Whats your views on this murder, is Barry george innocent, your views please

I don't know, but the evidence for convicting him is extremely flimsy. I said it back then, and I'm still adamant that there wasn't enough proof that he did it.

The documentary was very subjective though...

Is he innocent of murder? At the minute no, as he has been convicted of the crime. Is the evidence to prove his conviction concrete? Probably not. The way I always understood it was that a tiny flake of gunpowder was found on his coat after it had been handled by police officers who had themselves handled live ammunition.

I'm not certain but I believed an appeal of his case was turned down though as at was felt there was no new evidence, or that the conviction wouldn't be overturned?

Seemed dodgy as hell to me. I recollect reading about another case where scientific evidence was untrue, and now it appears that once again, this is the case.

The forensic evidence given by the prosecution witness was completely unscientific. How ironic!

The appeals process seems a joke, atleast if you're innocent.

There certainly seems to be a lot of cause for concern with the conviction, although I always try to be a bit circumspect with programmes like this that obviously have an agenda. However it seems there more than a few areas that are questionable. Perhaps a re-trial would be in order.

I put tonight's BBC1 programme on to record and a power cut put paid to my viewing. Really miffed!!

Surely anyone who could be imprisoned falsely deserves a re-trial?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1407284.stm

With history like that they should keep him locked up on spec anyway :loopy:

I always thought he should have been found not guilty.

Surely anyone who could be imprisoned falsely deserves a re-trial?
Not if the Judges at the Court of Appeal are happy with the original verdict and there is no new compelling evidence to support his release. The gunpowder bit has always been dodgy, but according to the reports I've read, the evidence as a whole is enough to convict him. I've not seen the BBC program so I’m not aware what case they have argued, but his last appeal was comprehensively denied.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1407284.stm

With history like that they should keep him locked up on spec anyway :loopy:

Yeah, and hanging's too good for him! :roll:

The evidence is at best very poor, and possibly dangerous. I think a retrial is definately in order.

I always thought he should have been found not guilty.
Do you mind if I ask why exactly, I'm not looking for an argument, I've had enough of those over the past few days to last a lifetime. I just wondered why you think he's innocent?

A speck of gunpowder was found in his pocket that was an exact match to ones found in Jill Dandos hair. A strand of fibre was found at the scene of his crime that matched a pair of trouser he owned. An eyewitness placed him at the scene and he'd got a somewhat unhealthy obsession with guns, celebrities and the BBC.

The gunpowder in the coat is somewhat controversial as it could have been exposed to gunpowder in the room where they photographed the coat, apparently live ammunition was in the room. If its an exact match though wouldn’t that suggest he simply put the gun in his coat pocket after he’d fired it? If a prosecutor explained all that to me I think I’d have a problem seeing his innocence.

The evidence is at best very poor, and possibly dangerous. I think a retrial is definately in order.
Is a retrial even possibly though? Everyone knows the "facts" and already has a strong opinion as to whether he is guilty or not. I can't see him ever getting a fair trial in all honesty.

A speck of gunpowder was found in his pocket that was an exact match to ones found in Jill Dandos hair. A strand of fibre was found at the scene of his crime that matched a pair of trouser he owned. An eyewitness placed him at the scene and he'd got a somewhat unhealthy obsession with guns, celebrities and the BBC.



The programme showed that in the US evidence of gunshot residue particles is seen to be increasingly unreliable. The FBI have stopped using it as evidence and judges have ruled it as inadmissable in certain cases. The expert on the programme tonight even suggested that the one particle found in George's pocket may not have even come from a firearm, and that there was no way to be certain that it was from a firearm.

The eyewitness who placed him at the scene placed him there at around 7:30am that day, some four hours before the murder. She claimed that she had seen him pretending to wipe the windscreen of a maroon car in order to hide his face from her. The police have never been able to trace this car, and no other witnesses saw it. In addition she gave two different descriptions of the man she saw that contradicted each other. Finally she only identified the man she saw as George over a year after the murder. 18 other eye witnesses failed to identify him. The police apparently found 800 newspapers in his house. Out of these 800 newspapers there found only 8 articles about Jill Dando. None of the articles had been highlighted in anyway to distinguish these articles from the thousands of others contained within these newspapers.

