We don’t even know BG had one, never mind that anyone else did, so we can’t possibly say.
UK UK - Jill Dando, 37, Fulham, London, 26 Apr 1999
- Thread starter wfgodot
- Start date
Look at the Linda Cook murder. Michael Shirley spent 16 years in prison, before DNA proved he wasn't the killer.
Michael Shirley looked an outstanding suspect, but turned out to be completely innocent. The police still haven't found Linda's murderer, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist somewhere out there.
The *exact* kind of weapon used to kill her isn’t known.
Again, David Pryor said at the original trial that the bullet could’ve been fired “from a deactivated pistol that had been reactivated, a blank firing gun that had been converted, or a type of 24-inch handgun manufactured a few years ago with a long smooth barrel instead of a shorter rifled barrel.”
So, possibly from a gun like BG’s that had been modified, but also possibly from a deactivated gun that had been reactivated, or possibly from another type of gun entirely.
Where are you getting that BG’s possibly-not-even-modified gun is the *exact* kind of weapon used to kill JD?
Never mind that we’ve no proof BG could’ve made the necessary modifications, nor that he knew anyone who did.
The absence of this vital evidence is a weakness in your case, not mine, yet - as so often happens regarding BG - in the space where actual evidence should be we instead get nothing but a series of postulations, until BG is in possession of the *exact* kind of weapon used to kill JD! It’s bizarre.
I have in my memory Rachel Nickell's case. The police focused on a suspect in many aspects similar to BG, a loner, living in the area and perceived as a creep. They were so sure he was the man they honeytrapped him and went with that to the court, only to have their heads chewed off by the judge. They were adamant they had the right man but they did not. And that's one of many cases when desperate LE laser focused on a wrong suspect, because at the first glance he looked promising.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2023
- Messages
- 1,353
- Reaction score
- 13,130
I'm well aware that miscarriages of justice happen, but I don't see how the Linda Cook case is in any way comparable to Jill's. You're comparing apples to watermelons.
Linda had huge amounts of forensic evidence on her body, yet all of the evidence (aside from the DNA) could have pointed to many different people. There was nothing unique that would point to one specific person.
Michael was targeted because a woman he had been with in the vicinity of Linda's murder pointed him out to the police. His shoes matched the killer's, but no blood was found on them despite Linda being brutally stamped on. Moreover, hundreds of pairs had been sold in Portsmouth alone and hundreds of thousands of pairs had been imported into the UK. His blood group matched the killer's, but so did nearly a quarter of men in the UK.
Michael really wasn't a particularly outstanding suspect when examining the evidence. DNA testing was barely available in 1986 but it's unforgiveable that it took 16 years to finally test the evidence.
BG on the surface looks like very good suspect, but only on the surface. The problem is, he is messy, clumsy, disorganised and not very bright while this murder was committed by someone intelligent, with good knowledge in forensics and guns and good skills in planning.
This person chose smooth barreled gun. Lack of rifling makes it way harder to tie the bullet to the gun. They diminished the risk of not aiming properly by pressung the gun to the victim's head. By putting victim on the ground and shooting at the horizontal angle they avoided most of the incoming blood, whatever tiny droplets fell on their sleeve were practically invisible on that dark wax jacket. Their clothing, smart and good looking, made them look less suspicious. RH, who saw the suspect leaving the gate, thought at first it was one of Jill's guests, precisely because the man's clothes were elegant. The whole crome was done in a very fast and efficient manner, no unnecessary scuffle, not much of noise.
Speaking of noise, the ammo used was also worked on by the killer to reduce the noise. Quite succesfully, no witness recalled hearing a shot. I think they heard it all right, but it was quiet enough to get misinterpreted as the sound of the gate being shut, a knock or any other similar innocent noise. That, paired with the cover, provided by the wall in front of the house, allowed the killer to avoid being caught in the act.
I can agree that one shot to the head was not a choice professional killer would make, as the head injuries are notoriously unpredictable and what looks like a fatal shot might eventually not be one. But the rest of that murder is very well planned.
This person chose smooth barreled gun. Lack of rifling makes it way harder to tie the bullet to the gun. They diminished the risk of not aiming properly by pressung the gun to the victim's head. By putting victim on the ground and shooting at the horizontal angle they avoided most of the incoming blood, whatever tiny droplets fell on their sleeve were practically invisible on that dark wax jacket. Their clothing, smart and good looking, made them look less suspicious. RH, who saw the suspect leaving the gate, thought at first it was one of Jill's guests, precisely because the man's clothes were elegant. The whole crome was done in a very fast and efficient manner, no unnecessary scuffle, not much of noise.
Speaking of noise, the ammo used was also worked on by the killer to reduce the noise. Quite succesfully, no witness recalled hearing a shot. I think they heard it all right, but it was quiet enough to get misinterpreted as the sound of the gate being shut, a knock or any other similar innocent noise. That, paired with the cover, provided by the wall in front of the house, allowed the killer to avoid being caught in the act.
I can agree that one shot to the head was not a choice professional killer would make, as the head injuries are notoriously unpredictable and what looks like a fatal shot might eventually not be one. But the rest of that murder is very well planned.
I imagine that on the day that BG first came to his attention Hamish Campbell must’ve been dancing on his desk. Any one of us would’ve felt the same way I’m sure. The guy ticked so many boxes.
Then imagine when they first got inside BG’s flat - it must’ve looked like an absolute treasure trove.
But the evidence just wasn’t there.
It’s infuriating the paramedics, however well intentioned, tried reviving JD when every layperson who’d seen her prior to their arrival recognised she was already dead. Good folk like HD tried to preserve what was very obviously a crime scene, just for it to be destroyed. People get rightly angry at this.
Yet some of these same people are remarkably relaxed about police mishandling BG’s coat. It wasn’t done deliberately, but once that coat is removed from the evidence bag and rested on a crate in a police photographic studio which a couple of months earlier had been used to take photos of a gun and ammunition, it’s finished. People can talk about statistics and probabilities but not a single person on this forum, nor Mr Ross, would accept being convicted off the back of a piece of evidence like that. Perhaps the particle was residue from ‘the smoking gun’, perhaps it was contamination, perhaps it wasn’t even GSR at all. We’ll never know.
This whole business of the gun is typical of what’s left of the ‘evidence’ against BG. He definitely owned a blank firing gun at some point, the photo of him holding it is proof. To make the case that this is the murder weapon, you have to make a series of postulations:
it *might’ve* been modified to fire live ammunition, if not by BG then *perhaps* by some criminal connection (identity unknown);
it *could’ve* been the kind of gun used to kill JD;
it *must’ve* been disposed of after the crime;
BG lied about owning it - *surely* a sign of guilt;
*probably* no one else in West London could’ve possessed such a weapon, whilst also possessing a criminal record like BG’s.
None of these things are outlandish or bizarre. But there’s a lot of maybes and might haves here. In the end all we can say with certainty is that a photo exists of a man holding a gun. Yet instead there’s now a big tick in the box next to ‘means’, and the man’s halfway to guilty again.
I don’t feel any sympathy for BG, he’s a deeply unpleasant individual. The time he served for this crime is time he should’ve served for all the women he hurt and harassed and got away with. But justice for the victim of this crime isn’t served by that.
Last edited:
The choice of the gun and the ammo modification point, IMO, away from the theories of the attacker firing in anger, or during a scuffle. I believe they are the evidence of deep premeditation.
With smoothbore gun and reduced amount of powder in the cartridge, pressing the gun to victim's body was the only way to ensure the bullet landed where the killer wanted it to land. That makes me believe even stronger the aim was from the beginning to kill JD.
You do not spend your time reducing the load in the cartridge when your only purpose is waving the gun to scare others. And I don't think the use of the smoothbore gun was just a coincidence. That kind of gun was much easier to obtain without any paper trail and without turning any attention and it is less identifiable than a regular gun.
