If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Man not guilty of killing Jill Dando is a convicted rapist
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1040746/Barry-George-raped-mums-door-said-sorry.html
It angers me that in the British legal system, the jury are unaware of past convictions when assessing a current case. Obviously the fact that he is a convicted rapist doesn't automatically mean he killed Dando and shouldn't be used as an argument in that way, BUT one of the reasons he was let off was that with an IQ of 75 he couldn't have possibly orchestrated such an act. Yet the way he raped someone clearly shows he is in fact competent to carry out murder.
Edit: Miswrote last sentence at 4am, I didn't mean to say "he is in fact guilty", I meant if he raped then he could also have the competency to murder.
It angers me that in the British legal system, the jury are unaware of past convictions when assessing a current case. Obviously the fact that he is a convicted rapist doesn't automatically mean he killed Dando and shouldn't be used as an argument in that way, BUT one of the reasons he was let off was that with an IQ of 75 he couldn't have possibly orchestrated such an act. Yet the way he raped someone clearly shows he is in fact competent to carry out murder.
Edit: Miswrote last sentence at 4am, I didn't mean to say "he is in fact guilty", I meant if he raped then he could also have the competency to murder.
0
Comments
One reason he get let off was because the evidence against him wasnt good enough. Id also be very careful about writing the thread title the way you have, as it implies that Barry George did the act, and he has been found innocent.
Exactly what I was thinking. Innocent until proven guilty.
And why do you think that is?
I can remember one of the journo's who covered the original trial saying that they were all suprised on the evidence that he was convicted, but that they all thought he was guilty.
Namely that it was a revenge killing by a Serbian agent/assassin, following the deliberate murder of 16 civilians in the NATO bombing the Serbian state broadcasting centre in Belgrade three days earlier. There were several other such incidents in Europe over the suceeding weeks, including an apparent asassination attempt on Jamie Shea (the NATO spokesmen at the time). There was also a threatening phone call to the BBC the day after her murder referencing her death, the deaths of those killed in the attack on the Serbian state broadcaster, and a threat against Dando's immediate superior. Apparently Dando was a target because she had no security, was a public face of the BBC, and had a few weeks previously made an appeal on behalf of Kosovan Albanian refugees. There is other direct an circumstantial evidence as well, you can read a Guardian article about it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/06/jilldando.weekend7
I have to say, I find it quite convincing and I don't often go in for so-called "conspiracy theories." The clinical manner of her murder and the hallmarks of Serbian/Yugoslav foreign mischief seem persuasive. Needless to say, the police found it somewhat easier to bring in "the local nutter" and get him charged instead.
if they'd then announced they'd shot her (perhaps inventing a pro-Serb terror group rather than Serb intelligence) you could have said it was to sew terror. But shooting a journo with some minor links to Kosovo doesn't make any sense.
It does seem to point to a lone nutter or someone with a personal grudge.
I agree it would seem somewhat "pointless" and quite strange to kill a supposedly minor player, especially not to announce it. However, the article I linked to does have this to say about such an objection:
I suppose thats what makes it difficult to confirm or even consider probable such an explanation. Its difficult to second guess these people, and its even more difficult to be confident that we know even half the facts of the case should it be true. Without wanting to delve too deeply into speculation, lets say the Serbian secret service/Milosovic's agents informed British/American agents that they had committed this murder, and threatened to execute further BBC staff if such bombings were repeated or escalated? Or, for that matter, it was simply a lone agent, either cut off or independent of his superiors, acting out of personal retaliation or assumption of orders?
The fraustrating thing (particularly for Dando's family) is that we'll probably never know. But given the almost total lack of evidence on George, which would have seemed extremely likely given his (apparently) limited mental capacity if he were guilty, and the absence of any other credible suspects; it seems the most likely explanation to me.
Given the results of the Kosovo and Bosnia, and the British government's refusal in other cases to give into blackmail I'd be very suprised if the British government did cover up messages from Serbian intelligence, instead of demanding the person responsible was handed over. Serbia have just handed over Karadzic - who has much popular support still. I can't see them risking anything by conspiring with the UK Govt to protect a two-bit assassin.
I wouldn't discount it entirely, but everything I've seen about the case suggests a lone nutjob, rather than an orchestrated hit.
I'm not saying that in this case the fact he raped someone 12 years ago or whatever should have swung the balance. Just don't like the idea that everyone has a completely clean slate when surely such serious past convictions give a good idea about the guy's character which is important for context; also what I'd seen that they didn't think he could possibly have the cunning and intellect to kill someone. If he was competent enough to rape someone on a staircase then he was competent enough to shoot someone on their doorstep..
Why?
You make it sound like he's been found guilty of both crimes.
If he did rape someone (I'm not saying whether he did or not) doesn't always mean he'll kill someone.
Exactly.
Given there is no credible evidence of any sort that he committed the murder I think its right to call him innocent.
Just like it happened with Colin Stagg, another 'oddball' according to our saintly press who clearly must have been Rachel Nickell's murderer, and whom the police went to extraordinary lenghts to try to implicate in a crime he did not commit.
Robert Murat should count himself lucky it was the Portuguese police who was investigating the Madeleine case, since the media in Britain had long decided he was a weirdo and must have taken the child. Had he lived in Britain he would be awaiting trial for the kidnapping of Maddie right now.
The same went for Damilola Taylor and the girl witness who was pushed forward.