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

[CSIAngus]

They did convince a court of law, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

The second trial wasn't much different to the first, with the exception of the GSR evidence. Had the GSR evidence been left out of the first trial, I firmly believe BG would still have been convicted based on the substantial circumstantial evidence, and that he would still be in jail now.

By the time of the second trial there had already been a years-long media campaign to get BG released. As nice as it would be to believe jurors aren't affected by such campaigns, I think it would be incredibly naive to suggest it makes no difference.

IMO BG was never going to be convicted in the second trial because the jury pool was too tainted by that point.

The appeal judges states that a reasonable jury may have convicted BG without the GSR residue evidence and used that argument to block compensation for wrongful incarceration. However, without the GSR, there is no physical link between BG and the murder. The two eye witnesses described seeing a man of Mediterranean appearance who has never been traced. IMO, the investigators got tunnel vision on BG as the local weirdo.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

The appeal judges states that a reasonable jury may have convicted BG without the GSR residue evidence and used that argument to block compensation for wrongful incarceration. However, without the GSR, there is no physical link between BG and the murder. The two eye witnesses described seeing a man of Mediterranean appearance who has never been traced. IMO, the investigators got tunnel vision on BG as the local weirdo.

So little physical evidence was left after the paramedics had trampled all over the scene, that it would be difficult to find solid proof linking anyone to the crime. However, the circumstantial evidence was substantial and far more than just "BG is the local weirdo."

A fibre found at the scene potentially matched a pair of his trousers, and a coat described by witnesses as having been worn by the killer matched BG's coat; a coat which had GSR in the pocket matching the ammunition used in Jill's murder.

Metropolitan Police experts narrowed down the type of gun to one of just a few unusual models. One of those models was listed in BG's ledger as a gun he owned, and he's also shown holding it in the mask photo--a photo he ludicrously claims isn't of him. That gun has disappeared without trace for no good reason. Without the ledger you might argue the gun he was holding in the photo wasn't his own. Without the photo you might argue the ledger didn't prove he *really* owned it. Both together pretty well prove he was in possession of one of the few rare weapons capable of firing the ammunition found at the scene.

BG was seen on Gowan Avenue earlier on the morning of the murder, and later attempted to create an alibi for himself. The attempt to form an alibi would be suspicious even in the absence of the clothing, the GSR, the gun, being seen on Gowan Avenue, etc.

It may only be circumstantial evidence and not solid physical evidence, but it's not randomly picking on the local weirdo, either. This "local weirdo" was the only person, out of the thousands of people they investigated, who actually fit the evidence they had. And he *is* a convicted dangerous predator who committed numerous armed attacks on women.

I'd also argue that in some of the pictures of BG taken around the time of the murder, he could be described as looking quite "mediterranean." It's hard to believe looking at him now, but in 1999/2000 his hair and goatee gave him quite a resemblance to George Michael--probably not accidental. George Michael was Greek, so "mediterranean" would have been an accurate description.

 

[WestLondoner]

There is literally no evidence to suggest anyone other than BG. There is no evidence of the existence of any Serbian hitman, or that anyone wanted her dead, or anything else. Such a person or motive are entirely conjectural, unlike BG.

 

[JennieM]

With the elimination of BG, the CI has made it clear that there is no one else they would expect to arrest. BG is their man.

 

[tes1984]

Jill Dando wasn't a typical murder victim though. She had a lot of obsessive fans and who knows how many of them were stalker types.

Barry George is a very good suspect, but the Met has a habit of declaring 'case closed' when things don't go to plan in court or with the CPS.

The police said 'we're not looking for anyone else' about John Cannan for Suzy Lamplugh, yet six later they went back on themselves, when Steve Wright emerged from nowhere as a serial killer who knew Suzy.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Jill Dando wasn't a typical murder victim though. She had a lot of obsessive fans and who knows how many of them were stalker types.

Barry George is a very good suspect, but the Met has a habit of declaring 'case closed' when things don't go to plan in court or with the CPS.

The police said 'we're not looking for anyone else' about John Cannan for Suzy Lamplugh, yet six later they went back on themselves, when Steve Wright emerged from nowhere as a serial killer who knew Suzy.

