George not guilty of Dando murder

[Bronto]

The law being changed had nothing to do with the retrial, the court of appeal ordered the re trial after a review of the case by the Criminal Cases Review Commission

btw A Murder trial is the only trial a judge must direct the jury to acqquit if they are not 100% sure, I agree it is only a direction and the jury would say they were 100%,

As for the CPS they knew the weakness of the evidence and had the knowledge that the powder residue evidence was that of contamination but they still chose to use it against george, that in my book is a fit up and borders on criminal conspiracy

 

[topdog1965]

Michael Stone does, he admitted it.

At the end of the day, you have the same case tried in two different ways. One resulted in the man being guilty, the other found the same man innocent.

You all realise that the killer is still free regardless?

I think the biggest question here concerns the police investigation. The jury cannot be blamed, neither can the judge who sentenced him. The main failing here is the police investigation.

The alleged confession was made through a prison cell wall to a complete stranger who happened to be Damien Daley a convict serving a prison sentance, he was released early after he gave a statement, you don't know much karym6 do you?

 

[topdog1965]

And herbie, this thread has nothing to do with Michael Stone, so why bring him up? If you want to discuss that, start a new thread.

This thread is about our shit legal system Michael Stone is just another example of that, with people like you on the jury I can see why innocent people are convicted

 

[nara]

yes, but they chose to use it, and suceeded in getting a conviction. So this, coupled with the rest of their evidence was enough to say George did it.

The article posted is actually quite intriuging - why is one of the jurors saying now that she had deep concerns? If she did, did others? Obviously the majority didnt.

The most important thing though is this - the killer of Jill Dando is still out there.

And herbie, this thread has nothing to do with Michael Stone, so why bring him up? If you want to discuss that, start a new thread.

It seems perfectly legitimate to bring up another suspected miscarriage while discussing this case.

 

[topdog1965]

could you quantify exactly what you mean by people like me?

These two cases have absolutely nothing in common.

I will try in your very first post you said

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.

What evidence I ask and you said

bad character witenesses

so that makes him a killer, everyone with a bad character is a killer thank god your not on a jury and I am the accused

These two cases have absolutely nothing in common

They do they have both been tried with no evidance just just bad character witenesses

 

[Bronto]

yes, but they chose to use it, and suceeded in getting a conviction. So this, coupled with the rest of their evidence was enough to say George did it.

You are missing the point, the fact they used the evidence knowing it was false amounts to perverting the course of justice, they used faulse evidence to convict an innocent man, they are the ones who should be in jail, how many more innocents are serving prison terms because of Police and CPS lies ?

The most important thing though is this - the killer of Jill Dando is still out there.

To me the most important thing is that an innocent man has finaly after 8 years recieved justice, Dando's killer will now probably never be caught because of what I'd call, at best, police incompetence, probably more like police and CPS corruption and deliberatly perverting the course of justice to suit their own means

 

[benny59]

the one bit of evidence was the gun power in a pocket in a jacket , but the jacket was left in a room on show with no covers on and at the last minutes someone said to check it ,,
fit up

1 spec of gunpowder residue they found, {and a policeman handleing the jacket admitted he was on the fireing range earlier that day}

ive always thought he was innocent myself, {convinced it was someone that knew her}


funny how the coppers always like easy touches-----maybe thats why theyve branched out into transport in a big way--------

 

[english]

interesting?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2008/aug/01/jilldando.ukcrime?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews

David Icke: "For whatever reason she was the target of premeditated murder by an experienced killer - a killer who has not been sought for eight years because the police turned their whole investigation on an innocent man, an epileptic who suffers from mental illness."

More reading:

"I have a memory. It is not always reliable short-term, but once something goes in there it usually sticks. I don't think that makes me too different from most of the human race.

The BBC, however, appears to think that people have no long term memory and need to have their "facts of the matter" topped up by their own particular brand of "news" and current affairs". I'm glad to say that the rest of the British media - even Sky (and that's saying something...) aren't quite so condenscending.

We have a prime recent example of this - Barry George being found "Not Guilty" of murdering Jill dando, although he had been in prison for eight years.

Eight years! That's a long time. Nine years since the time of her death. Do the idiots at the BBC really think people will have forgotten what happened on April 26th 1999, and how it was reported at the time? When I heard the "not guilty" verdict on the radio there was quite a long piece about the case. Then, the reporter told us that noone could think of a reason why Jill Dando had been killed, or who could have had a motive.

Some people on this site may find me arrogant. If so, I am sorry. But I don't forget a fact. And there were plenty knocking around in April 1999. Thankfully, "The Guardian" has today been able to restate some of these facts:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/06/jilldando.weekend7

To summarise the facts:

1. Three days before Dando was assassinated, on 23rd April 1999, NATO planes bombed a Serbian TV station, killing sixteen people. Blair said the attack was "entirely justified".

2. The day after the assassination, someone with an Eastern European accent rang up the BBC and named the person who would be next. The BBC gave that person the highest security for the next six weeks.

3. Winding forward, the BBC made the releasing of Barry George their main story for at least some of the day yesterday, and there are at least three web articles and two video interviews on their website. There is no mention of a Serbian gunman anywhere.

Analysis

The BBC are, by omission, giving the people a very distorted distorted view of the case. One would hope that they would want everyone to know the full facts of the possible reasons why one of their star reporters was killed in a manner that looked very much like an assassination.

BBC employees who had known Jill Dando would have memories just as good as my own, and would (or should...) have been expecting the Serbian gunman theory to re-emerge. Many must have been smelling a rat yesterday. This matter was even discussed on the political blogs.

Conclusion

The BBC are covering up important information, and treating a lot of intelligent people as if we are mindless zombies. This will have a further negative effect on their already rapidly dwindling reputation.

The only possible reason for this, as far as I can see, is government interference.

And this needs to be exposed! The British press are doing a good job for once - printing again in black and white what we all remember from nine+ years ago. But in this case, the BBC should go on trial for "being economical with the truth".

More Refs
"So who did kill Jill Dando"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2484881/So-who-did-kill-Jill-Dando.html

"If Barry George didn't kill Jill Dando who did?"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...idn-t-kill-jill-dando-who-did-115875-20680683

"Interview with Juror from original trial"
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1488655367?bctid=1291940246

"Theories: so who did kill Jill dando"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4444275.ece


One other important component of the British media didn't mention Serbia is their analysis - "The Independent"!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/george-not-guilty-so-who-did-kill-jill-dando-883238.html


Something is going on. Was the capture of Van Karadic timely, or untimely, assuming that the British govt knew that George was probably going to be found "Not Guilty". Is the EU somehow involved with "damage limitation" because they want Serbia to join the EU? Are the British government anxiously trying to prevent historical revisionism about their role in the Kosovan conflict?

Can anyone here fill in the dots?"

 

[benny59]

I am sorry, but if George is innocent then it is a terrible shame he has served so much time for something he has not done. However, imo the fact a killer like this is still loose on ths streets - this is much more important.

Now, if George was set up the judge and jury had nothing to do with it. In fact, the CPS probably wouldnt want to know if it was a set up to avoid culpability and they certainly wouldnt have the ability to plant the evidence. This would leave the police, who we know are far from perfect.

However, if it was a set up, why set up George after a year? Just because they were going no where?

you hit the nail on the head there m8 {THEY WERE GOING NOWHERE}

well liked public figure gets bumped off ""yet they didnt have a suspect untill geoge came along"

 

[benny59]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2008/aug/01/jilldando.ukcrime?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews

David Icke: "For whatever reason she was the target of premeditated murder by an experienced killer - a killer who has not been sought for eight years because the police turned their whole investigation on an innocent man, an epileptic who suffers from mental illness."

More reading:

"I have a memory. It is not always reliable short-term, but once something goes in there it usually sticks. I don't think that makes me too different from most of the human race.

The BBC, however, appears to think that people have no long term memory and need to have their "facts of the matter" topped up by their own particular brand of "news" and current affairs". I'm glad to say that the rest of the British media - even Sky (and that's saying something...) aren't quite so condenscending.

We have a prime recent example of this - Barry George being found "Not Guilty" of murdering Jill dando, although he had been in prison for eight years.

Eight years! That's a long time. Nine years since the time of her death. Do the idiots at the BBC really think people will have forgotten what happened on April 26th 1999, and how it was reported at the time? When I heard the "not guilty" verdict on the radio there was quite a long piece about the case. Then, the reporter told us that noone could think of a reason why Jill Dando had been killed, or who could have had a motive.

Some people on this site may find me arrogant. If so, I am sorry. But I don't forget a fact. And there were plenty knocking around in April 1999. Thankfully, "The Guardian" has today been able to restate some of these facts:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/06/jilldando.weekend7

To summarise the facts:

1. Three days before Dando was assassinated, on 23rd April 1999, NATO planes bombed a Serbian TV station, killing sixteen people. Blair said the attack was "entirely justified".

2. The day after the assassination, someone with an Eastern European accent rang up the BBC and named the person who would be next. The BBC gave that person the highest security for the next six weeks.

3. Winding forward, the BBC made the releasing of Barry George their main story for at least some of the day yesterday, and there are at least three web articles and two video interviews on their website. There is no mention of a Serbian gunman anywhere.

Analysis

The BBC are, by omission, giving the people a very distorted distorted view of the case. One would hope that they would want everyone to know the full facts of the possible reasons why one of their star reporters was killed in a manner that looked very much like an assassination.

BBC employees who had known Jill Dando would have memories just as good as my own, and would (or should...) have been expecting the Serbian gunman theory to re-emerge. Many must have been smelling a rat yesterday. This matter was even discussed on the political blogs.

Conclusion

The BBC are covering up important information, and treating a lot of intelligent people as if we are mindless zombies. This will have a further negative effect on their already rapidly dwindling reputation.

The only possible reason for this, as far as I can see, is government interference.

And this needs to be exposed! The British press are doing a good job for once - printing again in black and white what we all remember from nine+ years ago. But in this case, the BBC should go on trial for "being economical with the truth".

More Refs
"So who did kill Jill Dando"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2484881/So-who-did-kill-Jill-Dando.html

"If Barry George didn't kill Jill Dando who did?"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...idn-t-kill-jill-dando-who-did-115875-20680683

"Interview with Juror from original trial"
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1488655367?bctid=1291940246

"Theories: so who did kill Jill dando"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4444275.ece


One other important component of the British media didn't mention Serbia is their analysis - "The Independent"!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/george-not-guilty-so-who-did-kill-jill-dando-883238.html


Something is going on. Was the capture of Van Karadic timely, or untimely, assuming that the British govt knew that George was probably going to be found "Not Guilty". Is the EU somehow involved with "damage limitation" because they want Serbia to join the EU? Are the British government anxiously trying to prevent historical revisionism about their role in the Kosovan conflict?

Can anyone here fill in the dots?"

makes you think m8-------could it have been a tit for tat killing


1. Three days before Dando was assassinated, on 23rd April 1999, NATO planes bombed a Serbian TV station, killing sixteen people. Blair said the attack was "entirely justified".


the above makes me more angry than an innocent man going to nick {blairs a self centered smug twat of a kunt}---------he's feathered his nest while in office--------now he,s earning millions

 

[stevemac40]

Given the evidence, under the re-trial they have not been able to find him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".

Because of that we cannot say that we are 100% sure he wasn't guity. What I do know is that I have spoken to people (prior to all this re-trial) that were involved in the original case and they were very certain the right man was convicted.

It goes to show that we are all only human and suseptable to mistakes, the question here is whether finding him innocent this time round is the mistake or not.

 

[benny59]

Given the evidence, under the re-trial they have not been able to find him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".

Because of that we cannot say that we are 100% sure he wasn't guity. What I do know is that I have spoken to people (prior to all this re-trial) that were involved in the original case and they were very certain the right man was convicted.

It goes to show that we are all only human and suseptable to mistakes, the question here is whether finding him innocent this time round is the mistake or not.

true m8----------but what evidence did they have in the original trial, and who were these people you were speaking to ????????

 

[english]

makes you think m8-------could it have been a tit for tat killing


1. Three days before Dando was assassinated, on 23rd April 1999, NATO planes bombed a Serbian TV station, killing sixteen people. Blair said the attack was "entirely justified".

indeed. there's more to it than that tho;


The Serbian assassin

Dismissed by some as far-fetched, the theory that Miss Dando was killed by a Serbian hitman formed a central plank of Barry George's defence at his original trial.

