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

[WestLondoner]

I recall at the time that some of the press comment thought the "state sponsored hit" theory was supported by the fact that nobody had owned up to it. No government, went the argument, that eliminated its opponents would actually 'fess up to having done so. Bulgaria did not admit to having murdered Georgi Markov, for example, even though the means - ricin injected by umbrella gun - showed clearly that some government had killed him, and he was a Bulgarian defector.

This seemed reasonable at the time, but of course it was before the Litvinenko murder and the Skripal attempted murders.

With these cases, the Russian government made it absolutely 100% crystal clear that they had ordered the murders, because the methods used were within the means only of rogue governments. Nobody else would have been able to get hold of atom bomb material or of military nerve poisons. Ergo, a government did it, and to identify which one you just had to know which government the targets had annoyed.

So nowadays, I think we'd perhaps say that if the Serbian government had done it, they might well have made a point of doing it in a way that made it obvious that they had. Putin signs his hits by using weapons only Russia has. Serbia might have murdered JD with bullets of some rare type only used in Serbia, or something. The lack of a claim of responsibility is thus pretty inconclusive either way.

 

[Novosti]

I recall at the time that some of the press comment thought the "state sponsored hit" theory was supported by the fact that nobody had owned up to it. No government, went the argument, that eliminated its opponents would actually 'fess up to having done so. Bulgaria did not admit to having murdered Georgi Markov, for example, even though the means - ricin injected by umbrella gun - showed clearly that some government had killed him, and he was a Bulgarian defector.

This seemed reasonable at the time, but of course it was before the Litvinenko murder and the Skripal attempted murders.

With these cases, the Russian government made it absolutely 100% crystal clear that they had ordered the murders, because the methods used were within the means only of rogue governments. Nobody else would have been able to get hold of atom bomb material or of military nerve poisons. Ergo, a government did it, and to identify which one you just had to know which government the targets had annoyed.

So nowadays, I think we'd perhaps say that if the Serbian government had done it, they might well have made a point of doing it in a way that made it obvious that they had. Putin signs his hits by using weapons only Russia has. Serbia might have murdered JD with bullets of some rare type only used in Serbia, or something. The lack of a claim of responsibility is thus pretty inconclusive either way.

It's obviously right that a foreign government wouldn't typically announce an operation of that kind. But the problem with this theory is there just isn't any evidence for it! The Met have well established liaison channels with the agencies which they used extensively on this case, and no substantive leads were found. It is extremely unlikely that a second rate power like Serbia at the time could have conducted an offensive operation on British soil without the British authorities at least finding some evidence after the event, and most likely before. It's also not consistent with Serbian and Yugoslav history - there was some activity against their own foreign-based dissidents. But nothing anything like this - which would have been a state act of terrorism against a nuclear NATO power.

It's maybe a tiny bit more likely that a Serbian paramilitary grouping, not instructed by the leadership, might have tried something. But their methods would have been even sloppier and easier for the British authorities to detect.

You then look at the weapon, the timing and the location. And each of these things would have been bizarre choices at best for special forces soldiers etc. I'd say more than bizarre - totally implausible.

The whole theory just doesn't make sense from any angle.

 

[iamshadow21]

It's obviously right that a foreign government wouldn't typically announce an operation of that kind. But the problem with this theory is there just isn't any evidence for it! The Met have well established liaison channels with the agencies which they used extensively on this case, and no substantive leads were found. It is extremely unlikely that a second rate power like Serbia at the time could have conducted an offensive operation on British soil without the British authorities at least finding some evidence after the event, and most likely before. It's also not consistent with Serbian and Yugoslav history - there was some activity against their own foreign-based dissidents. But nothing anything like this - which would have been a state act of terrorism against a nuclear NATO power.

It's maybe a tiny bit more likely that a Serbian paramilitary grouping, not instructed by the leadership, might have tried something. But their methods would have been even sloppier and easier for the British authorities to detect.

You then look at the weapon, the timing and the location. And each of these things would have been bizarre choices at best for special forces soldiers etc. I'd say more than bizarre - totally implausible.

The whole theory just doesn't make sense from any angle.

I think that if there is a connection to the conflict, it may have been a person operating alone. A personal vendetta, not a hit ordered by organised powers. People can get weird fixations on public figures, you see it in some of the really frightening mail they get sent.

MOO

 

[CSIAngus]

Seems like one of those cases where the chances of the lead suspect (BG) doing it are above 50%, but not close enough for a sound conviction.

