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

[Interested_But_Confused]

To those who think it's BG I have a question:

Do you honestly think you could use a gun, put it in your pocket and only have 1 single particle of gun residue? Not 2 particles, or 3 particles, just 1.

If you tried this 100 times, how many times do you think you would have 1 single particle?

I reckon 0/100

As others have said (and as I've said before) there was a big gap between the time of the crime and BG's coat being examined.

His hair, skin and clothing, the only things that would have been contaminated, were likely scrubbed clean repeatedly in the 12+ months following the murder. BG may have personality problems and a low IQ, but it's apparent to me that he's far from stupid.

 

[WestLondoner]

Presumably another possibility is that the coat with the GSR was a different coat that was cross-contaminated from another that he wore to do the killing. It's very hard to rule him in or out on this bit.

Personally I had assumed BG was just the local weirdo who had been fitted up in the customary way, a la Colin Stagg. It was only when I looked at the actual evidence that I realised he is a remarkable match. The bit that persuades me is the posing with a gun in a mask through which you can see his distinctive eyebrows, that he then lied that this was not him, and that the gun has vanished.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Here's the thing about the single particle of GSR: if you believe it's too convenient and coincidental that just a single particle was found, ask yourself, would someone looking to frame BG leave just a single particle?

The GSR particle strongly suggests BG and/or his coat had been in the vicinity of a fired gun at some point. It doesn't prove anything more than that, but it's not nothing.

 

[sl77]

Here's the thing about the single particle of GSR: if you believe it's too convenient and coincidental that just a single particle was found, ask yourself, would someone looking to frame BG leave just a single particle?

The GSR particle strongly suggests BG and/or his coat had been in the vicinity of a fired gun at some point. It doesn't prove anything more than that, but it's not nothing.

I'm not saying he was set up. I'm saying the probability of a single particle from gun usage seems astronomically small.

He was a fan of guns (I believe he owned magazines?) then he would know about gun residue and he would have ditched the coat along with the gun.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

I'm not saying he was set up. I'm saying the probability of a single particle from gun usage seems astronomically small.

He was a fan of guns (I believe he owned magazines?) then he would know about gun residue and he would have ditched the coat along with the gun.

If you don't think BG was set up, and you also don't think the GSR resulted from using a gun, then there has to be an explanation for how it *did* get there. However small the chances, it was there nonetheless.

We know BG owned guns, despite his denial; the Netflix documentary even shows a ledger of his gun purchases and the prices paid. Occams's Razor applies here. By far the most likely explanation is that BG had GSR in his pocket because he owned and fired a gun. A gun which matched the type used to kill Jill. A gun which would create exactly the type of GSR found in his pocket. A gun which was listed in his ledger of purchases. A gun which subsequently disappeared, and which he denied ever owning despite photographic evidence of him holding it.

I can accept the possibility of one or two coincidences. But not of that many.

 

[sl77]

If you don't think BG was set up, and you also don't think the GSR resulted from using a gun, then there has to be an explanation for how it *did* get there. However small the chances, it was there nonetheless.

We know BG owned guns, despite his denial; the Netflix documentary even shows a ledger of his gun purchases and the prices paid. Occams's Razor applies here. By far the most likely explanation is that BG had GSR in his pocket because he owned and fired a gun. A gun which matched the type used to kill Jill. A gun which would create exactly the type of GSR found in his pocket. A gun which was listed in his ledger of purchases. A gun which subsequently disappeared, and which he denied ever owning despite photographic evidence of him holding it.

I can accept the possibility of one or two coincidences. But not of that many.

I'll number to make replying easier:

1) I'm not an expert on guns. How do they know the exact gun type used? Calibre yes, but gun make, how?
2) I've just done a quick Google and I see nothing about there being evidence BG owned a gun. Can you please share?

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

I'll number to make replying easier:

1) I'm not an expert on guns. How do they know the exact gun type used? Calibre yes, but gun make, how?
2) I've just done a quick Google and I see nothing about there being evidence BG owned a gun. Can you please share?

Have you watched the Netflix documentary, or better yet read the trial notes? It's all explained in there.

Based on the type of ammunition used and the markings left on the case, LE were able to narrow down the type of gun to a small number of types/models. One of them was a converted blank-firing pistol of the type owned by BG.

I'll have to watch the Netflix documentary again to find the ledger of gun purchases, but I'll post a screen capture when I do. It shows he purchased the gun he's holding in the following image. This is the well-known image (I've taken a screen capture from the documentary) of BG holding the gun; he denies it is even a picture of him, despite the picture being found on an undeveloped roll of film in his own home:

 

[fridaybaker]

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.

Just bringing this forward now because I'm very new to this case. However, one of the key items that I find incredibly pertinent, that doesn't seem to be listed here, is that he had previously assaulted/attempted to assault a woman....at her front door.

 

[JennieM]

I'll number to make replying easier:

1) I'm not an expert on guns. How do they know the exact gun type used? Calibre yes, but gun make, how?
2) I've just done a quick Google and I see nothing about there being evidence BG owned a gun. Can you please share?

If you can, watch the BBC documentary, they discuss this.

 

[JennieM]

As others have said (and as I've said before) there was a big gap between the time of the crime and BG's coat being examined.

His hair, skin and clothing, the only things that would have been contaminated, were likely scrubbed clean repeatedly in the 12+ months following the murder. BG may have personality problems and a low IQ, but it's apparent to me that he's far from stupid.

