How Credible Is The Theory Involving The IRA?

[Angelo222]

The letter from Aird was apparently found by BG's second defence team and no evidence police investigated and/or passed to counter-terrorism/MI5 which does make you wonder why not?!

Was this down to police believing they had their man in Barry George or something more sinister?

The police don't like having to admit they messed up so we're quite happy to let George rot in jail.

[Angelo222]

You have no idea what the police did or didn’t investigate after the trial!

They were no longer required to disclose evidential material to the defence.

As per usual you are clutching at straws.

Apologies for pointing this out but it was the police who were clutching at straws.

[Angelo222]

IMO Barry George murdered Jill Dando. His conviction was overturned on a technicality.

I notice the fact he’s still being monitored by MAPPA has been ignored or swept under the carpet.

You are entitled to your opinion but after two trials, two appeals and eight years in jail, Barry George was cleared of the murder of the BBC television presenter Jill Dando so please don't make accusations without evidence to back them up.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/01/jilldando.ukcrime1

[Nicholas]

after two trials, two appeals and eight years in jail, Barry George was cleared of the murder of the BBC television presenter Jill Dando

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/01/jilldando.ukcrime1

Yes amazing isn’t it. If he were tried today I don’t believe he’d get away with it.

[Holly Goodhead]

Yes amazing isn’t it. If he were tried today I don’t believe he’d get away with it.

What new evidence has surfaced since his 2008 trial where the verdict was a unanimous 'Not Guilty'?

[Nicholas]

What new evidence has surfaced since his 2008 trial where the verdict was a unanimous 'Not Guilty'?

For starters

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg491990#msg491990

"Justice is best served when the evidence and hypotheses under consideration are accessible and clear to all parties and are unambiguously defined. In particular, this is the only way to assign correct meanings to the likelihoods provided by expert witnesses. Furthermore, because the probative value of a piece of evidence on source-level hypotheses may be very different from its probative value on offence-level hypotheses, the relationships between source-level and offence-level hypotheses must be made clear. We have demonstrated that an efficient way to achieve such clarity will require the construction of causal models through the aid of tools such as Bayesian networks. This approach helps to improve legal reasoning and by doing so demonstrates how hypotheses can be clarified, related and made precise enough for reliable quantification. Central to this approach is the distinction between hypotheses that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive and those that are not.
We contend that, in order to determine whether evidence has probative value – and therefore whether it should be excluded from proceedings or not – it should be evaluated against offence-level hypotheses. Any diversion from this key principle will carry the risk that evidence might be presented to the jury merely as a diversionary tactic, and persuade it to make decisions based on superfluous source- level hypotheses.
We have demonstrated serious concerns about the Barry George Appeal Court judgement. The case document suffered from oversimpli- fication: what appeared as a superficially simple set of hypotheses were actually a set of ill-defined, but related, assumptions and vaguely defined hypotheses

Under these circumstances the ‘simple LR rule’ inadequately captured the probative value of the evidence. We have shown that evidence with a LR equal to the one in this case was not necessarily ‘neutral’.
The errors we highlight are taken from a judgement document, and although this may not always have accurately recorded what was said in court, the fact that it contains so much erroneous reasoning is cause for concern. Clearly, if a case judgement can be wrought with so many failings, similar problems are likely to occur in courtroom judgments too. Additionally, it is a concern that the careful and rigorous presentations of statistical evidence made by conscientious expert witnesses can become distorted in a case judgement.
https://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/S1355-0306(13)00059-2/fulltext?code=scijus-site

[Holly Goodhead]

As far as I'm concerned the theory involving the so-called Real IRA (RIRA) is most compelling:

- I believe RIRA were paid to murder Jill over her relationship/engagement/forthcoming marriage/plans to start a family with Alan Farthing ie a jealous ex of AF's who had available funds and contacts with Irish republicans at the extreme end.

- RIRA are thought responsible for Omagh bomb, Aug '98, based on cell phone analysis.  Police were unable to pick up any mobile tel communication around the time Jill was murdered as by this time RIRA had the forensic awareness and switched to pagers or walkie talkies.

- RIRA would have the ballistics capability to procure firearm/ammo and modify ammo to reduce velocity which in turn would reduce sound of firearm discharge and back spatter.

- As Jill was no longer living at Gowan Ave, visitng infrequently on random days/times in the main to pick up items stored there, this suggests the perps had Jill under covert electronic surveillance by way of car tracking and/or bugs installed at AF's home and/or mobiles all of which would be routine to RIRA.

- Witness descriptions of perp vary but all describe a well dressed man who many assume to be an estate agent.  A perfect rue imo where 2 look outs were deployed either end of Gowan Ave whilst the assassin murdered Jill.  This accounts for the difference descriptions.

- The e-fit did not produce any tangible results.  Recognition of RIRA members on mainland would be minimal. 

- Police intelligence was non-existent which can be explained by RIRA being responsible.

- A Wayne Aird confessed to being a member of the IRA and part of a 4 man squad who murdered Jill.  His solicitor said in his opinion Aird's confession was credible. 

- At the time of Aird's confession he was serving a life sentence for murdering Timothy Pincott a Big Issue seller who had amassed some 50k in savings from supposedly selling the Big Issue.  A spokesperson for BI thought it extraordinary.  If it sounds too good to be true it probably is!  Were the pair involved in laundering money from the proceeds of crime and/or aiding terrorists?