I think we can say now that the "contract killer" theory doesn't stack up. The weapon, crime scene, and delivering the shot at close range with physical contact, would all be absurd choices for a professional assassin. No contract killer could have known she would arrive at that location at that time, unless they had extraordinary systems of surveillance involving a big team (implausible). Following her car, then jumping out quickly to deliver the shot, would have been extremely difficult - there was nowhere to park, and an abandoned vehicle in the middle of the road would have been exceptionally conspicuous.

And the candidate motives don't make sense. Whilst it's just about plausible (although extremely rare) that organised criminals might murder an investigative journalist, murdering a TV presenter makes no sense at all. There is no evidence that the Serbian security forces or paramilitaries conducted terrorist style reprisals in western countries. There didn't appear to be any family, relationship or financial motivations for someone to put out a contract.

This murder has all the hallmarks of a chaotic, badly planned individual action that got lucky, in terms of the lack of witnesses and forensics.

I don't think we can say that any theory 'doesn't stack up' until we know exactly what happened. The idea that BG was competent enough to modify bullets has always been a stretch for me, plus what passes for eye witness accounts. Phone hacking was rife at that time so finding out JD's movements in advance is quite plausible. If The Scum newspaper could do it then lots of people could.

I agree, there is some circumstantial evidence against BG which helped paint a picture behind his conviction before he was unanimously acquitted at retrial, but that shouldn't blind LE to other lines of inquiry. It's a case that is now a very cold case, without any officers working full time on it for over a decade, and it's time IMO that it should be reviewed by another force.

 

[CSIAngus]

I recall at the time that some of the press comment thought the "state sponsored hit" theory was supported by the fact that nobody had owned up to it. No government, went the argument, that eliminated its opponents would actually 'fess up to having done so. Bulgaria did not admit to having murdered Georgi Markov, for example, even though the means - ricin injected by umbrella gun - showed clearly that some government had killed him, and he was a Bulgarian defector.

This seemed reasonable at the time, but of course it was before the Litvinenko murder and the Skripal attempted murders.

With these cases, the Russian government made it absolutely 100% crystal clear that they had ordered the murders, because the methods used were within the means only of rogue governments. Nobody else would have been able to get hold of atom bomb material or of military nerve poisons. Ergo, a government did it, and to identify which one you just had to know which government the targets had annoyed.

So nowadays, I think we'd perhaps say that if the Serbian government had done it, they might well have made a point of doing it in a way that made it obvious that they had. Putin signs his hits by using weapons only Russia has. Serbia might have murdered JD with bullets of some rare type only used in Serbia, or something. The lack of a claim of responsibility is thus pretty inconclusive either way.

I disagree with the statement that Russia has admitted ordering the assassinations of Litvinenko or the attempted murder of Skripal. It hasn't. The Russian State has been accused of ordering these and many other hundreds of assassinations, and not without justification, but has never 'made it 100% crystal clear that they ordered the murders'. That's an as yet unproven accusation. Porton Down has access to all of these substances so it is not true that only Russia has them. If that were true then how would they be identified?

A successful assassination is never claimed and remains unsolved.

 

[WestLondoner]

What I said was that it is clear a government did it because only a government would have access to polonium and Novichok. Both Litvinenko and Skripal had annoyed the Russian government. This leaves other critics of the Russian government in no doubt as to which government ordered these murders.

This is even before considering the evidence of the movements of Denis Sergeev, Anatoly Chepiga and Alexander Mishkin, the three GRU officers found to have entered the country and gone to Salisbury, and without considering how many other murders have been carried out around the world in which Russian state actors have been implicated.

Obviously Russia has not expressly admitted organising murders, but they have done so constructively by the manner of the murders.

Given this, it's quite surprising - if JD's murder were the work of a government that wanted to silence critics - that the responsible government didn't autograph its work, as the Russians later did. It doesn't exactly dissuade people from criticising Serbia if nobody knows that Serbia murders its enemies abroad. They'd want that known.

Between this and the complete absence of subsequent evidence from local sources of any Serbian involvement, it's a bit of a stretch IMO still to be considering a "Serbian angle".

 

[CSIAngus]

What I said was that it is clear a government did it because only a government would have access to polonium and Novichok. Both Litvinenko and Skripal had annoyed the Russian government. This leaves other critics of the Russian government in no doubt as to which government ordered these murders.

This is even before considering the evidence of the movements of Denis Sergeev, Anatoly Chepiga and Alexander Mishkin, the three GRU officers found to have entered the country and gone to Salisbury, and without considering how many other murders have been carried out around the world in which Russian state actors have been implicated.

Obviously Russia has not expressly admitted organising murders, but they have done so constructively by the manner of the murders.

Given this, it's quite surprising - if JD's murder were the work of a government that wanted to silence critics - that the responsible government didn't autograph its work, as the Russians later did. It doesn't exactly dissuade people from criticising Serbia if nobody knows that Serbia murders its enemies abroad. They'd want that known.

Between this and the complete absence of subsequent evidence from local sources of any Serbian involvement, it's a bit of a stretch IMO still to be considering a "Serbian angle".

You completely miss the original point I was making. Russia never admits any assassination (yes, even when the evidence is overwhelming). The point was about professional assassinations remaining unsolved but we'll leave it there. I've not mentioned Serbia.

 

[Novosti]

I don't think we can say that any theory 'doesn't stack up' until we know exactly what happened. The idea that BG was competent enough to modify bullets has always been a stretch for me, plus what passes for eye witness accounts. Phone hacking was rife at that time so finding out JD's movements in advance is quite plausible. If The Scum newspaper could do it then lots of people could.

I agree, there is some circumstantial evidence against BG which helped paint a picture behind his conviction before he was unanimously acquitted at retrial, but that shouldn't blind LE to other lines of inquiry. It's a case that is now a very cold case, without any officers working full time on it for over a decade, and it's time IMO that it should be reviewed by another force.

"Knowing exactly what happened" is far too strong a test for deprioritising implausible theories.

The phone hacking you refer to was conducted by a private detective agency. It was also limited to voicemail interception. This worked for trawling for stories over weeks and months - you get a nugget every now and again. But it would have been a very poor basis for a surveillance operation - for the obvious reason that at key moments, people might not have left each other voicemails! Serious surveillance activity has always been complex and expensive and realistically requires teams of manpower.

 

[WestLondoner]

Nick Ross' article on this linked upthread makes some telling points IMO about the general lack of understanding by lawyers and judges of the principles of statistics. Not only is much probability theory deeply counterintuitive, like the win-a-goat and people-who-share-your-birthday riddles, but also, most people don't recognise when it's appropriate to deploy it. I include myself in this of course.

In BG's case, yes, on the face of it it seems unlikely that he could get lucky and find JD at her house at a random time, and get away with shooting her. But we don't have complete information here. We don't know how many other times people have hung around celebrities' houses and they didn't turn up. That is the total data set you'd need to consider before deciding that it's unlikely this can have paid off for BG. Estimates based on one's personal incredulity doesn't work. If I roll a 6 on a six-sided die three times in a row, that seems like an unlikely event. But it's actually a 1 in 216 event, so if I rolled the dice 500 times before I rolled 3 sixes, suddenly it's not unlikely, it's actually past due.

With BG it's impossible to say whether what happened was improbable.

 

[Novosti]

Nick Ross' article on this linked upthread makes some telling points IMO about the general lack of understanding by lawyers and judges of the principles of statistics. Not only is much probability theory deeply counterintuitive, like the win-a-goat and people-who-share-your-birthday riddles, but also, most people don't recognise when it's appropriate to deploy it. I include myself in this of course.

In BG's case, yes, on the face of it it seems unlikely that he could get lucky and find JD at her house at a random time, and get away with shooting her. But we don't have complete information here. We don't know how many other times people have hung around celebrities' houses and they didn't turn up. That is the total data set you'd need to consider before deciding that it's unlikely this can have paid off for BG. Estimates based on one's personal incredulity doesn't work. If I roll a 6 on a six-sided die three times in a row, that seems like an unlikely event. But it's actually a 1 in 216 event, so if I rolled the dice 500 times before I rolled 3 sixes, suddenly it's not unlikely, it's actually past due.

With BG it's impossible to say whether what happened was improbable.

Strongly agree. I'd go further - we have pretty strong grounds to believe BG engaged in stalking behaviour, with weapons, on a regular basis over many years, especially in this area of West London. This is effectively the counterpart to your 500 dice rolls. Yes, it was unlikely that he succeeded on this particular day. But over 20 years of attempts, the chances of a single 'success' at some point are much more likely.

It's also clear that this type of logic doesn't apply at all to the theory about state or paramilitary assassination.

 

[RichardKimble]

Nick Ross' article on this linked upthread makes some telling points IMO about the general lack of understanding by lawyers and judges of the principles of statistics. Not only is much probability theory deeply counterintuitive, like the win-a-goat and people-who-share-your-birthday riddles, but also, most people don't recognise when it's appropriate to deploy it. I include myself in this of course.

In BG's case, yes, on the face of it it seems unlikely that he could get lucky and find JD at her house at a random time, and get away with shooting her. But we don't have complete information here. We don't know how many other times people have hung around celebrities' houses and they didn't turn up. That is the total data set you'd need to consider before deciding that it's unlikely this can have paid off for BG. Estimates based on one's personal incredulity doesn't work. If I roll a 6 on a six-sided die three times in a row, that seems like an unlikely event. But it's actually a 1 in 216 event, so if I rolled the dice 500 times before I rolled 3 sixes, suddenly it's not unlikely, it's actually past due.