The programme showed that in the US evidence of gunshot residue particles is seen to be increasingly unreliable. The FBI have stopped using it as evidence and judges have ruled it as inadmissable in certain cases. The expert on the programme tonight even suggested that the one particle found in George's pocket may not have even come from a firearm, and that there was no way to be certain that it was from a firearm.

As I've said I didn't watch the program, I'm going to see if it's on Teleport though and will have a gander. With regard to the above though, if the particle didn't come from a firearm where did it come from and why did it contain comparable proportions of the main chemical elements, barium and aluminium as to the samples found on Jill’s body? Which cases is it not admissable in and why?

The police apparently found 800 newspapers in his house. Out of these 800 newspapers there found only 8 articles about Jill Dando. None of the articles had been highlighted in anyway to distinguish these articles from the thousands of others contained within these newspapers.
2nd bit which I've snipped, fair enough. The bit above though, there are still 8 articles, its not a massive amount in comparison, but how many articles did he have about each celebrity in total? Is 8 significantly more than for most other celebrities he had articles on? I'm really not trying to be funny but the quoting of stuff like that (I know its not you, its the program) doesn't help unless you've got the rest of the data to look at as well.

The reports all said it was an opportunity killing as no-one knew her schedule and looking at CCTV footage she wasn't being followed. Maybe she was the unlucky one that day who he came across. Maybe he was waiting for her on the off chance she came back to her house.

I’m just looking at this from my own experiences and reports I’ve read. If I get the opportunity to see the program I will watch it and either shut up as I may think I’m wrong, or continue to debate J.

There has been doubt about his guilt for a very long time, the evidence does not appear to be very solid and I feel pressure was put on the Police to "get a result" as it was a high-profile murder. As Barry George does not appear to be the "full shilling" and has acted strangely before, he appears to be the perfect fall-guy for the murder, which I believe was a professional hit. I have no proof whatsoever for my theory, it is simply one of my "opinions". It is the way the murder was described on tonight`s programme, Jill Dando was approached from behind, wrestled to the floor and shot once in the head from point-blank range, ever so slightly like an execution. I do not think Barry George is capable of such a cold, calculating murder, I dont think he is intelligent enough. Somebody certainly needs to dig for further evidence as his conviction looks very flimsy.

The thing that struck me about this was that it was made by the BBC, and they would have thought very long and hard about commissioning a program about the murder of one of their employees that sought to upturn a conviction. Their evidence seemed very strong, though there was no rebuttal inteview, as 'no-one was available'.

I think the jist of it all was that he wasn't a very nice human being, but he was probably innocent of killing Jill Dando. If it's true then justice has been failed twice, as the relatives of Jill Dando still do not have their man.

Maybe he was guilty of other stuff, but I didn't think he was guilty of this. It'll be interesting to watch what the courts think of the evidence over the next few days.

It might be that the police are better at crimefighting that the BBC and the courts are right, and it might be that there was a lot of political pressure for a conviction and the police hace lots of murders to look at, whereas the BBC had only one.

A few more points I remember that I haven't spotted above:

1. The police should not have firearms officers searching for evidence of firearms offences. They contaminate the scene. The police denied this and provided evidence in court to prove that didn't do it, but several eye witnesses who lived on the street with no axe to grind contradicted them and reported that armed police were a-plenty.

2. One of the witnesses was secretly humping one of the investigation officers. Bit of a conflict there esp. as she swore in court she new nothing about the police lines of enquiry and later admited a bit of pillow talk. The officer didn't step forwards either to discount her. She did say that he had concerns about evidence gathering at the scene.

3. Expert witnesses said that the single firearms flake wasn't enough to conflict anyone. If found in a taxi or a bus no-one would give it a second thought, but it was found in a gun suspect's coat. Apparently it's about as reliable as feeling bumps on criminal's heads or looking for eyebrows that meet in the middle. There were actually about 4 experts with the same message.

4. The coat was removed from it's evidence bag and photographed on a stand 10 months before it was scientifcally examined. The same stand was used for another gun crime investigation.

5. The 800 newspapers were just newspapers. In them were 8 references to Jill Dando. Maybe a few more about Tony Blair/Jo Brand/Danny Kaye, but there was nothing suggesting fascination. Only untidieness (must remember to throw mine away!)

6. Only 2 of 18 witnesses picked out George. One of them said it was him or maybe one of the others (that was the woman who was involved with the investigation officer).

7. He was a nut who had scheduled visits with a disabled persons centre. He fabricated an ablibi as he had been questioned about another murder years earlier (that he didn't do - they got someone). His real alibi was thrown out of court as she was having a nervous breakdown at the time.

8. The appeal was flawed. Some things they said they'd looked at again never happened.

Other stuff as above.

Thanks for going through and doing all that spacedoggie. I'll watch what happens with interest as well.

I've still got a couple of questions where things don't quite tie up in my eyes as to what BBC are proposing, but I really need to watch the documentary first I think! For anyone else on cable and interested it is available on Teleport. Hopefully people will still be about and interested in this tomorrow so I'll ask my questions then.

I'll say the same with regard to this case as I've said with lots of other threads to do with trials- the only people who know everything that's been presented (and who can legitimately comment on what the outcome 'should have been', in my opinion) are people who were in the court for the whole way through the case, which means that I don't feel able to comment on the reason why a jury felt that there was not room for reasonable doubt in the original trial.

Being a member of a jury is more often than not a totally thankless task with a whole load of guilt thrown in about whether or not you're doing the right thing by making a judgment in one direction or the other. I'm sure they did the best job they could with the evidence that was presented to them.

Now, if there was a problem with the evidence that was presented not really being as guaranteed as the jury were told, that's a different issue isn't it? Then it comes down to a judge deciding if the jury was misled by the information with which they were provided. In the interests of all concerned I hope that there's a judicial review as soon as possible to put this to rest.

It will be another case of british injustice! How can you convict someone with no REAL forensic evidence!?! No trustworthy witnesseses? And with no confission from Barry George himself?!?

So, on concluding, Hes innocent and when everyone realises whats happened they will let him out in probs 10 years! Its really sad, they just wanted someone to put in prison! Yes, Jill Dando has been murdered but at elast make more effort to find the killer! :rant:

As I've said I didn't watch the program, I'm going to see if it's on Teleport though and will have a gander. With regard to the above though, if the particle didn't come from a firearm where did it come from and why did it contain comparable proportions of the main chemical elements, barium and aluminium as to the samples found on Jill’s body? Which cases is it not admissable in and why?.

The programme certainly had an agenda and I can't recall it talking about the match to particles found on Jill Dando (though I could be wrong here - I've had a night's sleep since I watched the programme!). The expert they consulted said it could have come from an activity such as welding and that he wouldn't have even had to be doing this himself, he could have just been near someone doing this. Again, I can't remember the exact reasons why the FBI and certain judges in the US have ruled this kind of evidence as inadmissable, but it was something to do with how easy it is to transfer these particles, sometimes without even touching someone. The expert they spoke to in the US seemed horrified that someone was convicted on the basis of just one particle being found on their clothing. Additionally the police denied having taken firearms into George's house, but two witnesses have said otherwise. The police also didn't keep the coat (which was taken from George a year after the murder) in an evidence bag until after tests could be carried out as they should have done. They took it out of the bag for photographing on a mannequin before it had been tested, again leaving it open to contamination.


2nd bit which I've snipped, fair enough. The bit above though, there are still 8 articles, its not a massive amount in comparison, but how many articles did he have about each celebrity in total? Is 8 significantly more than for most other celebrities he had articles on? I'm really not trying to be funny but the quoting of stuff like that (I know its not you, its the program) doesn't help unless you've got the rest of the data to look at as well. .

I thought just this when I was watching. They didn't mention anything about whether the number of articles about Jill Dando was unusual compared to articles on other celebrities. It seems that all of the newspapers were intact though, it wasn't a case of him having clipped articles and pinned them on his wall, as some of the press reporting seemed to suggest at the time.

The reports all said it was an opportunity killing as no-one knew her schedule and looking at CCTV footage she wasn't being followed. Maybe she was the unlucky one that day who he came across. Maybe he was waiting for her on the off chance she came back to her house.



The programme also covered a possible alibi he had for the time of the shooting. They interviewed an advisor from a disability rights centre who said she spoke to him at 11:50 that morning. The programme timed the journey the police said George had taken from Dando's house to his own, where they say he got changed, and then timed the journey from his house to the centre. They estimated that at a brisk pace he couldn't have got there before 12:08 if he was the killer. However the receptionist at the centre claims he didn't arrive there until 12:30pm, saying that she remembered that the advisor made him wait while she had her lunch. The advisor is adamant that this isn't true, that she would never make someone wait, and that it was her first day at that job so why would she do something that would create such a bad impression with her new employers. She also said she remembered she looked at the clock when she was told he had arrived, because they have to time meetings with clients for funding purposes.

I found it quite hard to form an opinion based on the programme, because they have obviously made up their mind that he is innocent and so it wasn't a particularly balanced programme.

There were some wonderful rumours involving Jeffery Archer in this murder a few years ago.

i watched it, dont think he did it!! the police obviously wanted to just get a suspect and nail him for it

It will be another case of british injustice! How can you convict someone with no REAL forensic evidence!?! No trustworthy witnesseses? And with no confission from Barry George himself?!?

So, on concluding, Hes innocent and when everyone realises whats happened they will let him out in probs 10 years! Its really sad, they just wanted someone to put in prison! Yes, Jill Dando has been murdered but at elast make more effort to find the killer! :rant:
But they did make a real effort to find Jill Dando's killer. Barry George wasn't just picked off the street at random by the police and framed for her murder. At the time of the trial the gunpowder was REAL evidence, it's only come to light now that it may be unusable, people have said its unsubmitable in certain cases, but no-one seems to know which cases it can and can not be submitted. There are also fibres found at the scene that match trousers owned by Barry George.

Fair enough about the witness it does sound more than a little bit suspect, but say there is no evidence is clearly wrong. Lets not forget either that his case has been relooked at by the court of appeal and they confirmed that they were happy with the verdict and refused his appeal.

There is more than enough to raise reasonable doubt at this stage, but looking at the evidence that was submitted at the trial you can't blame the jury for putting him away. Expert advice was given at his trial, a different set of experts are now questioning the data. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the meantime.

But they did make a real effort to find Jill Dando's killer. Barry George wasn't just picked off the street at random by the police and framed for her murder. At the time of the trial the gunpowder was REAL evidence, it's only come to light now that it may be unusable, people have said its unsubmitable in certain cases, but no-one seems to know which cases it can and can not be submitted. There are also fibres found at the scene that match trousers owned by Barry George.

Fair enough about the witness it does sound more than a little bit suspect, but say there is no evidence is clearly wrong. Lets not forget either that his case has been relooked at by the court of appeal and they confirmed that they were happy with the verdict and refused his appeal.

There is more than enough to raise reasonable doubt at this stage, but looking at the evidence that was submitted at the trial you can't blame the jury for putting him away. Expert advice was given at his trial, a different set of experts are now questioning the data. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the meantime.

Seems like it to me, he lived in the area and even himself was getting a little weary he would be selected. The gun powder was NOT substanstial as evidence! One microscopic particle which could have passed from anywhere! If he shot the gun and put it in his pocket, it would have left a lot more than that! But is still not worthy evidence!

