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

[Hexe]

Again, why would that make it "most probable" to get a single particle of GSR from the hands of police officers rather than from the hands of BG himself?

Because BG was arrested (and his coat seized) a year after Jill Dando was murdered. What is more probable, that this particle, easily washing off and falling off the fabric miraculously lasted in the pocket for a year, or that it was accidentally from the hands of the police officers, who are in constant cintact with guns?

You're absolutely correct, no weapons or ammunition were found at all. And yet BG had a ledger of purchases, and a picture of himself holding precisely the kind of weapon that could have fired the murder bullet. So those weapons were clearly disposed of at some point. The Met's firearms specialist didn't merely identify the weapon in the photo as "something that might be a 9mm gun"; it was identified as a very specific type of 8mm Bruni blank-firing pistol, which could be crudely and apparently quite easily modified to fire the kind of custom 9mm ammunition used to shoot Jill:

So he owned that gun at some point before the murder. It was not proven he owned such gun at the time of the murder. And, aa far as I remember no tools or workshop were found in BG's house.

Both you and rvlvr keep making a big deal of the killer supposedly wearing a waxed jacket--because that detail is crucial to your argument against BG's jacket--but from the distance and vantage point of the two primary witnesses on a dreary overcast day, I'm not sure how easy it would be to tell cotton from any other dark fabric. I don't know that I could. YMMV and I'm sure you think I'm wrong.

Who says anything about recognising fabrics? The fact is the overcoat owned by BG is distinctly different from the wax jacket both in shape and length. It's imposdible to confuse the two even on a cloudy day.

You wanted proof that BG was seen on Gowan Avenue earlier on that morning. I'll provide it, though I suspect it probably won't be good enough for you. From BG's Wiki page, citing trial documents:

One witness who had identified him as being in Jill Dando's street four and a half hours before the murder and other witnesses who, although they could not pick George out at an identity parade, saw a man in the street in the two hours before the murder who might have been George.

[

You're right, "might be" does not cut it for me.

A handwritten note found in his messy groundfloor flat in Crookham Road may hint at the truth of what happened on April 26 1999. "I have difficulty handling rejection", George confessed. "I become angry ... it starts a chain of events which is beyond my control."

Jill was not shot in a rage, so I do not seen a connection.

BG is a sex offender who was inappropriate with most every woman who crossed his path.

JD was not sexually assaulted. Someone approached her and shot. That's all that happened.

We know Jill had time to cry out; we don't know exactly what she had seen or felt, whether it was cry of alarm, pain, or something else entirely. But we do know she wasn't caught entirely unaware. We also know she wasn't simply shot where she stood and left to crumple in a heap: she was forced down to the ground with her legs bent awkwardly and her nose practically touching the ceramic tiles of the doorstep.

Was anyone in this tread denying it?

There may not be evidence proving a struggle. But I would contend it's quite unlikely that a fit, healthy woman who had been taken by surprise, would allow herself to be pushed to the ground without fighting back.

First, Jill was taken by surprise, second, healthy fit people do have a freeze reaction to danger too. Third, the timeline does not leave time for any fight between her and the perpetrator (nor for any other interaction).

Why would it be necessary to force Jill to the ground if she wasn't fighting back and your only intent was to kill her?

To not be seen in the act of killing JD by every person present around. You know, if people noticed he was murdering someone it could make his escape a tad difficult.

Also, that position helps to limit the amount of blood that lands on perpetrator, I'd say.

Why wait until you have her on the ground whether she's fighting or not?

See above.

That isn't clean and quick. It's actually unnecessarily sloppy and wastes precious seconds. To me it has always felt much more like the gun was used to threaten her into getting down on the floor, but that shooting her wasn't necessarily the plan.

No witnesses heard the man speaking. Also, every investigator involved claimed JD was thrown or pushed to the ground by the perpetrator. I'd reckon there were injuries on her body to confirm it, I do not think they just pulled it out of thin air.

