I've always thought there was something very wrong with the original verdict. The guy doesn't seem capable of tying his own shoelaces, let alone cold bloodedly gunning down Jill Dando outside her own front door & walking away without anybody seeing him.
The bloke seems like a bit of a loon. But then again, loons DO kill people sometimes. All a bit strange really.
However, I think the thing I'm probably most uncomfortable with is that some of the original jurors keep appearing on TV with sweeping statements like "If it wasn't for the gunpowder he would never have been convicted" - which may be their view but is not fact. FACT. Am worried that this is the start of our judicial system becoming more like the yanks in this regard.
Can't help but feel that given the high profile of the victim somebody had to be banged up sharpish so the police were seen to be efficient and the right impression was given to the public.
If I remember rightly there was speculation at the time that her killing may have been related to events in Bosnia. Digging there may have opened an uncomfortable political can of worms.
Therefore somebody who appears to be vulnerable and a misfit to boot fits the bill and cleans the slate - or at least did until his family protested.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Can't help but feel that given the high profile of the victim somebody had to be banged up sharpish so the police were seen to be efficient and the right impression was given to the public.
If I remember rightly there was speculation at the time that her killing may have been related to events in Bosnia. Digging there may have opened an uncomfortable political can of worms.
Therefore somebody who appears to be vulnerable and a misfit to boot fits the bill and cleans the slate - or at least did until his family protested.
Len, I think you are uncomfortably close to the truth there
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Can't help but feel that given the high profile of the victim somebody had to be banged up sharpish so the police were seen to be efficient and the right impression was given to the public.
If I remember rightly there was speculation at the time that her killing may have been related to events in Bosnia. Digging there may have opened an uncomfortable political can of worms.
Therefore somebody who appears to be vulnerable and a misfit to boot fits the bill and cleans the slate - or at least did until his family protested.
The case was decided by the jury, not the police. I've not heard any suggestions of fabricated evidence.
True, the case was decided by the jury but the judge does tend often to steer the jury down a particular road although I don't know if that was the case here to be fair.
A conviction should be beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis of one speck of gunpowder he was convicted, which doesn't seem an overwhelming case for finding him guilty, if we still had the death penalty, he could have been executed.
The suggestion at the time was that this was a revenge hit by some Serbians for the part that Jill Dando had in uncovering the massacres and war crimes committed by the Serbs in Bosnia. Maybe a bit far-fetched and James Bondish, but then there was the murder of Litvenko last year by a Russian agent.
Whoever murdered Jill Dando knew exactly what they were doing and had planned this properly, - they managed to kill her cleanly, with one bullet after being able to hide unnoticed behind a few bushes, the maximum time they had to walk up behind her, kill her and then leave the scene (again without being noticed) was literally a few seconds. That seems to me like an experienced professional at work, not some loner without an adequate alibi who as Red Pete says could hardly tie his shoe laces up.
The guy is so not guilty, there was a programme about him the other day and with all due respect he was not capable of killing anyone, evidence is flawed and key witnesses were not called,
[cite]Posted By: WhenIwasLittleBoy[/cite]The guy is so not guilty, there was a programme about him the other day and with all due respect he was not capable of killing anyone, evidence is flawed and key witnesses were not called,
How "capable" do you have to be? Bit of a loner, not the full shilling, obsession with guns, obsession with celebrities - starts to stack up in the end. Maybe it was a spur of the moment thing and he just "got lucky". The point is that only he knows if he did it. If the evidence isn't there he walks - that's the law of the land. Obviously now some of the original evidence is being called into doubt, hence the retrial. Personally I think he's as good as out, but what do I know?!
Capable as in the guy is an attention seeker, he suffers from some form of mental illness in which affects his coordination, he cannot drive, but the police stated the guy drove away, he just is not mentaly and phiscally capable, the bootom line is the police had to get a result on this case as it was high profile and he was a easy target.
He was a big Queen fan and changed his name to Freddie Mercury's real name but while this is a crime against good taste it's not in itself enough to make him guilty of murder.
Looking from the outside and seeing the not always reliable press reports there does seem to be reasonable doubt so I'm glad there will be a re-trial.
Remember how the old bill did a similar quick fit up job on Colin Stagg for the Rachel Nickel murder on Wimbledon Common? The only thing that saved Stagg was that the judge had the balls to throw the case out because the old bill has used entrapment to get him.
The Barry George-Dando case has exactly the same feel to it, the old bill needed a nick so they went out and got the first muppet they could pin it on.
Some people don't like to think that that is how the system works but that is how it does work on these high profile cases when the old bill have the politicians, the media and their superior officers breathing down their neck and hassling them for a conviction.
If Jill Dando was a hairdresser and not a TV star the chances are that George would never have been picked up.
Comments
However, I think the thing I'm probably most uncomfortable with is that some of the original jurors keep appearing on TV with sweeping statements like "If it wasn't for the gunpowder he would never have been convicted" - which may be their view but is not fact. FACT. Am worried that this is the start of our judicial system becoming more like the yanks in this regard.
If I remember rightly there was speculation at the time that her killing may have been related to events in Bosnia. Digging there may have opened an uncomfortable political can of worms.
Therefore somebody who appears to be vulnerable and a misfit to boot fits the bill and cleans the slate - or at least did until his family protested.
Len, I think you are uncomfortably close to the truth there
The suggestion at the time was that this was a revenge hit by some Serbians for the part that Jill Dando had in uncovering the massacres and war crimes committed by the Serbs in Bosnia. Maybe a bit far-fetched and James Bondish, but then there was the murder of Litvenko last year by a Russian agent.
Whoever murdered Jill Dando knew exactly what they were doing and had planned this properly, - they managed to kill her cleanly, with one bullet after being able to hide unnoticed behind a few bushes, the maximum time they had to walk up behind her, kill her and then leave the scene (again without being noticed) was literally a few seconds. That seems to me like an experienced professional at work, not some loner without an adequate alibi who as Red Pete says could hardly tie his shoe laces up.
How "capable" do you have to be? Bit of a loner, not the full shilling, obsession with guns, obsession with celebrities - starts to stack up in the end. Maybe it was a spur of the moment thing and he just "got lucky". The point is that only he knows if he did it. If the evidence isn't there he walks - that's the law of the land. Obviously now some of the original evidence is being called into doubt, hence the retrial. Personally I think he's as good as out, but what do I know?!
I NEVER DID IT!
Looking from the outside and seeing the not always reliable press reports there does seem to be reasonable doubt so I'm glad there will be a re-trial.
No, I reckon the axe is just for effect. You've clearly got the shooter in the other hand mate.
The Barry George-Dando case has exactly the same feel to it, the old bill needed a nick so they went out and got the first muppet they could pin it on.
Some people don't like to think that that is how the system works but that is how it does work on these high profile cases when the old bill have the politicians, the media and their superior officers breathing down their neck and hassling them for a conviction.
If Jill Dando was a hairdresser and not a TV star the chances are that George would never have been picked up.