UK UK - Jill Dando, 37, Fulham, London, 26 Apr 1999

[Interested_But_Confused]

The thing with Colin Stagg is that there was nothing actually tying him to the Nickell murder. He was provably set up.

BG has many circumstantial elements tying him to the Dando murder. And the array of circumstantial evidence is such that whilst each individual piece could potentially point to hundreds of people, all of them together only pointed to him--or someone exactly like him.

The literal "smoking gun" was the photo of BG holding exactly the kind of gun believed to have been used in the murder. He denied it was him in the photo, and the gun has never been found or accounted for.

 

[Markybug]

The photo of him with the gun says it all for me also.

 

[WestLondoner]

Agree. Over the weekend I picked up a second copy of one of the Just William books by Richmal Crompton. While laughing like a drain at the farcical scrapes into which William Brown gets himself, it occurred to me that if you consider BG to be a sort of overgrown Just William, what happened makes perfect sense.

So hypothetically, and strictly IMO, he gets hold of a gun somehow, probably from someone whom he met when he did prison time for rape. The same person shows him how to tamper with ammunition. He poses for photographs of himself holding the gun, playing he's an SAS man, like William Brown pretends he's a pirate. Like William Brown he thinks he is wearing a cunning disguise, but fails to consider that the eye holes of his mask are so big his eyebrows can be seen. Their shape identifies him unerringly.

He hasn't anything to do by day, other than stalk and photograph women, so mostly he hangs around playing at being a spy, again like Just William. One day he gets the idea that rather than following them furtively around, it might be nice actually to rape a woman, having done so before. Nothing of the kind ever occurs to William, because he's eleven and not a proven sexual offender. BG, not so much.

Preferably the target would be a famous blonde with a bob. He knows where JD lives and decides her house is an easier target for a crack SAS man like himself than Kensington Palace, where a similar-looking famous blonde with a bob lives. So he goes on his secret SAS man mission and is thus at JD's house irresponsibly carrying a gun he's tampered with when she unexpectedly turns up. Using his karate, because he's a black belt too today, he attacks her, the half-wit, and of course the gun goes off.

Because this is more William Brown than Professor Moriarty, he panics and runs away. The gun's never seen again and when challenged about it, he lies idiotically and transparently. Like William Brown, he's so dim he has no idea when it's obvious he's lying. He imagines people will believe that somebody else came into his flat, posed with a mask and gun, photographed himself on BG's camera then disappeared with the gun and he has no idea who this was. He can't imagine that this wouldn't be plausible because he can't imagine how it would appear to anyone else.

William Brown's excuse for being this clueless is that he's eleven. BG is just dim, or perhaps lacking in the ability to see things as others might, i.e. he lacks empathy, a hallmark of psychopathy.

 

[johnlair]

Personally I think Dando knew too much and was assassinated we've seen it time and time again when people get to close to revealing corruption in power

 

[Markybug]

Personally I think Dando knew too much and was assassinated we've seen it time and time again when people get to close to revealing corruption in power

She never knew anything tho, she was just a newsreader (no offence to her intended)

 

[sl77]

I watched the Netflix documentary with my parents recently. Both me and them agree that the "it must have been a professional hitman" thing is bogus and that Barry George obviously got away with it.

Guilty people don't agree to feature on Netflix documentaries. They refuse or at most provide a written statement instead.

BG was weird but it's so obvious he didn't kill her. Someone mentally unwell would get caught.

This was probably a professional hit but for reasons we still don't know.

 

[iamshadow21]

Guilty people don't agree to feature on Netflix documentaries. They refuse or at most provide a written statement instead.

BG was weird but it's so obvious he didn't kill her. Someone mentally unwell would get caught.

This was probably a professional hit but for reasons we still don't know.

Plenty have... I've watched a bunch of Netflix specials where the person who did something is front and centre.

MOO

 

[AcbMurders]

Guilty people don't agree to feature on Netflix documentaries. They refuse or at most provide a written statement instead.

