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

[sl77]

That ledger says "replica" so how can someone use the ledger to claim it was a murder weapon?

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious??

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

That ledger says "replica" so how can someone use the ledger to claim it was a murder weapon?

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious??

Respectfully, all of this is clearly explained in the documentaries a number of us keep advising you to watch.

What BG called a "replica" wasn't a "replica" at all. It was a blank-firing starter pistol. The lead investigator and other experts go into detail about all of it in the documentaries.

 

[sl77]

Respectfully, all of this is clearly explained in the documentaries a number of us keep advising you to watch.

What BG called a "replica" wasn't a "replica" at all. It was a blank-firing starter pistol. The lead investigator and other experts go into detail about all of it in the documentaries.

Fair point but I have watched them, 4x from recollection (BBC one last week, ITV one with Julia Echington, one with an ex detective/investigator on Youtube and Netflix). The Netflix one was 3x 1 hour episodes. Unfortunately I don't remember every part.

I think the weakness in your argument is you're choosing the ledger as evidence, but then admitting some of the details are wrong. If he got "replica" wrong, he could quite easily have the gun model wrong too, which makes the ledger worthless.

In other words, we cannot pick & choose which parts of the ledger are correct/incorrect.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Fair point but I have watched them, 4x from recollection (BBC one last week, ITV one with Julia Echington, one with an ex detective/investigator on Youtube and Netflix). The Netflix one was 3x 1 hour episodes. Unfortunately I don't remember every part.

I think the weakness in your argument is you're choosing the ledger as evidence, but then admitting some of the details are wrong. If he got "replica" wrong, he could quite easily have the gun model wrong too, which makes the ledger worthless.

In other words, we cannot pick & choose which parts of the ledger are correct/incorrect.

It's not just random little old me saying this. It's not *my* argument. It's the investigators and experts who know what they're talking about who are saying this.

The gun model written on the ledger is the exact model of gun BG is holding in the photograph, according to Metropolitan Police firearms experts. Despite listing the gun under "replica's" (sic) BG does in fact note, in his own handwriting, "blank firing".

Whether it was written under "replicas" incorrectly, or whether it was an attempt at obfuscation because handguns had been illegal in England since 1996, I don't know. What I do know is that there's evidence in BG's own handwriting showing he had purchased that exact model of blank firing weapon; and there's a photograph of him holding exactly that model of weapon.

Without the photograph you might be able to argue the ledger was meaningless. Without the ledger you might be able to argue the photograph was meaningless. Together, they corroborate that BG was in possession of the exact model of gun which experts said could have been used to shoot Jill. One of only a small number of models which could have been.