Also, disputing the notion that BG had no interest in Jill Dando, is this interesting snippet:

Yet he told police he had never heard of her and would not recognise her - even though before her death he had boasted he knew that someone famous lived in Gowan Avenue - 'a very special lady'.

Escape into fantasy

Even in his teens, Jill Dando's killer Barry George was descending into a world of fantasy from which he would never escape.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Boasting about a celeb living in the hood does not exactly equal having any interest in said celebrity.

 

[Inspector Evans]

Not sure if this has been seen before but quite interesting to see the first couple of minutes of this raw rehearsal footage of the BBC Newsflash about Jill's death. Initially they get her age wrong and correct it and then mention she had been stabbed

It is in the 2019 docu about her as Jennie Bond is interviewed about that day. Not sure what Radio Times said in those week's listings but reports after said she was co-presenting that night's 6pm news with Martyn Lewis so she could've easily just gone to television centre from her fiancée's house that day if it was true.

Clearly someone was tipped off that Monday was the day she was mostly likely to turn up at her home to do admin/tidy up for future sale as it was said she came back that day most weeks in court in July 2001 by her next door neighbour.

 

[Inspector Evans]

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.

It was John Simpson reporting on the war at the time. He actually asked Arkan directly if he'd had any involvement in JD's death. Arkan I doubt had a clue who she was.

I think though just assassinating someone working on the war in their country wouldn't have the same impact as doing it to someone in London, hundreds of miles away and seemingly well away from all the carnage and conflict.

Pretty chilling if it did happen like that as it was right on the doorstep.

 

[tes1984]

Can i ask (as from Aus and had heard of the case briefly but never knew anything about it really until the Netflix doc)- how did BG manage to be represented by MM KC (reading he is very high profile) and on what basis was the conviction quashed please?

Can you afford your own solicitor?
No sir
Would you like us to appoint you one?
Yes sir
Would you be okay with MM?
Yes please

 

[Inspector Evans]

I still can’t wrap my head around that nobody knew she was going to be at that house at that time, so how did the perpetrator get it so ‘right’

There were reports of individuals standing on the corner in the weeks before the shooting, it is actually in the first Crimewatch reconstruction shown in May 1999. Think there was a witness who had a fondness for going to a bookies right on the corner of Gowan Avenue and the main road and he said he kept on seeing a guy stood on the corner looking towards JD's house. Person driving a car down the road also saw someone stood there. This was a week before shooting IIRC.

It could be as simple as someone was sent to view her residence from a distance (no different to police doing surveillance on suspects) on a few different days and she arrived back at her home on a Monday and then it was decided to return the following Monday and she came back again and then the attack occurred. Important thing there is the vehicle she was driving would be noted.

Of course you can't guarantee the actual time JD came back but from that day we know there were reports of someone hovering around her house from half 8 so clearly it was going to be an all day job given the attack didn't occur for another three hours.

 

[WestLondoner]

If I were going to kill a woman such as JD, I would ring her doorbell carrying a parcel or flowers or something needing a signature, barge inside, shoot her several times, and leave. It would be hours before she was found and I'd be long gone. I can work this out and I'm not a hit man.

I would not struggle with her on her front step and fire one round that I assumed would do the job. That's the mark of an irresponsible total idiot who messed around with guns because he was too stupid to realise this was dangerous.

BG was unable to account for the gun that he posed with and recorded having acquired. So he was disposing of evidence. Why did he dispose of that gun? If it was not the one that killed JD, producing it would have completely exonerated him.

 

[rvlvr]

BG was unable to account for the gun that he posed with and recorded having acquired. So he was disposing of evidence.

It’s only evidence if it was the murder weapon, and there’s no proof that it was, only supposition. You also don’t know when that gun was disposed of, so we can’t infer anything from its absence in BG’s home.

To call this ‘disposing of evidence’ is incorrect.

