Man cleared of murdering Jill Dando wins damages!

Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,130
The man cleared of murdering TV presenter Jill Dando after spending seven years in jail has won undisclosed libel damages from a newspaper group. Barry George brought the case over claims that he was obsessed with singer Cheryl Cole and newsreader Kay Burley.
...
It was also claimed Mr George had downloaded pictures of Sky presenter Ms Burley, and said that he loved her and she loved him. (BBC online)
Dear God, can you imagine the shame of being accused of loving the execrable Kay Burley? :eek:
 
Im sure they pick the pictures for these articles from the moment in someones life when they have that serial killer look on their face :p

Why not one of him smiling!

On topic: Everyone gets damages for everything these days /shrug
 
There is still something about him I find not right.

The speck of firearms residue found in his coat pocket matched that of the murder weapon exactly but poor storage of evidence by the Met ensured the case was destroyed.

Did he kill her ? Is he truly not guilty ? We will never know.
 
He probably is guilty. They've just figured they'll turn a blind eye for five minutes and let him deal with Burley before finding some 'missing' evidence. :o
 
There is still something about him I find not right.

The speck of firearms residue found in his coat pocket matched that of the murder weapon exactly but poor storage of evidence by the Met ensured the case was destroyed.

Did he kill her ? Is he truly not guilty ? We will never know.

we might find out in a few months when he kills someone else..
 
In December last year, Mr George accepted libel damages from News Group Newspapers - owner of the Sun and the News of the World. That payout related to articles suggesting Mr George murdered Miss Dando, and further claims he was stalking women.
Why are tabloid journalists never accused of stalking people, they seem to do it rather a lot :confused:


Still . . . Kay Burley of all reptiles . . . you do have to feel sorry for the guy :(
 
There is still something about him I find not right.

The speck of firearms residue found in his coat pocket matched that of the murder weapon exactly but poor storage of evidence by the Met ensured the case was destroyed.

Did he kill her ? Is he truly not guilty ? We will never know.

Despite people putting him in another part of London at the time?

And the "single" speck of firearm residue they found a year later in a coat.

Barry George did **** all, he's just a bit odd.
 
Assuming the facts in this article are true how anyone can be convicted and locked up based on that evidence is sickening.



Scott Lomax is a student at the University of Sheffield, England. He is studying Archaeology and Prehistory and writes about crime in his spare time.


So not an expert in firearms or any form of forensics then. Also only party to what evidence was heard in court, and not the details of the investigation.

For instance, from his article:

he gunman would have certainly been covered in blood.

I doubt it. Even at close range he would, at most, have slight spatter, which wouldn't show up on dark clothing, even in broad daylight.


M
 
I doubt it. Even at close range he would, at most, have slight spatter, which wouldn't show up on dark clothing, even in broad daylight.


M

Wouldnt he have been covered in thousands of microscopic blood particles that arent detectable to the human eye yet easily detectable through competant forensic analysis ?
 
This is both disturbing and disgusting from all the people involved coming to a conclusion with so little (apparent) evidence.

Wouldnt he have been covered in thousands of microscopic blood particles that arent detectable to the human eye yet easily detectable through competant forensic analysis ?

Yes.
No.
It depends.
 
Last edited:
Yes.
No.
It depends.



An excellent summation of real forensic science, as opposed to the CSI version. In most cases though, it's the last of those three.

And in answer to the question: yes, there would probably be microscopic spatter. But as I said, not visible to the naked eye. The argument that the linked article was using is that the killer would have been covered in visible blood-stains. My point was that any such blood stains would probably not be visible. It took weeks before the search zeroed in on George, giving him plenty of opportunity, if he was the killer, of dumping, burning or washing his clothing of the day.


M
 
Barry George didn't kill her. He's just odd.

He's a stark raving loonbin.

And :
He posed a policeman - and was prosecuted.
Posed as an SAS soldier (Tom Palmer)
Posed as a stuntman.
Claimed to a newspaper to be a top karate champ able to break 47 tiles.
Also stalked 13 women who lived nearby. And allegedly hundreds of others (chasing them on roller-skates)
Has spent convictions for attempted rape and indecent assault. One was a 3 month sentence.
Also served 18 months of a 33 month sentence for rape.
Also found in the grounds of Kensigton Palace with a poem for Prince Charles (whilst carrying some rope & wearing a balaclava)
Also accused of assulting his ex-wife (a marriage of convenience) after only a few months.

Quote "As far as the police were concerned, George's fixation with Freddie Mercury was further proof of his obsessive, irrational behaviour.

He had changed his name by deed poll to Bulsara - Mercury's original name - and for 10 years pretended to be his cousin. On the first anniversary of Mercury's death, George hired a white limousine and drove to the former singer's house. He left an arch-shaped floral tribute with a gold plaque on the bottom inscribed with a message and signed: "Your cousin Barry Bulsara". Some onlookers asked him for his autograph and he handed out business cards which read Bulsara Production Inc"


He should be locked up anyway even if he didn't do it - he's a menace and danger & it's amazing he is still free. If he lived anywhere near me - I would have moved.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom