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

[Novosti]

This is a very good analysis. It remains a very peculiar collection of ballistic facts but I think there are some reasonable conclusions we can make:
- The weapon and ammunition were non standard and subject to bespoke alteration on the individual items.
- The alteration process was amateur - the crimping for example was not done with the best tools for the job. This suggests a workshop without high quality equipment, but where the workman had a degree of skill and know-how in terms of how to acheive a workable result with sub-standard tools.
- The weapon and ammunition were highly likely altered in the UK - the particular alterations were specific to the challenges posed by the British legislative regime for handguns.
- The result would have been a very poor, unreliable weapon. But capable of lethal effect.

Together this points to garage-style small-scale workshop producing activated or reactivated weapons for the British criminal fraternity.

One further comment. The weirdest thing here is the smooth bore. Normally found in shotguns or weapons more than 150 years old. Or blank firer / starter guns that were never intended to be firearms. The most likely scenario seems like a conversion of a blank firer.

 

[sl77]

A bit long, this post, but earlier I was going over this bit from BC’s book (pages 159-162) on the gun and the round that was used to kill Jill Dando, thought it might be worth sharing.

On the cartridge:



On the gun:

I disagree with this line:

"By implication, then, this round was assembled by someone who did not have access to the machines employed by people who are putting together ammunition in any quantity."

Just because someone uses that method, does not mean they were forced to. They may have chosen to, to fool police.

 

[sl77]

The crimping of the cartridge is incredibly interesting, to me. I think @Hexe has talked before about the possibility some propellant had been removed from the round in order to reduce the sound of the shot. AIUI, to do this you’d first need to open up the cartridge, then afterwards crimp it back together.

Or, was the crimping done simply to misdirect and confuse?

And as for the gun itself, if you were acting out some violent sexual fantasy, why go to the bother / take the risk of fashioning / sourcing a working firearm when almost anyone would freeze with the barrel of a replica pointed at their head?

IMO, I think whoever had the expertise to modify the gun and possibly the round - or, whoever took the risk of sourcing a modified gun and round - went to Jill Dando’s doorstep that morning with the very clear intention of ending her life.

The part I have emboldened is exactly right.

However: assuming this was done to reduce the chances of people hearing the shot, wouldn't using a suppressor be simpler?

 

[Novosti]

I

I disagree with this line:

"By implication, then, this round was assembled by someone who did not have access to the machines employed by people who are putting together ammunition in any quantity."

Just because someone uses that method, does not mean they were forced to. They may have chosen to, to fool police.

Fool the police into thinking what? That you didn't have an up-to-date workshop? Very difficult to see any evidential rationale for doing this.

 

[sl77]

I

Fool the police into thinking what? That you didn't have an up-to-date workshop? Very difficult to see any evidential rationale for doing this.

Fool the police in to thinking it was a lone-nut.

You don't see the rationale for distracting the police from looking for a lone-nut, if it was committed by a professional?

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I think that, as with many cases on this site, we will never know the answer. No DNA, no finger prints, no CCTV of any value. No chance of a conviction.

 

[sl77]

I think that, as with many cases on this site, we will never know the answer. No DNA, no finger prints, no CCTV of any value. No chance of a conviction.

We won't if the police are adamant it was Barry George.