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

[Novosti]

I think it’s often what police *don’t* say that gives the game away - if they’d identified the running/sweating man/men they’d have no reason not to say so.

Also, nine months after the murder police apparently removed a traffic light post which a witness claimed he’d seen running man grab as he lost his balance. But the business with JS occurred around a month after Jill was killed. If you believed JS was running man, why would you be looking for running man’s prints many, many months later?

Mystery surrounds fingerprints where man sprinted from Jill Dando murder scene

The person behind them has never been found

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

I’d suggest it’s because they haven’t the faintest clue who this guy was.

On the "running man" sighting, it's all a bit vague and confused. But George must be a leading candidate e.g. at least four identifications already on Gowan avenue; clothing descriptions consistent with the Cecil Gee woolen coat; direction towards HAFAD's office at the time; movements stumbling.

 

[RichardKimble]

Let it not be forgotten George's conviction was quashed because of technical issues, ie: the gun shot residue, not a out right miscarriage of justice,a new trial found him not guilty, no new evidence was presented and there's no new evidence pointing any where else.

 

[wtiger]

finding a man guilty when there is a lack of evidence to convict IS the very definition of a miscarriage of justice!

 

[RichardKimble]

finding a man guilty when there is a lack of evidence to convict IS the very definition of a miscarriage of justice!

The compensation board, didn't see it as such, it's not like in the Stefan Kiszko case or Andrew Malkinson where there were truly miscarriages.

 

[rvlvr]

On the "running man" sighting, it's all a bit vague and confused. But George must be a leading candidate e.g. at least four identifications already on Gowan avenue; clothing descriptions consistent with the Cecil Gee woolen coat; direction towards HAFAD's office at the time; movements stumbling.

The prosecution case was that George killed Dando just after 11.30, walked a circuitous route back to his flat (the quickest route from 29 Gowan Avenue to Crookham Road involves turning right in the direction of Munster Road, not left - as the killer did - in the direction of Fulham Palace Road), changed clothes, collected his carrier bag of documents, then went to HAFAD.

They’ve never argued it was George running along the Fulham Palace Road, because it doesn’t fit their timeline.

There weren’t four identifications of George in Gowan Avenue, there was one, four and a half hours before the murder, by Susan Mayes. The ‘partial identifications’ came from witnesses who described seeing a man wearing a suit. No one described this man wearing a coat, let alone a coat like George’s wool overcoat.

Mayes described a man wearing a black suit with an opened necked white shirt. Stella de Rosnay described a man wearing a grey suit and a tie. Charlotte de Rosnay described a man wearing a navy blue suit with a lighter blue shirt and possibly a tie. Belinda Normanton described a man wearing a black suit, possibly a blue shirt, and no tie.

 

[rvlvr]

finding a man guilty when there is a lack of evidence to convict IS the very definition of a miscarriage of justice!

Indeed.

A couple of years ago Sam Hallam and Victor Nealon, who between them spent more than 24 years in prison for crimes they didn’t commit, took their case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights after being denied compensation in the UK. They lost - though it was acknowledged that the UK’s system of compensation represents a hurdle which is ‘virtually insurmountable’, with more than 93% of applicants to the compensation scheme being denied.

In Sam’s case the Met agreed that his conviction was ‘unsafe’ following his release, but it made no difference.

Statement on Sam Hallam & Victor Nealon | JUSTICE | UK Legal Reform Charity

www.justice.org.uk

The obvious motive for setting the bar this high is that it saves the state money. But it also serves a secondary purpose, of upholding the no smoke without fire principle - if this person was truly innocent, then this would surely have been recognised in financial terms, ‘they’ must know something ‘we’ don’t, etc etc. It’s appalling.

 

[Inspector Evans]

The prosecution case was that George killed Dando just after 11.30, walked a circuitous route back to his flat (the quickest route from 29 Gowan Avenue to Crookham Road involves turning right in the direction of Munster Road, not left - as the killer did - in the direction of Fulham Palace Road), changed clothes, collected his carrier bag of documents, then went to HAFAD.

They’ve never argued it was George running along the Fulham Palace Road, because it doesn’t fit their timeline.

There weren’t four identifications of George in Gowan Avenue, there was one, four and a half hours before the murder, by Susan Mayes. The ‘partial identifications’ came from witnesses who described seeing a man wearing a suit. No one described this man wearing a coat, let alone a coat like George’s wool overcoat.

Mayes described a man wearing a black suit with an opened necked white shirt. Stella de Rosnay described a man wearing a grey suit and a tie. Charlotte de Rosnay described a man wearing a navy blue suit with a lighter blue shirt and possibly a tie. Belinda Normanton described a man wearing a black suit, possibly a blue shirt, and no tie.

Great post. And this is the crux of BG's movements on the day. When did he actually turn up at HAFAD? He claimed 12pm which would put him in the clear as not realistic for him to shoot JD, go back home and change and then go back out to HAFAD all within a 29-30 minute timeframe.

Or if he went to HAFAD straight after then that is not what the prosecution is alleging so can't convict on that.

However it seems the clock at the centre was broken and the staff there weren't noting down the time correctly so it is all left to speculate.

If he did turn up that day from 1pm onwards then there is a far larger period for him to complete the movements as prosecutors claim.

 

[rvlvr]

Great post. And this is the crux of BG's movements on the day. When did he actually turn up at HAFAD? He claimed 12pm which would put him in the clear as not realistic for him to shoot JD, go back home and change and then go back out to HAFAD all within a 29-30 minute timeframe.

Or if he went to HAFAD straight after then that is not what the prosecution is alleging so can't convict on that.

However it seems the clock at the centre was broken and the staff there weren't noting down the time correctly so it is all left to speculate.

If he did turn up that day from 1pm onwards then there is a far larger period for him to complete the movements as prosecutors claim.

There’s a good bit in BC’s book detailing the HAFAD ladies’ evidence, when I have it to hand again I’ll post it, replying here now so I don’t forget.

 

[Novosti]

The prosecution case was that George killed Dando just after 11.30, walked a circuitous route back to his flat (the quickest route from 29 Gowan Avenue to Crookham Road involves turning right in the direction of Munster Road, not left - as the killer did - in the direction of Fulham Palace Road), changed clothes, collected his carrier bag of documents, then went to HAFAD.

They’ve never argued it was George running along the Fulham Palace Road, because it doesn’t fit their timeline.

There weren’t four identifications of George in Gowan Avenue, there was one, four and a half hours before the murder, by Susan Mayes. The ‘partial identifications’ came from witnesses who described seeing a man wearing a suit. No one described this man wearing a coat, let alone a coat like George’s wool overcoat.

Mayes described a man wearing a black suit with an opened necked white shirt. Stella de Rosnay described a man wearing a grey suit and a tie. Charlotte de Rosnay described a man wearing a navy blue suit with a lighter blue shirt and possibly a tie. Belinda Normanton described a man wearing a black suit, possibly a blue shirt, and no tie.

That's not the full story on the witnesses. Susan Mayes positively identified George as you said. Teresa Normanton also identified him but then expressed some hesitancy after positively identifying him : "“I’m sure, but I’m not quite sure. I don’t remember a moustache.” Charlotte de Rosnay hesitated between two faces in the parade, one of which was George. Stella de Rosnay also hesitated between two faces and then selected one saying that was her gut feeling. It was George.

So there were four identifications. Were they all robust, certain identifications such that a jury could take each as a fact? No. But on the balance of probabilities, could four positive identifications in the same place and the same morning have been a fluke?

On the prosecution's hint that George went home before going to HAFAD, I never understood why they bothered with this. They never advanced or had to explain any evidence that he went home that morning. And whilst it was just about plausible that he could have gone home and been at HAFAD at the time Elaine Hutton and others said he was there, the more straightforward explanation would have been that he went there directly after the attack. In either case he could have starred as "running man" though.

 

[rvlvr]

They had to argue that he went home and changed clothes before heading out again, because the HAFAD witnesses, Julia Moorhouse, and the minicab manager all described George as wearing very different outfits to Jill’s killer. There was also the issue of the carrier bag, which George had with him but the killer obviously didn’t.

The partial identifications became robust once those witnesses had - wholly inappropriately - spent time with Mayes, who they knew had picked the ‘right’ man. Their evidence was compromised as a result.

 

[Novosti]

They had to argue that he went home and changed clothes before heading out again, because the HAFAD witnesses, Julia Moorhouse, and the minicab manager all described George as wearing very different outfits to Jill’s killer. There was also the issue of the carrier bag, which George had with him but the killer obviously didn’t.

The partial identifications became robust once those witnesses had - wholly inappropriately - spent time with Mayes, who they knew had picked the ‘right’ man. Their evidence was compromised as a result.

Yes but Ramesh Paul's (the taxi controller) evidence painted a sinister picture - George returning to the office, a day or two after the murder, to ask Paul to confirm what clothing he was wearing. Paul said he couldn't remember, so an agitated George kept pointing to the sun until Paul guessed "yellow", followed by congratulations from George. I don't think you need to be a genius in psychology to guess the motivation for this exchange... And remember it was a year or so before he was spoken to by the police - so it wasn't a desperate attempt to fend off overbearing police.

 

[rvlvr]

Paul actually spoke to police on the day of the crime. To quote from BC’s book (page 228):

The manager of Traffic Cars, Ramesh Paul, had called the police early that evening to say that 'around the time of the incident' one of his drivers carried a fare from the firm's office on Fulham Palace Road to an address in Earl's Court. The Traffic Cars office is only 150 yards north of the end of Gowan Avenue so Paul thought this information might be significant. Two days later, the police computer record showed, Paul rang in again to report something else which he thought 'very odd': the same man who had taken the taxi on Monday had returned to the cab office on that day, the Wednesday, asking for confirmation of the time of the trip and what he had been wearing. Unlike the Hafad calls, the Traffic Cars information was investigated in the spring of 1999 and statements were taken from Paul and from the driver in question, but the inquiries led nowhere because the man could not be identified, and in fact the description given was wildly off the mark - Paul thought the man he had dealt with had spiky blond hair and an east European accent.