Iain Packer did and must have been regretting it ever since UK - Emma Caldwell, 27, found murdered in South Lanarkshire, Scotland, May 2005 *Arrest*

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Guilty people don't agree to feature on Netflix documentaries. They refuse or at most provide a written statement instead.

RSBM

As others have said, yes, they do. Many criminals love the attention. Ian Huntley, who committed the Soham Murders, was front and centre in the media afterwards.

UK - Holly Wells, 10, & Jessica Chapman, 10, murdered, Soham, 4 Aug 2002

A former school caretaker accused of murdering 10-year-old girls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman has appeared in court with his former girlfriend http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/27/uk.huntley/

www.websleuths.com

 

[sl77]

Huntley was rather different. He appeared in the media whilst the girls hadn't been found. And I assume the media approached him being someone who had seen the girls, so he couldn't exactly shy-away from it, or it would have created suspicion.

Do you not find it pretty amazing if BG did it, he managed to leave zero evidence at the crime scene incriminating himself, but he also managed to leave zero evidence in his home? Not only have you got to get away from the crime scene without leaving a trace, you've also got to have zero evidence trail if the police turn up at your home! The chances are so remote.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Huntley was rather different. He appeared in the media whilst the girls hadn't been found. And I assume the media approached him being someone who had seen the girls, so he couldn't exactly shy-away from it, or it would have created suspicion.

Do you not find it pretty amazing if BG did it, he managed to leave zero evidence at the crime scene incriminating himself, but he also managed to leave zero evidence in his home? Not only have you got to get away from the crime scene without leaving a trace, you've also got to have zero evidence trail if the police turn up at your home! The chances are so remote.

Huntley was arrested before the girls were found. If he had been suspected and then cleared, as BG was, I don't believe for a second that he would have avoided the media and "at most provided a written statement." I think he would have continued to play to the media for as long as possible.

Yes, I would consider it amazing if BG (or not BG) had left no evidence. Of course that isn't the case. Just off the top of my head, there were fibres at the scene from trousers matching a pair found at BG's house. There was also his coat, which closely resembled the one the killer was seen wearing, and which may or may not have had GSR in the pocket. The bullets also matched a type of gun he was photographed holding, and of a type which appeared in a ledger he had written showing his gun purchases.

The gun was never found and BG denied ever owning it. So whether it was the murder weapon or not, he clearly lied and disposed of it. We can agree it's difficult to match bullets to a gun when the gun can't be found.

BG wasn't a suspect until about a year after the murder. That's plenty of time to dispose of evidence. It's plenty of time to have clothes cleaned. LE have also openly lamented the destruction of potential evidence at the scene by the paramedics working to save Jill's life.

How much evidence would a person leave behind at the scene? Possibly not much. The killer was only there for a few seconds. How much evidence would a person carry away with them, and how much of it would be left after a year? Again, possibly not much. Any evidence would have been on the clothes or on the skin and hair, all of which could have been scrubbed clean many times over.

 

[WestLondoner]

Guilty people don't agree to feature on Netflix documentaries. They refuse or at most provide a written statement instead.

They do if they're too dim to realise it's obvious they're guilty!

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

They do if they're too dim to realise it's obvious they're guilty!

Or, if they're *just* smart enough to realise double jeopardy means they can now say or do anything without fear of repercussions. BG can only be re-tried if the investigators find a literal smoking gun of new evidence, which is sadly unlikely to happen.

BG may test as having a low IQ, but personally I think many of his documented actions show he's far from stupid. Every time he appears in one of these documentaries, IMO he's gloating and rubbing the investigators' noses in it.

 

[RichardKimble]

Or, if they're *just* smart enough to realise double jeopardy means they can now say or do anything without fear of repercussions. BG can only be re-tried if the investigators find a literal smoking gun of new evidence, which is sadly unlikely to happen.