The fact that the witnesseses were not good enough and failed to picked the right man at times, should have been another source not to convict him!

The jury were tricked to put him away as they wanted someone in prison, and he seemed to fit the picture! Wait and see what happens in the meantime? Like i said will be released in about 10 years when thyeve realised whats happened! :)

Another element in the programme which warrants a retrial, if true, was the juror who stated that discussions about the case (expressly forbidden)occurred amongst jury members over a weekend in the hotel.
Some jury members were excluded from those discussions and a verdict result was reached on the following Monday without substantial 'juryroom' discussion.

Seems like it to me, he lived in the area and even himself was getting a little weary he would be selected. The gun powder was NOT substanstial as evidence! One microscopic particle which could have passed from anywhere! If he shot the gun and put it in his pocket, it would have left a lot more than that! But is still not worthy evidence!

The fact that the witnesseses were not good enough and failed to picked the right man at times, should have been another source not to convict him!

The jury were tricked to put him away as they wanted someone in prison, and he seemed to fit the picture! Wait and see what happens in the meantime? Like i said will be released in about 10 years when thyeve realised whats happened! :)
He was one of the first people considered as a candidate but was discounted as other people were higher up the list to be looked at. I'd be wary if I was him too looking at his past history. The gunpowder was substantial, it had the same chemical properties as the ones found in Jill Dando's hair and was adjudged (at the time) to definitly be from a firearm and not firework or other source residue. This was looked at by experts who are better judges of stuff like this than you or me. If they think that one particle was good enough then it was, otherwise it wouldn't have been submitted as evidence or the defence would have found a way of discounting it.

As I've said, I'd have reasonable doubt now, but then I would have voted guilty.

I didn't watch the programme myself, but the precedent of the Rachel Nickel case where Colin Stagg was put on trial, essentially for being a bit weird, is disturbing.

It seems to me that the police can now compile so much evidence in cases like this that they can pick and choose which pieces are given at the trial and only a professional would know how significant each piece of evidence was.

Barry George may have killed her but the clinical nature of the killing, an assassination really, makes it highly unlikely in my view.

I think that everyone should remember that the journalist was only putting one side of the story and that there was no time really given to rebuffing his allegations.

The single particle of gunshot residue may well have been of dubious origin but they also claim to have found identical particles on the body. If by "identical" they mean that they must have come from the same gun then all the theories about police with guns being in the house are irrelevant. I also suspect that the police didn't have guns inside the house but may well have had a device to break down the door which will look like a sub machine gun from a distance. The witness obviously didn't geta good look at any of the "guns" the police had as he described them in a vague way, if I remember correctly, something like "not a handgun, bigger than that maybe a rifle".

It may well be that all the journalists theories can be properly challenged if someone is allowed to attack them one at a time.

Although Barry george was convicted on circumstancial evidence (in my view) a major part of the evidence was the minute trace of gunfire residue found in his coat pocket. when a firearm is discharged residue would go everywhere and forensic tests usually point to this fact. In my view this minute particle (if it is gunpowder residue or not) is cross contamination. No one would want a murderer walking free from court, but faced with all the facts presented in this case as we know them, could you convict Barry george ?. Im not so sure he is guilty, but the jury thought otherwise with the evidence presented at that time. I think he will at some point in the future get a retrial at least, due to public intrest.

I watched last night's programme and thought it raised some very good points. I don't know whether or not Barry George killed Jill Dando, but there's certainly grounds for a retrial, especially as due process was clearly not followed during the trial. One of the main witnesses was having an affair with one of the investigating detectives, and the jurors were discussing the case at their hotel when they were clearly instructed not to.