The big difference is that nobody knows how (or even definitively IF) Suzy Lamplugh was killed. Most people also seem to agree that Suzy's mother played a big role in influencing the direction of the investigation right from Day 1. My opinion is that they gave Suzy's mother the answer she wanted because they really have no idea where else to go. There are of course many "convenient" suspects, Colin Stagg being a big one. Nobody is denying that happens.

But with Jill Dando, at a bare minimum, any suspect has to be proven to have had access to one of the rare guns which could have been used to kill her. Everything else aside, if a suspect can't be proven to have been in possession of the weapon, they can't be proven to have done it. There isn't a huge amount of evidence in Jill's case, but the evidence that does exist is very specific and unusual. The number of suspects who would fit all of that available evidence can't, realistically, be very high. And BG knows that, or he wouldn't have been lying about the gun and the photo for the past 24 years.

If BG were just the local weirdo, he wouldn't be a good suspect. But as the local weirdo who owned one of the possible weapons, already had numerous arrests and convictions for assaulting women, was actually seen in the area that morning, and later tried to create an alibi for no apparent reason...

 

[tes1984]

The number of suspects who would fit all of that available evidence can't, realistically, be very high. And BG knows that, or he wouldn't have been lying about the gun and the photo for the past 24 years.

If BG were just the local weirdo, he wouldn't be a good suspect. But as the local weirdo who owned one of the possible weapons, already had numerous arrests and convictions for assaulting women, was actually seen in the area that morning, and later tried to create an alibi for no apparent reason...

There doesn't have to be a very high number of suspects for someone else to have killed Jill.

Let's say Barry George is innocent. He hears there's been a shooting nearby and realises that he's going to be a suspect. He doesn't fancy spending another 48 hours in interrogation, like he had to in a previous local murder enquiry. So he panics and tries to create an alibi. He definitely doesn't want the police to find a gun in his flat, even though it's only a replica. He gets rid of the gun, but like the idiot he is, forgets about the photo of him playing SAS.

Is that a possible scenario? IIRC Barry George was questioned as a suspect in the Rachel Nickell investigation

 

[WestLondoner]

He hears there's been a shooting nearby and realises that he's going to be a suspect. He doesn't fancy spending another 48 hours in interrogation, like he had to in a previous local murder enquiry. So he panics and tries to create an alibi. He definitely doesn't want the police to find a gun in his flat, even though it's only a replica. He gets rid of the gun, but like the idiot he is, forgets about the photo of him playing SAS.

AIUI he was trying to create the alibi before very many people at all had heard there'd been a shooting. If he didn't do it, he should be happy to have the police find his gun, as their checks on it would prove this wasn't the murder weapon.

 

[dotr]

Entire lengthy article detailing George's many incidents, the 'targeting' of Japanese tourists was new to me,
Nick Hopkins and Steven Morris 3 Jul 2001

Dando killer was an oddball loner

Barry George yearned to be Gary Glitter, posed as an SAS soldier and pretended to be a professional stuntman. He insisted he was the cousin of Freddie Mercury, the lead singer of his favourite band, Queen.

www.theguardian.com

''George's criminal record briefly made him a potential suspect for the murder of Rachel Nickell, who was stabbed on Wimbledon Common in 1992. He was interviewed, not under caution, and released.''

''Favoured victims of his fictitious stories were Japanese tourists, but they quickly spread the word that George should be avoided. One Japanese website devoted to Queen posted a warning about him. "Everyone be careful of this man. He is a total fraud who targets Japanese people," it said.

In the spring of 1994, George went to the London bureau of a Japanese paper to suggest they write a story about him. He handed over his Bulsara Productions card but was sent on his way.''

 

[WiseOwl]

AIUI he was trying to create the alibi before very many people at all had heard there'd been a shooting. If he didn't do it, he should be happy to have the police find his gun, as their checks on it would prove this wasn't the murder weapon.