 

[WestLondoner]

It was disposed of illegally, making BG a firearm criminal right there. So a history of firearms offences. All he had to do to get off was to produce it, yet for some reason he'd made sure he couldn't. Funny, that.

 

[tigerlily96]

There were reports of individuals standing on the corner in the weeks before the shooting, it is actually in the first Crimewatch reconstruction shown in May 1999. Think there was a witness who had a fondness for going to a bookies right on the corner of Gowan Avenue and the main road and he said he kept on seeing a guy stood on the corner looking towards JD's house. Person driving a car down the road also saw someone stood there. This was a week before shooting IIRC.

It could be as simple as someone was sent to view her residence from a distance (no different to police doing surveillance on suspects) on a few different days and she arrived back at her home on a Monday and then it was decided to return the following Monday and she came back again and then the attack occurred. Important thing there is the vehicle she was driving would be noted.

Of course you can't guarantee the actual time JD came back but from that day we know there were reports of someone hovering around her house from half 8 so clearly it was going to be an all day job given the attack didn't occur for another three hours.

Can’t believe I hadn’t heard about this. Very interesting.

 

[rvlvr]

Just picking up on this important point:

We also know she wasn't simply shot where she stood and left to crumple in a heap: she was forced down to the ground with her legs bent awkwardly and her nose practically touching the ceramic tiles of the doorstep.

We don’t know this for certain. The pathologist Dr Richard Shepherd, giving evidence at BG’s first trial, concluded ‘it wasn’t possible to say what position JD was in when she was shot’ and that bruising and redness to JD’s body could’ve been caused by her falling after the shooting, or even by the attempts at resuscitation.

On the other hand, firearms expert David Pryor believed she had been “at a very low level at the time when she was shot”.

With no evidence of a struggle to support the idea this was a robbery or an assault gone wrong, the oft-theorised and generally accepted scenario is that the killer swiftly forced JD out of the line of sight of any eyewitnesses and rendered her incapable of fully moving her head, ensuring that the gun remained pressed firmly against it, muffling the sound of the shot and minimising blood spatter.

Major Peter Mead, giving evidence for BG’s defence, said of the shooting: “It is difficult to imagine how it could have been bettered”.

On BG’s coat, imo there’s a world of difference between a cashmere overcoat and a waxy, Barbour-type jacket. JMO - as a financial trader who likely spent/spends time in and around the city, RH strikes me as the sort of chap who’d be able to tell these two things apart.

Still, even if he was mistaken, none of the many witnesses that we know of - be they from the two trials or from the Crimewatch reconstruction - described a man wearing an overcoat like BG’s. If BG had been staking out Gowan Avenue for a minimum of 4 and a half hours, you’d think at least one person - the postman, perhaps, or SM (the only witness to make a positive identification of BG) - would remember this quite distinctive piece of attire.

Nearly all the witnesses described the person that they saw as wearing a suit, some mentioned a trilby hat, one even mentions glasses - but peculiarly, no one mentions an overcoat.

Of course, no one mentions seeing a man wearing a Barbour-type jacket either. Is it possible they all simply missed this crucial detail? Perhaps. But imo it’s just as likely that the man/men they witnessed that morning either had nothing to do with this crime, or weren’t involved in the pulling of the trigger; that RH’s description of the Barbour jacket-wearing killer was indeed correct; and that our killer was just as effective at behaving inconspicuously prior to the crime, as he was at swiftly executing it.

 

[RichardKimble]

Can i ask (as from Aus and had heard of the case briefly but never knew anything about it really until the Netflix doc)- how did BG manage to be represented by MM KC (reading he is very high profile) and on what basis was the conviction quashed please?

Ref acquittal: Wiki.

Barry George - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Dando's profile and popularity ensured high public interest in the case. When no motive could be found and no evidence emerged from criminals or British intelligence of a contract or conspiracy to kill Dando, police began to reassess evidence that had been set aside at the start of the inquiry. The circumstantial evidence was a single particle of firearm discharge residue—a speck that matched the ammunition used in the killing.

