Jill Dando

[MissKittyBeaudelais]

I watched the ITV programme last night about the death of Jill Dando. It was awful and even worse that her killer has not been found and brought to justice. However, Barry George, the man who was wrongly accused and imprisoned for over a decade has never received a penny in compensation. Am I reasonable to think that this is utterly unacceptable? This man, who was arrested it seems for basically “hanging around” and taking photos (he has Aspergers) has received no apology and no financial settlement for the sabotage of his life. I don’t understand this but can only assume it was disability discrimination.

So how do none of her colleagues ever know/speak about this BBC scandal - why didn’t it come out in the Savill enquiry ? I think it's a complete conspiracy theory. I dont buy it.

Could it possibly be because most journalists believe that the murder was the result of a Serbian hitman and because given that Serb nationalist groups have form for murdering journalists, are thus too scared to say anything?

I am appalled by Jill's murder but am also appalled by the killing of Serb civilian journalists by NATO forces.

I believe that murdering journalists is wrong regardless of whose side they are on.

even if there was some sort of investigation into a high level bbc paedophile ring, i think it's unlikely jill dando would be the driving force.

she was a presenter, not an investigative journalist.

more likely some lowly bbc researchers would be doing the actual work, and have the information.

@longwayoff - not always

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/not-innocent-enough-to-be-compensated-barry-george-loses-legal-battle-for-compensation-over-wrongful-8697397.html

Lifecraft I'm a complete tit then

I'm not the only one saying this, there's lots out there. Jill Dando raised the alarm about this before her death, that has been reported in a number of places.

No I don’t believe the whole conspiracy around how she was about to uncover the likes of JS etc. It’s a convenient conspiracy theory because there is no apparent motive as to why she was killed.

As for BG and compensation, one of the above posters explained that wel I think. He was never found innocent, but that doesn’t mean he was not guilty.Therefore he cannot be compensated.

So is "innocent until proved guilty" now not a thing?

Since when should defendants have to prove their innocence?

Not a supporter of Barry George but surely "innocent until proved guilty" is an important concept inshrined in law?

They changed the weighting of evidence after his conviction. They convicted him based on a particle of gun shot residue, found on an item of clothing, similar to what the killer was likely wearing - and that particle of residue was the one type (out of 5) that matched the bullets.

He was found only after a year, with a serious criminal history and evidence of stalking women on the same road that Jill lived in. A jury of his peers thought it was more than reasonable to assume that he was guilty.

After they convicted him, they brought about new guidelines about particles on gun shot, and in fact brought the new guidelines in based in part due to his conviction. It would be reasonable to assume that a member of the general public may have one incidental gun shot residue particle on them. It would be unreasonable to submit one particle in evidence of committing a crime.

It really truly must have been awful to be wrongfully imprisoned for so long, but what on earth should the police have done? Gone against guidelines of the time and not shown the jury what was assumed to be a fairly compelling piece of evidence because it would be unfair ?

I don’t expect we’ll ever know what happened. JD’s family will never know the why or how. That’s a life sentence for them.

As for BG, he should I feel, be compensated for his time in prison. It’s just my opinion. So many police leads weren’t followed up because they thought they had their man and whoever it was, if not now dead, is STILL free.

@PlainSpeaking, no he is not a rapist. He is not my friend. He is my son.

MissKittyBeaudelais you can’t compare him to BG though. BG had an extensive history of convictions for prior offenses against women. Assault, sexual assault, attempted rape, stalking and the list goes on. This wasn’t some innocent bloke with aspergers who happened to take pictures in that area and was then fitted up by the police. With his history it was natural that the police look into him as a potential suspect and as such draw conclusions from what they found.

hoodathunkit but he was found guilty. That guilty verdict was overturned on the basis of the evidence so in the eyes of the law he is not guilty but he was not found to be innocent. Iyswim.

It’s a bit of a technicality but given the guidelines at the time it wasn’t that straightforward.

His criminal record is not relevant if he is not the person who did this crime.

His criminal record or irresponsible nature do not cancel out his loss of liberty for nothing.

Justice is supposed to be rational because the stakes are so high.

@NoCauseRebel. Of course, the situation is differently but at the time, my son was so utterly lonely and was simply trying to join in/make friends. I couldn’t lock him in the house, he wanted (and had the perfect right to) go out. The abuse he got from other kids, younger and older, meant that YES, he WAS always hanging about on his own, looking a bit lost and “odd”. But yes, I agree it is different.

To explain the compensation thing further the criminal courts have the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" so if the jury aren't convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you did it you are not guilty.

To claim compensation for his wrongful imprisonment is a separate matter, it is a civil claim where he must prove that on the balance of probabilities his imprisonment was wrongful, i.e. that he didn't do it.

In the criminal courts the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt and if it isn't proven a not guilty verdict follows. In the civil courts the burden is on the claimant to prove their claim and if they don't reach the standard of proof the claim is dismissed and no compensation can be awarded.

There are a few areas where the criminal and civil courts overlap and someone can be not guilty of a crime but liable in the civil courts. It often happens in road traffic matters for example, or health and safety offences.

