August 1, 200816 yr This case always was the biggest miscarriage of justice in modern British history. After the debacles of the exposed framing of numerous Irish sympathisers in the 1970s this case would never have happened until the death of Princess Diana. As the evidence that the CPS had against him was flimsy to say the least. But post the death of Princess Diana, the public & media became an hysterical illogical gossiping banshee which led to a witch hunt pack mentality regarding this case. Remember Newspapers campaigns against alleged Paedophiles; killer dogs; etc as examples. When the police case failed to find any leads to have enough evidence to the Crimewatch presenter they quite simply framed the local care in the community mentally ill fantasist because the PUBLIC wanted a scapegoat and Barry George fitted the bill. I just hope the Right-Wing readers of the Scum & the Daily Racist get it into their ignorant skulls that Britain bringing back the Death sentence is a terrible terrible idea.
August 1, 200816 yr Author There is still a possibility that he did it though. Lots of co-incidences in the circumstantial evidence.
August 1, 200816 yr George was clearly a weirdo and a bit wrong in the head but I never believed in the idea that he did it Whoever did this was a professional it bore all the hallmarks of a professional hit meticulously carried out and certainly not the work of a local oddball
August 2, 200816 yr i dont know much about this case, has he been 'let off' because the evidence was flawed? (in which case he could have done it, but the evidence wasnt conclusive) or has he been found 'innocent'?... meaning he conclusively didnt do it?
August 2, 200816 yr This case always was the biggest miscarriage of justice in modern British history. If only that where true. It was a miscarriage but is not the biggest by any means. i dont know much about this case, has he been 'let off' because the evidence was flawed? (in which case he could have done it, but the evidence wasnt conclusive) or has he been found 'innocent'?... meaning he conclusively didnt do it? He was let off I believe. He could of done it although it has been said it was unlikely as he was mental unstable and unable to do simple tasks like 'plan ahead' something that he would of done if he had carried out the murder. The police however used a single particle of gunshot residue as main evidence and it has been strongly suggested it was planted in order to stand a chance of getting a conviction. Many years ago some of the originally jury admitted they got it wrong. The case should of been overturned many years ago really in the 2002 appeal. So it's a lots of bungled errors happening not just the original conviction. Anyone who still believes in minor evidence like particles and DNA should take responsabilty and hold up there hands and admit it's a flawed system leading only to false convictions like this case.
August 2, 200816 yr This case always was the biggest miscarriage of justice in modern British history. After the debacles of the exposed framing of numerous Irish sympathisers in the 1970s this case would never have happened until the death of Princess Diana. As the evidence that the CPS had against him was flimsy to say the least. But post the death of Princess Diana, the public & media became an hysterical illogical gossiping banshee which led to a witch hunt pack mentality regarding this case. Remember Newspapers campaigns against alleged Paedophiles; killer dogs; etc as examples. When the police case failed to find any leads to have enough evidence to the Crimewatch presenter they quite simply framed the local care in the community mentally ill fantasist because the PUBLIC wanted a scapegoat and Barry George fitted the bill. I just hope the Right-Wing readers of the Scum & the Daily Racist get it into their ignorant skulls that Britain bringing back the Death sentence is a terrible terrible idea. The FULL TRUTH Richard.. This case was a joke from beginning to end, Barry George was tried and convicted in the court of the MEEEEEDJAAAAHHHHH long before the case was ever brought to trial... Yeah, the guy was a bit of a weirdo, but you could say the same thing about Colin Stagg as well (someone else the Filth and the Media stitched up...), of course the judge in the Stagg case was smart enough to see through the Police "evidence" for what it was.... The facts are only ONE witness saw George in the area, FOUR HOURS before the crime, the gunshot residue evidence was PROVEN to be totally innaccurate and could've transferred had a person been standing in any area where a gun had been fired.. (I mean, come on only one TINY particle of GSR in the bloke's coat pocket.... :lol: :lol: WTF??? I think we've all seen enough episodes of CSI or other cop shows to know that if someone fired a gun there would be gunshot residue ALL OVER THEIR HANDS....). Apart from anything else, the bloke has one of the lowest IQs on record as well as serious learning difficulties, meaning that pre-meditation, planning and covering his tracks would be absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for someone with his diminished mental capacity... Frankly, it's more credible that a Serbian Hit Squad murdered Jill Dando than Barry George (and I do believe that was one of the possible theories being touted at the time of Jill Dando's murder)... The bloke should've been released in 2002 when all the very obvious cracks in the Prosecution case became more and more apparent... SHAME! SHAME! SHAME on the Home Secretary for allowing this man's wholly FALSE and UNJUST incarceration to continue for six more years..... Nah, this bloke was convicted purely because he was the "local weirdo", which isn't even HIS FUKKIN' FAULT, he has obvious psychological issues.... <_< <_< The bloke needs proper care, not locking up in prison FFS..... What a bloody wonderful society we live in where we seem to think it acceptable for people like this to fall through the cracks and not get the medical attention they obviously need..... "Care In The Community" eh...? Who the fukk came up with that one...? Oh, I do believe it was THATCHER....... :rolleyes:
August 2, 200816 yr Anyone who still believes in minor evidence like particles and DNA should take responsabilty and hold up there hands and admit it's a flawed system leading only to false convictions like this case. but it isnt... the science is not wrong, its the administration of the science that was wrong here. clearly he shouldnt have been conviced on 1 bit of gunshot residue, that is what was wrong, because no one knows how it got there. BUT , if there was copious amounts of residue on him and it was proven that he couldnt have been contaminated any other way... bingo. its the very same with rape cases, if seamen taken from the victim it can prove 100% who had sex with whom. anyway im off to spain so will not be arguing this :)
August 2, 200816 yr Author He'll have to go abroad to live in my opinion. We were behind two women talking in Asda today and both were saying "he's as guilty as sin" A lot of people in the country will think the same, that he did it. Edited August 2, 200816 yr by Crazy Chris
August 2, 200816 yr He'll have to go abroad to live in my opinion. We were behind two women talking in Asda today and both were saying "he's as guilty as sin" A lot of people in the country will think the same, that he did it. No doubt they are Sun or Daily Mail readers with single digit IQ's :rolleyes: The same assorted f***wits that firebomber paediatrician surgery's a few years back
August 2, 200816 yr Author Regarding the gunshot speck. I have read books on this case by the way. After all how many men have gunshot residue in their coat pocket? Doubt if I have! His low IQ and apparent inability to plan or do things right "send him for 3 items to a shop and he'd bring 2 back wrong" doesn't mean he COULDN'T have done it. Also would gunshot residue on his hands show up a year later? Edited August 3, 200816 yr by Crazy Chris
August 2, 200816 yr Author No doubt they are Sun or Daily Mail readers with single digit IQ's :rolleyes: The same assorted f***wits that firebomber paediatrician surgery's a few years back There's still a chance that he did do it though. Don't you think? Edited August 2, 200816 yr by Crazy Chris
August 2, 200816 yr Tthere's still a chance that he did do it though. Don't you think? Nah He simply wasn't smart enough Whoever did this was cold, calculating, planned it to precision and knew the exact point of which to apply the pistol to cause maximum damage, it was the work of a professional, she was shot just behind the ear, whoever did it knew what they were doing and 99% certainly had killed before If it was a mentally inbalanced nutjob with a low IQ who had an obsession with Dando he would have emptied several bullets in her in a psychotic attack, this was the work of a pro
August 2, 200816 yr Author Agreed I don't think he did it. Was just saying there is a possibility albeit small that he did. I once read that a professional paid assassin and also the SAS always use 2 shots to the head to make death certain. Not sure how true that is though.
