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

[rvlvr]

This news really caught my eye last year, thanks for sharing it again dotr, particularly the video. Even if police believed the timings weren’t right, did they do enough to locate this individual, even if only to rule him out?

What’s confusing about this sighting, is that several people reported seeing a man either running down Fulham Palace Road or waiting, sweating, at a bus stop on FPR, in the minutes after JD’s murder - their sightings helped form the widely circulated e-fit that we see in the Mirror’s video.

But about a month after the murder, running/e-fit man was reported to have been identified as ‘JS’, a funeral director. JS was interviewed by the press and claimed he was running away from a man who was trying to have sex with him.

According to Hamish Campbell, JS was a fantasist and a liar, who “had previously thought to involve himself in other murder investigations”. Still, police apparently had grounds to rule him out.

What if running man wasn’t actually JS, but instead was the individual captured on CCTV at Putney Bridge station? Were any of the other witnesses - either on Fulham Palace Road, or those located in or around Gowan Avenue - ever shown the CCTV and asked to identify this man? Who was he?

A big issue I have with most sightings in this case is that JD’s neighbours who saw the killer leaving the scene described him as wearing a waxy, thigh-length, Barbour-style jacket. Yet running man in the Crimewatch reconstruction is wearing a simple dark suit. Indeed none of the Crimewatch witnesses are shown wearing a waxy, thigh-length, Barbour-style jacket. The man at Putney Bridge station doesn’t appear to be wearing one. And of course, BG’s coat wasn’t of this style either.

 

[WestLondoner]

A big issue I have with most sightings in this case is that JD’s neighbours who saw the killer leaving the scene described him as wearing a waxy, thigh-length, Barbour-style jacket. Yet running man in the Crimewatch reconstruction is wearing a simple dark suit. Indeed none of the Crimewatch witnesses are shown wearing a waxy, thigh-length, Barbour-style jacket. The man at Putney Bridge station doesn’t appear to be wearing one. And of course, BG’s coat wasn’t of this style either.

So the description is inconclusive in respect of any hypothesis, in effect.

If this was all about the BBC coverage of Serbia, the obvious person to whack is surely whoever was reporting on Serbia. This wasn't JD, who merely fronted an appeal. It's as though someone were upset about the bias of the BBC's Gaza reporting, so instead of whacking Jeremy Bowen, they hit Graham Norton.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Ulemek's looks are pretty generic though. In fact, he bears a striking resemblance to Barry George in my eyes...similar hair, colouring, face shape etc.

I'm glad you said this, because I was about to say it myself and hoped I wasn't the only one. BG has quite a generic appearance with the exception of his strong brow ridge--the only facial feature clearly visible in the mask photo--and this hitman guy really does have similar features IMO.

 

[Sam10098]

You think a Serbian with diplomatic immunity gives a **** about it being a famous case?

No but I would expect they would have at least a vague understanding of how not to become a top news story

 

[rvlvr]

“It's as though someone were upset about the bias of the BBC's Gaza reporting, so instead of whacking Jeremy Bowen, they hit Graham Norton.”
<modsnip - personalizing>

It was precisely this combination - BBC News + crime show presenter - that made her murder, from a reporting perspective, almost too unbelievable to be true.

 

[rvlvr]

No but I would expect they would have at least a vague understanding of how not to become a top news story

This makes no sense - hitmen murder people, and murders make the news. Worst case scenario as a hitman is police solve your crime and you make the news. Becoming a thread on Websleuths decades later is surely the *best* case outcome.

 

[rvlvr]

Do we know how long BG was under surveillance for?

Three weeks. They also tried a honey trap - a female officer codenamed Sonia chatted him up for an hour at an internet cafe during which time they discussed JD’s murder, but according to The Mirror BG said nothing incriminating.

Source: Cops tried honeytrap to get Barry George to confess to Jill Dando murder

It’s also worth noting that police “virtually stripped” BG’s flat when they searched it, “with officers lifting floorboards, examining all the fixtures and fittings and even drilling behind new plaster walls to discover if there was anything hidden behind them.”

Imo it’s fairly staggering, given the lengths they went to, that police found absolutely nothing incriminating, save for the now discredited evidence of a particle of ‘gunshot residue’ in BG’s coat (an item of clothing that didn’t match the description given by JD’s neighbours of the coat worn by JD’s killer).

You could argue he’d had a year to dispose of evidence, but as Detective Constable Charles Isaacs said at BG’s first trial when describing BG’s flat: “It was very untidy, in my opinion disorganised and in some respects unhygienic.

“There were newspapers, bin bags and debris everywhere - we couldn't even see the floor.”

The search was filmed and the video shown to the court was said to show officers “having difficulties moving around the rooms because of the debris, which was also spread over kitchen surfaces and even in the bathroom sink.”

Source: BBC NEWS | UK | Dando jury shown defendant's home

For BG to have removed any and every trace of any possible kind of connection between himself and JD, in such chaotic conditions, seems utterly extraordinary to me. Imo they found nothing because there was never anything to find.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

Three weeks. They also tried a honey trap - a female officer codenamed Sonia chatted him up for an hour at an internet cafe during which time they discussed JD’s murder, but according to The Mirror BG said nothing incriminating.

Source: Cops tried honeytrap to get Barry George to confess to Jill Dando murder

It’s also worth noting that police “virtually stripped” BG’s flat when they searched it, “with officers lifting floorboards, examining all the fixtures and fittings and even drilling behind new plaster walls to discover if there was anything hidden behind them.”

Imo it’s fairly staggering, given the lengths they went to, that police found absolutely nothing incriminating, save for the now discredited evidence of a particle of ‘gunshot residue’ in BG’s coat (an item of clothing that didn’t match the description given by JD’s neighbours of the coat worn by JD’s killer).

You could argue he’d had a year to dispose of evidence, but as Detective Constable Charles Isaacs said at BG’s first trial when describing BG’s flat: “It was very untidy, in my opinion disorganised and in some respects unhygienic.

“There were newspapers, bin bags and debris everywhere - we couldn't even see the floor.”

The search was filmed and the video shown to the court was said to show officers “having difficulties moving around the rooms because of the debris, which was also spread over kitchen surfaces and even in the bathroom sink.”

Source: BBC NEWS | UK | Dando jury shown defendant's home

For BG to have removed any and every trace of any possible kind of connection between himself and JD, in such chaotic conditions, seems utterly extraordinary to me. Imo they found nothing because there was never anything to find.

I haven't heard about a honeytrap operation before. Wouldn't any intelligence arising from such an operation be inadmissible?

 

[rvlvr]

I haven't heard about a honeytrap operation before. Wouldn't any intelligence arising from such an operation be inadmissible?

Pretty much. As we all probably know, the case against Colin Stagg for the murder of Rachel Nickell collapsed in 1994 because the judge threw out honey trap evidence, which was the only evidence police had.

Funnily enough I recently came across a 2006 BBC article regarding a Panorama episode that questioned BG’s guilt. I’ve not seen the episode, but the story makes for interesting reading. Amongst other things, it claims BG had previously been questioned about the Nickell case, and that this could’ve explained why he was so keen to establish an alibi for himself after JD’s murder, for fear of being pursued for her killing.

JMO, but knowing how appallingly police handled the Nickell investigation, I can imagine that anyone who’d had dealings with them during that period would’ve been very reluctant to cross paths with them again.

And of course, at the time of JD’s murder, Nickell’s killer Robert Napper was still very much on the loose, the police had tried and failed to fit up an innocent man, and the case was unsolved. With his track record, this must’ve weighed heavily on the mind of a man like BG, imo.

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Panorama | Jill Dando's murder: The new evidence

news.bbc.co.uk

 

[rvlvr]

Robert Napper was still very much on the loose

Actually, I should clarify this is incorrect - Napper was actually in Broadmoor, for a double murder. But it was only in 2008 that he was convicted of RK’s killing, following advances in DNA profiling. The case was unsolved in 1999.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

“It's as though someone were upset about the bias of the BBC's Gaza reporting, so instead of whacking Jeremy Bowen, they hit Graham Norton.”

<modsnip- personalizing>

It was precisely this combination - BBC News + crime show presenter - that made her murder, from a reporting perspective, almost too unbelievable to be true.

Sure she was a trained journalist who worked on a paper in the West Country before becoming a local newsreader iirc but most people will remember JD as the presenter of that Holiday programme, a news presenter, and for Crimewatch. At the time of her death, she was working on an antiques programme iirc, so another presenting role.

 

[rvlvr]

She was primarily a newsreader. There are videos of her reading BBC News on YouTube from late 1998 that aren’t hard to find, as far I’m aware she was still working for the news department at the time of her death.

It’s true she’d recently branched out but she was a serious broadcaster rooted in TV news and factual television, such as Crimewatch and Holiday. Comparisons with light entertainers and comedians are wrong and in poor taste.

 

[kemo]

This case is frustrating because it is so high profile and somehow, a “possible” is worse than no suspect at all. I am inclined to dismiss this as an organized planned assassination because her death would have had no value to any cause except as a “symbol” and a symbol has no value unless the symbolism is understood. There was no credible letter sent.

I think it was some random guy who got hold of a gun and decided to act on a fantasy. He may have been targeting a woman; perhaps a young attractive one or he could have been targeting anyone where the right opportunity to get a good aim and a clean escape with minimal witnesses. It seems so unlikely that Jill was specifically targeted because any rando would not know when she have been there.

BG might “fit the profile” but there is no real evidence against him. The perpetrator might be a bit of a loner but there is no reason to believe he would be mentally ill or otherwise dysfunctional. He could be pretty cub anyone. One thing for sure, at least once he got very lucky.

 

[tes1984]

I can't really imagine a random target just happening to be one of the most recognisable women in the country. JD had a lot of stalkers (or super fans as they were called in those days).

Others have mentioned surprise at how lax JD's security arrangements were. She was a major star, so I'm surprised she didn't have a minder/driver at very least.

 

[rvlvr]

I am inclined to dismiss this as an organized planned assassination because her death would have had no value to any cause except as a “symbol” and a symbol has no value unless the symbolism is understood. There was no credible letter sent.