It was the prosecution who alleged that BG had gone to the centre to provide an alibi, there is no proof that this was the reason at all apart from them suggesting it was:

Dando accused 'set up alibi' at health centre

Barry George, 41, went to Hammersmith and Fulham Action for Disability (Hafad) on the day Ms Dando died in April 1999 and returned there two days later. On the first occasion, he turned up at the centre without an appointment and seemed highly agitated, the jury was told

Elaine Hutton, the finance director of Hafad, said she had listened to parts of a conversation between George and her colleague Susan Bicknell at the office, in Greswell Street, Fulham, west London. "I was not listening to the exact wording of the conversation between them. He was quite agitated. I was aware I might need to step in and help," said Ms Hutton.

She said George had a carrier bag of letters expressing dissatisfaction for some of the services he had received from the medical profession in general. She said her colleague had tried to stay calm and focused. She could not deal with him that day and was eventually able to placate him.

George was given an appointment for the following day, but then failed to show. However, he appeared on Wednesday April 28, two days after Ms Dando was shot.

"He said he had... gone to lay flowers at Jill's place on behalf of the church and that she was well respected in the borough," said Ms Hutton. She said George had wanted to know the exact time of his visit to Hafad on the day Ms Dando had died. She had been unsure of the time but George had pressed her to be specific and was unhappy with her estimate. He had been agitated, saying the description of the Dando suspect matched him but that "it could be anyone".

Mrs Bicknell said George had been to the centre at 11.50am on the day Ms Dando died, 20 minutes after the shooting.

The prosecution allege that George shot Ms Dando, then changed his clothes and went to Hafad to establish an alibi. He has denied murder.

 

[Eyes-on]

All evidence points towards BG, despite his release.

 

[kemo]

Yank here. The Jill Dando murder has always interested me. It seemed pretty obvious, from the start, that this was a situation of a deranged fan killing a celebrity. It seemed incredibly high risk and the perpetrator was extremely lucky not to have been picked up on CCTV or positively identified by someone he passed as he made his getaway. Barry George certainly “fit the profile” of a deranged fan but there were probably plenty of others in the neighborhood. The gun is big question I have. How easy would it have been for some local odd ball with very limited resources to get hold of a gun and ammo in the UK in 1999?

I suppose that the the modification of a replica or a starter gun would be possible but it would require skills and tools he presumably did not process. All indications are that the murder weapon was a real handgun. I would assume that there existed a marketplace for handguns in the UK at the time but your average Britt did not know how to arrange such a purchase. Was it reasonable that Barry George could? More significantly, I would think that anyone who had sold George such a weapon (or been involved in negotiating such a transaction) would realize upon George’s high profile arrest, that they processed some very valuable information. Yet, nobody has ever come forward. In the UK, would that kind of informant be expected to come forward?

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

There doesn't have to be a very high number of suspects for someone else to have killed Jill.

Let's say Barry George is innocent. He hears there's been a shooting nearby and realises that he's going to be a suspect. He doesn't fancy spending another 48 hours in interrogation, like he had to in a previous local murder enquiry. So he panics and tries to create an alibi. He definitely doesn't want the police to find a gun in his flat, even though it's only a replica. He gets rid of the gun, but like the idiot he is, forgets about the photo of him playing SAS.

Is that a possible scenario? IIRC Barry George was questioned as a suspect in the Rachel Nickell investigation

If you care to go back and read my other posts in this thread (and I certainly wouldn't blame you if you don't) I have always acknowledged that it could have been someone other than BG--but only if that person matched BG's profile to the extent that the evidence would fit. The Met investigated thousands of people, including underworld figures, assassins, foreign nationals, and everyone else you could think of. Only BG fit their evidence and didn't have an alibi placing him somewhere else.

I don't doubt there is someone, somewhere, who would also fit the evidence. But the chance of there being two such people on Gowan Avenue on the day of Jill's murder seems vanishingly small. BG was seen on Gowan Avenue earlier in the morning, and he was seen nearby at the help centre shortly afterwards. We know with certainty that he was in the area, something which can't be proven for anyone else.

It's possible BG would have panicked, but his actions still don't make sense. As @WestLondoner noted, letting the police examine his gun could have proven his innocence. Instead the weapon disappeared, and he has done nothing but lie about it ever since.

