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

[CSIAngus]

Dando murder: I know Barry George killed my friend Jill Dando murder: I know Barry George killed my friend Jill

In case anyone hasn't seen it, interesting article here containing a letter by Nick Ross, Jill's colleague from Crimewatch. (from 2007).

I'm afraid, Nick Ross's opinions have no weight. IMO

 

[rvlvr]

I am not a mind reader, I have no idea what the defence was thinking. What I know that both witnesses that saw the perpetrator from pretty short distance described a waxed/Barbour coat. I can buy into one witness getting it wrong but two different men, looking at the perpetrator from two different angles, having the same kind of weird optical illusion that makes the woolen coat look shiny like the Barbour, is too much for me to swallow.

And it’s not just the finish, is it. Barbour jackets are distinctive in other ways, like the collar and pockets. They’re typically hip to thigh length too, whereas George’s coat would’ve hung much lower, probably to the knees. The effect that running or even walking at pace has on such a garment would imo be highly noticeable.

Wool coats typically shed a lot of fibres too, yet none matching George’s coat were found at the scene. People typically retort to this by saying the paramedics destroyed the scene, yet the prosecution were happy to introduce fibre evidence when it suited them - no matter how weak that was. Heads we win, tails you lose.

 

[rvlvr]

I'm afraid, Nick Ross's opinions have no weight. IMO

I wouldn’t go this far, personally. But he’s obviously not an impartial observer. Which is perfectly understandable - he lost a close friend after all.

But I think his work on Crimewatch, a show dedicated to trying to solve crimes, probably clouds his judgement too. He always said he thought Jill was killed by an obsessive stalker, and even though you have to stretch the profile a bit to fit Barry George, when George was convicted he was essentially proven right. So there’s a mix of personal and professional biases at play here.

 

[Novosti]

And it’s not just the finish, is it. Barbour jackets are distinctive in other ways, like the collar and pockets. They’re typically hip to thigh length too, whereas George’s coat would’ve hung much lower, probably to the knees. The effect that running or even walking at pace has on such a garment would imo be highly noticeable.

Wool coats typically shed a lot of fibres too, yet none matching George’s coat were found at the scene. People typically retort to this by saying the paramedics destroyed the scene, yet the prosecution were happy to introduce fibre evidence when it suited them - no matter how weak that was. Heads we win, tails you lose.

Not really. None of those other features of a coat were identified by witnesses in a way that could have stood up in court. And I think (but please do correct) that only one witness mentioned a waxed coat anyway.

There was little to no chance of the absence of wool fibres at the scene being regarded as exculpatory - as you say, outdoor scenes typically need rapid weather preservation, yet that was prevented by paramedic activity. Wool transfer occurs primarily by contact. It's likely there was little to no transfer to the ground - the key thing to have tested was Jill herself, but this would have obviously required the wool coat to have touched her, which may not have happened during the attack.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I was in London on the day of the murder. I didn't need a woollen coat.

 

[rvlvr]

I was in London on the day of the murder. I didn't need a woollen coat.

Indeed. There’s no evidence George wore the coat on the day of the murder. The witnesses who interacted with him described him wearing very different clothing, although all these interactions took place after the time of the shooting.

 

[CSIAngus]

I was in London on the day of the murder. I didn't need a woollen coat.

The temperature peaked at 17.8 degrees in London that day. Tee shirt weather where I come from. A big woolen coat would stand out, surely.

 

[rvlvr]

Not really. None of those other features of a coat were identified by witnesses in a way that could have stood up in court. And I think (but please do correct) that only one witness mentioned a waxed coat anyway.

There was little to no chance of the absence of wool fibres at the scene being regarded as exculpatory - as you say, outdoor scenes typically need rapid weather preservation, yet that was prevented by paramedic activity. Wool transfer occurs primarily by contact. It's likely there was little to no transfer to the ground - the key thing to have tested was Jill herself, but this would have obviously required the wool coat to have touched her, which may not have happened during the attack.

The killer almost certainly made contact with Jill. To quote again from BC’s book (page 157):

The bullet entered near the top of the left ear and traversed the brain. The exit wound was above the right ear and the bullet went on to strike the lower timbers of the front door, leaving a small dent and a break in the paintwork, before dropping to the ground beside the doormat. The dent in the door was nine inches above the level of the tiled porch and close examination of the impact suggested that the bullet had been travelling at right angles to the door and almost horizontally when it struck. Dando's head, in other words, must have been close to the ground when the shot was fired, although exactly how close was not certain. On her right forearm was a small bruise which may have been caused by her assailant holding her. Two other small abrasions, on her right elbow and hand, were probably the result of her impact with the ground. There were no 'characteristic defence injuries', as they are known, so she probably did not resist. The picture that emerges from this is of a swift and very brutal act. Jill Dando was taken by surprise and let out a cry. It seems likely that she was already bending down - perhaps she was putting her bags on the ground to free her hands to open the door, or perhaps she dropped the keys and was picking them up - when the killer thrust the gun violently against her head. It is almost certain that he held her in some way with his other hand to ensure that he had control and to maintain the hard contact between gun and head. He too must have been bending low and in seizing her he probably pushed her even lower. In court much later it would be said that she was crouching when the shot was fired, but that hardly describes her position: so low was her head that she must have been kneeling or even partly lying down - crushed, as it were, by force or fear.

Fibres were retrieved from Jill’s clothing - that’s where the fibre supposedly from George’s trousers (but which it was later accepted could’ve come from just about anywhere, including Jill’s own wardrobe) came from. JMO, it’s difficult to imagine that a man wearing a knee length coat made contact with her with his trousers, but not his coat.

I wouldn’t have expected any fibre evidence to have survived the actions of the paramedics. But the prosecution case wants it both ways - the reason there’s no trace of George at the scene isn’t because he was never there, it’s simply that he got lucky… oh but also, here’s this piece of fibre, maybe it’s his?