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

[Novosti]

Sorry - what evidence against BG from an early stage? If this was the case then the Police would've at least looked at him long before they did.

In April to June 1999, they had multiple reports or identifications of Barry Bulsara potentially being a man behaving strangely at the scene, or engaged in suspicious behaviour elsewhere (HAFAD, loitering and harassing women in the period around the murder). It appears that some of these weren't promptly followed up at the time, in part because of the George/Bulsara name confusion. More generally, it didn't seem that mapping of relevant local offenders was prioritised until a much later stage. It is possible that the inquiry over-prioritised more speculative media-driven theories (gangsters, Serbs, mysterious lovers etc) over the more mundane but more likely explanation that the attack was the work of an obsessed local sex offender with a weapons history.

 

[TheRockingRev]

In April to June 1999, they had multiple reports or identifications of Barry Bulsara potentially being a man behaving strangely at the scene, or engaged in suspicious behaviour elsewhere (HAFAD, loitering and harassing women in the period around the murder). It appears that some of these weren't promptly followed up at the time, in part because of the George/Bulsara name confusion. More generally, it didn't seem that mapping of relevant local offenders was prioritised until a much later stage. It is possible that the inquiry over-prioritised more speculative media-driven theories (gangsters, Serbs, mysterious lovers etc) over the more mundane but more likely explanation that the attack was the work of an obsessed local sex offender with a weapons history.

Not wanting to be pedantic, but that's more speculation than evidence against BG at the very start of the investigation. Although it can be said that the Met may have screwed up by not looking at BG at the start, maybe it's because they genuinely didn't believe, as many of us don't, that a low level IQ, social misfit with severe mental problems was able to commit and escape from a murder done in broad daylight in London - whatever his past criminal record was.
Perhaps the biggest screw-up by the police was fitting the crime to the man, rather than the other way round. In a such a high profile murder investigation, where results were expected, it gave them a closed door to it all (albeit temporarily). I know that there have been lots of messed up and missed opportunities over the years, but usually the first port of call is the odd-ball loners. JMO, I think they genuinely didn't believe it was the work of one, but came back to that possibility after all other avenues were exhausted.

 

[TheRockingRev]

One of the things that stand out to me with BG is why he would do it, if he did. The man was an attention seeking fantasist who wanted to be noticed. If he had killed her I would've thought it would be for notoriety, for the attention and 'fame'. I don't think he would've kept quiet about it - especially when he got convicted and essentially the game was up.
The question then is why JD? If he wanted to kill just to get the attention he could've picked anyone - as he had done with previous assaults. True, a celeb would give him more 'kudos' but with it the a lesser opportunity to carry out a murder. I would buy into the BG case if there was more evidence he had an obsession with her, but there wasn't anything. There is also no evidence of him stalking her (hard to do as he didn't drive), or lurking in the vicinity of her home before hand.
So what we have is a suspect who went out to kill that day and by chance came across the nation's number 1 TV presenter - true, they did live near each other, but the sheer luck of him walking down the street, at that exact time, just as she was about to go into her house (which gives us a window not of minutes, but almost seconds, to think, react and then carry out the crime) stretches possibility in my eyes.

 

[Novosti]

One of the things that stand out to me with BG is why he would do it, if he did. The man was an attention seeking fantasist who wanted to be noticed. If he had killed her I would've thought it would be for notoriety, for the attention and 'fame'. I don't think he would've kept quiet about it - especially when he got convicted and essentially the game was up.
The question then is why JD? If he wanted to kill just to get the attention he could've picked anyone - as he had done with previous assaults. True, a celeb would give him more 'kudos' but with it the a lesser opportunity to carry out a murder. I would buy into the BG case if there was more evidence he had an obsession with her, but there wasn't anything. There is also no evidence of him stalking her (hard to do as he didn't drive), or lurking in the vicinity of her home before hand.
So what we have is a suspect who went out to kill that day and by chance came across the nation's number 1 TV presenter - true, they did live near each other, but the sheer luck of him walking down the street, at that exact time, just as she was about to go into her house (which gives us a window not of minutes, but almost seconds, to think, react and then carry out the crime) stretches possibility in my eyes.