And I'd like to clarify, once again, that despite BG listing the gun under the heading "Replicas," that model of gun wasn't a replica. It was a blank-firing starter pistol. You probably already know this, but blank cartridges are still real ammunition. There's nothing fake or replica about them. They have a shell casing and gunpowder. The difference is that instead of firing a lead bullet, they fire a "bullet" made from compressed wadding which disintegrates shortly after leaving the barrel and turns into harmless fluff. However, even that wadding "bullet" can be deadly if it's fired at point-blank range; the actor Jon-Erik Hexum (Wiki Link) died after he played Russian roulette with blanks, not realising it was dangerous.

To fire real bullets from the starter pistol would, as I understand it, have required some relatively easy modifications to the gun and probably some modification of the ammunition itself--exactly as was found on the hand-crimped cartridge cases at the scene.

None of it proves BG is guilty beyond *all* doubt. But IMO it does prove his guilt beyond *reasonable* doubt: Because if he didn't do it, there must have been two BG's on Gowan Avenue that morning.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Yank here. The Jill Dando murder has always interested me. It seemed pretty obvious, from the start, that this was a situation of a deranged fan killing a celebrity. It seemed incredibly high risk and the perpetrator was extremely lucky not to have been picked up on CCTV or positively identified by someone he passed as he made his getaway. Barry George certainly “fit the profile” of a deranged fan but there were probably plenty of others in the neighborhood. The gun is big question I have. How easy would it have been for some local odd ball with very limited resources to get hold of a gun and ammo in the UK in 1999?

I suppose that the the modification of a replica or a starter gun would be possible but it would require skills and tools he presumably did not process. All indications are that the murder weapon was a real handgun. I would assume that there existed a marketplace for handguns in the UK at the time but your average Britt did not know how to arrange such a purchase. Was it reasonable that Barry George could? More significantly, I would think that anyone who had sold George such a weapon (or been involved in negotiating such a transaction) would realize upon George’s high profile arrest, that they processed some very valuable information. Yet, nobody has ever come forward. In the UK, would that kind of informant be expected to come forward?

Handguns were effectively banned in the UK after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996. Owning such a weapon in 1999 would be illegal, so for BG to own the weapon at all strongly implied he was dealing with black market criminals. Such people would be unlikely to "grass" on him to the police.

I've always assumed BG would have bought the gun and ammunition pre-modified, rather than doing the work himself--though of course that can't be proven one way or the other.

 

[WestLondoner]

Handguns were effectively banned in the UK after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996. Owning such a weapon in 1999 would be illegal, so for BG to own the weapon at all strongly implied he was dealing with black market criminals. Such people would be unlikely to "grass" on him to the police.

I've always assumed BG would have bought the gun and ammunition pre-modified, rather than doing the work himself--though of course that can't be proven one way or the other.

BG did time for attempted rape. Prison would have put him into contact with criminals capable of doctoring a gun. Could he have modified a gun - maybe, maybe not. Did he know somebody who could have modified a gun - very probably.

 

[WiseOwl]

If you care to go back and read my other posts in this thread (and I certainly wouldn't blame you if you don't) I have always acknowledged that it could have been someone other than BG--but only if that person matched BG's profile to the extent that the evidence would fit. The Met investigated thousands of people, including underworld figures, assassins, foreign nationals, and everyone else you could think of. Only BG fit their evidence and didn't have an alibi placing him somewhere else.

I don't doubt there is someone, somewhere, who would also fit the evidence. But the chance of there being two such people on Gowan Avenue on the day of Jill's murder seems vanishingly small. BG was seen on Gowan Avenue earlier in the morning, and he was seen nearby at the help centre shortly afterwards. We know with certainty that he was in the area, something which can't be proven for anyone else.

It's possible BG would have panicked, but his actions still don't make sense. As @WestLondoner noted, letting the police examine his gun could have proven his innocence. Instead the weapon disappeared, and he has done nothing but lie about it ever since.

And I'd like to clarify, once again, that despite BG listing the gun under the heading "Replicas," that model of gun wasn't a replica. It was a blank-firing starter pistol. You probably already know this, but blank cartridges are still real ammunition. There's nothing fake or replica about them. They have a shell casing and gunpowder. The difference is that instead of firing a lead bullet, they fire a "bullet" made from compressed wadding which disintegrates shortly after leaving the barrel and turns into harmless fluff. However, even that wadding "bullet" can be deadly if it's fired at point-blank range; the actor Jon-Erik Hexum (Wiki Link) died after he played Russian roulette with blanks, not realising it was dangerous.

