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

[TheRockingRev]

First and foremost they would have to know that Jill knew this man. She certainly did not advertise all her brief flings and one night stands, even to her friends, and her friends might be reluctant to tell the investigators about them, wanting to protect her reputation.

There is also a possibility this man is someone who appeared on the fringes of Jill's life, someone she met briefly at work, someone who was performing some service for her, someone introduced to her on some social occasion, or tried to flirt with her one time in a bar. Someone who did not have real contact with her, but developed unhealthy obsession. Such a person would not get on the police radar that easily.

Exactly this - she travelled extensively for her job, she was quite literally all over the world, and moved in social circles where money isn't much of a problem, so long distance connections can take place quite easily. Being in the public eye, she also would've been quite adept at keeping a low profile when needed, away from the awaiting press and photographers. The amount of people who she would've come into contact with , ands in the days when you didn't have all your contacts electronically, would've been near impossible for the Police to identify.

 

[sl77]

Yes he was a nutter and he took her by surprise.

You've kinda ignored my point.

You said him being investigated for rape now means he was capable of murder. So, you believe every rapist could shoot someone in the head, in broad daylight?

 

[sl77]

Exactly this - she travelled extensively for her job, she was quite literally all over the world, and moved in social circles where money isn't much of a problem, so long distance connections can take place quite easily. Being in the public eye, she also would've been quite adept at keeping a low profile when needed, away from the awaiting press and photographers. The amount of people who she would've come into contact with , ands in the days when you didn't have all your contacts electronically, would've been near impossible for the Police to identify.

She never once rang him from her home phone/mobile (if she had one)?

Not a single postcard?

No letters?

Didn't tell a single friend?

 

[TheRockingRev]

She never once rang him from her home phone/mobile (if she had one)?

Not a single postcard?

No letters?

Didn't tell a single friend?

Well that is the big question - I'm sure the Police did research her phone records, but of course how many numbers were there? As for letters - if it was a secret liaison then letters may have been destroyed after being read, and the same with telling friends. People do have secrets. And probably even more so if you're in the public eye and don't want the press to know. Also I'm sure a lot of famous people don't always trust everyone around them. IIRC, in documentaries about JD, you don't really hear from lifelong friends - they all seem to be people connected with her professional life. Of course all of this is JMO, but it could explain it if this is what happened.

 

[sl77]

Well that is the big question - I'm sure the Police did research her phone records, but of course how many numbers were there? As for letters - if it was a secret liaison then letters may have been destroyed after being read, and the same with telling friends. People do have secrets. And probably even more so if you're in the public eye and don't want the press to know. Also I'm sure a lot of famous people don't always trust everyone around them. IIRC, in documentaries about JD, you don't really hear from lifelong friends - they all seem to be people connected with her professional life. Of course all of this is JMO, but it could explain it if this is what happened.

I agree people have secrets, but evidence of those secrets usually remain in their homes. I don't believe she systematically removed all evidence of a relationship from her own personal space and it didn't feature in phone records etc.

Let's say its true.... she had a secret relationship with someone and they were obsessed to the point of killing her.

They were that obsessed but they didn't tell a single friend whilst they were seeing her?

In terms of probability:

-The probability she was having a secret relationship in the past
-The probability he never mentioned it to his friends
-The probability the police could not find a single reference to the guy
-The probability the guy had access to a gun

To me it seems unlikely

 

[TheRockingRev]

I agree people have secrets, but evidence of those secrets usually remain in their homes. I don't believe she systematically removed all evidence of a relationship from her own personal space and it didn't feature in phone records etc.

Let's say its true.... she had a secret relationship with someone and they were obsessed to the point of killing her.

They were that obsessed but they didn't tell a single friend whilst they were seeing her?

In terms of probability:

-The probability she was having a secret relationship in the past
-The probability he never mentioned it to his friends
-The probability the police could not find a single reference to the guy
-The probability the guy had access to a gun

To me it seems unlikely

I think it's unlikely too - but there are certain elements that could be likely. Secret affairs are by their nature very much that. I'm not actually stating that this person could've murdered JD (or hired someone) but just that we don't know everything about someone's life. As others have posted, there seems to be stories that there were other people in her life, presumably checked by the police, but did they know everyone.

 

[Novosti]

We need to get rid of this idea of a 'professional hitman' that comes from Hollywood movies. Hitmen are not in the job just because they're mysterious and dressed in black - it's actually having the mentality of being able to execute someone, maybe up close, maybe even face-to-face. The majority of hardened criminals will tell you, this isn't an easy task - or even one they would entertain. That, again JMO, is what makes it a professional killing.