He is far from stupid, 100% agree with you.

 

[JennieM]

BBC One - The Murder of Jill Dando

The full story of one of Britain’s most high-profile killings.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[JennieM]

From watching the documentary, the police seems convinced that BG is behind the murder but unfortunately their evidence was not enough to prove culpability. They don’t expect anyone else (other than BG) to be accused of her murder or to be brought to trial in the future.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

If I remember correctly, the 3-part Netflix documentary is an extended version of the shorter BBC documentary, by the same filmmakers.

In episode 3 of the Netflix documentary, at about 11 minutes 30 seconds in, they discuss the GSR. The GSR in the pocket actually matched GSR at the crime scene, which I had forgotten. I knew it matched the type of gun, but it had slipped my mind that it matched the scene.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Episode 2 of the 3-part Netflix documentary, at about 38 minutes in. This is a screen capture of BG's ledger. According to the investigator in charge, a G145 Blank Firing Automatic would have matched the ammunition used in the murder--and BG owned one:

 

[Inspector Evans]

Presumably another possibility is that the coat with the GSR was a different coat that was cross-contaminated from another that he wore to do the killing. It's very hard to rule him in or out on this bit.

Personally I had assumed BG was just the local weirdo who had been fitted up in the customary way, a la Colin Stagg. It was only when I looked at the actual evidence that I realised he is a remarkable match. The bit that persuades me is the posing with a gun in a mask through which you can see his distinctive eyebrows, that he then lied that this was not him, and that the gun has vanished.

Was there even a coat being worn from any of the eye witness accounts on that day? I just thought it was someone wearing a suit/open neck shirt who was seen hanging around/then walking down the road from half 11 onwards.

I'm sure our neighbourly hood friend Mr Hughes surely clocked if who he saw was wearing a coat or not from his close vantage point. Same for anyone driving up and down the road at the time.

Then BG walks into the centre later that day in similar attire but that could just be a remarkable co-incidence.

Unless of course BG did do it, get back to his flat and just decided to put the weapon in the coat pocket for a period before going out again.

 

[Inspector Evans]

Here's the thing about the single particle of GSR: if you believe it's too convenient and coincidental that just a single particle was found, ask yourself, would someone looking to frame BG leave just a single particle?

The GSR particle strongly suggests BG and/or his coat had been in the vicinity of a fired gun at some point. It doesn't prove anything more than that, but it's not nothing.

Hamish Campbell on the BBC docu on 2019 said aswell when they did the original tests I think there are 4-5 types of residue and the coat one was an exact match to the scene. If it had matched any of the other types then would've been inadmissible and probably CPS would not have accepted the original case.

 

[sl77]

Episode 2 of the 3-part Netflix documentary, at about 38 minutes in. This is a screen capture of BG's ledger. According to the investigator in charge, a G145 Blank Firing Automatic would have matched the ammunition used in the murder--and BG owned one:

View attachment 500498

Thank you for the posts with what you were referring to.

Was that ledger presented at the original trial?

As far as I am aware the prosecution did not state they have evidence BM purchased a gun and it matches the killer's gun. I thought their only strong evidence was the single particle.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Thank you for the posts with what you were referring to.

Was that ledger presented at the original trial?

As far as I am aware the prosecution did not state they have evidence BM purchased a gun and it matches the killer's gun. I thought their only strong evidence was the single particle.

I don't remember if the ledger was presented at trial. I *think* it was mentioned that BG owned a gun, but since the gun was never found and therefore couldn't be ballistically matched, it couldn't be presented as solid evidence.

The gun is one more thing on the looooong list of circumstantial evidence. At some point, even when the evidence is only circumstantial, I feel we have to ask how every piece of it can point to the same person. There would have to be so many freak coincidences for it to be anyone else.

 

[WestLondoner]

Was there even a coat being worn from any of the eye witness accounts on that day? I just thought it was someone wearing a suit/open neck shirt who was seen hanging around/then walking down the road from half 11 onwards.

I'm sure our neighbourly hood friend Mr Hughes surely clocked if who he saw was wearing a coat or not from his close vantage point. Same for anyone driving up and down the road at the time.

Then BG walks into the centre later that day in similar attire but that could just be a remarkable co-incidence.

Unless of course BG did do it, get back to his flat and just decided to put the weapon in the coat pocket for a period before going out again.

He disposed somehow of the weapon he was photographed with. This is actually illegal, but that's by the by. If that was the murder weapon, then the GSR came about when he put it in his coat pocket, walked to the Thames and dropped it in. This need not have been the same day or the same outfit of clothing.

 

[WiseOwl]

Was there even a coat being worn from any of the eye witness accounts on that day? I just thought it was someone wearing a suit/open neck shirt who was seen hanging around/then walking down the road from half 11 onwards.

I'm sure our neighbourly hood friend Mr Hughes surely clocked if who he saw was wearing a coat or not from his close vantage point. Same for anyone driving up and down the road at the time.

Then BG walks into the centre later that day in similar attire but that could just be a remarkable co-incidence.

Unless of course BG did do it, get back to his flat and just decided to put the weapon in the coat pocket for a period before going out again.

As per my previous post: RH said the man he saw leaving the garden was wearing a dark waxed jacket, like a Barbour.

He also said the man was white, well-dressed and clean-shaven. Was BG clean-shaven in 1999?

As RH was the only person to see the man leaving the scene of the crime, surely his description of the man must be considered the bona fide one above any other sightings that day? Did any other of the descriptions match his?