Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Barry George found not guilty !

63 replies

FoghornLeghorn · 01/08/2008 14:32

He's been found not guilty today at the old bailey, 9 years after being accused of killing Jill Dando

OP posts:
StealthPolarBear · 01/08/2008 14:35

wow

gingerninja · 01/08/2008 14:36

crikey, poor chap

watsthestory · 01/08/2008 14:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Mercy · 01/08/2008 14:37

Glad to hear it, poor man

charliecat · 01/08/2008 14:37

bloody hell. That was one of those cases that was swept ubnder the carpet wasnt it.

4andnotout · 01/08/2008 14:46

Im not surprised tbh.
He seemed an easy target and scapegoat.

TheCrackFox · 01/08/2008 14:46

Bloody hell!! Barry George has had 9 years of his life stolen from him and there is still some murdering nutter on the loose somewhere.

PortBlacksandResident · 01/08/2008 14:47

Seems like they just went for the local nutter then.

BetteNoire · 01/08/2008 16:03

After seeing last year's documentary about the way the investigation was handled, I'm not at all surprised that Barry George has been found not guilty.

I hope those within the police force and the legal profession who treated him so badly will be punished - but I doubt it.

mamadiva · 01/08/2008 16:14

Yet again another innocent man jailed because he had done some slightly unhinged things in his time and because the police wanted a quick answer but then of course she was a tv celeb so they had to do it fast. They should all be punished this has to stop. 9 years of his life taken away for nothing. At least he's been cleared eventually though and lets hope he makes the most of his freedom.

Countingthegreyhairs · 01/08/2008 16:15

NOT making any judgements on this case - don't know enough about it - but from a different perspective (having been on jury duty twice) it is possible to be convinced in your very bones that someone is guilty but pronounce them "not guilty" because the case against them has been poorly presented or handled, the evidence is confusing or insufficient, or some major or minor question has not been answered satisfactorily ...or hasn't been asked in the first place ... so you end up giving them the benefit of the doubt despite strong misgivings ... and that's the way it should be imho

MarkStretch · 01/08/2008 16:16

They've used a lovely picture of him.

MamaGLovesMe · 01/08/2008 16:17

I doube he will be able to recover fully from this.

There are those that will say there is no smoke without fire.

I suspect little chance of finding the real murderer now.

I wonder about our justice system. Some people said he is a killer. Some others say he isn't. He could be tired monthly and get different verdicts each time. How on earth are you meant to believe in it?

Well done to his sister who has fought for him.

edam · 01/08/2008 16:20

poor sod. Always suspected police had just looked at the local oddballs and gone for him. To rest an entire case on one speck of dirt! Hadn't there already been enough miscarriages of justice based on slight forensic evidence being overstretched?

ExterminAitch · 01/08/2008 16:29

gosh, poor bugger.

moondog · 01/08/2008 16:36

Blimey. That's good news (apart from 9 lost years that is) I was outside main city jail here in Dhaka today. OMFG, like something from one's worst nightmare.

Monkeytrousers · 01/08/2008 23:14

Not suprised. I thought this when he was convicted. Whether he is guilty or not - not with standing - the trial was a travesty.

TwoIfBySea · 02/08/2008 00:45

Was it not one of those cases where he was guilty because he looked and acted a bit shifty?

So who did do it? They got away with it for this long. Are they going to re-interview the boyfriend, other suspects?

cyberseraphim · 02/08/2008 13:02

This is good news - the original trial was a miscarriage of justice and anyone with a child with learning difficulties needs to be re assured that he/she won't be picked on just because they don't 'fit in' or because they have odd obsessions with minor celebrities.

wannaBe · 02/08/2008 14:30

I think that when a case is very high profile, there is huge pressure, even from the public, and especially the media, to secure a conviction. This case was never going to be anything other than high profile, because Jill Dando was so well-known.

The evidence against Barry George was very questionable, but they must have thought they had reason to suspect him. It wasn't as if he was a model citizen, he had previous for stalking offenses, so maybe given he had form already it gave them reason for suspicion.

The most terrifying fact isn't that a man was wrongly convicted, but that there is a killer out there who will probably never be found.

edam · 02/08/2008 14:40

We can't bang up people for crimes they have not committed just because they look a bit shifty, or have committed other offences though.

You can't have a system of justice that says 'ooh, let's pull in the local weirdos and pin the crime on one of them'. Although that does seem to have been routine police practice in some areas during the 1970s, of course...

wannaBe · 02/08/2008 18:34

No I do agree with you. But there has recently been a proposal to take previous accusations into account (even if no conviction has been brought) wrt certain crimes. I don't agree with that either.

I certainly didn't mean that he should have been charged purely because of the fact he had previous form, but surely it would be logical to look at people in the area who had previously been convicted of similar offences (ie stalking) and at least question them? Who knows what information they would have obtained from that.

hughjarssss · 02/08/2008 18:39

Must remember its J.Dando's family in all of this.
The whole case will have to be reopened now, her poor mum, I feel so sorry for her.

I don't think I could cope if this had been my daughter and I had to go through it all again.

zippitippitoes · 02/08/2008 18:44

i feel really sorry for this guy

no amount of compensation can give him back what he has lost

Roboshua · 02/08/2008 19:08

I don't. He's a convicted rapist. (see DM today!!)