At the time she was murdered, the Nato bombing campaign in Serbia, aimed at ending the war in the Balkans, was at its height.

Three days before the killing, British planes bombed Radio Television Serbia in Belgrade, owned by Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic, killing 16 employees.

A caller to BBC TV Centre on the morning after the murder, speaking with an Eastern European accent, claimed it was revenge for the Belgrade bombing. He said the next person to be killed would be Tony Hall, then chief executive of BBC News. The threat was treated so seriously that for the next six weeks Mr Hall and his family were placed under round-the-clock protection.

Israeli intelligence had warned Britain that Serbian "hit" teams had been sent to the UK to murder "soft" targets in revenge for the Nato bombing. Miss Dando had fronted a high-profile BBC appeal which raised £1 million in 24 hours for Kosovan Albanian refugees three weeks before her death, making her a possible target.

Interpol also received information from an anonymous informant that the Serb warlord Arkan was behind the Dando killing.

The theory was discounted on the basis that three days would not be enough time to order and execute a revenge assassination.

But according to intelligence experts Serbian assassins were trained by the country's security service, the JSO, to kill with a single shot to the head at very close range.

George's supporters claim the Serb hitman theory would also explain why two witnesses described seeing a man of "Mediterranean appearance" leaving the crime scene. They say a "sweating man" who was seen by several witnesses at a bus stop, and who has never been traced, could have been the killer.

 

[stevemac40]

true m8----------but what evidence did they have in the original trial, and who were these people you were speaking to ????????

The people I spoke to were involved in the forensics, I personally don't know anything about the evidence or the trial though (treat it as hear-say if you want).

 

[Munkey]

Given the evidence, under the re-trial they have not been able to find him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".

Because of that we cannot say that we are 100% sure he wasn't guity. What I do know is that I have spoken to people (prior to all this re-trial) that were involved in the original case and they were very certain the right man was convicted.

It goes to show that we are all only human and suseptable to mistakes, the question here is whether finding him innocent this time round is the mistake or not.

Steve I have friends who are solicitors and barristers who practice in London and IIRC they all said at the time that it was unlikely that he was the killer. they did not have any involvement in the case though. Most right minded people thought he was innocent, only the CPS didn't.

 

[GIO]

Personally im not convinced hes innocent, i think hes got off on technicalities.

He had convictions for rape and indecent assault, had an obsession with Jill’s lookalike Princess Diana and once tried to break into Kensington Palace with a dagger and rope and wearing an SAS gas mask.

It says he was in the street on the morning Jilll was murdered, infact his lawyers admitted he was but didnt prove he shot her.

He confessed to 6 different inmates when he was in jail.He was seen running away from Jill Dandos house

He visited a disabled centre round the corner on the day of the murder.

He said he didnt even know her to cops,whereas he boasted to a neighbour showing pictures of him with her.

All evidence the jury werent allowed to here.

 

[topdog1965]

Personally im not convinced hes innocent, i think hes got off on technicalities.

He had convictions for rape and indecent assault, had an obsession with Jill’s lookalike Princess Diana and once tried to break into Kensington Palace with a dagger and rope and wearing an SAS gas mask.

It says he was in the street on the morning Jilll was murdered, infact his lawyers admitted he was but didnt prove he shot her.

He confessed to 6 different inmates when he was in jail.He was seen running away from Jill Dandos house

He visited a disabled centre round the corner on the day of the murder.

He said he didnt even know her to cops,whereas he boasted to a neighbour showing pictures of him with her.

All evidence the jury werent allowed to here.

Well if the jury were unable to hear it how come you were?

 

[topdog1965]

why were they not allowed to see it?

Are these the bad character witness reports that are not admissable any more?

He did not say see he said hear, mind he spelt it different

 

[DiamondGeezer]

Barry George back in the spotlight again

Sky News presenter Kay Burley has made an allegation of harassment against Barry George, the man acquitted of Jill Dando's murder, the BBC understands.

Full Story

 

[DiamondGeezer]

What does this have to do with the Dando murder? Other than he was the accused?

As this post was about George Barry being acquitted I thought I would just add to this that he has had a brush with the law again

Boy you sure know had to clock posts - 5000 be the end of nect week