Barry George: Innocent

Barry George has been acquitted of the murder of Jill Dando after serving 8 years in prison. The mountains of flimsy circumstantial evidence that the prosecution put forward didn't, in the end, amount to a pile of beans.

But why was he convicted in the first place, if the evidence was so dodgy?

1. Reels of undeveloped film. Only 2 pictures were of Dando, and these were taken from the telly. Did this mean he killed her?

2. A speck of ammunition on his clothes. But this could not be matched to the gun that killed Dando. Moreover, it could have been picked up in a number of innocent ways -- such as walking past someone painting. The gun that killed Dando could not be found.

3. The killer reportedly had long hair. But BG wore his short. He hadn't worn his hair long for a very long time. No wig was found. No wig merchant came forward to say he'd hired one out to BG, despite this being put out on Crimewatch.

My own feeling is that the original guilty verdict was the result of the chronic demonisation of men by the press. This gave the jury -- who are a sample from the impressionable public at large -- the lust for a conviction. (Or, of course, they were simply STUPID.)

This report by Frank Fisher explores the possibility of a Serbian connection behind the killing, involving some people in very high positions.

I would like to add that Frank Fisher is NOT a typical Guardian journalist. For a start, he is not politically correct. He frequently posts on CiF under the name MrPikeBishop and is well-respected by many posters, including myself. He is not afraid to get up feminists' backs or to tell it how it is.

Join into the discussion!