The firearm particle is also dubious. The police collected Barry George's coat one year after the murder had occured. Prior to the forensic testing on it, it was taken out of its sealed evidence bag and photographed in a room where firearms had been photographed a few weeks earlier. The firearms residue expert they interviewed in Venice claimed that the particle could have come from incinerated paint or arc-welding, as opposed to a gun. A local reverend also claimed that he saw the police carrying guns when they searched Barry George's flat, even though they themselves deny this.

I found this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/jilldando/story/0,,749230,00.html) article yesterday which explored the "Serbian theory" for Jill Dando's murder, which states that she was killed in revenge for fronting a BBC aid appeal on Kosovo and for the bombing of the Serbian state TV channel RTS:

There are also fibres found at the scene that match trousers owned by Barry George.

.

The programme last night did actually say that the gunshot residue particle was the only forensic evidence against George, all other evidence was circumstantial. So they're either conveniently forgetting the above or this was an error printed in the press previously?

If they think that one particle was good enough then it was, otherwise it wouldn't have been submitted as evidence or the defence would have found a way of discounting it.



There were some questions raised over the competence of his defence case as well. For instance the prosecution said that Geroge had been a member of a gun club in the 80s and had trained in how to fire a handgun. The defence accepted this as being true. However the programme investigated this and found that while he had applied to join the gun club mentioned at the trial, his membership had never been approved because he had failed to give references. The respresentative of the gun club said that he would never have been allowed near a handgun until after his membership had been approved, therefore it was impossible for him to have received training from their organisation. It suggests that his defence team were not particularly great.

The single particle of gunshot residue may well have been of dubious origin but they also claim to have found identical particles on the body. If by "identical" they mean that they must have come from the same gun then all the theories about police with guns being in the house are irrelevant. I also suspect that the police didn't have guns inside the house but may well have had a device to break down the door which will look like a sub machine gun from a distance. The witness obviously didn't geta good look at any of the "guns" the police had as he described them in a vague way, if I remember correctly, something like "not a handgun, bigger than that maybe a rifle".



One witness described this, after seeing officers in George's house, but another also described seeing officers with handguns walking up to the front door of his house during the search.

I would agree with your points about the balance (or lack of) of the programme. There was virtually no opportunity to rebuff what the reporter was saying. It was all very one-sided.

There were some questions raised over the competence of his defence case as well. For instance the prosecution said that Geroge had been a member of a gun club in the 80s and had trained in how to fire a handgun. The defence accepted this as being true. However the programme investigated this and found that while he had applied to join the gun club mentioned at the trial, his membership had never been approved because he had failed to give references. The respresentative of the gun club said that he would never have been allowed near a handgun until after his membership had been approved, therefore it was impossible for him to have received training from their organisation. It suggests that his defence team were not particularly great.

That is a bit of a red herring. What was said was that he shouldn't have recieved any training or handled a gun. However, they showed that he had signed in several times. Why would he keep coming back but not actually do anything at all? Why wouldn't they let him handle a gun that is unloaded after all they are all cranks. But aside from all this, we have the fact that George was in the TA for a time and so would have handled firearms.

Although Barry george was convicted on circumstancial evidence (in my view) a major part of the evidence was the minute trace of gunfire residue found in his coat pocket. when a firearm is discharged residue would go everywhere and forensic tests usually point to this fact. In my view this minute particle (if it is gunpowder residue or not) is cross contamination.

We could look at it this way though - the police didn't take the coat from George until a year after the murder. How many opportunities did he have in that year to wash the clothes he was wearing that day? Admittedly, it would seem bizarre to even keep the clothes that long if he had committed the murder, but we have to consider that he wanted to keep them as some sort of morbid keepsake and that he had tried his best to destroy any evidence on them.

That is a bit of a red herring. What was said was that he shouldn't have recieved any training or handled a gun. However, they showed that he had signed in several times. Why would he keep coming back but not actually do anything at all? Why wouldn't they let him handle a gun that is unloaded after all they are all cranks. But aside from all this, we have the fact that George was in the TA for a time and so would have handled firearms.