BG may test as having a low IQ, but personally I think many of his documented actions show he's far from stupid. Every time he appears in one of these documentaries, IMO he's gloating and rubbing the investigators' noses in it.

BG need only to watch the true crime docus on the beeb and ITV channels to know what is likely to bring any new evidence to light, same with JC, if it's him responsible for SJL he's basically in the clear, no forensics etc.

 

[WestLondoner]

BG need only to watch the true crime docus on the beeb and ITV channels to know what is likely to bring any new evidence to light, same with JC, if it's him responsible for SJL he's basically in the clear, no forensics etc.

Yes, and it's not clear what new evidence could now emerge.

What the two cases have in common is that to date, nothing puts either suspect at the crime scene at any time. In fact, in Cannan's case, we don't even know where and when the crime occurred, nor do we have a body. Without that information, the case against each is entirely inferential, and based on the reasoning that they're the likeliest culprit.

In Cannan's case, the circumstantial and verifiable facts in support of his guilt point to several hundred other people as well. The further evidence that narrows it down to just him is not verifiable, having come from a career criminal years after the fact, for reasons we don't know.

In BG's case, the circumstantial evidence does not point to anybody else besides him. Per Nick Ross' blog:

• He had been seen in the road four hours before Jill’s murder.
• He had been identified as having been by two separate witnesses near the killing in an agitated state soon after the murder.
• The witnesses, including a mental health worker, were so concerned about him that in the days after Jill’s murder they had rung the incident room repeatedly.
• He had returned to both witnesses the following day seeking to persuade them he had been there at different times and in different clothes.
• He had a history of violence against women, including formal warnings, convictions for sexual assault and a prison term for attempted rape.
• When under surveillance he routinely stalked women.
• He had once been found in the grounds of Kensington Palace with a balaclava, a knife and a rope – but was never charged because he was thought to have mental problems.
• Itsuko Toide, briefly his wife in a marriage of convenience, was so frightened of him that she reported his violence to the police and fled back to Japan. She later told Nick Ross she had no doubt he was Jill’s killer.
• Despite denying he had an interest in Jill Dando or the BBC, undeveloped film recovered from his apartment showed he took photos of women from his TV, and he kept copies of the BBC’s in-house magazine.
• Although he denied he had ever owned or held a gun, a reel of undeveloped film was processed and revealed him posing with a pistol.
• The pistol he was holding was of the same type that killed Jill.

This still falls short of putting him at the crime scene, and indeed even the speck of gun residue doesn't do so either; it just suggests he had a fired gun in his pocket at some point.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Yes, and it's not clear what new evidence could now emerge.

What the two cases have in common is that to date, nothing puts either suspect at the crime scene at any time. In fact, in Cannan's case, we don't even know where and when the crime occurred, nor do we have a body. Without that information, the case against each is entirely inferential, and based on the reasoning that they're the likeliest culprit.

In Cannan's case, the circumstantial and verifiable facts in support of his guilt point to several hundred other people as well. The further evidence that narrows it down to just him is not verifiable, having come from a career criminal years after the fact, for reasons we don't know.

In BG's case, the circumstantial evidence does not point to anybody else besides him. Per Nick Ross' blog:

• He had been seen in the road four hours before Jill’s murder.
• He had been identified as having been by two separate witnesses near the killing in an agitated state soon after the murder.
• The witnesses, including a mental health worker, were so concerned about him that in the days after Jill’s murder they had rung the incident room repeatedly.
• He had returned to both witnesses the following day seeking to persuade them he had been there at different times and in different clothes.
• He had a history of violence against women, including formal warnings, convictions for sexual assault and a prison term for attempted rape.
• When under surveillance he routinely stalked women.
• He had once been found in the grounds of Kensington Palace with a balaclava, a knife and a rope – but was never charged because he was thought to have mental problems.
• Itsuko Toide, briefly his wife in a marriage of convenience, was so frightened of him that she reported his violence to the police and fled back to Japan. She later told Nick Ross she had no doubt he was Jill’s killer.
• Despite denying he had an interest in Jill Dando or the BBC, undeveloped film recovered from his apartment showed he took photos of women from his TV, and he kept copies of the BBC’s in-house magazine.
• Although he denied he had ever owned or held a gun, a reel of undeveloped film was processed and revealed him posing with a pistol.
• The pistol he was holding was of the same type that killed Jill.

This still falls short of putting him at the crime scene, and indeed even the speck of gun residue doesn't do so either; it just suggests he had a fired gun in his pocket at some point.

The problem I have with people who say, "But he left nothing at the crime scene!" (not you, by the way) is that whether it was BG or not, the killer managed to do it without leaving much identifiable evidence behind. Why do people think BG would be any less capable of doing that than anyone else? The killer was at the scene for just a few seconds, I wouldn't expect much to be left behind.

A fibre was found from a pair of trousers matching a pair owned by BG, but it would have also matched a pair owned by any number of other men.

Leaving behind the bullet and casing was sloppy, and would have been readily identifiable--if there was a gun available to match them to. Why did BG dispose of a gun he's known to have owned and was seemingly proud to own, and why does he now deny ever owning it or being photographed with it? That's more than a little suspicious. Personally I'd want to prove my gun *didn't* kill Jill Dando; by disposing of the gun, it's impossible to prove *or* disprove anything.

The evidence may be circumstantial, but there is A LOT of it. Different individual pieces of evidence may point to thousands of different people, but as you say, the full array of evidence in this case only pointed to BG.

 

[WestLondoner]

Agree, there's no reason he need have left much. If he'd been in a car, pulled up behind her, shot her and driven off he'd have left precisely nothing at all..Even the empty cartridge would probably have been inside the car. So it seems quite possible to leave nothing.

Despite this he was convicted, and the overturning of that conviction seems to me to be flawed. It was found that one piece of the evidence against him was unreliable, but the jury didn't leave notes detailing which evidence was most persuasive to them. So we don't know whether they'd have convicted him anyway, even if that piece had been ruled out in the first place.

Ideally you'd need something that conclusively put him at the scene. As a side note, one of the reasons why all but one of the Jack the Ripper hypotheses are so unconvincing is that not one of them does this. Whenever you read that it was James Maybrick or William Gull, what you never get is any indication that this suspect was ever anywhere near any of the killings.

The gun residue in BG's coat pocket doesn't do this either. It just says that a recently-fired gun had been put in that pocket. There may be nothing left at the scene at all. You'd need someone who knew him and who saw him there, which I guess we won't now get.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

I genuinely believe BG would have been convicted in his first trial even without the GSR in his pocket. His conviction was largely overturned because of the change in opinion over the GSR, so if he had been convicted without it he would most likely still be in jail.

The publicity surrounding BG, and particularly regarding the GSR evidence being thrown out, meant there was never much chance of the second trial succeeding. The media had already declared his imprisonment a miscarriage of justice. I believe the evidence in the second trial could have been used to convict, but the jury was never going to do it.

 

[RichardKimble]

I genuinely believe BG would have been convicted in his first trial even without the GSR in his pocket. His conviction was largely overturned because of the change in opinion over the GSR, so if he had been convicted without it he would most likely still be in jail.

The publicity surrounding BG, and particularly regarding the GSR evidence being thrown out, meant there was never much chance of the second trial succeeding. The media had already declared his imprisonment a miscarriage of justice. I believe the evidence in the second trial could have been used to convict, but the jury was never going to do it.

The MET so convinced the media in the SJL case that JC did for her that the cps even said he'd never get a fair trial.

 

[RobinCAL]

Man wanted over Jill Dando murder could be Serbian assassin

A man wanted for questioning in the Jill Dando murder bears a striking resemblance to a ruthless Serbian secret services assassin, an investigation reveals

www.bristolpost.co.uk