- Shortly after Jill was murdered a man with what appears to have been an east European accent phoned BBC offices in London and Belfast claiming responsibility.  Was this someone from the Balkans who was working with RIRA making hoax calls to deflect blame? 

- The month after Jill was murdered RIRA successfully smuggled a catchment of weapons from Croatia:

In 1999 the RIRA began preparations for a renewed campaign, and in May three members travelled to Split in Croatia to purchase arms, which were smuggled back to Ireland.

Where did the funds come from?  Murder money?

- Afaik all Irish paramilitiary groups have publicly stated violence will only be used against what it considers legitimate targets: army personnel, police officers, politicians etc.  On this basis it is hard to see how Jill could be considered a legitimate target other than she was the face of the BBC and supported police officers on Crimewatch.  If the murder was a paid 'hit' RIRA no doubt justified the tenuous link to BBC and police by funds generated to purchase arms for the 'cause'.

- The date of Jill's murder coincides with a significant date in the Irish paramilitary calendar: the 1916 Easter Rising.  Symbolic attacks are often carried out during the anniversary period eg bombing of Hammersmith bridge in 1996. 

It also occurred on the anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Hammersmith_Bridge_bombing

[Holly Goodhead]

For starters

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg491990#msg491990

"Justice is best served when the evidence and hypotheses under consideration are accessible and clear to all parties and are unambiguously defined. In particular, this is the only way to assign correct meanings to the likelihoods provided by expert witnesses. Furthermore, because the probative value of a piece of evidence on source-level hypotheses may be very different from its probative value on offence-level hypotheses, the relationships between source-level and offence-level hypotheses must be made clear. We have demonstrated that an efficient way to achieve such clarity will require the construction of causal models through the aid of tools such as Bayesian networks. This approach helps to improve legal reasoning and by doing so demonstrates how hypotheses can be clarified, related and made precise enough for reliable quantification. Central to this approach is the distinction between hypotheses that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive and those that are not.
We contend that, in order to determine whether evidence has probative value – and therefore whether it should be excluded from proceedings or not – it should be evaluated against offence-level hypotheses. Any diversion from this key principle will carry the risk that evidence might be presented to the jury merely as a diversionary tactic, and persuade it to make decisions based on superfluous source- level hypotheses.
We have demonstrated serious concerns about the Barry George Appeal Court judgement. The case document suffered from oversimpli- fication: what appeared as a superficially simple set of hypotheses were actually a set of ill-defined, but related, assumptions and vaguely defined hypotheses

Under these circumstances the ‘simple LR rule’ inadequately captured the probative value of the evidence. We have shown that evidence with a LR equal to the one in this case was not necessarily ‘neutral’.
The errors we highlight are taken from a judgement document, and although this may not always have accurately recorded what was said in court, the fact that it contains so much erroneous reasoning is cause for concern. Clearly, if a case judgement can be wrought with so many failings, similar problems are likely to occur in courtroom judgments too. Additionally, it is a concern that the careful and rigorous presentations of statistical evidence made by conscientious expert witnesses can become distorted in a case judgement.
https://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/S1355-0306(13)00059-2/fulltext?code=scijus-site

How does the above support your belief BG is responsible?

[Nicholas]

- The e-fit did not produce any tangible results. 

As per usual Holly you are attempting to rewrite history.

Only you know why you are choosing to ignore the factual evidence in this case.

[Nicholas]

Have already pointed this out:

Barry George made it known he was afraid he would be recognised in an e-fit as Ms Dando’s killer before police had even released the e-fit

[Nicholas]

this suggests the perps had Jill under covert electronic surveillance by way of car tracking and/or bugs installed at AF's home and/or mobiles

 

[Holly Goodhead]

As per usual Holly you are attempting to rewrite history.

Only you know why you are choosing to ignore the factual evidence in this case.

Where's the evidence anyone ever put forward anyone resembling the e-fit?

BG was well know in the locality.  If locals thought he resembled the e-fit then surely the police would be swamped with calls?

[Holly Goodhead]

Have already pointed this out:

Barry George made it known he was afraid he would be recognised in an e-fit as Ms Dando’s killer before police had even released the e-fit

What evidence do you have for the above?

Barry George does appear to have been somewhat paranoid and this can possibly be explained by the fact he was often identified by police as a potential suspect and questioned eg the murder of Rachel Nickell.

The likes of BG with his mental and physical disabilities and somewhat chaotic lifestyle would be a sitting duck for frustrated police officers ie frustrated in the sense of struggling to resolve cases.

[Holly Goodhead]

What explanation do you have for the fact Jill was shot on her doorstep having just arrived at a property she owned but no longer lived at and visited very infrequently?  How would anyone not acquainted with her know she was going to turn up when she did? 

Others murdered at home addresses eg John Lennon were actually living there at the time. 

[Nicholas]

Barry George does appear to have been somewhat paranoid and this can possibly be explained by the fact he was often identified by police as a potential suspect and questioned eg the murder of Rachel Nickell.

It isn’t a fact he was often questioned by police - your beliefs are born out of fiction peddled by others.

You have given one example. Why?