tonyh29 Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 having watched a rather one sided documentry on CH4 tonight regarding Jill Dando's murder and the appeal that starts tomorrow , Do people think he is Guilty or Innocent And if you watched the documentry , did it cause you to change your opinion ? As I understand it from the papers today , the police have some evidence relating to George that they couldn't use at the first trial that with changes in law they can now present . Have to assume from this , that it has nothing directly to do with the Dando case but that the police are going to use it to paint a picture of George as a bad man So anyway , Poll Question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Thought you were talking about the Darts player! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 when i first saw the program in the TV guide I'd had a few and thought it was called "did Boy George really kill Jill Jill Dando " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villahero Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 i think he's guilty....and whilst were at it, i'd ask him where he's hiding Madelaine ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 i think he's guilty....and whilst were at it, i'd ask him where he's hiding Madelaine ?Hey - you already accused him of topping JFK - I take it you're not a big fan of freddie mercury? To answer the question posed, he's innocent. The police have no "new" evidence - it's all stuff that was in the daily mail the day after he was sent down, which basically says he's a little fruitloop-ptang-kipperbang. Of course the main defence for barry george is that he's a little fruitloop-ptang-kipperbang and not really competent enough to carry out a professional style hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 5, 2007 Author Share Posted November 5, 2007 is that he's a little fruitloop-ptang-kipperbang and not really competent enough to carry out a professional style hit. haven't you seen the usual suspects ..... he is kaiser Sosa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 kaiser sosa, I think not - I think we should be looking a little closer to home. villahero _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ barry george Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 5, 2007 Author Share Posted November 5, 2007 I thought he looked abit like Paul Young in that photo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sit_Down_Potato_Head Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 when i first saw the program in the TV guide I'd had a few and thought it was called "did Boy George really kill Jill Jill Dando " Why did he have to clean up NYC's litter for shooting Jill Dando ? I'm confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 As I understand it from the papers today , the police have some evidence relating to George that they couldn't use at the first trial that with changes in law they can now present .Thinking about this - are the prosecution allowed to present new evidence? Is the point of the appeal hearing to prove that the evidence that was presented in the original case was a load of tosh - or are the prosecution allowed to present so that it goes to re-trial instead of having the conviction quashed as being silly straight away? Any legal beagles out there able to shed light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 6, 2007 Author Share Posted November 6, 2007 Thinking about this - are the prosecution allowed to present new evidence? they want to be allowed to present some other stuff they allegedly have on him ( won't go into detail in case it is likely to get the site in trouble) ..my guess it the prosecution have to argue it as a point of law and try and have it accepted ... if it pertains to the case then I can't see why it cannot be used ... one sided programmes like the CH4 one will have helped his cause no end as the pressure will be on the appeal court to release him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Programmes that aim to prove a miscarriage of justice will tend to focus on the elements in the evidence that were used to convict him - I find it implausible to believe they would be anything other than one sided as otherwise there wouldn't be a story to tell and therefore no programme to air. Imagine a programme trying to overturn ian huntley's guilt and then coming to the conclusion, oh well he was guilty after all - not exactly good viewing figures. The court of appeal is to review the original evidence on which a person was convicted. Not to re-try the case. Therefore new evidence can not be admitted (to my mind) as it has not been subjected to the same level of disclosure or jury review that such evidence would in a real trial scenario. Whereas the original evidence presented at trial can be reviewed as to it's authenticity in the light of greater knowledge - as was in the case of the birmingham six where the evidence used to convict them was based on traces that could be picked up from playing cards. Then again, amazing the number of people who still believe no smoke without fire in that case. So (to my mind) the evidence could be used only to support a re-trial, and not to uphold the original conviction. ( won't go into detail in case it is likely to get the site in trouble) Why do you have access to evidence not in the public domain? Or stuff not published in the sun and the mirror in the days following his conviction? If it's already been published it could hardly be sub-judice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 6, 2007 Author Share Posted November 6, 2007 Why do you have access to evidence not in the public domain? no , not at all , but just because someone else printed it I didn't think it made it Ok for me to repeat it ? reading the story again though it seems that I wasn't paying attention :oops: and your thoughts about new evidence being used at the appeal are indeed