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

[rvlvr]

This all makes sense, but I'm not sure if BG was capable though of putting all the bits together to come up with a working gun, ammunition etc.
The other thing perhaps is that for a man who, from the state of his house, never threw anything away - there has never been any report, IIRC, that say that magazines and books of this nature were found at his address - something you really would think the police would've found.
Oh, and before anyone says he would've got rid of them - you would've thought that the voyeuristic photos would've been binned too, but they were there.

Exactly. He was a hoarder and his house was a bin. Police pulled the entire place apart. It’s stretching the bounds of credibility to believe that in amongst the chaos and detritus the only thing they supposedly found ‘connecting’ him to this crime was literally a speck of dust.

Which is why all the nudge nudge wink wink stuff about the SAS and the like becomes so important. But even that falls flat. Why murder Jill Dando dressed like - as at least one witness put it - an estate agent, when you’re supposed to be cosplaying some military fantasy?

 

[Novosti]

Exactly. He was a hoarder and his house was a bin. Police pulled the entire place apart. It’s stretching the bounds of credibility to believe that in amongst the chaos and detritus the only thing they supposedly found ‘connecting’ him to this crime was literally a speck of dust.

Which is why all the nudge nudge wink wink stuff about the SAS and the like becomes so important. But even that falls flat. Why murder Jill Dando dressed like - as at least one witness put it - an estate agent, when you’re supposed to be cosplaying some military fantasy?

There is a good point here - that no credible evidence was found relating to the gun specifically used in the murder: not the weapon itself, nor the ammunition. So there is an unexplained question as to how he disposed of these things.

It's not true to say, though, that nothing was found in the house linking him to the case. For example, clothing matching the witness accounts was found. And ammunition and casings that appeared to be compatible with a different weapon.

And certainly not right to say that the argument against BG needed "nudge nudge" stuff about the army. BG had a decades-long history as a dangerous violent criminal - especially towards women. And one that possessed weapons, was obsessed by them, carried them to some of his crimes, and had a firearms conviction. So this part of the explanation is very well attested.

 

[rvlvr]

Witnesses generally described seeing a generically smartly-dressed man, so probably most men living in London at the time would’ve owned clothing matching that description. The two men who saw the killer described him as wearing a Barbour-style jacket. No one, to my knowledge, described seeing a man wearing a wool overcoat, like the one George owned and from which the ‘gunshot residue’ was obtained.

To my knowledge, Barry George never used a gun - replica or otherwise - during his crimes. And no evidence exists that he possessed a gun - replica or otherwise - after 1987.

 

[Novosti]

Witnesses generally described seeing a generically smartly-dressed man, so probably most men living in London at the time would’ve owned clothing matching that description. The two men who saw the killer described him as wearing a Barbour-style jacket. No one, to my knowledge, described seeing a man wearing a wool overcoat, like the one George owned and from which the ‘gunshot residue’ was obtained.

To my knowledge, Barry George never used a gun - replica or otherwise - during his crimes. And no evidence exists that he possessed a gun - replica or otherwise - after 1987.

Both courts accepted that the witness descriptions of the coat were consistent with the one found. Although as the descriptions were quite general it wasn't particularly discriminatory evidence.

 

[rvlvr]

I’m not sure that’s true. I don’t have the trial transcripts but certainly at the 2008 trial neighbour Richard Hughes was describing the coat as a dark blue or black Barbour jacket, which is quite a different item of clothing to the overcoat exhibited at the original trial.

None of the witnesses who provided ‘partial identifications’ mentioned a coat, either.

 

[forensicswannabe]

I really hate knowing someone has gotten away with this and will likely never be convicted it's horrible to have that happen in any case but a high profile one like this just isn't right.

 

[Inspector Evans]

Witnesses generally described seeing a generically smartly-dressed man, so probably most men living in London at the time would’ve owned clothing matching that description. The two men who saw the killer described him as wearing a Barbour-style jacket. No one, to my knowledge, described seeing a man wearing a wool overcoat, like the one George owned and from which the ‘gunshot residue’ was obtained.

To my knowledge, Barry George never used a gun - replica or otherwise - during his crimes. And no evidence exists that he possessed a gun - replica or otherwise - after 1987.

What was he wearing when he went to HAFAD later that day? Timing of when he was there is very inconsistent but he'd have probably been wearing a jacket of some kind, the employees there would've remembered that I'm sure if he was in an agitated manner.