I think it's important to distinguish between two types of 'hitman' here. If you're talking about the sort of people that have carried out contract killings for British organised crime groups - people like Thomas Cashman or Mark Fellows - then I agree, you're talking about people whose main quality is willingness to carry it out, and who have no serious training. Their access to weapon quality will vary and be opportunistic. They would generally spend most of their time engaged in other criminal acts and might carry out a handful of killings over a criminal career. They are very different to people with a military or other day to day training in weapons and operations - which would presumably be the model for state-sanctioned or serious paramilitary organisations.

But I don't think either model fits this case. As I said before the whole shoddy opportunistic MO pretty much rules out anyone with training. And I know that conclusion was reached pretty quickly (and rightly) by the police. And while a gangster might have done it in such a sloppy way, people like Cashman and Fellows only worked for crime bosses - there wasn't a plausible marketplace whereby a jilted lover or jealous partner could have hired these guys for 5 grand.

 

[rvlvr]

You've kinda ignored my point.

You said him being investigated for rape now means he was capable of murder. So, you believe every rapist could shoot someone in the head, in broad daylight?

Yes, it’s quite the leap imo.

Barry George was, to put it bluntly, an idiot. A person of low intelligence. Had few skills and lived in a world of fantasy.

He was also a danger to women. But men from all walks of life can be dangers. Smart men rape. Stupid men rape. And all kinds of men in-between. Smart men don’t always make for smart criminals. The reverse is also true.

Very few women in the UK are raped at gunpoint by a stranger. Even fewer are shot dead through the head on their doorstep in the middle of the day.

 

[forensicswannabe]

Yes, it’s quite the leap imo.

Barry George was, to put it bluntly, an idiot. A person of low intelligence. Had few skills and lived in a world of fantasy.

He was also a danger to women. But men from all walks of life can be dangers. Smart men rape. Stupid men rape. And all kinds of men in-between. Smart men don’t always make for smart criminals. The reverse is also true.

Very few women in the UK are raped at gunpoint by a stranger. Even fewer are shot dead through the head on their doorstep in the middle of the day.

I don't think it's a leap he hid in the bushes with a knife and rope waiting for Diana and alot of rapist/abusers eventually escalate to murder so I wouldn't rule him out.

 

[rvlvr]

Sure, though in that instance he was caught red-handed - hardly proof that he was capable of pulling off this particular crime, imo. This almost comically amateurish business at Kensington Palace occurred in the early 1980s - by 1999 there’s some evidence that while his behaviour was still deeply odd and sometimes frightening, he was actually de-escalating. In any case, even if we were to assume he spent the 1990s working himself up to the point of murder, there’s still the small problem of there being zero evidence he had the means to commit this crime.

 

[TheRockingRev]

I don't think it's a leap he hid in the bushes with a knife and rope waiting for Diana and alot of rapist/abusers eventually escalate to murder so I wouldn't rule him out.

This I feel was more linked to his delusions of being a special forces soldier, than acting out a potential murder

 

[forensicswannabe]

This I feel was more linked to his delusions of being a special forces soldier, than acting out a potential murder

Well because he was caught we will never know for sure but you could be right.

 

[sl77]

This I feel was more linked to his delusions of being a special forces soldier, than acting out a potential murder

100%

I was re-watching the Netflix doc last night. This wasn't a struggle. It wasn't a proposal: "go for a drink? No? Then I'm killing you". It was a straight-up execution.

If it was someone besotted with her, their first act would have been to reach out and that would have left some evidence. A letter etc.

 

[sl77]

But I don't think either model fits this case. As I said before the whole shoddy opportunistic MO pretty much rules out anyone with training. And I know that conclusion was reached pretty quickly (and rightly) by the police.

What made you/police lean this way?

 

[WestLondoner]

They are very different to people with a military or other day to day training in weapons and operations - which would presumably be the model for state-sanctioned or serious paramilitary organisations.

A writer called Leo Murray has written a book called Brains and Bullets which looks at the difficulties of getting soldiers to kill people. Most don't want to kill anyone or risk getting killed themselves. The majority of the killing is done by fewer than 5% of the men. Not remote killing by pulling the lanyard of a howitzer or launching a missile, but the kind that involved standing in front of someone and shooting them. It is very hard indeed to get people to do this.