Networked Knowledge - Media Reports

[This edited version of the report has been prepared by Dr Robert N Moles]

UK homepage
Go to: A state of Injustice - table of contents
Go to: Losing Their Grip - The Case of Henry Keogh - table of contents

On 2 Aug 2008 Andrew Alderson and Patrick Sawyer of The Telegraph reported “Jill Dando murder: Feud erupts over verdict”.  

They said supporters of Barry George, who was cleared on Friday of murdering Jill Dando, have become embroiled in a feud with Scotland Yard over fears her killer may never be caught and jailed.

Barry George was found not guilty of murdering TV presenter Jill Dando

William Clegg QC, who represented Mr George, accused the Metropolitan Police of abandoning objectivity and "closing their minds" to other suspects over the murder of the television presenter in London nine years ago. Detectives, however, are livid at the criticism levelled at them. After Mr George's original trial, the investigative team was lauded for the thoroughness of its investigation and officers insist nothing has changed - other than the jury returning a "not guilty" verdict. Mr George, 48, is preparing to re-build his life - either in London or Ireland - as he faces the prospect of becoming a millionaire by suing for compensation and selling his "exclusive" story. He toasted his freedom on Friday evening with a cocktail and a cup of tea with close relatives at a central London hotel just hours after the jury returned a unanimous not guilty verdict at the end of his retrial. He had been jailed for life in 2001 over the murder, but was re-tried after concerns emerged about the safety of the verdict.

Mr Clegg said: "The lesson really is that, in considering a case of this complexity the police and those responsible for the prosecution need to keep an open mind as far as possible as to who might be responsible. "I think they did close their minds after the arrest of Barry George, yes. There was a feeling that he was somebody who filled the likely description of who might be a suspect for such a case. All these cases that attract widespread publicity put huge pressure on the police and the prosecuting authorities to try to find the perpetrator and I sometimes feel that pressure distorts the objectivity that would otherwise be present. [It] seems to be abandoned." A Scotland Yard source said: "An awful lot of work by many dedicated and experienced officers went into presenting this case. It's to be expected that people connected with George are now coming out to attack the police."

Speaking outside the Old Bailey, moments after the jury returned its verdict, Commander Simon Foy, who heads the Met's Homicide Command, defended his team, stating. "We are disappointed by today's verdict, but especially disappointed for Jill's family and friends, however we respect the decision of the court. "The investigation into her murder was complex, thorough and professional with more than 2,500 statements taken and 3,700 exhibits recovered. I would like to thank the members of the public who came forward following the murder to give us information, in particular those who gave evidence in court." Scotland Yard has now ordered a review of the evidence in the case but, while not going as far as to say there were not seeking anyone else in connection with the murder, they are confident detectives explored - and ruled out - all lines of inquiry.

Miss Dando was shot in the head on April 26, 1999, as she arrived at her home in Fulham, west London. Mr George who lived 500 yards from her home was found guilty at his first trial by a jury vote of 10 to one. A year later, the Appeal Court dismissed his appeal. However, in November last year three Appeal Court judges questioned the value of forensic evidence that helped convict Mr George and ordered a retrial. This firearms evidence was not permitted at the re-trial. The jury at the Old Bailey did not hear that Mr George, who had a fixation with the rock band Queen, is a convicted sex offender with a record for attempted rape and indecent assault. He had been arrested for indecent assault on three other occasions. Furthermore, they were not told that, armed with a 12-inch hunting rope, and dressed as "Rambo", he once tried to break into Kensington Palace to see Diana, Princess of Wales.

Mr George is expected to receive up to £1 million in compensation for his eight years in jail. The Government has not yet implemented laws passed four months ago that would have "capped" his claim for damages at £500,000. He is also likely to earn more than £100,000 following a tabloid bidding war for his exclusive story. Some of Mr George's friends expect him to-re-build his life in Ireland, where his sister and other family live. However, Michael Bourke, his uncle, said this was unlikely. "I think he would be like a fish out of water in Ireland. I think he'll stay in London but he won't go back to Fulham. He won't want to go back there after everything that has happened." Mr Bourke said that his nephew was relieved to be free. "At the moment, Barry isn't angry, he's just happy to be out. "I suppose that [anger] could come at a later stage."

Mr Bourke, from County Limerick, said he had feared the worst when the jury came back into the Old Bailey court room on Friday afternoon. “When the jury came back in at 2 o’clock I was very surprised. Their faces were really serious which I thought was a bad sign. We were braced for a guilty verdict. When he [the foreman] said 'not guilty’ it was a hell of a shock,” he said. “I was shaking. I got more of a shock than if he had been found guilty. We were prepared for the worst. We’re absolutely delighted.” Mr Bourke added: “When I saw him first after the verdict he just put his hands in the air. His sister Michelle gave him a big hug and I shook hands with him. When he came out in the open air after getting out of the taxi he took one hell of a deep breath of fresh air. We went out the back door and went off to a hotel in London. “It was pretty anonymous and people didn’t seem to know who we were. I had a cup of tea and Barry had one drink. “He’s not a drinker but he decided to have one. It was some kind of fancy little thing, a cocktail. “His friends were ringing him. I think he was struggling to believe it himself. He was really delighted. He was just smiling and shaking his head. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him as happy.”

Dr Susan Young, the clinical psychologist who helped Mr George throughout the trial, told how she became convinced he was innocent after observing him at close quarters. “He has consistently denied killing Jill Dando. I have had the opportunity to observe him closely on a regular basis and I have seen how he reacts when he becomes very distressed. It just doesn’t fit in with somebody who would be able to maintain a face for such a long time. “With people who are intellectually challenged its likely they will have other difficulties, such as poor memory and poor executive resources. Mr George is just not an efficient, well thought-out person who can do things quickly.” She added that she had helped Mr George cope with the stress of understanding the trial and his own position as the accused. “I was initially introduced to him by the defence as part of the team to assess him. We felt he needed somebody to help support him through the trial as he was having difficulty following it. If he got confused about something or missed a piece of information I would explain that to him,” she said. “I also helped him with anxiety management techniques to help cope with the trial.”

Wherever Mr George lives, some will not relish having him as a neighbour. “Now he will go back to doing exactly what he was doing before he was arrested — stalking and harassing women,” said one acquaintance of Mr George, who asked not to be named. But a neighbour, Beryl Whitman, said she would be “pleased” if Mr George came to live with his 72-year-old mother Margaret in East Acton. “He was always innocent and we would be glad to have him here. We’ve known the family for years. I remember him as a kid.” Lee Curtis, a father of four who lives two doors away, said: “I don’t think it will be a problem if Barry George lives here.”

John McVicar – Analysis: Twists and turns that enabled Barry George to walk free

It appeared to be an unexpected verdict. Barry George told his solicitor “I can’t believe it” and said to his stress-counsellor, Dr Susan Young, who sat beside him in the dock throughout the trial, that he believed he would be convicted. Mr George’s uncle, Michael Bourke, expected the worst. I spoke to Michael immediately after the verdict. He said: “We thought it was going to be guilty and when we saw the jury’s faces, not one of them showing they were for him, we just…” He hunched his shoulders to illustrate how they flinched. When the “not guilty” came, Michelle Diskin, Mr George’s sister, was the only one of the three to show any emotion – she slammed the bench that was actually right behind where I was sitting and shouted an exultant, but still surprised, “Yes”.

Meanwhile, Mr George stood there in a daze as the jury filed out. He was a free man and could have walked out of the dock but he stood there waiting. When the jury had left and the press were in pandemonium mode, the judge noticed him and said, almost as an afterthought, “You are free to go now.” Mr George went down to the cells with Dr Young. Predictably, there was a lot of talk afterwards from the supporters of Mr George about his innocence and how the police should now look for the real killer. Whether they have any other leads after all these years remains to be seen. It is not likely they will re-open their investigation.