Then there is the place. Someone who stalked JD would hang around her fiancé's place where she actually lived, not around her Fulham flat she visited rarely and not very regularly. That's how stalkers operate, they stalk the spots frequented by their victims, not the places the victim might appear once a week, maybe, but sometimes not, not sure which day. That area though provided the best opportunity to make a blitz attack without being caught in the act. Jill's fiancé's place in posh hood was not easily accessible, her workplace was super busy, always full of people coming in and out.
Gowan Avenue in quiet, residential area provided the best opportunity as long as the kill was not done blatantly in the open, the victim did not scream too much and the shot did not alarm everyone in the area. That's why reduced load of the gunpowder, Jill thrown to the ground and barrel pressed into her temple. To make the kiling fast, efficient and as invisible to the neighbours as possible.
With smoothbore gun and reduced amount of powder in the cartridge, pressing the gun to victim's body was the only way to ensure the bullet landed where the killer wanted it to land. That makes me believe even stronger the aim was from the beginning to kill JD.
You do not spend your time reducing the load in the cartridge when your only purpose is waving the gun to scare others. And I don't think the use of the smoothbore gun was just a coincidence. That kind of gun was much easier to obtain without any paper trail and without turning any attention and it is less identifiable than a regular gun.
Then there is the place. Someone who stalked JD would hang around her fiancé's place where she actually lived, not around her Fulham flat she visited rarely and not very regularly. That's how stalkers operate, they stalk the spots frequented by their victims, not the places the victim might appear once a week, maybe, but sometimes not, not sure which day. That area though provided the best opportunity to make a blitz attack without being caught in the act. Jill's fiancé's place in posh hood was not easily accessible, her workplace was super busy, always full of people coming in and out.
Gowan Avenue in quiet, residential area provided the best opportunity as long as the kill was not done blatantly in the open, the victim did not scream too much and the shot did not alarm everyone in the area. That's why reduced load of the gunpowder, Jill thrown to the ground and barrel pressed into her temple. To make the kiling fast, efficient and as invisible to the neighbours as possible.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2023
- Messages
- 1,353
- Reaction score
- 13,130
What's bizarre is that you'll selectively use David Pryor to support your argument and nitpick mine, yet fail to use his evidence when it disputes what you're saying.
It's David Pryor who said the gun BG was holding in the photo appeared to have been modified!
Bizarre life of a fantasist caught in the wrong place at the wrong
He was the "local nutter", the loner who stalked women, had a personality disorder, convictions for sex offences, an obsession with guns and an equally unhealthy fixation with celebrities.
www.independent.co.uk
Police searching his home found countless military magazines as well as a photograph of BG brandishing a Bruni blank-firing pistol. The prosecution insisted it was the same type of gun used to kill Ms Dando and a firearms expert, David Pryor, gave evidence that it appeared to have been modified to fire live rounds.
Moreover, we actually do have evidence that BG claimed to know people who could do work on guns:
Jill Dando murder trial: suspect followed women on inline skates
The man accused of murdering the TV presenter Jill Dando bought a pair of inline skates so that he could follow women, the Old Bailey heard today
"He said he used to have a friend from the army who dismantled guns and put them back together again."
And apart from the Bruni pistol in the photograph, there is evidence that he owned a submachine gun and at least one other unidentified silver pistol which has also never been accounted for:
On another occasion, she went into his room and he produced a "small, shiny silver gun" from a box.
*Appeared*, yes. But you’re going to need more than the *appearance* of a modification to prove that it had been.
But BG is a known liar and fantasist - we know this because people who believe he’s guilty tell us so all the time. Choosing when and when not to believe BG seems to me to be the very definition of the selectivity you speak of.
There was a substantial reward on offer. Probably a lucrative News of the World interview too. No doubt a deal could’ve been struck with police. All very tempting, even for a criminal. But no one came forward to say they’d modified a gun for BG, or knew someone who had.