most likely correct the story says "Police plan to present potentially damning new evidence against Barry George if the Appeal Court orders A RE-TRAIL over the murder of TV presenter Jill Dando. (my Caps) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Fair enough - it's rather honourable that people own up when they have been mistaken or misled. And just to note, I haven't watched either of the "one-sided" programmes, but my knowledge of the case is based on my memory of the rather vague circumstantial evidence presented during the case, backed up by one (now discredited) piece of forensic evidence linking him to the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 7, 2007 Author Share Posted November 7, 2007 the rather vague circumstantial evidence presented during the case, backed up by one (now discredited) piece of forensic evidence linking him to the crime. but he has previously lost one appeal which could suggest the case isn't as weak as CH4 would have us believe ? another question on this would be though ..if the case really was weak and yet he was convicted by a jury of his peers ... do we need to look at the way jury's are put together in this country ? did they just convict him because Dandomania was high and they wanted to be seen to do the right thing ..or did they examine the evidence carefully and come to an informed decision ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 but he has previously lost one appeal which could suggest the case isn't as weak as CH4 would have us believe ?The previous appeal was not based around the minute particle of gun powder residue - it was targeted at some of the decisions the residing judge had made in allowing spectacularly flimsy evidence to be presented to the jury - it was an appeal on technical legal grounds. Not surprisingly the appeal judges stood up for their mate and rejected it. another question on this would be though ..if the case really was weak and yet he was convicted by a jury of his peers ... do we need to look at the way jury's are put together in this country ? did they just convict him because Dandomania was high and they wanted to be seen to do the right thing ..or did they examine the evidence carefully and come to an informed decision ??Not the fault of the jury, they have to be guided by the experts. In this case, the legal expert, ie the judge, and the forensice expert did not guide the jury correctly. As in the case where that woman was convicted over the cot deaths - the doctor, believed the probability of two related events occurring could be found by multiplying together the probabilities. The bloke might be a good doctor, but he's a shiite statistician - but the jury were guided by his "expertise" in one subject into believing his views on another subject, in which he was not an expert, and should not have been allowed to give an opinion, and they convicted. In the dando case, the foreman of the jury has now stated that without the residue evidence they would not have convicted. That doesn't mean they acted incorrectly - forensic evidence is enough to convict if supported by other evidence. The other evidence though shouldn't have been allowed either. The jury were given wrong guidance through the trial, and the checks and balances required to counteract this eventuality, ie the defence barrister (whom you might term a "conspiracy theory nut job" as the prime thrust of the defence put forward was that the 'serbs did it') and the court of appeal, both failed in their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 George wins Dando murder retrial Barry George has won his appeal against his conviction for the murder of BBC TV presenter Jill Dando in 1999. The Court of Appeal decided the jury's guilty verdict six years ago was unsafe, and has ordered a retrial. George, 47, was sentenced to life for the shooting of Miss Dando, 37, outside her home in Fulham, west London, but he has always denied his involvement. The court said new scientific doubts over gunshot discharge residue evidence meant the conviction had to be quashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 I wish id known Barry George was going to shoot Jill Dando on the Saturday. I was planning to raper her on the Friday but never got around to it. As it was, i had to make do with the Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 I wish id known Barry George was going to shoot Jill Dando on the Saturday. I was planning to raper her on the Friday but never got around to it. As it was, i had to make do with the Sunday. That'll stir up the PC brigade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 15, 2007 Moderator Share Posted November 15, 2007 the rather vague circumstantial evidence presented during the case, backed up by one (now discredited) piece of forensic evidence linking him to the crime. but he has previously lost one appeal which could suggest the case isn't as weak as CH4 would have us believe ? another question on this would be though ..if the case really was weak and yet he was convicted by a jury of his peers ... do we need to look at the way jury's are put together in this country ? did they just convict him because Dandomania was high and they wanted to be seen to do the right thing ..or did they examine the evidence carefully and come to an informed decision ?? What? Are you suggesting they would send someone down for murder to satisfy the lust for revenge for Dando's murder? Obviously they sent him down based on the evidence placed infront of them and the conclusion that they believed this evidence implied his guilt. Its the evidence the conviction was made against rather than the conviction itself which is the subject of the renewed and ultimately successful appeal. A subtle but important difference. The is no issue over jury selection here it is an issue relating to the accuracy and reliability of forensic evidence in such cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts