I remeber this case & although there was evidence that barry george was guilty for this the evidence was "Scatty" & i wasnt convinced he had done it,if this is the case then this would bring back memories of "Gerry Conlon" & the Guildford four ( click here )
who was jailed when the evidence wasnt of a acceptable decree although the two case's are TOTALY differant this is been used for example ONLY..!
its becoming more & more obvious & regular that some case's are simply much tougher than other's to proove so why dont they remand the accused & wait until the evidence is SOLID & not rush a sentance through.
my heart goes out to mr Conlon & all the accused they deserve the compensation they would/did recive.
if this is the case for Barry George than the persons that made this contraption of a case need to be disciplined as that case over the muder of Jill Dando cost silly amounts of money & the fact that if mr George is found innocent then the killer's STILL on the street's & laughing at the british public & police,ALSO not forgetting to mention the family of Gill Dando might not have had there "Closure" & thats terrible.
You are well off the mark with some of your comments.
There is a world of difference between the cases of the Guildford 4 and Barry George.
There is no suggestion that George was stiched up - his grounds for appeal (and that is all it is at the moment) revolve around the Gun Shot Residue found in his jacket.
His team have experts who it seems are stating that what has previously been held to be GSR may not have come from a gun.
Lets wait and see what the Appeal Court rules before jumping to conclusions.
As for the suggestion that people should be held on remand until the evidence is solid!!!! The Human Rights lobby and Liberty would rightly be up in arms.
Monument i suggest YOU READ THE THREAD AGAIN,
ive CLEARLY stated that "although the two case's are TOTALY differant this is been used for example ONLY"
it was based around high profile cases like these two & the fact that there's doubt within them....
There is no need to shout.
I merely reiterated that they were different.
You have made sweeping statements about those who investigated the Dando case, drawing totally unfair comparisons with the Guildford 4 investigators.
You have specific knowledge that their case was a "contraption" - please share these details with us.
How much is silly money in a murder investigation, 500,000, 1 million, 10 million?
What should they be disciplined for?
that even in the short time since the original conviction, forensic science has advanced a good deal. It is largely the forensic evidence that convicted Barry George - a small particle of propellant residue was found in his pocket, and similar particles were found in Jill Dando's hair and on her face.
The basis for this new appeal is that the residue found on George's clothes could easily have been airborne, and that armed police officers were on the scene. As I understand it the police have always denied that armed officers were present, but apparently there are witnesses who have stated they saw them there.
There are absolutely no parallels with the Guildford four convictions, and it would be silly to suggest otherwise.
Tried to break into Kensington Palace (wearing a balaclava and carying a knife).
Impersonated a police officer.
Obtained false warrant cards.
Guilty or not I find it hard to be symapthetic to his plight.
Tony Blair "regrets" the decision to let non violent prisoners out of jail at least 18 days early, this guy has his appeal granted. I will wait and see but for now, justice is the word. Some country! NOT.
If this man didn't kill Jill Dando he shouldn't be in prison for it. The judicial system obviously thinks there's sufficient cause for examining the conviction again, and that's what is going to happen. It doesn't mean that anyone is about to be released, but it does mean that our system is working as it should - reasonable doubt should always operate in favour of the accused, and in this case the defence is going to try to argue that there may be a case for reasonable doubt about the reliability of some of the evidence that was admitted by the court, and that there is new evidence which casts doubt on the safety of the verdict.
I have no idea what the outcome will be, and I have no axe to grind for this individual - it's the principal I'm interested in.
If there is any cause for doubt then it has to be investigated no matter how convincing the original evidence was. There have been many instances where new evidence has come to light after a person has been convicted and that conviction quashed as being unsafe.
As FE say's, this is justice working as it should and all new evidence needs to be looked at carefully. If an injustice has happened it can be rectified, if not then he continues his sentence. But it must be looked at for all our sakes.
There was always a lot of doubt about the safety of Barry George's conviction - the very limited forensic evidence was all that apparently linked him to the crime. My own view is that George seems to have led a fairly chaotic life and that from what I read, probably didn't have the wherewithal to carry out such a calculated and cold-blooded crime. That's just an impression, of course, and it will be up to the appeal judges to decide, but I've always been uncomfortable about his conviction.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.