And amongst all the supposed evidence of his gun fanaticism, not one shred of evidence BG had learnt how to modify one himself. The guy couldn’t even take his bins out.
I just want to point out another thing. BG quite clearly speaks about knowing someone, who can disassembly and then reassembly a gun. Being able to take something into pieces and then put it back together is absolutely not the same as being able to modify any of the elements to make it work in a different way.
So, basically, BG did not actually admit knowing anyone able to modify a gun.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 4,175
Wrong again. You present the matter to a jury and invite them to consider how many other people exactly like BG might have been around and who were as likely as he was to be guilty off the same set of circumstantial evidence. The jury felt entirely capable of judging how many rapist weapon-nut fantasist jail bird stalkers there were in the area, concluded it was one and convicted him. When BG was refused compo, it was because there was nothing unreasonable about the original trial's outcome. That is, even without the GSR issue, there was still a solid case against him.
Sure it's known. DP described it as any of only three. BG had indeed owned one of those types of weapon and he could not account for its whereabouts. Of course he couldn't.
If JD had been shot with either a Charles Moore 1830 pill-lock pistol, a Joseph Manton 1820 scent-bottle lock pistol, or an 1840s Colt Walker dragoon revolver, and BG had photographed himself with the latter, nobody would seriously suggest the fact that it could have been either of the other two lets BG off the hook. The uncertainty about what "exact" weapon was used does not point away from BG, which makes it largely beside the point so far as his guilt or innocence are concerned.
Conjecture. One can't rule out the clumsy-LARPing-idiot explanation, which we know BG was from his Kensington palace and other escapades, and of course there's absolutely no evidence for anyone else. Furthermore, this conjectural person "with good knowledge in forensics and guns and good skills in planning" also had to want to kill JD and be so dim as to be unable to think of a better place to do it than on her doorstep, in daylight and on foot.
This is exactly what occurred at the second trial, where the only evidence presented against BG was *circumstantial*.
And the outcome of said second trial was not guilty, a verdict the jury reached in double quick time.
I’m sorry you don’t respect that outcome - which was the only verdict a sensible jury could reach once the GSR evidence was withdrawn - but that’s the *reality* of what happened, rather than the fantasy you’ve constructed where BG can be the only person who ‘fits the facts’.
Last edited:
A very good point. I hadn’t picked up on this difference but it’s a marked one.
Furthermore, the conversation this witness recounted occurred 13 years before the murder! Even if we take BG at his word (which obviously we shouldn’t) and agree that he did know someone who “dismantled guns and put them back together again”, I find it hard to believe that this pathetic loner would even be on contactable terms with said someone over a decade later, especially in an era before the internet and mobile phones.
Why do you think it is a conjecture? Apart from "but it was BG"?
Based on what? I find it interesting that this LARPing clumsy idiot did not speak or interact with JD in any other way than throwing her to the ground from behind and putting bullet in her brain.
Yes, that's what I wrote multiple times. Someone wanted and planned to kill JD, IMO of course.
Okay, what would be a better place to kill a busy woman living in posh district and working in the city center? Which place would be better than quiet residential street? And how do you know he was on foot? How did you manage to exclude from the pool of suspects, for example, the driver of blue range rover seen driving erratically in the area, shortly after JD was shot?
Agree with this. Let’s not forget that JD wasn’t discovered for around 15 minutes after the shooting, and had the person passing by her house not been her friend HD, who made a point of looking at her door to see if she was around to chat, it’s possible it might’ve taken even longer. By the time HD made her 999 call the killer was long gone.
This is all just theorising on my part.
IMO those car lined streets with the odd tree dotted about provided ample cover for a waiting shooter capable of not drawing attention to themselves, and the front of JD’s home in particular offered quite a lot of privacy. JMO, but just before lunchtime is often a time when the ebb and flow of a work day lulls somewhat - the many witness sightings of a man/men in/around Gowan Avenue that morning make it seem like the area was a hotbed of activity but these sightings were fairly spread out, both in terms of time and geography. The potential for someone to arrive and remain relatively inconspicuous was high IMO.
There’s a chance the neighbours misremembered what the killer was wearing, but if correct their descriptions of his jacket are markedly different to the descriptions given of clothing worn by the other man/men sighted by witnesses that morning. No one sees a man in a waxed jacket arrive, nor do they see him leaving once he’s out of sight of JD’s neighbours. IMO it’s just as likely our killer was as adept at making an inconspicuous escape as he was at murdering JD with minimal fuss.
Then of course he gets a stroke of luck - our undertaker, JS, running in and out of traffic on Fulham Palace Road. Naturally, eyes are drawn in that direction. And he becomes the focus of police attention. What are the odds? The chances that, apparently innocently enough, you find yourself running, like - as one witness put it - your life depends on it, at the same time that just up the road JD lies dead but undiscovered on her doorstep, must be slim to almost none? Yet it happened. Strange and coincidental things often do. In this case and others.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 4,175
There were two trials with two different verdicts. One, therefore, was wrong. It's unfortunate that some don't realise the importance of challenging verdicts. It's fortunate for BG that someone questioned the first one.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 4,175
Because it's an assertion with no evidence. Nothing about the murder requires a skilful assailant. It's not like she was picked off by a sniper from a mile away, which would require skill. She was shot from range so close the killer couldn't possibly miss.
Doesn't follow at all. The clumsy idiot hypothesis just requires a moron.
Inside the house she was entering would be excellent. As she opens the door you barge her inside and close it. You then shoot her as often as required and leave.
He was identified and eliminated.
Last edited:
Knowing that reduced load of powder will result in less noise. Reducing that load in the cartridge. Bringing JD down without much noise. Planning whole murder in such a way to limit the forensic trail left behind (victim's position, angle of the shot, smooth bore gun, clothing on which blood spatter is practically invisible). That's not something improvised on the spot by a bumblinf amateur. That requires certain skills and patience.
Now, why a messy LARPing amateur would bother himself with reducing the load of the gunpowder in his ammo?
Consciously avoiding being sprayed with blood requires both knowledge and skill.
A moron will not commit a fast and quiet murder in residential area, with witnesses in the distance of a potato throw. Your moron would have to be very, very lucky - wasn't seen in the act, the victim did not make any noise but one, not very loud, exclamation, there was no fight, no missed shots, and he did not get blood on his face or clothes. Lot's of luck for one moron.
Fine scenario, but relies on victim behaving like a mannequin. Living human being might freeze in that situation, but also might not. You do not want your victim to start running and screaming while you are closing the door.
Here JD got restrained and shot probably before she managed to understand what exactly was happening.
Can you provide source of that info? Because I've seen multiple press articles even from this year in which the Range Rover in question is described as still unidentified, but not a single one claiming it's driver was cleared.
I’m not sure on the RR but we know the man captured on CCTV at Putney Bridge station wasn’t traced.
This huge delay was largely due to police mistakenly believing it wasn’t possible for this person to have arrived at the tube station at 11.53am. But the Mirror showed last year that it was.
The man was never identified.
www.mirror.co.uk
Was he the killer? Unlikely. But he was never traced, because a mistake was made. Perhaps this was the only mistake police made, perhaps the only lead they didn’t pursue. But imo that seems just as unlikely.
This huge delay was largely due to police mistakenly believing it wasn’t possible for this person to have arrived at the tube station at 11.53am. But the Mirror showed last year that it was.
The man was never identified.
Major unanswered question in police probe into Jill Dando's murder
An unidentified individual, wearing a suit and tie, was caught on CCTV on the killer’s suspected escape route on April 26, 1999 - Jill Dando's murderer has never been caught
Was he the killer? Unlikely. But he was never traced, because a mistake was made. Perhaps this was the only mistake police made, perhaps the only lead they didn’t pursue. But imo that seems just as unlikely.
Similar threads
Staff online
-
FraizeAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 130
- Guests online
- 2,203
- Total visitors
- 2,333