BG, to the extent that he was denied compo for having been jailed. This was on the basis that - paraphrasing - there had been good grounds for the previous court to think it was him.

I'm struck by the distinctions between this and the nearby Suzy Lamplugh disappearance. The police insist that someone they've named but whom the CPS has never charged is the only suspect. There are no forensics and no body; it's all off circumstantial evidence. He was a wrong 'un; he was probably in the area; it's the kind of thing he'd do; he'd just got out of the nearby Scrubs for rape.

While all that may be true, it falls apart when you ask questions like OK, but of how many other people is that also true? Did anyone look for any others at the time? If the answer to these questions is "more than one" and "no", then the circumstantial case stops looking compelling. It could fit maybe 30 other people, of whom only one has been looked into - so why can't it be one of the other 29?

Here you could ask the same question re BG, but you'd get a different answer. As Nick Ross' article sets out, a great deal of circumstantial evidence points towards BG and nobody else.
 
I don't think BG. He seems less weird/more normal on every documentary since. I think he genuinely is frustrated the police won't find the real killer, which would exonerate him.

And if I had to guess I reckon his sexual assault charge was probably related to his learning difficulties? Mixed signals etc?? I wouldn't be surprised.

The worrying part of his background was the Kensington Palace stunt.

BG was violent and dangerous to women. Whether he is a changed man, none of us can know.

A big question mark hanging over him still IMO.


Previous criminal convictions and investigations​

George has been likened to a "lone obsessive, Walter Mitty-type figure" for his desire to impersonate famous figures.[6] George adopted several pseudonyms, starting at school, where he used the name Paul Gadd, the real name of singer Gary Glitter.[4] In March 1980, after George failed in his attempt to join the Metropolitan Police, he was arrested and charged for impersonating a police officer,[7] having obtained false warrant cards. In May 1980,[3] he appeared in court clad in glam rock clothing and untruthfully stated his name to be Paul Gadd.[8] At Kingston Magistrates' Court he was convicted and fined £25.[9] In the early 1980s he appeared in a local newspaper claiming to be the winner of the British Karate Championship; he was exposed as a fraud by another newspaper.[3]

In 1980, George joined the Territorial Army, but was discharged the following year.[9] He then adopted the persona of SAS member Tom Palmer, one of the soldiers who ended the 1980 Iranian Embassy Siege.[10]

In both March and August of 1980, George was arrested and charged for indecent assault,[7] going to trial on the two counts in June 1981;[3] he was acquitted of indecent assault against one woman, and convicted of indecent assault against another woman, for which he received a three-month sentence, suspended for two years.[11] Using the name Steve Majors, he claimed to be a stuntman and convinced a stadium to stage a show in which he would jump over four double-decker buses on roller skates; he injured himself attempting this stunt.[3] In January 1983, George was charged with rape for a February 1982 sexual assault of a woman in Acton;[7] in March 1983, he was convicted at the Old Bailey, untruthfully stating his name to be Steve Majors, for attempted rape in the February 1982 attack,[3] for which he served 18 months of a 33-month sentence.[11] On 10 January 1983,[3] as was revealed after his arrest for the Dando murder, George had been found in the grounds of Kensington Palace, at that time the home of Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales. He had been discovered hiding in the grounds wearing a balaclava and carrying a poem he had written to Prince Charles.[4]

On 2 May 1989 at Fulham register office, George married a 35-year-old Japanese student, Itsuko Toide, in what Toide described as a marriage "of convenience – but nonetheless violent and terrifying".[3][12] After four months she reported to the police that he had assaulted her. On 29 October 1989, George was arrested and charged, but the case was dropped and did not go to court;[3] the marriage ended in April 1990.[11][9] In April 1990, and again in January 1992, George was arrested and charged with indecent assault. Neither case went to court.[3] At the time of Dando's murder, he was using the pseudonym Barry Bulsara, telling people that he was the cousin of Freddie Mercury (born Farrokh Bulsara),[3][13] and gave that name after the murder when he contacted various businesses, seeking alibi video footage to prove he was present at any of those businesses at the time of the murder.[7] These actions led to tips from the businesses that brought George (then believed to be George Bulsara) to the attention of the police unit investigating the murder, though these initial tips, amongst the thousands received in the days immediately following the murder, were not connected as referring to one person – and pursued by police – until a year after the murder.[7]

 
BG was violent and dangerous to women. Whether he is a changed man, none of us can know.
I doubt it, JennieM. BG was said to be suffering from a personality disorder, which is different from a mental illness such as depression inasmuch as personality disorders cannot be treated or cured.

