George NOT Guilty of Murder of Dando

[The Fish 8947]

Isn't there a thing in Scottish law, a verdict of "Not Proven", basically the court is saying, this fucker is guilty, but the evidence isn't enough to convict on?

 

might have just someone telling me shite mind.

[Craig 6287]

Speaks volumes that the 'defining evidence' (as if!) from the first trial wasn't even put forward by the prosecution this time around because it was so shite...

 

The bloke had minimal gunshot residue inside his coat pocket which the prosecution alledged was enough to find him guilty of the crime. If he had (and particularly from the close proximity the shot was fired according to the post-mortem), there'd have been absolutely shitloads of residue all over his coat, not just in his pocket. There was absolutely no evidence linking him to this particular crime short of the fact he lived in the same street.

 

Having sat on a jury myself, I remember clearly that the judge, many times, reminds the jurors that they must reach a verdict on the evidence put before them and ONLY that evidence. If the evidence is not presented, it doesn't matter how much you assume something, you cannot use assumption. As I said, there was no evidence whatsoever linking him to this crime and in light of that, he should never ever have been found guilty.

[Fop 1]

He's an oddball and should be in care to protect himself and others but there's no way he did it. All the evidence was incredibly shakey from the off and the police lied through their teeth about one or two things which they should be ashamed of.

 

Still, I suppose 8 years in jail is George getting of lightly. If he'd been olive skinned they'd have shot him in the face 7 or 8 times.

 

 

What did they lie about exactly?

 

The only thing that wasn't right was that the gunpowder residue was massively overweighted in the original trial.

 

Other than that it's all correct. The photo fit, his record, the witnesses putting him there around the time. Not enough to convict on without the gunpower, but still all true.

 

His current alibi is that he was stalking another woman at the time she was shot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now if you want an example of the police making stuff up, look at that "baby killer" case, ignoring the kids prior serious brain injury (and how that was done), and making up a story about the banister, even though there was no forensic evidence AT ALL for it to be true (and it wasn't like a year had passed either).

Edited August 3, 2008 by Fop

[Fop 1]

Speaks volumes that the 'defining evidence' (as if!) from the first trial wasn't even put forward by the prosecution this time around because it was so shite...

 

The bloke had minimal gunshot residue inside his coat pocket which the prosecution alledged was enough to find him guilty of the crime. If he had (and particularly from the close proximity the shot was fired according to the post-mortem), there'd have been absolutely shitloads of residue all over his coat, not just in his pocket. There was absolutely no evidence linking him to this particular crime short of the fact he lived in the same street.

Having sat on a jury myself, I remember clearly that the judge, many times, reminds the jurors that they must reach a verdict on the evidence put before them and ONLY that evidence. If the evidence is not presented, it doesn't matter how much you assume something, you cannot use assumption. As I said, there was no evidence whatsoever linking him to this crime and in light of that, he should never ever have been found guilty.

 

 

The thing is it was a year between the killing an his arrest. In that amount of time forensic evidence like that will be degraded (even assuming the coat in question was worn for the attack).

 

There's certainly no direct evidence, but you have to admit the photo fit of a man running from the area released just after the attack and long before George was ever a suspect is a good match for him, not to mention witnesses putting him in the area (he didn't live in the same street just nearby), and his own criminal record with woman (if anyone was going to randomly kill Dando for no reason it would be someone with a record like his own).

 

Having said that it's right that he wasn't convicted this time, but equally he's still the only suspect, and I suspect there never will be anyone else.

 

 

 

Like I said statistically if you murder someone with no direct link to you, you've actually got quite a good chance of getting away with it. Whether he has, or whether he was wrongly convicted (not just convicted with wrong evidence) we'll never know. Either way I imagine his pay out will mean he never needs to rape anyone again.

[Rob W 0]

she was murdered around mid-day - the last definite sighting of George in the area (not in her street) was 07:30

 

what was the motive? no answer

 

there is evidence that he had no idea who she was

 

lets face it - the coppers drew a blank on the investigation but they had the papers and the Beeb on their backs so they arrested the local nutter

 

They will now try and blacken his character as much as they can (although you have to ask if he shouldn't be having treatment somewhere anyway)

 

He's bloody lucky he wasn't running for a tube train that's all

[Fop 1]

she was murdered around mid-day - the last definite sighting of George in the area (not in her street) was 07:30

 

what was the motive? no answer

 

there is evidence that he had no idea who she was

 

lets face it - the coppers drew a blank on the investigation but they had the papers and the Beeb on their backs so they arrested the local nutter

 

They will now try and blacken his character as much as they can (although you have to ask if he shouldn't be having treatment somewhere anyway)

 

He's bloody lucky he wasn't running for a tube train that's all

 

 

 

He's a good likeness for the photo-fit of someone seen running away at the time (George wasn't a suspect for months after that).

 

The only 100% witness puts him there 4 hours around the attack, although several though it probably was him, but weren't 100% sure.

 

He has been convicted for attempted rape and a string of other lesser crimes against woman and has several rape allegations against his name...... you can hardly "blacken" a character like that can you? (it's also the best/only motive in the case)

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said (rightly) not enough to get a conviction, but more than enough to make him the number 1 and only suspect.

 

So it's the right outcome, but perhaps someone has got away with murder, someone that is hardly the he is now quite bizarrely being painted to be.

