I'm confused though. Wot with him being a dangerous gun killer and all, and the fact that I'm assuming he was arrested by SO19; how on earth did a speck of GSR get on his coat, and only one for that matter?
I think (and please excuse the pun) the fuzz have hung their coat on the only available sucker.
No murder weapon.
No connection to the deceased.
No motive that is not speculation or conjecture.
No compelling forensic evidence.
No confession or self-incriminating statements.
Plus the guy is little more than a village idiot and super mong fantasist and all round weirdo who probably couldn't obtain a real gun and would be too disorganised to plan and carry out a sucessful killing. If he hasn't got an alibi it might be that he genuinely can't remember where he was that day - or most days.
The victim was in the public eye through Crimewatch and had reputedly offended some rather unpleasent Serbian gentlemen.
Then there are all the other possible reasons that could get a person killed....everything from mistaken identity to random thrill seeking to some guy she broke up with ten years ago or a nutter with a very sick sense of humour who thought it was funny to whack a Crimewatch presenter. Anything is possible.
I would be curious to know if anybody brought any 'extra' pressure on OB to get this case closed quickly. You couldn't find a better fall guy than Barry George if you went out and looked for one............
The great thing about forensics is that it is infallible when used on weirdos loners and chavs in general, as in with one speck of residue we knew he was guilty. But when applied to upper middle class types with missing kids and pints of body fluids, alledgedly the same labs seem to go into a flurry of caveats about ''This isn't conclusive evidence''
Call me Mr Cynical, but as far as I can remember the investigation wasn't going anywhere fast, with various 'lines of enquiry' floating around the meeja. The pressure on the Met to get a result must have been pretty severe seeing as the deceased was (a) TV Personality (b) worth one, so a convenient local nutter would have been made to order, especially as he'd probably believe he'd done it anyway after a while.
I'm surprised that he did keep proclaiming his innocence, as serial fantasists in the past have admitted to things they didn't do to get the fame: maybe a big 'uh-oh' moment as the sentence was passed and the fantasy world came crashing down?
I can only comment on what is reported and what was reported back at the time, but the case did seem a bit on the weak side - aside from the possibility of contamination on the GSR find (and you could find that in every room of my house if you wanted), it was basically that the guy was a known weirdo with a history of following women around and making up porkies. However it did close a very high profile case....
I reckon that he was. They needed a quick fix for a high profile murder and the local head case liked guns. Being convicted on the strength of such an extremely unreliable and minute forensic source was a travesty. Even if he did do it, the evidence was always going to be challenged. Mind you, it was the jury who convicted him not the system. Tried by 12 good men and true?
Personally, I'm torn between 'Guilty' and 'Not.' I saw his police interview tape on the news t'other day and he wasn't busy proclaiming his innocence then. A innocent man accused of murder just doesn't sit back in his chair and stare at the cops.
But I agree with the other bloke, the amount of time he's spent trying to get his side across - another look should be taken at all the 'evidence'.
Funny you should mention that, as one of the original jurors was interviewed on the news the other day, and even she said the case was weak, and there wasnt enough evidence for a strong conviction. Are we looking at a case where someone was leaning on the Jury?
Doesn't he have a record of violence towards women? He had a terrific collection of blonde ladies photos. Didn't he try to join the TA and was f**ked off in very short order because they thought that he was too dangerous?
I agree that the forensic evidence stinks and that it was found nearly a year later.
The witness must have been very certain of their indentification to pick him out after all that time.
Who knows? I doubt if we will ever get the truth on this murder.
I'm not really in a position to have an informed opinion but i am led to believe that the circumstancial case against him was very strong, and that the speck of forensics was only used to back that strong case up in the absence of any other hard evidence.
The fact that this type of evidence is now not admissable should not detract from the fact that he was found guilty by jury, even a 10-1 majority is compelling.
It would be a travesty for an innocent man to be in jail but it would be an equal travesty if a guilty man was to be let off on a technicality.
No. A witness put him on the street - which was in the area he lived - at 0700, JD was shot at 1130. Said witness also changed her description of the man and identified him 18 months after the murder. Obviously, the £250,000 reward had nothing to do with it.
I don't think a man being near his home 4.5 hours before a crime was committed in that area is useful evidence of anything other than the police having no evidence.
At 1150 he was half a mile away, not covered in blood and in different clothing to the killer.