<modsnip - personalizing>
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 it suits your argument isn't a good enough reason. Nick Ross cites expert opinion and statistical likelihood in his brilliant essay about the case, and the conclusion he and his experts reached was that there is an approximately three times higher chance that the particle was left there by BG than by any other source:
If we put all of this together, and if all these estimates are approximately right...then, according to Bayes theorem, the evidence of Barry George handling a gun is far from neutral. In fact the probability rises from close to zero to 71%. That means there is almost three times more likelihood that Barry George handled a gun than any other explanation.
Even the scientists whose evidence led to BG's acquittal say their evidence was taken out of context:
At the time of the appeal they reckoned there was a one in a hundred chance the particle could have got into the pocket through incidental contamination. All it needed was for Orlando Pownall, QC for the prosecution, to ask the obvious question: “Are you saying there is a 99% chance that it did not get there by accident?”. Ms Shaw concedes she would have answered ‘yes’.
www.nickross.com
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:
The cartridge appeared to have been subject to workshop modification, possibly to reduce its propellent charge and thus allow it to function as subsonic ammunition. Police ballistics checks also determined that the bullet had been fired from a smooth bore barrel without any rifling, which indicated the murder weapon was almost certainly a blank firing pistol that had been illegally modified to fire live ammunition.
en.wikipedia.org
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.
In any event, the police certainly seemed to think the jacket found in BG's apartment was a good match to the descriptions of the witnesses. In the Netflix documentary, at about 10 minutes and 30 seconds into the third episode, they say:
"We found a coat. The three-quarter length coat which was very similar to the one which witnesses had described as being worn by the shooter."
Moreover, if the Crimewatch re-enactment is accurate, IMO it would have been very difficult for either of the primary witnesses to have clearly seen the length of the coat.
RH, according to the re-enactment, looked down at an acute angle from an upstairs window through slatted blinds. He is cited as the best witness, yet his view appeared to be obscured both by the blinds and by the hedging and walls of neighbouring gardens. Anyone who has looked through closed slatted blinds, as RH does in the re-enactment, would--if they were being honest with themselves--have to admit the view is limited. Yet this is never mentioned and RH is treated like he had a clear view. At the very least, his view of the killer's lower body would be limited by simple physics.
Similarly, if the re-enactment accurately portrays the street as it was at the time of the murder, the neighbour across the road had his view of the killer--and in particular the killer's lower body--obscured by numerous parked cars. That isn't my opinion, it's what is clearly shown when looking at the escaping perpetrator from the POV of the witness:
Neither I, nor to my knowledge the police, have ever suggested that every man sighted on Gowan Avenue that morning was involved with Jill's death. A man speaking on his phone as he stood across the street from Jill's house could have a perfectly innocent reason for doing so--or of course a not so innocent reason.
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.
en.wikipedia.org
BG's low IQ of 75, and his other learning disabilities, don't make him an idiot who is completely incapable. That is evidenced both by his history of planning big stunts, such as his roller skating stunt or the attack on Kensington Palace, and also his repeated ability to convince others of his lies and delusions of grandeur. His plans usually went wrong eventually, but he got far further with them than many "smart" people would. BG created such a Gordian Knot of false trails and identities that it took a year for the police to unravel it. A man who can do that is not stupid.
BG's supposed lack of intelligence is always highly convenient. He seems to be capable of doing whatever he sets his mind to; and likewise, utterly incapable of tying his own shoelaces when he wants to play innocent. In other words, he shows whichever side he wants you to see:
George seemed to know that there were flaws to his character; he told one woman he befriended that nobody really knew or understood him. "The me they know is not the real me. Perhaps I have another face."
From the same article, these are BG's very own words taken from a note found in his apartment by the police:
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."
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
Regardless of whether BG did or did not have an obsession with Jill Dando specifically, he absolutely did have an obsession with celebrities. He also absolutely did have an obsession with Princess Diana, who had died a little over 18 months earlier and bore an uncanny resemblance to Jill.
Whether planned or happenstance, Jill would likely have been seen as a bigger "prize" for BG than any of the other women. And therefore his sense of rejection would likely be bigger as well.
If BG happened to have a gun in his pocket for some reason, how can anyone be sure he wouldn't use it? The fact that he had never (to anyone's knowledge) done so before is largely meaningless. There always has to be a first time for everything. BG openly admits in his note that he can't control his anger when he's upset and feeling rejected, so I'm not sure why the idea that he could react in such a terrifyingly violent and unexpected manner is so hard to believe.
None of BG's other "obsessions" had been murdered with a gun matching the one BG was known to own. That isn't a minor factor in any subsequent considerations, it's a massive one.
I have no idea whether BG ever had a collection of Jill Dando material. I don't think it really matters one way or the other. But at least in my view, it doesn't take any particular intelligence to know that if you have just killed someone, you get rid of the evidence directly linking you to that person. BG had a year to do so, which is a long time even for the slobbiest of slobs.
As it is, BG did retain certain incriminating pieces of evidence, such as the ledger and the photo of him holding the gun. He also kept a coat that could have been cleaned 20 times in the 12 months since Jill's death. What did BG do when confronted with this evidence? He denied it all. His denials were so complete as to be utterly ludicrous: it wasn't him in the photo, he never owned the gun, he hadn't even handled the gun. Bold-faced lying with the evidence of his lies right in front of him.
BG is a sex offender who was inappropriate with most every woman who crossed his path. Trying to erase potential evidence linking him to one specific person in no way guarantees his obsessive behaviour would end, nor that he would want to destroy his entire sordid collection. He might even have thought getting rid of everything would raise more eyebrows.
Given your current argument, I'm not sure he would have been wrong if he felt that way: a big part of your argument does, after all, seem to be that he couldn't have killed Jill because he had pictures of so many women and she wasn't one of them.
And yet that description, despite it coming from the lead prosecutor, doesn't seem to accurately describe what happened based on the available evidence. It makes it sound like Jill was shot where she stood and had no time to react.
We know that isn't true.
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.
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. We know the shot was fired at ground level due to the position of the bullet hole in the front door, so we know without any shadow of doubt that Jill was only shot after the killer had already manhandled her.
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? Why wait until you have her on the ground whether she's fighting or not? 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.
The fact that forensic evidence wasn't found all over Jill's coat where the killer grabbed her is likely due in large part to the paramedics, who left her coat lying in the debris of their attempts to save Jill's life.
Whilst there may not be examples of BG using a gun during prior assaults, there is evidence of him recklessly using guns to scare people:
The Dobbins family lived in South Kensington and one evening there was a knock on the door. It was George, in combat gear and balaclava, and he charged in holding a pistol and fired off a shot.
When the panic subsided they realised it was a blank and he showed them the gun - a gun later identified from photos as having been apparently converted to be capable of firing bullets.
Also, from the same article, evidence that he would wander around with dangerous weapons on his person:
By now he was increasingly filling his jobless days by pestering women in Holland Park in West London. He carried flowers and a 12in hunting knife tucked in the leg pocket of his Army trousers.
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'.
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