[Guest alex]

I just think he's a fucking weirdo. The main reason I think he didn't do it is because I don't think he was capable of planning and getting away with (which he would have had to, given it was only a decidedly dodgy bit of forensic evidence found over a year later that secured the conviction, along with the character evidence). His IQ is in the bottom 5%. I also think he'd probably have cracked under questioning if he had done it. Just my take on it. We'll never know I suspect because I can't see them getting someone else for it now. I agree this doesn't prove his innocence though.

 

 

The thing is they do say statistically if you cleanly murder someone you have no direct tie to you've got a good chance of getting away with it.

 

All he really had to do was catch her at the right time, then get rid of the weapon and possibly clothes really, given that he had a year to do it in, it's not a huge ask to manage.

 

He could have even convinced himself he actually didn't do it after a year.

 

 

 

But in the end it's likely no one will ever know.

Conclusive proof there.

[Fop 1]

Conclusive proof there.

 

Nah it's just that most murders are committed by someone they know.

 

If there's no direct link (which there rarely is) then all you have is forensics and maybe witnesses, if you have no direct witnesses and it's something like a gun murder (with little chance of DNA being left or of the murderer being cover in blood as they might be with a stabbing or other evidence with rape etc.), then the likelihood of a conviction drops away dramatically.

 

 

 

Basically if you were to shoot some random person somewhere without CCTV or direct witnesses and dispose of the weapon and clothing properly, and then never repeat such a thing again the chances are you'd get away with it.

 

It's not even like they always find bodies, they found some of that cannibal killers (in 1998) victim, but to this day most of her body is still missing (and no he didn't/couldn't eat all of it, nor did he have any particularly clever way to dispose of it - the bits found were in bin bags in an alley).

[LeazesMag 0]

she was murdered around mid-day - the last definite sighting of George in the area (not in her street) was 07:30

 

what was the motive? no answer

 

there is evidence that he had no idea who she was

 

lets face it - the coppers drew a blank on the investigation but they had the papers and the Beeb on their backs so they arrested the local nutter

 

They will now try and blacken his character as much as they can (although you have to ask if he shouldn't be having treatment somewhere anyway)

 

He's bloody lucky he wasn't running for a tube train that's all

 

Ketsbaia's comment "He's an oddball and should be in care to protect himself and others " will do for me. I realise that you won't agree with this because he has "rights" but you should consider the "rights" of others to walk the streets in safety. I don't know what you mean by "having treatment" but I'm betting that its some sort of soft soap to the appeasers.

 

How long will it be before he's terrifying another woman, or worse. Its different when its someone else though Rob, I'm alright Jack and all of that bollocks.

Edited August 3, 2008 by LeazesMag

[Guest alex]

In all honesty I didn't know he'd been done for attempted rape. If that's the case it doesn't exactly bother me that he did 8 years for something he possibly didn't do.

[Guest alex]

Conclusive proof there.

 

Nah it's just that most murders are committed by someone they know.

 

If there's no direct link (which there rarely is) then all you have is forensics and maybe witnesses, if you have no direct witnesses and it's something like a gun murder (with little chance of DNA being left or of the murderer being cover in blood as they might be with a stabbing or other evidence with rape etc.), then the likelihood of a conviction drops away dramatically.

 

 

 

Basically if you were to shoot some random person somewhere without CCTV or direct witnesses and dispose of the weapon and clothing properly, and then never repeat such a thing again the chances are you'd get away with it.

 

It's not even like they always find bodies, they found some of that cannibal killers (in 1998) victim, but to this day most of her body is still missing (and no he didn't/couldn't eat all of it, nor did he have any particularly clever way to dispose of it - the bits found were in bin bags in an alley).

I can see the relevance to this case like.

[@yourservice 67]

I read the piece by McVicar in one of the rags other day, he's changed his tune now George is out.

 

 

from http://www.johnmcvicar.com/song.htm

George is no bumbling porker who just happened to execute a woman he did not even know; he is a murderous Animal Farm pig: self-elected, degenerate, demonic… as he can’t be slaughtered, then he should be penned up in a sty for life.

[Fop 1]

In all honesty I didn't know he'd been done for attempted rape. If that's the case it doesn't exactly bother me that he did 8 years for something he possibly didn't do.

 

Yeah quite probably it was best for him and everyone else to be locked up, although he'll get a nice payout for it now, of course.

 

 

I can see the relevance to this case like.

Just that real life isn't CSI and that it is not that hard to fox the police.

[Guest alex]

In all honesty I didn't know he'd been done for attempted rape. If that's the case it doesn't exactly bother me that he did 8 years for something he possibly didn't do.

 

Yeah quite probably it was best for him and everyone else to be locked up, although he'll get a nice payout for it now, of course.

 

 

I can see the relevance to this case like.

Just that real life isn't CSI and that it is not that hard to fox the police.

You took your time in this thread like. Have you been working on your usual lack of self-restraint?

[Fop 1]

In all honesty I didn't know he'd been done for attempted rape. If that's the case it doesn't exactly bother me that he did 8 years for something he possibly didn't do.

 

Yeah quite probably it was best for him and everyone else to be locked up, although he'll get a nice payout for it now, of course.

 

 

I can see the relevance to this case like.

Just that real life isn't CSI and that it is not that hard to fox the police.

You took your time in this thread like. Have you been working on your usual lack of self-restraint?

 

I'm just making sure the false trail doesn't lead back to anywhere it shouldn't.

 

[Park Life 70]

He was innocent.

[@yourservice 67]

He was innocent.

 

[Rob W 0]

well if you think he wasn't write a nice letter to the papers with your accusations and the lawyers will sort it out