You can give a depressive Valium, and you can give someone who is anxious Rohypnol, but someone who is a psychopath always will be, as I understand it. I don't recall what disorder BG is said to have but whatever it is he still has it.

Of note is perhaps that offenders tend to rehabilitate themselves over time. Most criminals are young men, but they get to their mid-30s and just stop* - and this is true whether they're jailed or not. It's possible that if (for argument's sake) BG were dangerous in 1999, he would not be now, because he's in his sixties and like most offenders has stopped.

* I believe child offenders are an exception.
 
Interesting that Nick Ross mentioned the american criminal profiler, Pat Brown, too, and her take on Jill's murder. I saw it on You-Tube. As much as I find this case a bit of a mystery, I am now leaning towards BG being the culprit. IMO. Allegedly.
In connection with Pat Brown did I read in connection with the McCann case that she had been discredited as a self-declared profiler, or am I thinking of someone else?
 
In connection with Pat Brown did I read in connection with the McCann case that she had been discredited as a self-declared profiler, or am I thinking of someone else?
Apparently, it was this person..imo.
2022
''Stéphane Bourgoin became famous through his jailhouse interviews with murderers. Then an anonymous collective of true-crime fans began investigating his own story.''

CNN —
''Famed French serial killer expert Stephane Bourgoin has confessed that his prestigious career is founded on lies, following a series of revelations.

Bourgoin, 67, built a reputation as the country’s foremost expert in serial killers, writing more than 75 books and producing dozens of documentaries, before an investigation brought him down.''
 
I don't think BG. He seems less weird/more normal on every documentary since. I think he genuinely is frustrated the police won't find the real killer, which would exonerate him.

And if I had to guess I reckon his sexual assault charge was probably related to his learning difficulties? Mixed signals etc?? I wouldn't be surprised.

The worrying part of his background was the Kensington Palace stunt.

I don’t doubt it’s possible that BG was dangerous enough and capable of doing it . . . But I do wonder if he’d have the intelligence to commit it without leaving evidence and to escape unseen, as well as the mental fortitude to maintain his innocence this entire time.
 
I don’t doubt it’s possible that BG was dangerous enough and capable of doing it . . . But I do wonder if he’d have the intelligence to commit it without leaving evidence and to escape unseen, as well as the mental fortitude to maintain his innocence this entire time.
Unfortunately, the scene was so destroyed by paramedics that very little evidence could be found, but it's possible the perpetrator initially left much more behind. Sadly we'll never know. And of course the killer *was* seen. But because he looked so normal, and because nobody knew what he'd just done, few people paid any attention to him.

Whoever this man was, he was completely unremarkable. And that, in and of itself, *is* quite remarkable.

My view is that the person who did this must have had knowledge of firearms, and also knowledge of how to take another person down to the ground quickly. Did BG have that knowledge? He's shown in photos wearing gas masks and holding guns. He falsely claimed to be a karate champion but that doesn't mean he hadn't taken karate lessons. He was in the territorial army. He was able to get into the grounds of Kensington Palace. Etc. etc. I think it's likely he did have the necessary knowledge.

However, does he have the temperament to calmly make his escape and then hide the truth for 25 years? I have no idea.
 
Theory Only

Nobody really knows. We can only theorise. Therefore, I’ll throw another theory into the mix. A revenge killing. Revenge against AF. Someone who blamed AF for the death of his female partner. AF was a specialist in gynaecological cancer. AF was due to marry JD. Maybe someone thought “You killed my woman, I’ll kill yours”. Would they have looked into AF’s past patients and relatives? I doubt it, IMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
1,486
Total visitors
1,556

Forum statistics

Threads
605,929
Messages
18,195,096
Members
233,648
Latest member
Snoopysnoop
Back
Top