I agree with the last sentence of your first message: the inquiry appeared to labour - for far too long - under the faulty assumption that this was a professional assassination. Finally, senior detectives worked out what had been staring them in the face from the start if they looked at it properly: that most aspects of the murder were deeply unprofessional and chaotic. And therefore they needed to look for lone, unprofessional and chaotic suspects.

The contention that the police rushed to fit up a local 'weirdo' is totally at variance to how the investigation ran : they spent more than a year effectively ignoring evidence to that effect. I would say the pointers to George in April to June 99 were serious investigatory leads. They weren't in themselves evidence that could amount to a conviction; but they should have been (with hindsight) serious prompts to further investigation.

On the apparently unlikely coincidence of George being able to pull it off that day in that way, I think the stochastics bewitch us. Firstly we know that George was following and harassing women hour-after-hour, year-after-year . This greatly changes the chances that at least one serious attack would have occurred at some point over decades. Moreover, if we think about that day in a Bayesian way, the chances of BG being the culprit look far higher, conditional on the fact that we know the murder happened on that day, in the way that it did.

 

[rvlvr]

One of the things that stand out to me with BG is why he would do it, if he did. The man was an attention seeking fantasist who wanted to be noticed. If he had killed her I would've thought it would be for notoriety, for the attention and 'fame'. I don't think he would've kept quiet about it - especially when he got convicted and essentially the game was up.
The question then is why JD? If he wanted to kill just to get the attention he could've picked anyone - as he had done with previous assaults. True, a celeb would give him more 'kudos' but with it the a lesser opportunity to carry out a murder. I would buy into the BG case if there was more evidence he had an obsession with her, but there wasn't anything. There is also no evidence of him stalking her (hard to do as he didn't drive), or lurking in the vicinity of her home before hand.
So what we have is a suspect who went out to kill that day and by chance came across the nation's number 1 TV presenter - true, they did live near each other, but the sheer luck of him walking down the street, at that exact time, just as she was about to go into her house (which gives us a window not of minutes, but almost seconds, to think, react and then carry out the crime) stretches possibility in my eyes.

None of it makes sense. Which is why the case usually boils down to, ‘well, he was a nutter’, but of course this crime wasn’t the work of a nutter.

Was thinking a bit today about George’s apparent ‘obsession’ with guns, and how this ties in with the gist of your post. The reason we know George possessed ‘guns’ in the 1980s is because there’s evidence of him documenting them, of him showing them off to people, of him letting other people handle them, even of him firing them.

But that all ceases by the late 1980s. We have evidence the two ‘guns’ George was pictured with were stolen from him in 1987. Maybe he had more? But are we really to believe he kept one or more hidden for 12 years, when previously he couldn’t and clearly had no desire to?

No one from the council, no tradesmen, no visitors to his flat, ever recalled seeing a gun? His wife never saw one? His regular meltdowns at places like the housing office, the disability centre, various GP surgeries and hospitals, never resulted in him threatening to shoot anyone? When he was accosting people in the street and telling tall tales about the Territorials and the SAS, he never boasted to anyone that he owned a gun? He never showed anyone a gun concealed on his person? No one at the library, the internet cafe, or any of the businesses he’d regularly frequent, ever had any inkling he owned or possessed a gun?

Even the ‘guns and weapons’ magazine exhibited at the original trial seems to date from the very early 1990s. The man was supposed to be ‘obsessed’ with guns! Is that really the best they could do?

Guns & Weapons Magazine July August 1991 Excellent Condition • £1.33

GUNS & WEAPONS Magazine July August 1991 Excellent Condition - £1.33. FOR SALE! In excellent condition for age as photos show Thanks In excellent condition for age as photos show Thanks 196094968550

picclick.co.uk

 

[wtiger]

Barry George was either a creep who photographed women OR a cool collected doorstep assassin - he certainly couldn't have been both!

 

[davidt]

This is probably covered somehere but has it ever been confirmed BG knew JD lived on that street and where she lived? I know it's highly likely given he lived in the area but has it ever been confirmed?

 

[rvlvr]

This is probably covered somehere but has it ever been confirmed BG knew JD lived on that street and where she lived? I know it's highly likely given he lived in the area but has it ever been confirmed?

He claimed he didn’t but he also apparently once said he knew a ‘special lady’ who lived in Gowan Avenue, which is taken to be a reference to Jill. I think it’s likely he knew she lived there, she wasn’t at home often but it seems like locally it was pretty well known that Jill Dando had a house in the street.