The murder of Lynn Siddons by Michael Brookes was interesting in that the civil courts were used to claim compensation from a murderer who had not been convicted in court which eventually led the criminal case to being reopened and he was convicted 18 years after the murder.

justarandomtricycle it’s a fine line.

While being a convicted sex offender with a long criminal history does not necessarily a murderer make, the reality is that previous convictions were likely going to be taken into account especially when investigating.

Remember when Ian Huntley was convicted for murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman? There was a huge debate at the time as to whether previous allegations which hadn’t even resulted in convictions should be taken into account and informed to the jury. Given Huntley was found guilty, the law was indeed changed iirc in order for this to be taken account of. Many people disagreed especially given the previous allegations hadn’t actually resulted in convictions, but equally many people felt they ought to have been taken into account.

Now imagine if Huntley had successfully appealed against his sentence/conviction, would we then have back-tracked and said that actually, previous allegations should not be considered and he is an innocent man? Somehow I don’t think we would. We would still have had him down as a sexual predator even if being such didn’t mean he was guilty of murdering those two girls.

BG is not dissimilar in that regard. He was acquitted of the murder of Jill Dando on the basis the evidence wasn’t considered reliable. And while if the evidence was insufficient it should never have come to court, the fact that he had such a long conviction history is precisely why he fell under the interest of the authorities. And while he has been acquitted of that one crime, he still was and remains a sexual predator and I wouldn’t want him living in my neighbourhood, even if he didn’t commit that one particular crime.

@NoCauseRebel Based on my recollections I think you are mistaken about Huntley.
IIRC the issue was a mixture of Police incompetence (I think Humberside misinterpreted Data Protection Laws) and the incompetence of the recruiters who didn't even bother to check his references.
The main changes that came out of that were DBS checks - the theory being that a centralised checking system wouldn't rely on details being passed on.
None of this has any bearing on BG who (unlike Huntley) had actual previous convictions. That made him of legitimate Police interest, but quite rightly, it's normally for Police and CPS to present a case based on evidence in that case rather than just saying "look at all this previous, he's an obvious wrong 'un".

BG was far too inept to have done the murder of Jill Dando and left behind so little evidence. It was clearly done with a great deal of planning by someone who knew what they doing and how to get away - BG was not that person, whatever else he might be.

I was shocked at some of the things I read on her so I checked some things in Barry George's sister's book, Stand Against Injustice. This is what I found:

^We really hoped that all of these precautions would mean Barry would not appear in any more disgraceful headlines, but no. They were being followed everywhere, even camping outside of Russ’ home looking for Barry, though they were not there. Russ’ wife and family felt intimidated by the media’s presence. The only way they could have known about Russ was if our phones were being monitored. Of course, this was all before the Leveson Inquiry and the News of the World’s well-earned downfall.
Story upon story was published. There was one story that alleged Barry had terrified a nurse in the hospital carpark, and that he was in an agitated state demanding drugs at the hospital. The truth was that he was with Russ and they had gone to A&E to replace Barry’s epilepsy meds, as he’d had to abandon his supply at the flat when the police came. Another story alleged that he was now obsessed with Cheryl Cole as well as Kay Burley, and that he was dating a convict’s wife, the person Surj went to a business meeting with!^

Context: Barry George had been put into the protective care of the Miscarriage of Justice Organisation (MOJO) because the media were printing lies.
So that was not true about Kay Burley and Cheryl Cole then, it was made up by the News of the World along with other stuff.

I'm thinking of starting a thread for mums with kids with Autism, ADHD, brain damage etc, to help people understand how hard it is to bring up a child with these issues. I won't call them disabilities because some people with Autism and/or ADHD are not disabled...though some are severely so.
Not many it seemed could understand this man with his damaged brain and poor mental health and low IQ. I read that he didn't receive any help because he wasn't diagnosed until he was almost 40.
Maybe we could encourage more mums coping with such challenges.
It should be quite topical. Would anyone else find such a post interesting?

Yes. Thanks @Allergy55

I still think it’s too easy to victimise anyone who stands out as different.

There are a few areas where the criminal and civil courts overlap and someone can be not guilty of a crime but liable in the civil court

The Omagh bomb is another example of this.

I think ive been on the moon or something. I had no idea barry hadnt killed jill. If he didnt who did, did the police say.

BG was far too inept to have done the murder of Jill Dando and left behind so little evidence. It was clearly done with a great deal of planning by someone who knew what they doing and how to get away - BG was not that person, whatever else he might be.

So true. BG couldn't execute a 3 point turn without cocking it up, let alone another human being.

BTW he was found Not Guilty by a unanimous verdict (twelve men and true). Without the single microscopic speck, the other circumstantial evidence added up to a big fat nothing!

Did anyone notice in the ITV programme? The police said no one had claimed responsibility for the murder so it couldn’t be an assassination?
There was a phone call that did just that THREE HOURS AFTER THE MURDER! Followed up by one the next day, then another the day after. Three calls to say why she had been killed.
No one claimed responsibility?

Compensation wasn’t given to Barry George because, according to whoever allocates compensation, I can’t remember who, there was insufficient evidence to prove he did not commit the crime. Barry George says this in the documentary.

If he didnt who did, did the police say.

They either don't know or aren't saying (I suspect the former is more likely).