I’m not dismissing your analysis, I’m not wedded to any particular theory, but I’m curious as to why a claim of responsibility would need to be made in letter form, rather than by telephone? Or why an official claim would even be made at all. Imo the symbolism of such a killing needs only to be suspected, never mind known, by those who need to know.

In this case JD’s killing and the calls that followed sparked enough panic at the BBC that her boss was forced into hiding, and her colleagues - many of them visibly distraught at both her death, and the manner of it - spoke about death threats they’d received either before or after the event. It was a deeply unsettling time for the corporation and imo her killer, be they an individual, a gang, or a state, would’ve been pleased with that outcome.

Source: BBC News | UK | BBC newsman reveals death threat

Even if the claims of responsibility and the death threats made weren’t genuine, evidently there was a strength of feeling against the BBC. The Serbian government had warned of reprisals against the West and had singled out the BBC’s news coverage for criticism, but this could’ve just been desperate bluster from men who knew they were destined for The Hague. The gunman may indeed have been a lone wolf, but perhaps his motivation was political rather than sexual.

What’s curious is we obviously know about the police investigation into BG, but other characters crop up regularly in the early days of the case, like the undertaker (‘JS’), as well as a mechanic who was surveilled at a large financial cost after being named by a police informant, before being cleared. But we know so little about investigations into calls made to the BBC. I’ve no doubt they were looked into thoroughly but if the conclusion was reached that these were empty threats and bogus claims, then presumably police would’ve been keen to share the evidence supporting that - they were never shy in utilising the media, either directly or via leaks. And yet, to my knowledge, we know next to nothing on this front. Imo that information could put a lot of questions and theories to bed.

 

[WestLondoner]

AIUI one of the grounds for taking claims of responsibility seriously is when the claimant knows and mentions something about the case that's never been disclosed in the public domain. This is why the Ripper tape hoaxer was taken seriously, although a detective on the case showed that in fact, nothing mentioned in his tapes and letters hadn't previously been in the press. It's why when chancers claim responsibility for some outrage they can usually be dismissed, unless they guess very luckily.

I am not sure on what basis these claims were taken seriously by anyone at the time.

 

[WestLondoner]

She was primarily a newsreader. There are videos of her reading BBC News on YouTube from late 1998 that aren’t hard to find, as far I’m aware she was still working for the news department at the time of her death.

It’s true she’d recently branched out but she was a serious broadcaster rooted in TV news and factual television, such as Crimewatch and Holiday. Comparisons with light entertainers and comedians are wrong and in poor taste.

Newsreaders aren't journalists, they're newsreaders. JD never did a significant interview with any major figure, nor did she lead a serious journalistic investigation of anything. If she were alive today, she'd be co-presenting Strictly. She just lived near BG.

 

[rvlvr]

She was a trained journalist and worked for five years as one before joining the BBC, firstly as a regional newsreader, before moving to the national news in London in 1988. For over a decade she read the news on every major BBC News programme, from Breakfast to the 6 o’clock news. This was the bedrock of her career and imo it’s bizarre you’re carrying this on, but I’m happy to continue to rebut your posts because if nothing else it’s just common decency to not misrepresent a murder victim’s occupation and career status in this way.

Edited for spelling

 

[kemo]

Per rvivr: I’m not dismissing your analysis, I’m not wedded to any particular theory, but I’m curious as to why a claim of responsibility would need to be made in letter form, rather than by telephone? Or why an official claim would even be made at all. Imo the symbolism of such a killing needs only to be suspected, never mind known, by those who need to know.“

JD was a presenter and had absolutely no influence on BBC editorial content. She apparently did at times cover stories about the Balkans conflict and presumably some were not favorable to Serbia and its thuggish leadership at the time. Still, that story was only one of many she had covered. She was hardly someone who would be associated with unfavorable stories about Serbia in the public mind. She would not be seen as a symbol of “negative reporting about Serbia”. Had a credible claim to take credit for the killing with information about the killing unknown to the public, she could have become a symbol. This never happened. I don’t think there is any reason to believe whoever did this ever claimed credit.

 

[rvlvr]

She didn’t need to be closely associated with coverage of the war, though. If anything that’d be a little too on the nose. If you were a nation with a reputation for carrying out assassinations on foreign soil and wanted to strike against the British political-media establishment, and in particular the BBC, then imo you’d find someone with the right blend of news background plus status and profile - who also happens to be gettable.

Imo, it’s difficult to think of a better fit than the newsreader, Crimewatch presenter and BBC ‘golden girl’, living a relatively regular, security-free life that, geographically, was contained, neatly and routinely, between Fulham, Chiswick, and the BBC.

You’re not expecting this to change the course of the war, revenge is your primary motivation, and in that regard the attack is a success. You don’t claim the attack officially because that would only harden public opinion against you further - but unsettling a media organisation that you despise and leaving the Met stumped are definitely part of a satisfying ripple effect.

Imo as a theory it’s simple, and works as well as any other. The problem is a lack of supporting evidence - though sadly that’s true of all the other theories too.