Who killed Jill Dando?

[Blogg]

That's it- did they ever find that Lucan dude?

I wouldn't be going up in any planes with doors if I were Lord Levy...

Or going for a walk in the woods.

 

[wet_blobby]

That's it- did they ever find that Lucan dude?

I wouldn't be going up in any planes with doors if I were Lord Levy...

No, but last seen smoking hash and playing the banjo on some tropical island

 

[Geordie_Blerk]

Ummm why has this been brought up??? Rather random?
Hope her sister isn't looking on this site!...

While we're on the subject what happened to that Lord bloke, who supposedly fell out of a plane, but didn't really?
Was it Lord Litchfield or summink??? he must be knocking on a bit now!

Jill has a sister?

Does she share her late sister's passion for 9mm sized holes in the face?

 

[gingwarr]

I heard that Jill Dando's husband wanted to get a new front door.

But Jill was dead against it.

 

[Rapier]

12 members of the public listened to all the evidence and found him guilty. As opposed to people who have read the odd newspaper report and then decide.

 

[ugly]

12 people removed from press speculation yes, but also removed from any evidence not shown in court!

 

[archer]

Sorry Rapier. Majority verdict IIRC

 

[Rapier]

Still found guilty though.

 

[archer]

Oh yes but obviously not all jurors were satisfied with the evidence.

For my part I do remember some of the early police statements but have to make my mind up by reading the details that have been "reported" in the press.

 

[Rapier]

A lot of Jury verdicts are by Majority, as it gives a chance for all of them to say "It wasn't me". However, the point is that he WAS found guilty by people that had heard all the evidence and not by those that based their opinions on what they read in a paper. So all the "I think they got the wrong man" posts are pretty pointless.

 

[ugly]

Rapier that is ok if you then believe that all the people let out after 15 years with compensation for unsafe convictions are still guilty. A lot of the evidence in a case isnever presented. The prosecution will not put before the court evidence or witnesses that the defence can unpick or the jury wont blieve. That is the point of the CPS. It was introduced to reduce the numbers of cases brought to court with insufficient evidence. The reality now of course is that they play a numbers game. If they think there is a slim chance of aquittal they will drop the case. They only have to make evidence available to the defence that they are going to use themselves in court, therefore if there are more witnesses that will get the accused off the charges they dont call them. In fact the police d their utmost not to formally interview anyone that will help the defence. logical really but wrong and that is why this lad will probably be locked in broadmoor under a mental health ruling rather than be in a prison with access to law libraries.
The jury only hear the evidence that the prosecution sees fit to present and the evidence that the defence can use to counter the prosecution.
Yhere was no forensics. That alone will ensure a misstrial plea. No witnesses placed him at the scene yet as he had no alibi and was suitably soft for the police they had him. Poor detective work or just poor decision making means that a case is brought forward using the public furore about the calous butchering of a so called celeb. Now not one of those persons would have not known of the case and in fact some would be very happy to nail the waltish freak of a pervert that the daily hate painted him to be.
For all we know he could be innocent. I personally prefer the scottish system where a not proven verdict can be given. How many times have we seen someone acquitted such as Colin Stagg in the Rachel Nickel case and the police claim they are not looking for anyone else yet later on some one in the nick already admits to having done the crime?
I am not comfortable with his verdict.

 

[Rapier]

No you are still ignoring my point. The CPS decide there is a case to answer and to take to court, the evidence is presented and a verdict is reached. That verdict is the responsibility of the jury! What you or anyone else guesses from just reading what the papers want to tell you doesn't matter. And some of those 'unsafe' convictions that were overturned in the past, I know for a fact, were guilty of the crimes accused. However I won't say which cases, can't afford to be sued.

Remember practically everyone in Prison is innocent, just ask them.

 

[ugly]

Say what you want there are a lot of people who are very uncomfortable about this whole case.
bbc
police released info to the beeb
Again a total lack of info, no one even prosecution were convinced of a guilty verdict and the police release "dramatic facts" about his life and clothes that looked similar to those believed to be worn by the killer (no credible witness either).
Now if the rozzers ever searched my photo albums they could get a shrink to say I have an unhealthy lust for guns and killing. In fact they could say that about most persons posting on this website based on that alone!

 

[Civvy_Shot]

Say what you want there are a lot of people who are very uncomfortable about this whole case.
bbc
police released info to the beeb
Again a total lack of info, no one even prosecution were convinced of a guilty verdict and the police release "dramatic facts" about his life and clothes that looked similar to those believed to be worn by the killer (no credible witness either).
Now if the rozzers ever searched my photo albums they could get a shrink to say I have an unhealthy lust for guns and killing. In fact they could say that about most persons posting on this website based on that alone!

And young ladies with their kit off

 

[ugly]

Any ladies will do mucker!

 

[Blogg]

For all we know he could be innocent. I personally prefer the scottish system where a not proven verdict can be given. How many times have we seen someone acquitted such as Colin Stagg in the Rachel Nickel case and the police claim they are not looking for anyone else yet later on some one in the nick already admits to having done the crime?
I am not comfortable with his verdict.

The guy did himself no favours and is a sad case. He was questioned in the Rachel Nickel investigation which came to nothing of course but puts him in the frame as a "known" oddball for some reason.

But given total lack of any other evidence, the "forensics" in this case would very possibly not have led to a conviction if they had been properly challenged at the time. The only thing against him is a single particle less than 1/10,000 of an inch across and (i) it not certain that it is actually firearms residue and (ii) even if it is possibly came from cross contamination when a number of exhibits from different cases were being photographed at the same time without proper isolation procedures.

So one day the case might well fall down and the taxpayer will have to foot yet another huge compensation bill. As too often happens, this would stem from huge pressure put on all concerned for a "result" in a high profile case and the building of a case around a suspect from next to nothing.

Is that down to the Police or CPS? Well yes but then it is their job to secure convictions on the basis of what is available once so instructed.

But as has been suggested there are big questions as to why all other lines of enquiry were dropped, why this loser was landed on and just who made that call.

 

[walt_of_the_walts]

12 members of the public listened to all the evidence and found him guilty. As opposed to people who have read the odd newspaper report and then decide.

12 people may have listened to a very well constructed PROSECUTION case, but what was the DEFENCE case like?

Imagine having to defend an mad twunt like Bulsara, on the miniscule resources given to Legal aid cases. (Well, certainly less than the prosecution resources)

And was it not a 10 to 2 majority? So they didnt convince everyone.

A lot of Jury verdicts are by Majority, as it gives a chance for all of them to say "It wasn't me". However, the point is that he WAS found guilty by people that had heard all the evidence and not by those that based their opinions on what they read in a paper. So all the "I think they got the wrong man" posts are pretty pointless.

No jury, AFAIK gets to hear all the evidence. It would take too long. It would bore them to death. Defence and or prosecution would probably strongly object to certain bits of eveidence which would undermine there respective cases.

Its all theatre. Both sides present there best case for guilt or innocence.