With BG it's impossible to say whether what happened was improbable.

I guess it could be argued, if BG is the killer , he had only need to be lucky once.

 

[WestLondoner]

Well of course BG did do something a bit like this once before, when he tried to get into Kensington Palace dressed as a commando. He failed and got caught.

If you were somehow able to count all the other occasions when whackjobs have done anything similar, you might find that there are 1,000 times when nothing comes of it. The one time something does is certainly an unusual event all right, but at some point, perhaps at lengthy intervals, it's to be expected.

It's >40 years since someone broke into Buckingham Palace, found his way to the Queen's bedroom and woke her up for a little chat. At some point, something like it's going to happen again.

 

[Markybug]

BG could have simply been supplied with the bullets when he bought/got the gun ? Not necessarily made them himself?

 

[JnRyan]

It's been my belief that handguns are not that common in the UK. Someone may likely know of such an owner. Unless, of course, the gun isn't in the bottom of a river.

 

[WestLondoner]

It's been my belief that handguns are not that common in the UK. Someone may likely know of such an owner. Unless, of course, the gun isn't in the bottom of a river.

It's true that they are fairly rare, but in a way that's beside the point because rare or not, BG had indeed got hold of one. We know this because there's a photograph of him posing with one. That gun has AFAIK never turned up, which says two things to me.

First, if it had not been used for anything nefarious, BG (or his defence counsel) should have been happy to turn it in to be forensically analysed. It would then be shown not to have been used to kill JD. Once that gun's ruled out, the CPS would then have had to persuade a jury that BG had somehow got hold of not just one gun, but two. One's gun's accounted for, there's no evidence at all for any other, but the CPS would be saying another gun must exist, because he killed her with it. This is begging the question in the exact, classical sense. Instead, BG provably did have a gun that's vanished, and he can't explain how or where or why, which is clearly bad for his defence.

Second, there are only three legal ways to dispose of a gun in the UK and he didn't use any of them. If the gun is clean, why did BG dispose of it illegally?

So on balance, IMO that gun could be the murder weapon, and BG could have opportunities to learn how to doctor ammunition while he was in jail. Conversely, I struggle to come up with any reason why this definitely could not have been BG. It's very hard (for me anyway) to conclude that he cannot have got hold of a gun, had no curiosity about them, and had had no way to find out how to alter the ammunition.

 

[benowens]

I watched the Netflix documentary with my parents recently. Both me and them agree that the "it must have been a professional hitman" thing is bogus and that Barry George obviously got away with it.

 

[WestLondoner]

The strongest arguments against this being a "professional" hit are that the shooter only fired one round and that he apparently escaped on foot.

I would expect a "professional" to fire several shots to make sure, then to escape in a waiting car. The car would be a banger bought cheap for cash out of the small ads wearing fake plates. After the killing the real plates go back on, and the car either goes for scrap and disappears, or is sold on to fog any later forensics picture.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

I'm still not 100% convinced the original intent was to kill, nor even that the gun was fired deliberately.

We know BG has a long history of assaulting women, and I believe he used knives to threaten them. What his intent could have been with Jill, who knows. But I can envision a scenario where he's trying to accost her and fumbles around, threatening and controlling her with the gun when it accidentally fires.

Because of how perfectly things went for the killer, it seems to be assumed by many that it was planned. Not only do I not believe it was planned, I'm not even totally sure Jill's death was meant to happen.

 

[benowens]

I'm still not 100% convinced the original intent was to kill, nor even that the gun was fired deliberately.

We know BG has a long history of assaulting women, and I believe he used knives to threaten them. What his intent could have been with Jill, who knows. But I can envision a scenario where he's trying to accost her and fumbles around, threatening and controlling her with the gun when it accidentally fires.

Because of how perfectly things went for the killer, it seems to be assumed by many that it was planned. Not only do I not believe it was planned, I'm not even totally sure Jill's death was meant to happen.

Interesting and a unique theory that I have never heard before. I feel like the "covered up accident" theory exists for every unsolved murder and missing person case though.

 

[tes1984]

The strongest arguments against this being a "professional" hit are that the shooter only fired one round and that he apparently escaped on foot.

I would expect a "professional" to fire several shots to make sure, then to escape in a waiting car. The car would be a banger bought cheap for cash out of the small ads wearing fake plates. After the killing the real plates go back on, and the car either goes for scrap and disappears, or is sold on to fog any later forensics picture.

I tend to agree, although expectations aren't always met...

Would we expect the police - the real professionals - to secure the crime scene, or to contaminate it completely?