In our system where the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the defence can put the Crown to proof. This is what William Clegg QC, Mr George’s counsel, did: he tested the Crown’s case but did not put forward any alternative. Mr Clegg said to the Crown: prove your case – the jury decided that the Crown failed that test. The possibility of delivering a “not proven” verdict is not an option in England and Wales. Mr George was found “not guilty” and is therefore entitled to walk free as an innocent man.

However, it is important to note that the jury’s verdict in a case such as this may have been equivalent to a “not proven” one. The verdict is essentially one of not meeting the “beyond reasonable doubt” burden of proof. Indeed, this is borne out by the judge’s directions and the three questions the jury asked for direction on before acquitting Mr George. The Crown’s case was, in the words of junior counsel Peter Ratliff, “subtle, but compelling”. It was predicated on identification and the judge directed the jury that only after they were sure of the identification evidence could they look to the other evidence to support it.

Two witnesses saw the killer leave the scene of the crime but neither identified him as Mr George. Their descriptions of the killer loosely fitted Mr George, so they did not completely exclude him. The only witnesses who did identify Mr George were those who saw him hanging around near Jill Dando’s home some hours before she was murdered. Thus, the Crown’s task was to conflate the identifications of the pre-kill witnesses with the descriptions of the two scene-of-the-crime witnesses. The Crown did not rely on a Tommy Cooper “just like that” wave of the hand to do this but established a backdrop to the killing.

First, it claimed Miss Dando was not murdered by a Serbian hitman, an ex-boyfriend, a vengeful criminal convicted by her Crimewatch work, an obsessive and jealous fan, a thief, a crazed junkie. She was murdered by a man with an irrational motive that would appear senseless to anyone normal. A fantasist — they said Mr George was a “fantasist”, a believer in crackpot theories.

Second, they suggested the killer was a loner, not a professional killer or criminal but with knowledge of pistols, and had access to amateurish kinds of weapons (converted blank-firers, or reactivated deactivated guns). This, they said, fitted Mr George.

Third, the Crown’s case was that the killer would have had to have some experience in following and observing women without their being aware. They said Mr George’s hobby was to track, stalk and sometimes attack women in the Fulham area and there was a mass of evidence.

Fourth, as Miss Dando was not followed when driving to her home that morning (conclusively shown by the CCTV from numerous vantage points) and as her visits to her home were unpredictable (she was living at her fiancé’s house) the killer would have had to hang around her home in Gowan Avenue.

The jury appeared to accept from their questions after retirement that Mr George was in Gowan Avenue the Monday morning that she was killed. There were four witnesses who identified Mr George as being in Gowan Avenue that morning. The first, Susan Mayes, was rock solid on identifying him at being opposite Miss Dando’s house at 7am. The jury was directed by the judge to look at her evidence first and only if they believed it to move on to the other witnesses. The jury came out on their second day of retirement and asked to see the video of her identification of Mr George and to listen to the evidence she gave in the witness box. They went back to their deliberations and came out, three hours later, and asked the judge to go through the evidence of the descriptions given by the two scene-of-the-crime witnesses.

As their directions were that they must acquit if they were not sure about Miss Mayes identifying Mr George, this must have meant they had agreed he was in Gowan Avenue that morning. They then came out at noon on Friday with a question about the other three witnesses who made “partial identifications” of Mr George. The judge directed that they could use video evidence of the partial identifications as support for Susan Mayes’s identification but they could “not convert two or more partial identifications into a positive identification”. An hour later they reached their verdict. Crown counsel Jonathon Laidlaw’s last comment in his closing speech was “We suggest that this is no coincidence.” If they did think about the coincidences, the jury clearly did not think they defied common sense.

On the other hand, they may not have seen the subtlety of the Crown’s case. Who knows, except them? But it doesn’t matter, the die is cast and cannot be un-cast.

Top of Page