George was convicted of murder but the forensic evidence was later discounted and his conviction was judged unsafe by the Court of Appeal and quashed in 2007. After a retrial, he was acquitted on 1 August 2008. His claims for compensation for wrongful imprisonment have been dismissed, on the grounds that a reasonable first trial had occurred, with the successful appeal having been on legitimate technical issues rather than due to an overt "miscarriage of justice".

BBC NEWS | UK | Dando murder case set for retrial

news.bbc.co.uk

BBC NEWS | UK | George not guilty of Dando murder

news.bbc.co.uk

 

[rvlvr]

It was disposed of illegally, making BG a firearm criminal right there. So a history of firearms offences. All he had to do to get off was to produce it, yet for some reason he'd made sure he couldn't. Funny, that.

Funny, yes. Suspicious. Even - as you say - criminal. But not evidence of his involvement in this crime.

 

[Yellowbelly]

It easy with a case like this to get bogged down in the minutiae, whilst missing the obvious -

"With his right arm, the assailant held her and forced her to the ground, so that her face was almost touching the tiled step of the porch. Then, with his left hand, he fired a single shot at her left temple, killing her instantly. It was very close to 11.30am. The bullet entered her head just above her ear, parallel to the ground, and came out the right side of her head and into the door, leaving a mark that was a mere 22cm above the doorstep."

Shadow of doubt?

Last summer, when Barry George was convicted of killing Jill Dando, all other possible theories were discounted. But is one of them more credible than was originally thought? On the eve of George's appeal hearing, Bob Woffinden re-examines the evidence.

www.theguardian.com

Can we agree that this means that Jill Dando's killer was left handed? Barry George is right handed.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1814225/barry-george-jill-dando#amp-readmore-target

 

[WiseOwl]

If I were going to kill a woman such as JD, I would ring her doorbell carrying a parcel or flowers or something needing a signature, barge inside, shoot her several times, and leave. It would be hours before she was found and I'd be long gone. I can work this out and I'm not a hit man.

I would not struggle with her on her front step and fire one round that I assumed would do the job. That's the mark of an irresponsible total idiot who messed around with guns because he was too stupid to realise this was dangerous.

BG was unable to account for the gun that he posed with and recorded having acquired. So he was disposing of evidence. Why did he dispose of that gun? If it was not the one that killed JD, producing it would have completely exonerated him.

Who said there was a struggle? The police believe the perp came from behind Jill, forced her to the ground and shot her in the head - nothing about a struggle taking place.

If you were going to kill someone, why would you bring attention to yourself by carrying flowers? And how would you know she would answer the door even if you were to ring her doorbell?

 

[WestLondoner]

It easy with a case like this to get bogged down in the minutiae, whilst missing the obvious -

"With his right arm, the assailant held her and forced her to the ground, so that her face was almost touching the tiled step of the porch. Then, with his left hand, he fired a single shot at her left temple, killing her instantly. It was very close to 11.30am. The bullet entered her head just above her ear, parallel to the ground, and came out the right side of her head and into the door, leaving a mark that was a mere 22cm above the doorstep."

Shadow of doubt?

Last summer, when Barry George was convicted of killing Jill Dando, all other possible theories were discounted. But is one of them more credible than was originally thought? On the eve of George's appeal hearing, Bob Woffinden re-examines the evidence.

www.theguardian.com

Can we agree that this means that Jill Dando's killer was left handed? Barry George is right handed.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1814225/barry-george-jill-dando#amp-readmore-target

Not necessarily. BG could have been intended to threaten her with the gun and hold her with his stronger arm while he SAed her. The gun then goes off and the clown runs for it.

 

[WestLondoner]

Who said there was a struggle? The police believe the perp came from behind Jill, forced her to the ground and shot her in the head - nothing about a struggle taking place.

If you were going to kill someone, why would you bring attention to yourself by carrying flowers? And how would you know she would answer the door even if you were to ring her doorbell?

