George not guilty of Dando murder

[DiamondGeezer]

Barry George has been found not guilty of murdering BBC television presenter Jill Dando outside her London home.

Mr George, 48, of Fulham, west London, denied shooting 37-year-old Miss Dando on her doorstep on 26 April 1999.

He was retried at the Old Bailey, having first faced trial for the killing in 2001.

His defence argued he was not capable of carrying out what could be seen as the "perfect crime" that required "meticulous" planning.

Mr George has consistently insisted he did not murder Jill Dando.

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Extracts from Barry George police interviews.

He was arrested on 15 May 2000, a year after the shooting.

Forensic evidence about a tiny speck of gun residue in Barry George's coat helped secure his original conviction but was not permitted in the retrial.

The jury of eight women and four men were sent out to deliberate on Wednesday after an eight-week trial.

Mr George showed no reaction as the verdict was read out. He nodded as psychiatrist Dr Susan Young, who sat with him in the dock during trial, whispered to him.

He is expected to be released later and walk free from the Old Bailey after spending eight years in prison.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7536815.stm

Published: 2008/08/01 13:15:17 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

 

[nara]

Excellent news! Justice at last.

 

[notanotherone]

so what were saying is another unsolved murder

 

[Curly]

And yet another miscarriage of justice


Curly

 

[thomasjcat]

Good news at last, 8 years wasted, when they (police) could have been looking for the real murderer.

 

[smirnoff_rules]

great news this .. poor sod was setup ... lets hope he gets millions and million now

 

[DiamondGeezer]

great news this .. poor sod was setup ... lets hope he gets millions and million now

and hopefully he can give some of his victim(s) some compensation

his is a convicted sex offender
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...eorge+cleared+of+Jill+Dando+murder/article.do

 

[smirnoff_rules]

and hopefully he can give some of his victim(s) some compensation

his is a convicted sex offender
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...eorge+cleared+of+Jill+Dando+murder/article.do

fingers crossed he might ?

did he do them crimes ? if he has mental problem he might say yes to anything ?
not up to date on his life story , but lm sure we all will be soon

 

[kpupdated]

What about Jill Dando? Is no-one going to defend her? Her parents must be outraged?

 

[kpupdated]

Well, there other cases just like hers. I remember crimewatch doing a re-enaction of the time billy jo got murdered. Her father got accused of killing her but he was let out too. What is going wrong with our system? The police, the evidence the whole lot?

 

[kpupdated]

Now he is trying to prove his innocence! Why are people always in denial? yeah he may feel great today but Jill doesnt!

 

[smirnoff_rules]

I am no legal expert - but doesnt him being found not guilty prove his innocence?

lol .. think your right there m8

 

[Paul-K]

I am no legal expert - but doesnt him being found not guilty prove his innocence?

Not really, it just proves he has a good legal defence, just look at O J Simpson

 

[Jooooles]

I think he had every right to be found not guilty the evidence was so small even the borrowers could not have found it with a telescope

Im a big beliver that Some of the lastest DNA testing methods and cross contamination and stuff leads to unsafe convictions I watch alot of the crime channels roud: good in some cases very poor in old.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

Im a big beliver that Some of the lastest DNA testing methods and cross contamination and stuff leads to unsafe convictions.

Your right there.... the Madeleine McCann case springs to mind

 

[kpupdated]

Oh! Well. I am not an expert either. They never found the gun that shot Jill Dando but they only presented the littlest evidence a year after her murder. Either way he does not sound a nice man to make friends with and he did have a history of harrassing women. Still does not say that he was the killer.

So if he did not kill her who did?

That also means that there is still a killer on the loose.

 

[smirnoff_rules]

its very rare to be killed by a stranger .. bet its someone she knew

 

[kpupdated]

I think he had every right to be found not guilty the evidence was so small even the borrowers could not have found it with a telescope

Im a big beliver that Some of the lastest DNA testing methods and cross contamination and stuff leads to unsafe convictions I watch alot of the crime channels roud: good in some cases very poor in old.

Ok. I believe that dna can find the right person that has committed the crime but I am no crime expert. Especially in the cases of rape and murder dna i think plays an important part of evidence.

 

[jaffa]

But did he actually do it or not? I know he has been found not guilty now - but thats due to evidence not being used in the second trial.

I am no legal expert - but doesnt him being found not guilty prove his innocence?

You could have answered your own question karym6.....roud:

There was always something strange about that case but I believed he did it on the evidence they produced in the 1st trial. Don't know if I would have had the same opinion second time around.

 

[jaffa]

Ah, yes.

If the evidence were presented in the second trial (ignoring that he was already convicted), would the outcome have been different today?

No idea.

If it was the same evidence as 1st trial...then I would have him sent to the gallows....ooops I mean I would have found him guily and sent him to a cushy prison.