August 3, 200816 yr Regarding the gunshot speck. I have read books on this case by the way. Admittedly it MAY have come from cross-contamination. After all how many men have gunshot residue in their coat pocket? Doubt if I have! His low IQ and apparent inability to plan or do things right "send him for 3 items to a shop and he'd bring 2 back wrong" doesn't mean he COULDN'T have done it. Also would gunshot residue on his hands show up a year later? It was proven that the police handled forensic evidence in this case WITHOUT due care and attention.... And here are the forensic FACTS about GSR evidence..... Gunshot residue CAN and often IS transferred to secondary sources... If a person walks through an area where a gun has been fired, he or she can easily pick up the odd speck or two of GSR which is still "in the wind"... It can also be transferred through clothing, or if a person shakes the hand of a person who has fired a gun... This is why in the States GSR evidence is treated with a very great degree of caution.. You need a damn sight more than GSR evidence to convict a person of a crime.. The police had extremely flawed forensic evidence and a load of circumstantial stuff... In short, they had NO case..... No way in hell if this had been Jill Dando, checkout girl at Tesco, that Barry George would've been convicted..... He was convicted by the Media....
August 3, 200816 yr Agreed I don't think he did it. Was just saying there is a possibility albeit small that he did. I once read that a professional paid assassin Well, there was a theory about it being a Serbian Hit Squad... Which to be honest, given the nature of the crime and the pretty damned efficient way it was carried out ('double tap' to the head, a professional method of assassination..), makes that a more credible theory than saying a person of extremely low IQ with learning difficulties could possibly have done it.... But of course, lazy fukkin' "police work" won the day, and it was a case of "hey, let's pick up the local weirdo and pin it on him", like that's never happened before..... <_< Not a lot has changed really has it....? It's Jill Dando's family I feel sorry for (as well as Mr George obviously), they've gone through the bloody ringer and now because of incompetent policing and an unwillingness of the courts to actually SEE common fukkin' sense, the trail's gone completely cold and the real culprit(s) will probably NEVER be caught.....
August 5, 200816 yr but it isnt... the science is not wrong, its the administration of the science that was wrong here. clearly he shouldnt have been conviced on 1 bit of gunshot residue, that is what was wrong, because no one knows how it got there. BUT , if there was copious amounts of residue on him and it was proven that he couldnt have been contaminated any other way... bingo. its the very same with rape cases, if seamen taken from the victim it can prove 100% who had sex with whom. anyway im off to spain so will not be arguing this :) As I see it, the science is wrongly conveyed in the media and the administration are wrong. Let's consider as you say only the administation is wrong. Now with wrong administation is that reason to false convict someone? Logic says it isn't. Logic tells you that it's not hard evidence. It's not hard evidence, it's soft easy to fabricate evidence, that has very little use to a trial.
August 7, 200816 yr As I see it, the science is wrongly conveyed in the media and the administration are wrong. The science is certainly inconclusive.... All at GSR residue test can actually tell you is that someone fired a gun or has been in contact with someone who fired a gun... And that's the best case scenario where residue is found on the suspect's hands... In Barry George's case with it being a minute particle, it is clearly secondary transfer from another source... The police deny that any armed officers were sent to Mr George's flat (which is almost certainly how the secondary transfer is likely to have occured), Mr George himself says he has photographic evidence that there were armed officers in his flat, frankly, I know who I believe, the Police have lied, lied and lied again to cover their arses in cases of miscarriages of justice.... <_< And, surely "administration" is the whole reason for objecting to things like National DNA or ID databases in the first fukkin' place.... Personally, I just DO NOT TRUST the authorities to properly manage such a thing, after all look at the utter balls up they make of patient records, the HMRC scandal and the fact that there are thousands of people out there who have criminal/prison records when they've actually never been to prison in their lives and only find out about it when they apply for certain jobs and get denied these jobs because of "lack of disclosure"....
August 10, 200816 yr As I see it, the science is wrongly conveyed in the media and the administration are wrong. Let's consider as you say only the administation is wrong. Now with wrong administation is that reason to false convict someone? Logic says it isn't. Logic tells you that it's not hard evidence. It's not hard evidence, it's soft easy to fabricate evidence, that has very little use to a trial. taking this argument to its logical conclusion... then ALL evidence could be fabricated, or tampered with... therefore no one can ever be convicted! you have to use common sense here, there has to be an acceptance level with ALL evidence. to ignore dna or forensics would be stupid as dispite there possible flaws, its still the most useful tool in capturing criminals and securing convictions.
Create an account or sign in to comment