If she was forced to her knees there was a struggle.

Nobody would pay any attention to a delivery guy. If she doesn't open the door and says what is it, you just say "Inteflora" or "parcel" and "needs a signature" and Bob's your uncle. After all, nobody's stalking her so what's to be worried about on a Monday morning?

 

[WiseOwl]

If she was forced to her knees there was a struggle.

Nobody would pay any attention to a delivery guy. If she doesn't open the door and says what is it, you just say "Inteflora" or "parcel" and "needs a signature" and Bob's your uncle. After all, nobody's stalking her so what's to be worried about on a Monday morning?

Well it wouldn't be my idea of a struggle but i always respect your views @WestLondoner so i'll leave it at that!

 

[rvlvr]

Can you afford your own solicitor?
No sir
Would you like us to appoint you one?
Yes sir
Would you be okay with MM?
Yes please

The funny thing is, as much as I like MM, I think he dropped the ball in the first trial. Even with the GSR evidence to contend with the case against BG was thin, but I think the defence spent too much time discussing hitmen theories and the like. As William Clegg who successfully defended him second time around put it:

“[The] difficulty with that is that psychologically to a jury they say was it a Serbian gunman or was it Barry George?

“Once you can discount the Serbian gunman it sort of tends to get your thinking back to it being Barry, whereas our approach was we haven’t the faintest idea who did it, but it couldn’t have been Barry.”

https://metro.co.uk/2023/09/26/jill-dando-barry-georges-lawyer-does-not-think-killer-will-be-found-19555357

 

[Yellowbelly]

Not necessarily. BG could have been intended to threaten her with the gun and hold her with his stronger arm while he SAed her. The gun then goes off and the clown runs for it.

I don't think that works. The gun didn't go off accidentally. It was pressed to her temple in a deliberate act. Would anybody really do that with the gun in their weaker hand?

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

It easy with a case like this to get bogged down in the minutiae, whilst missing the obvious -

"With his right arm, the assailant held her and forced her to the ground, so that her face was almost touching the tiled step of the porch. Then, with his left hand, he fired a single shot at her left temple, killing her instantly. It was very close to 11.30am. The bullet entered her head just above her ear, parallel to the ground, and came out the right side of her head and into the door, leaving a mark that was a mere 22cm above the doorstep."

Shadow of doubt?

Last summer, when Barry George was convicted of killing Jill Dando, all other possible theories were discounted. But is one of them more credible than was originally thought? On the eve of George's appeal hearing, Bob Woffinden re-examines the evidence.

www.theguardian.com

Can we agree that this means that Jill Dando's killer was left handed? Barry George is right handed.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1814225/barry-george-jill-dando#amp-readmore-target

Not necessarily. As WestLondoner noted, it's possible the shooter was using their non-dominant hand to hold the gun in a threatening manner whilst using their stronger hand to control Jill.

It's also notable that BG, at about 29 minutes 40 seconds into the third episode of the Netflix documentary, says the opposite of what is said in this Guardian article. He says the prosecution accused him of forcing Jill down with his *left* hand, and he then proceeds to re-enact it with a volunteer. He simultaneously pushes down and pulls back on the woman's left shoulder with his left hand, which causes her body to twist in precisely the direction Jill was facing when shot in the left side of her head.

Though BG was never the karate champion he once claimed to be, he did work out and had apparently taken martial arts classes. In 1999 he was believed to be quite physically strong, and I wouldn't regard him as a weak man even today: watching him in the documentary when he grabs the volunteer, he still appears deceptively strong.

Standing behind Jill, only a left-handed shot could hit the left side of her head. Standing in front of Jill, only a right-handed shot could hit the left side. But if the killer was directly facing the side of Jill's head, as it appears they probably were due to the cramped dimensions of the doorway and the near 90-degree angle at which the bullet entered the door, you could potentially use either hand IMO.

ETA: I made this crude image more than a year ago to show the relative positions of Jill in green and the killer in red: