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.

...there was insufficient evidence to prove he did not commit the crime. Barry George says this in the documentary.

Er I wouldn't regard him as the most reliable source although I concede he probably knows quite a bit about his case.

Did you know the defence doesn’t get the same budget as the prosecution? This is because the defendant doesn’t have anything to prove. The prosecution has to prove guilt so their budget is for investigations and experts.
Has anyone heard of a young man, Sam Hallam? He is 100% innocent of any crime. He has been told the same as BG, you have not proven your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, even though his own camera has photos that put him 2 miles away at a family party, and witnesses said he wasn’t there at the crime scene.

Please don’t be blinded, the justice system is NOT beyond reproach. Everything it says is not gospel truth. Almost no one has been given compensation in the past few years.
What is compensation for? It is not for frivolous party nights, it is to buy items to furnish a place to live in, to purchase some clothes to go seek a job, pay rent, buy food until benefits are received. WHY shouldn’t the wrongly convicted be given help with this?

Whilst on the subject of compensation by the State, Criminal Injuries compensation seems subject to similar peculiarities. If the rules have not changed in recent years, I recollect reading that the young child of a prostitute had been refused compensation when his sole carer mother was murdered by a client, either because she had been involved in a criminal act at the time of her murder or because she had previous criminal convictions. I forget which justification was given but if it still applies it shouldn't.