 

[davidt]

He claimed he didn’t but he also apparently once said he knew a ‘special lady’ who lived in Gowan Avenue, which is taken to be a reference to Jill. I think it’s likely he knew she lived there, she wasn’t at home often but it seems like locally it was pretty well known that Jill Dando had a house in the street.

Thanks. Given how quickly the attack happened to me it seems like whoever did it would have had to know the correct property to hide by, so just curious if it was established for certain BG knew where it was.

 

[TheRockingRev]

I agree with the last sentence of your first message: the inquiry appeared to labour - for far too long - under the faulty assumption that this was a professional assassination. Finally, senior detectives worked out what had been staring them in the face from the start if they looked at it properly: that most aspects of the murder were deeply unprofessional and chaotic. And therefore they needed to look for lone, unprofessional and chaotic suspects.

The contention that the police rushed to fit up a local 'weirdo' is totally at variance to how the investigation ran : they spent more than a year effectively ignoring evidence to that effect. I would say the pointers to George in April to June 99 were serious investigatory leads. They weren't in themselves evidence that could amount to a conviction; but they should have been (with hindsight) serious prompts to further investigation.

On the apparently unlikely coincidence of George being able to pull it off that day in that way, I think the stochastics bewitch us. Firstly we know that George was following and harassing women hour-after-hour, year-after-year . This greatly changes the chances that at least one serious attack would have occurred at some point over decades. Moreover, if we think about that day in a Bayesian way, the chances of BG being the culprit look far higher, conditional on the fact that we know the murder happened on that day, in the way that it did.

What parts were unprofessional and chaotic out of interest? I don't see that myself, but could be missing something.

 

[Novosti]

What parts were unprofessional and chaotic out of interest? I don't see that myself, but could be missing something.

The weapon, the ammunition, the physical touching / range, the choice of time of day, the choice of location, exit without transport, lack of facial disguise, distinctive clothing. Very few elements were consistent with military or paramilitary training, or even criminal experience.

 

[CSIAngus]

The weapon, the ammunition, the physical touching / range, the choice of time of day, the choice of location, exit without transport, lack of facial disguise, distinctive clothing. Very few elements were consistent with military or paramilitary training, or even criminal experience.

Yet they got away without too much trouble and have never been caught. On the contrary, those features that you cite suggest organisation to me and not a chance encounter with a chaotic would-be murderer. One shot above the ear traveling clean through the head to above the other ear is efficient and assured. It was meant to be an unsurvivable single shot. To me, that's someone who has carried out a killing before and knows exactly how to go about it. What happened beyond the scene we know very little. The killer may have been alone on foot or could have had both a means of transport and an accomplice.

 

[TheRockingRev]

Yet they got away without too much trouble and have never been caught. On the contrary, those features that you cite suggest organisation to me and not a chance encounter with a chaotic would-be murderer. One shot above the ear traveling clean through the head to above the other ear is efficient and assured. It was meant to be an unsurvivable single shot. To me, that's someone who has carried out a killing before and knows exactly how to go about it. What happened beyond the scene we know very little. The killer may have been alone on foot or could have had both a means of transport and an accomplice.

I fully agree - the fact they killed in broad daylight quickly and quietly, got away and have never had a clear description issued points very much to a professional.

 

[Novosti]

Yet they got away without too much trouble and have never been caught. On the contrary, those features that you cite suggest organisation to me and not a chance encounter with a chaotic would-be murderer. One shot above the ear traveling clean through the head to above the other ear is efficient and assured. It was meant to be an unsurvivable single shot. To me, that's someone who has carried out a killing before and knows exactly how to go about it. What happened beyond the scene we know very little. The killer may have been alone on foot or could have had both a means of transport and an accomplice.

We know that each of those major features with the murder were inconsistent, in some cases wildly different, to how a trained soldier or paramilitary would have approached it. And yet as you say no suspect was arrested for more than a year, so on the surface it appears successful. But that doesn't mean the attacker has taught the world's special forces how it really should be done, smooth bore and all! It just means he got lucky for a year or so, aided by an initially unfocused investigation.

I sort of agree the single shot is an exception. But it's also the flipside of the close contact and touching - itself a hallmark of firearms and forensic incompetence.

 

[TheRockingRev]

The weapon, the ammunition, the physical touching / range, the choice of time of day, the choice of location, exit without transport, lack of facial disguise, distinctive clothing. Very few elements were consistent with military or paramilitary training, or even criminal experience.

I really have to disagree. These all point to a professional. There was very little noise from JD, or the killer, the gunshot was a clean, clear shot to kill - not the sort of bungled multiple shot mess you would expect from someone who didn't really know what they were doing.
We can only say they didn't have transport - but we don't know for sure. Whoever it was got away from the scene of the crime quickly and quietly - and with no clear description given of their appearance. IMO an amateur would've worn a facemask or covering, thinking that this would shield them from being recognised - a professional would know that the best disguise is none at all really - you blend in, you don't stand out and no-one thinks twice if they see you.

 

[TheRockingRev]

We know that each of those major features with the murder were inconsistent, in some cases wildly different, to how a trained soldier or paramilitary would have approached it. And yet as you say no suspect was arrested for more than a year, so on the surface it appears successful. But that doesn't mean the attacker has taught the world's special forces how it really should be done, smooth bore and all! It just means he got lucky for a year or so, aided by an initially unfocused investigation.

I sort of agree the single shot is an exception. But it's also the flipside of the close contact and touching - itself a hallmark of firearms and forensic incompetence.

IMO this had to be close contact. This wasn't ever going to be a sniper type situation. Jill was a TV presenter after all, not a politician.
As for the touching, it was a very quick and clean incident. We don't know how JD reacted. We have to remember that the gunman had limited space and time in which to do the deed. The close contact aspect adds to the touching element, he had to be clear and concise - with one shot. It was and he did. That IMO is not the work of someone who doesn't know what they were doing. BG wouldn't have had that smoothness. There was no struggle, nor noise.

 

[WestLondoner]

One shot above the ear traveling clean through the head to above the other ear is efficient and assured. It was meant to be an unsurvivable single shot. To me, that's someone who has carried out a killing before and knows exactly how to go about it.

In 1774 a Russian general, Mikhail Kutusov, was hit in the left temple by a bullet which went through the inside of his skull behind both his eyes and came out through the right temple. He survived and so did his eyesight, remarkably. This was just a lucky shot fired on a battlefield; they happen.

 

[iamshadow21]

In 1774 a Russian general, Mikhail Kutusov, was hit in the left temple by a bullet which went through the inside of his skull behind both his eyes and came out through the right temple. He survived and so did his eyesight, remarkably. This was just a lucky shot fired on a battlefield; they happen.

And everyone knows the story of Phineas Gage.

Phineas Gage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

MOO

 

[Novosti]

I really have to disagree. These all point to a professional. There was very little noise from JD, or the killer, the gunshot was a clean, clear shot to kill - not the sort of bungled multiple shot mess you would expect from someone who didn't really know what they were doing.
We can only say they didn't have transport - but we don't know for sure. Whoever it was got away from the scene of the crime quickly and quietly - and with no clear description given of their appearance. IMO an amateur would've worn a facemask or covering, thinking that this would shield them from being recognised - a professional would know that the best disguise is none at all really - you blend in, you don't stand out and no-one thinks twice if they see you.

But those are all post hoc rationalisations which go from the fact that he got away for a significant period to the conclusion that it must have been professional. If you look at it element-by-element it doesn't stack up. Noone would have sat in an ops room and planned to do it at a house she rarely and randomly visited, and with easy views to the street; in broad daylight; involving physical touching; with a substandard unique weapon and ammunition; in distinctive clothing; and with a muddled and slow pedestrian exit (as per witnesses). None of these choices could realistically have been arrived at by considered planning, and comparison of options.

 

[RichardKimble]

But those are all post hoc rationalisations which go from the fact that he got away for a significant period to the conclusion that it must have been professional. If you look at it element-by-element it doesn't stack up. Noone would have sat in an ops room and planned to do it at a house she rarely and randomly visited, and with easy views to the street; in broad daylight; involving physical touching; with a substandard unique weapon and ammunition; in distinctive clothing; and with a muddled and slow pedestrian exit (as per witnesses). None of these choices could realistically have been arrived at by considered planning, and comparison of options.

Agreed, Oceans razor applies imo, you don't need any convoluted or added complication of a hit man because JD was on brit tv screens seen by a wider audience.