Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Head Honcho

Barry George

By Head Honcho, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Raj

Raj

Posted
Posted
Always had my doubts about his original conviction!

He may be a bit of a nutter but just goes to show we can all be fitted up.

Never trust people who's surname can also be the first name!!!! :unsure:

Katy

Katy

Posted
Posted

This guy has one of the lowest percentages of IQ in the Country, 5% I believe they said on Radio 5. He should sue the arse off the met for this.

SOCCERROO FOX

SOCCERROO FOX

Posted
Posted
This guy has one of the lowest percentages of IQ in the Country, 5% I believe they said on Radio 5. He should sue the arse off the met for this.

The top 5 % is sevry member on here..............roo fox and i love you all :wub:

Bryn

Bryn

Posted
Posted

I was a bit young when this originally happened - can someone give me a brief gist of how on earth he was wrong convicted in the first place?

Head Honcho

Head Honcho

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I was a bit young when this originally happened - can someone give me a brief gist of how on earth he was wrong convicted in the first place?

From Wiki

In summary, the reasoning of the Court was that at the trial the prosecution had relied primarily on four categories of evidence:

1-witnesses who had seen a man who looked like George near the scene of the murder when it occurred and one witness who had identified him as being there four hours earlier;

2-repeated lies told by George in interview;

3-an alleged attempt to create a false alibi;

4-the single particle of firearm discharge residue (FDR) found, about a year after the murder, in George's overcoat.

Katy

Katy

Posted
Posted
I was a bit young when this originally happened - can someone give me a brief gist of how on earth he was wrong convicted in the first place?

Basically popular crimewatch presenter Jill Dando was gunned down outside her home in an execution style shooting, point blank range I believe. Barry George lived not far from her and had stalked celebrities before and had photos he'd taken of them in his home. The police 'decided' it would be easier to blame the 'village idiot' (radio 5's words not mine) and he was convicted. In this latest appeal his defence team stated that, even though he had these pictures and had stalked celebs before, it did not mean he was capable of murdering anyone. They claimed he didn't have the intellengence to plan a murder such as this. Also, in his home there wasn't any evidence of him being obsessed with Jill Dando, i.e photos etc like there was with other famous women

Hope that helps

Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted
This guy has one of the lowest percentages of IQ in the Country, 5% I believe they said on Radio 5. He should sue the arse off the met for this.
Always had my doubts about his original conviction!

He may be a bit of a nutter but just goes to show we can all be fitted up.

Just because the evidence was made "unsafe" on grounds it could have been picked up anywhere, doesn't mean he was stitched up. Lets not forget he was picked out of an identity parade by a neighbour who saw him staring at Dandos house and pretending to "clean a car windscreen".

He will go on record as not guilty and will get a nice payout... But it's my opinion that his profile matches that of someone who would commit the crime, add that to the fact he was seen there it wouldn't shock me if he did do it.

Bryn

Bryn

Posted
Posted
From Wiki

In summary, the reasoning of the Court was that at the trial the prosecution had relied primarily on four categories of evidence:

1-witnesses who had seen a man who looked like George near the scene of the murder when it occurred and one witness who had identified him as being there four hours earlier;

2-repeated lies told by George in interview;

3-an alleged attempt to create a false alibi;

4-the single particle of firearm discharge residue (FDR) found, about a year after the murder, in George's overcoat.

Basically popular crimewatch presenter Jill Dando was gunned down outside her home in an execution style shooting, point blank range I believe. Barry George lived not far from her and had stalked celebrities before and had photos he'd taken of them in his home. The police 'decided' it would be easier to blame the 'village idiot' (radio 5's words not mine) and he was convicted. In this latest appeal his defence team stated that, even though he had these pictures and had stalked celebs before, it did not mean he was capable of murdering anyone. They claimed he didn't have the intellengence to plan a murder such as this. Also, in his home there wasn't any evidence of him being obsessed with Jill Dando, i.e photos etc like there was with other famous women

Hope that helps

Thanks, both of you. :) Does sound pretty iffy :S The question they were asking on the news is definitely begged then - if it wasn't him, who on earth was it? I'm guessing the police didn't want to face that question.

Daggers

Daggers

Posted
Posted
This guy has one of the lowest percentages of IQ in the Country, 5% I believe they said on Radio 5. He should be a City fan.

Harsh.

But fair.

But still a bit harsh.

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
Can you sue them over wronful imprisionment like they do over here.

You get compensation.

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
How is it worked out?. Because people over here get millions.

Could be wrong, but it's worked out to so much a day, if I remember rightly. But I could be wrong.

Head Honcho

Head Honcho

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just because the evidence was made "unsafe" on grounds it could have been picked up anywhere, doesn't mean he was stitched up. Lets not forget he was picked out of an identity parade by a neighbour who saw him staring at Dandos house and pretending to "clean a car windscreen".

He will go on record as not guilty and will get a nice payout... But it's my opinion that his profile matches that of someone who would commit the crime, add that to the fact he was seen there it wouldn't shock me if he did do it.

I wasn't suggesting he was deliberately fitted up, but as you say his profile was as close a match as they were gonna get and he was therefore targeted and eventually prosecuted on very flimsy evidence.

I very much doubt the case would have come to trail had the victim been unknown.

Head Honcho

Head Honcho

Posted
  • Author
Posted
How is it worked out?. Because people over here get millions.

£500000 is the maximum he can claim and from that believe it or not he has to pay board and lodgings for the time he spent banged up!

purpleronnie

purpleronnie

Posted
Posted
£500000 is the maximum he can claim and from that believe it or not he has to pay board and lodgings for the time he spent banged up!

Unbelievable.

Ultra

Ultra

Posted
Posted
Always had my doubts about his original conviction!

He may be a bit of a nutter but just goes to show we can all be fitted up.

Indeed.

Where are the pro-death penalty brigade on this thread?

Daggers

Daggers

Posted
Posted
Indeed.

Where are the pro-death penalty brigade on this thread?

Sitting around believing that there's no smoke without fire, that he looked like the kind of bloke who'd have done it and believing that the police never arrest innocent people.

(They shoot the innocent ones)

The Reverend

The Reverend

Posted
Posted
Indeed.

Where are the pro-death penalty brigade on this thread?

An interesting question indeed.

It's staggering to me that something like this could happen nowadays. Someone convicted on such crummy evidence like that.

I suppose they have to be seen getting someone though, in a high profile case such as this. But they look like massive twats when something like this happens.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...