It was only after George was finally spoken to in 2000 and mentioned getting a taxi that police joined the dots.

One possible reason Paul thought the man in question had blonde hair is that he misremembered George’s yellow t-shirt (for this is what he was wearing when he visited HAFAD). I’ve no idea why he thought George had an east European accent!

The taxi journey George took was logged at 1.15pm. At trial Paul said George might have been waiting in the office for around 20 minutes.

George’s motivation for speaking to Paul was to establish his alibi, yes. Because he thought he might need one. And, as it turned out, he was right.

 

[Novosti]

"George’s motivation for speaking to Paul was to establish his alibi, yes. Because he thought he might need one. And, as it turned out, he was right."

Agree with every word there. There are two possible explanations for this behaviour. Firstly, having done the crime, he tried to construct a false alibi. Second, he was innocent, but as a known violent offender against women with an interest in firearms hanging around the crime scene for an extended period that day, he feared the police would wrongly come after him, later.

The second is very unusual behaviour - an innocent candidate suspect actively talking to potential witnesses shortly after the crime, and coaching them towards the answers he wanted. And all this before being spoken to by detectives. It is compounded by the change in his story regarding when he left home. Initially saying lunchtime, then changing that to mid morning when confronted with witness evidence.

Standing back, the second explanation is also very odd in terms of what it would say about his intellect. It would have been very poorly judged in legal terms - an innocent person coaching a witness. But at the same time it would have shown significant foresight and ability to plan a few steps ahead - thinking ahead quickly to a hypothetical investigation and acting prophylactically now.

 

[rvlvr]

I think we should read Mr Paul’s recollection of events with a degree of skepticism, given he proved to be a less than reliable witness. I also think it’s worth saying it’s not certain in what order George visited HAFAD and Traffic Cars on the Wednesday. If for instance he visited HAFAD first and was told he was wearing a yellow t-shirt, then I don’t find it strange that he’d then ask Mr Paul if he remembered him wearing a yellow t-shirt. The truth is we don’t know how all of this played out.

As far as alibi construction goes though, none of this strikes me as remotely smart or sophisticated. It’s odd and clunky behaviour - entirely in keeping with everything we know about Barry George. Multiple people far more learned than I all reached the same conclusions regarding George’s personality and intelligence - his IQ of 76, BC notes (page 252), “placed him, in the words of one report, 'on the borderline of intellectual functioning'; his memory was very poor, as were his concentration and his ability to plan and execute complex actions; he was emotionally volatile and inclined to become rigid and stubborn in the face of difficulties, and he was also prone to exaggerating”.

Nothing I see in his behaviour that week makes me think George was far smarter than believed. If he *had* killed Jill and possessed a modicum of sense, he’d simply have returned to his flat and lain low. On the contrary, George repeatedly drew attention to himself and raised eyebrows - entirely consistent with how he’d behave on the regular, and also completely at odds with how Jill’s killer apparently behaved.

 

[Novosti]

I think we should read Mr Paul’s recollection of events with a degree of skepticism, given he proved to be a less than reliable witness. I also think it’s worth saying it’s not certain in what order George visited HAFAD and Traffic Cars on the Wednesday. If for instance he visited HAFAD first and was told he was wearing a yellow t-shirt, then I don’t find it strange that he’d then ask Mr Paul if he remembered him wearing a yellow t-shirt. The truth is we don’t know how all of this played out.

As far as alibi construction goes though, none of this strikes me as remotely smart or sophisticated. It’s odd and clunky behaviour - entirely in keeping with everything we know about Barry George. Multiple people far more learned than I all reached the same conclusions regarding George’s personality and intelligence - his IQ of 76, BC notes (page 252), “placed him, in the words of one report, 'on the borderline of intellectual functioning'; his memory was very poor, as were his concentration and his ability to plan and execute complex actions; he was emotionally volatile and inclined to become rigid and stubborn in the face of difficulties, and he was also prone to exaggerating”.

Nothing I see in his behaviour that week makes me think George was far smarter than believed. If he *had* killed Jill and possessed a modicum of sense, he’d simply have returned to his flat and lain low. On the contrary, George repeatedly drew attention to himself and raised eyebrows - entirely consistent with how he’d behave on the regular, and also completely at odds with how Jill’s killer apparently behaved.

In the case of George having conducted the murder, then I agree that his attempt to construct an alibi was muddled and cack-handed - especially the coaching of witnesses, and his inconsistent stories on timings. He also falsely told witnesses that he was worried because his face matched a police e-fit of the suspect. No such e-fit had been issued. This is all consistent with his known intellectual capacity and temperament.

It's the second case - George being innocent but immediately seeking to establish his alibis, including by lying and coaching - that seems much less consistent with his capacity, and seriously implausible more generally. He behaved as if certain that the police would seek to interview him and that witnesses would report his physical likeness on Gowan Avenue (hence his lies about the e-fit). Moreover he seemed to anticipate, at this extremely early stage, that those witnesses would report an attacker in dark clothing, motivating his coaching of Paul towards the colour yellow. All substantially before any information on clothing and physical likeness was in the public domain.