Barry George

[Barry Shnikov]

It'll be interesting to see whether the police announce that they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the murder of Jill Dando.

I note that somebody commented that he is 'entitled to be treated as an innocent person', which is not much of an endorsement of his innocence.

Me, I'll be checking to see if the local library has a copy of John McVicar's book on the murder, based on his own interviews with George and both legal teams at the time of the first trial. He had no doubt George committed the killing. I want to read it again in the light of the new circumstances.

[Barry Shnikov]

Silly me. I forgot the main purpose of the thread.

Barry George should not - under present rules - be entitled to compensation since nothing went wrong with his trial except that evidence was presented which was subsequently ruled inadmissable. There's no suggestion that anything improper took place, such as distortion of the evidence by forensic scientists.

Contrast the Guildford 4, where the suspects were beaten (tortured, in other words) to extract a confession.

[DavidY]

It'll be interesting to see whether the police announce that they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the murder of Jill Dando.

Presumably this is very likely after so many years. Even if there was absolute proof that Barry George did not do it, after 8 years it's presumably quite likely that the evidence on whoever did do it would be very hard to find.

Barry George should not - under present rules - be entitled to compensation since nothing went wrong with his trial except that evidence was presented which was subsequently ruled inadmissable. There's no suggestion that anything improper took place, such as distortion of the evidence by forensic scientists.

So are you saying that the rules on compensation aren't about whether someone was wrongly locked up for 8 years (plus the associated villification in the media, etc.), but depend on why they were convicted in the 1st place?

[Double Trouble]

Whether Barry George killed Jill Dando or not, is irrelevant. He was convicted on flimsy evidence and the jury made the wrong decision. You can't convict someone based on the fact that they are an inadequate weirdo who stalks and pesters the women of Fulham.

Barry George should not - under present rules - be entitled to compensation since nothing went wrong with his trial except that evidence was presented which was subsequently ruled inadmissable.

It was my understanding that he could sue for loss of earnings. Baring in mind his main career at the time was 'Chief Stalker on benefits', surely he's entitled to a grand total of £0 anyway.

In the news today Barry George says he couldn't have killed Jill Dando as he was stalking another woman at the time.. He's either very stupid and naive or a manipulative genius.

I'm still not convinced that he didn't do it, but without a confession, we'll never know.

[bigdjiver]

...So are you saying that the rules on compensation aren't about whether someone was wrongly locked up for 8 years (plus the associated villification in the media, etc.), but depend on why they were convicted in the 1st place?

If you drive badly and injure somebody they can sue you for compensation. If you are driving safely and they leap out in front of you, and there is nothing you can do about it, then you may well feel you owe them nothing. The law takes the same view of itself.

[Barry Shnikov]

There may have been changes to the rules, but my understanding is that being found guilty when you are in fact not guilty is just a risk of life. Compensation is available when you are found guilty as a consequence of errors or negligence or malfeasance, but not otherwise.

[Barry Shnikov]

When Ludovic Kennedy wrote about John Reginald Halliday Christie, he made an interesting comment.

FactCheck: Timothy Evans was a young, educationally sub-normal (substitute current politically-correct label) man who moved into Christie's house with his wife and baby. Christie killed the wife and the baby and then persuaded Evans to do a runner. The police were convinced that he would not have run unless he was guilty, and though there was no evidence or any motive, they manufactured a confession. Evans was hanged. It later became absolutely clear that Christie had killed several women in the house over a period of some years.

Kennedy said: What are the - probably astronomical odds - that two homicidal psychopaths lived in the house at the same time, using the same methods?

My feeling about George is: what is the probability that there was a man, obsessed by Dando and knew where she lived, who had a gun, was acting inexplicably on the day in question, and is known to have been in the street where Dando lived, who was identified, arrested, charged and subsequently convicted but who did NOT kill her and someone else did? This falls short of 'beyond reasonable doubt', admittedly, but there it is.

[frodo]

...

My feeling about George is: ..., obsessed by Dando and knew where she lived, ... , ...., and is known to have been in the street where Dando lived ....

I guess it depends which newspaper you read, but according to an article in one quality newspaper I've read in the past few days, these were all doubtful rather than firmly established.

[Barry Shnikov]

I guess it depends which newspaper you read, but according to an article in one quality newspaper I've read in the past few days, these were all doubtful rather than firmly established.

Well, that's the trouble with retrials. We don't know which of the evidence was rejected by the jury; was it simply that there was still reasonable doubt when the GSR was taken out of the picture, or did they doubt the other evidence too?