To fire real bullets from the starter pistol would, as I understand it, have required some relatively easy modifications to the gun and probably some modification of the ammunition itself--exactly as was found on the hand-crimped cartridge cases at the scene.

None of it proves BG is guilty beyond *all* doubt. But IMO it does prove his guilt beyond *reasonable* doubt: Because if he didn't do it, there must have been two BG's on Gowan Avenue that morning.

There were 4 main witnesses put forward by the prosecution to say they had seen BG on Gowan Avenue that morning.

Taken from the book Jill Dando: Her Life and Death by Brian Cathcart (2001), this is their descriptions of the man they saw (pages 260 - 261):

SM: The man was mid-to-late thirties, 5ft 9in tall, slightly overweight and Mediterranean looking - dark hair and slightly olive skin. Black suit with white shirt open at the neck.

SdR: Stocky, between 5ft 8in & 6ft tall, brownish hair, pink complexion and a dark grey suit.

C: Pale skin, Desperate Dan stubble, navy blue suit, dressed smart like an estate agent.

TN: In his thirties, 5ft 8in tall, medium build, collar-length black hair, black suit, no tie and had a bracelet on his wrist that could of been a watch strap.

SM & TM'S descriptions sound similar, but they saw this man at different times. SM saw him around 7am while TM's sighting was at 9.50am. SM saw the man standing next to a burgundy-coloured car parked in the middle of the road (?). She thought the car belonged to the man as he wiped the passenger side of the windscreen as she passed him.

There were two people who saw a man leave the murder scene, these were Jill's neighbours RH & GU-B. Also from the book, this is their descriptions of the man they saw.

Pages 129 - 130:

RH: The man was white, well-dressed and clean-shaven with a solid build and was wearing a dark waxed jacket, like a Barbour.

GU-B: The man was wearing a baggy, thigh-length jacket or coat of some kind.

What i didn't know until i read the book was that both RH and GU-B attended identity parades at different times and both failed to pick out BG as the man they saw leaving the murder scene. Their sightings also differed from the 4 main witness sightings (page 263):

Both RH and GU-B failed to pick out BG at parades; both said that the man they saw had a thick mop of black hair and both said he was wearing a coat of some kind. None of the 4 witnesses described a mop of hair or a coat, they spoke of shortish hair and a suit.

So, if BG is the killer then which of the witness sightings is correct? The 4 put forward by the prosecution, even though none of them have the person they saw in the area at the time of the murder (the latest of the sightings was at 9.50am), or is it the person described by the neighbours that saw him leave Jill's garden, even though they failed to pick him out at the ID parades?

 

[tes1984]

None of it proves BG is guilty beyond *all* doubt. But IMO it does prove his guilt beyond *reasonable* doubt: Because if he didn't do it, there must have been two BG's on Gowan Avenue that morning.

It's not unheard of for two serious offenders to have been in very close proximity at the same time. The police often say 'there's no such thing as coincidence' but I don't agree with them on that.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

There were 4 main witnesses put forward by the prosecution to say they had seen BG on Gowan Avenue that morning.

Taken from the book Jill Dando: Her Life and Death by Brian Cathcart (2001), this is their descriptions of the man they saw (pages 260 - 261):

SM: The man was mid-to-late thirties, 5ft 9in tall, slightly overweight and Mediterranean looking - dark hair and slightly olive skin. Black suit with white shirt open at the neck.

SdR: Stocky, between 5ft 8in & 6ft tall, brownish hair, pink complexion and a dark grey suit.

C: Pale skin, Desperate Dan stubble, navy blue suit, dressed smart like an estate agent.

TN: In his thirties, 5ft 8in tall, medium build, collar-length black hair, black suit, no tie and had a bracelet on his wrist that could of been a watch strap.

SM & TM'S descriptions sound similar, but they saw this man at different times. SM saw him around 7am while TM's sighting was at 9.50am. SM saw the man standing next to a burgundy-coloured car parked in the middle of the road (?). She thought the car belonged to the man as he wiped the passenger side of the windscreen as she passed him.