Didn't he say that he kept coming back to check the progress of his application though? This could explain why he had visited several times. However, you're right, it's hardly in a gun club's interests to admit that someone who hadn't even provided references had been allowed access to guns anyway. And yes, he received rifle training while in the TA. But did the police have any evidence of him having owned anything other than replica guns? Was the murder weapon ever found?

The programme last night did actually say that the gunshot residue particle was the only forensic evidence against George, all other evidence was circumstantial. So they're either conveniently forgetting the above or this was an error printed in the press previously?
Well I got that off of the BBC news website so it would be quite erronous not to include it in the documentary. Unless it's been updated and discounted in a newer article that I've missed?

I asked this last night and so far no-one has answered. Do people think he's actually going to be able to get a fair retrial. Most people have already made their decision about his guilt or innocence. Finding someone who doesn't know anything about the case or who doesn't have an opinion would be nigh on impossible. What does that mean? Would the Appeals court have to quash his conviction after looking at the new evidence?

Why was Jill's murder treated with so much extra effort from the police? Jill (bless her cottons) was no better or worse than you or me, so why did the police seam to be overly keen to find the killer??? This really makes me mad cos it shows that when the police want to they can find the resurces for Celebraties but not the good old jo public?

We could look at it this way though - the police didn't take the coat from George until a year after the murder. How many opportunities did he have in that year to wash the clothes he was wearing that day? Admittedly, it would seem bizarre to even keep the clothes that long if he had committed the murder, but we have to consider that he wanted to keep them as some sort of morbid keepsake and that he had tried his best to destroy any evidence on them.
Of course you could be right, but then would he not also keep the gun as a morbid keepsake. I really dont know the answer.

Didn't he say that he kept coming back to check the progress of his application though? This could explain why he had visited several times. However, you're right, it's hardly in a gun club's interests to admit that someone who hadn't even provided references had been allowed access to guns anyway. And yes, he received rifle training while in the TA. But did the police have any evidence of him having owned anything other than replica guns? Was the murder weapon ever found?

This whole issue seems to just muddy the waters without really adding anything in one direction or the other. The number of times he visited the gun club doesn't make any sense to me unless he did something while he was there. They didn't say he came back to check his application, they said that they reminded him he needed references each time he came back, which I think implies he came back anyway. He was in the TA so he would have meant he would have handles firearms. If he was in the TA and was interested in handguns then someone would have shown him one even if he never fired it. This all means that he might have good reason to be contaminated on the one hand, but on the other hand it shows he was a nutcase (as anyone who likes handguns must be).

I think he could get a fair trial, and it may come to that but it may also be that a judge doesn't consider there is enough evidence or even sets him free. I hope he then doesn't murder someone else and we have all the hangers and floggers say he should have been hung the first time.

Apologies in advance for the lack of taste but had this sent to me on a text message today . . .

The Dodo died, Di died, Dodi died then Dando died . . . Dido must be s****ing herself

Mod. Note

I've just removed a posting that was quite libellous.

Please don't post any unfounded accusations. Stating that something is an 'internet rumour' is no defence against libel, and we will remove any such posts. Repeated episodes of posting such libels will result in a ban.

Thanks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/335619.stm

Does any one remember the hoo haa about their friendship and resemblance.
This was still at a time when distrust was running high.
It was a well known theory that it was mistaken identity by an assassin.
Maybe someone in high circles doesnt like 'sassy' blondes?

Seems like many of you were right to have your doubts about George's conviction.

I'm amused by KenH's notion that to like handguns makes you a nutter.

I'm amused by KenH's notion that to like handguns makes you a nutter.
Heaven forbid that somebody could appreciate finely crafted precision engineering.

is this the third or the fourth thread on this subject?

is this the third or the fourth thread on this subject?

A merge would put things (and recent opinions) into perspective

Mod note: This thread is closed. I've done this as a) its only got a couple of recent posts on it, and b) to merge it with this one http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378077 would probably cause major confusion.