There were two people who saw a man leave the murder scene, these were Jill's neighbours RH & GU-B. Also from the book, this is their descriptions of the man they saw.

Pages 129 - 130:

RH: The man was white, well-dressed and clean-shaven with a solid build and was wearing a dark waxed jacket, like a Barbour.

GU-B: The man was wearing a baggy, thigh-length jacket or coat of some kind.

What i didn't know until i read the book was that both RH and GU-B attended identity parades at different times and both failed to pick out BG as the man they saw leaving the murder scene. Their sightings also differed from the 4 main witness sightings (page 263):

Both RH and GU-B failed to pick out BG at parades; both said that the man they saw had a thick mop of black hair and both said he was wearing a coat of some kind. None of the 4 witnesses described a mop of hair or a coat, they spoke of shortish hair and a suit.

So, if BG is the killer then which of the witness sightings is correct? The 4 put forward by the prosecution, even though none of them have the person they saw in the area at the time of the murder (the latest of the sightings was at 9.50am), or is it the person described by the neighbours that saw him leave Jill's garden, even though they failed to pick him out at the ID parades?

Thank you for posting this.

The discrepancies are notable, but even within the witness statements there appear to be contradictions. For example, TN is quoted as saying "collar-length hair," but then later, "None of the 4 witnesses described a mop of hair...they spoke of shortish hair."

To me, collar-length isn't particularly short. And how thick or long would it have to be to qualify as a "mop"? There aren't any pictures (at least that I've seen) of BG from April 26 1999, but the pictures of him from around that time period mostly show him with kind of mid-length hair, not really short or particularly long. How such a hairstyle would be described is probably very dependent on the person describing it.

Besides typical witness variance, the descriptions all seem fairly similar to me: they all roughly match BG's age, height, build and hair colour, and describe a smartly-dressed man in dark clothing. It's not like one witness described a skinny man with dark dreadlocks wearing a tie-dye t-shirt, and another described a large man with a blond crew cut who was wearing Gucci. The discrepancies, such as they are, aren't huge, glaring red flags in my opinion.

Polishing a car might be the action of someone who owned the car, but it could equally be the action of a stalker/loiterer who was trying to avoid looking suspicious as they stood around in the street. Without someone coming forward to say it was them, I'm not sure anything can be gleaned from that sighting one way or the other. I also don't think it necessarily matters much that one sighting was at 7:00AM and another at 9:50AM. A person who randomly wandered the streets, as BG was known to do, could presumably be anywhere at any time.

It's not uncommon for witnesses to fail to identify people in a line-up, so I don't think that proves *or* disproves anything. Particularly as the line-ups must have been 12+ months after the killing, and the witnesses who saw the killer leaving didn't get a really good, close look at him. If I remember correctly, one was looking down from an upstairs window and the other watching from across the street?

BG lived close by, so I similarly don't think anything can be taken from the killer wearing a coat. If anything, if the sightings *were* of the same man, returning later with a coat would strongly suggest the killer had that coat easily accessible in the vicinity.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

It's not unheard of for two serious offenders to have been in very close proximity at the same time. The police often say 'there's no such thing as coincidence' but I don't agree with them on that.

Of course it's not uncommon to have two (or more) offenders in the same area at the same time.

But what are the chances that more than one of them owned exactly the same type of rare gun? Or that more than one of them was seen near the site of a murder committed with that type of rare weapon, both hours before and minutes after it happened?

It may not be impossible, but IMO it's highly improbable.

 

[callmehenry]

The argument that nobody trailed her home therefore it can't have been BG (paraphrasing) seems inconclusive to me. If nobody trailed her home, then nobody else killed her either.

The idea of a professional hit seems far fetched too. First, frankly JD was a minor light entertainment presenter with a minimal public profile. Jeremy Paxman or Andrew Neill she wasn't, so she's a highly improbable target. Second, a professional would have shot more than once to make sure, probably after following her inside her house so as to be unobserved, and would have had a getaway planned.

I don’t think a professional would have needed to shoot more than once hence why they are ‘professional’