Barry George revisited.

[Nicholas]

I’ve no idea who harryrag is but it seems they are bringing all sorts to the fore by their tweeting

And it appears the CCRC have been given a front row seat 


William Beck Retweeted
Damian Fahy
@fahy_damian
Replying to
@jbcampaignltd
I hope Jeremy Bamber case is referred back to the court of appeal & he wins his appeal & is released from prison he really deserves good news for once in his life he didn't get a fair trial in 1986 & Julie Mugfort should be ashamed of herself karma will come for her
8:26 PM · Oct 21, 2019·Twitter Web App
https://mobile.twitter.com/fahy_damian/status/1186363141929820161

“Empowering alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions with research, education & support
Project Director, Dr Michael Naughton, University of Bristol.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/with_replies

Empowering the Innocent. Project Director, Dr Michael Naughton, University of Bristol
@EmpowerInnocent
Oct 5
1/3 It does come across as harsh & I'm sorry for that. However, I have been working in this area for almost 20 years & have assessed many hundreds of claims of innocence & know that not all (possibly even most in my experience) of those claiming factual innocence are innocent.

Empowering the Innocent
@EmpowerInnocent
2/3 I also know that whilst some factually innocent victims of wrongful conviction & their loved ones may genuinely & legitimately be smashed to pieces by their experiences & not feel they have the strength to fight that the guilty innocent imposters will use this argument too. https://twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1180367316036526080

Empowering the Innocent
@EmpowerInnocent
Oct 5
3/3 It really is a tough one but I can only work with those willing to fight publicly & give it all that they have got like the B6, G4, Mike o' Brien did Paul Blackburn and Eddie Guilfoyle, Sue May, Wullie Beck, Ben Geen, Robin Garbutt, Carl Morgan, to name but a few, are doing
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent

Wullie Beck aka William Beck

[Nicholas]

Empowering the Innocent
@EmpowerInnocent
Oct 16
Absolutely. But just how will such a factual innocence movement for the UK be achieved / realised? What vehicle? Who? When?
Quote Tweet

Mick Geen
@J4BenGeen
 · Oct 15
A joint & coordinated effort is required if the innocence movement wants to be heard & noticed-All Orgs need to forget differences & become one for meetings & protests throughout the year-I Have supported @JENGbA protests in the past-We must all join ranks supporting such events! https://twitter.com/empowerinnocent/status/1181090266691842049…

Mick Geen
@J4BenGeen
Oct 16
Good start would be for key representatives from the innocent orgs and higher profile individual campaigners to meet & agree common & joint objectives-A few key figures would be needed to get the ball rolling-Would take a great deal of  time & effort to get things progressing.

Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
Replying to
@J4BenGeen
 and
@EmpowerInnocent
We should meet up Mick.
6:53 PM · Oct 16, 2019·Twitter for iPad

Mick Geen
@J4BenGeen
Oct 16
Replying to
@Michelle_Diskin
 and
@EmpowerInnocent
Let’s do that Michelle. I will DM you tomorrow morning.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Michelle_Diskin/status/1184527834120949761

Mick Geen father of Ben Geen

“Benjamin Geen is in prison for life. Convicted for two murders and over a dozen cases of grievous bodily harm, the former nurse insists he is innocent and that the evidence against him is entirely coincidental.

“Norman Fenton is a professor of risk management information at Queen Mary London University.

And Ben Geen, he says, might be the victim of what he terms an 'exaggerated coincidence'.

'What you've got is apparently a highly unusual sequence of events happening at this particular hospital.

'If you looked at that individually—what is the probability that this particular nurse would be present at 18 respiratory arrest events at the same hospital within such a short period of time—the probability is incredibly low.'

But Fenton is 'almost certain' that similar patterns would have occurred in a given two-month period in thousands of hospitals across the UK.

'Think of it this way,' Fenton says. 'In most hospitals, the nurses tend to be on duty for at least 50 to 70 per cent of the recorded time.

'For any given nurse to be present at all of those events is still—again—a very, very low probability.

'But what you've got is, let's say, 100 nurses at any given hospital where one of these sequence of events has been observed—again, there is quite a high probability that at least one of them would have been present at all, in this case 18, such events.'

In other words, statistically speaking, Geen won the lottery twice—but it was the wrong kind of lottery.

When Geen's team appealed his conviction on statistical grounds, the court didn't agree with Hutton or Fenton's analyses, arguing that there was no need to statistically validate the opinion evidence of experts.

It's worth noting: neither Hutton nor Fenton were arguing that Geen was innocent, merely making the case for greater statistical rigour.

The court claimed that 'academic statistical opinion, however distinguished, is divorced from the actual facts'.

After all, real people—patients, jurors, healthcare professionals in the high pressure environment of A and E—have to react to a lot more than raw data.

But in the case of Geen, what were they reacting to?
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/benjamin-geen-an-unusual-pattern/7287620


When ‘neutral’ evidence still has probative value (with implications from the Barry George Case)
Norman Fenton a,⁎, Daniel Berger a, David Lagnado b, Martin Neil a, Anne Hsu a
abstract
“The likelihood ratio (LR) is a probabilistic method that has been championed as a ‘simple rule’ for evaluating the probative value of forensic evidence in court. Intuitively, if the LR is greater than one then the evidence supports the prosecution hypothesis; if the LR is less than one it supports the defence hypothesis, and if the LR is equal to one then the evidence favours neither (and so is considered ‘neutral’—having no probative value). It can be shown by Bayes' theorem that this simple relationship only applies to pairs of hypotheses for which one is the negation of the other (i.e. to mutually exclusive and exhaustive hypotheses) and is not applicable otherwise. We show how easy it can be – even for evidence experts – to use pairs of hypotheses that they assume are mutually exclusive and exhaustive but are not, and hence to arrive at erroneous conclusions about the value of evidence using the LR. Furthermore, even when mutually exclusive and exhaustive hypotheses are used there are extreme restrictions as to what can be concluded about the probative value of evidence just from a LR. Most importantly, while the distinction between source-level hypotheses (such as defendant was/was not at the crime scene) and offence-level hypotheses (defendant is/is not guilty) is well known, it is not widely under- stood that a LR for evidence about the former generally has no bearing on the LR of the latter. We show for the first time (using Bayesian networks) the full impact of this problem, and conclude that it is only the LR of the offence level hypotheses that genuinely determines the probative value of the evidence. We investigate common scenarios in which evidence has a LR of one but still has significant probative value (i.e. is not neutral as is commonly assumed). As illustration we consider the ramifications of these points for the case of Barry George. The successful appeal against his conviction for the murder of Jill Dando was based primarily on the argument that the firearm discharge residue (FDR) evidence, assumed to support the prosecution hypothesis at the original trial, actually had a LR equal to one and hence was ‘neutral’. However, our review of the appeal transcript shows numerous examples of the problems with the use of hypotheses identified above. We show that if one were to follow the arguments recorded in the Appeal judgement verbatim, then contrary to the Appeal conclusion, the probative value of the FDR evidence may not have been neutral as was concluded.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lagnado-lab/publications/lagnado/ScienceAndJustice.pdf

[Nicholas]

“Empowering alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions with research, education & support
Project Director, Dr Michael Naughton, University of Bristol.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/with_replies

Wullie Beck aka William Beck

Max Hood
@godwontlikethis
46m
If there were the slightest doubt of guilt, I would be the first to protest. I have studied his case thoroughly and my conclusion, his defence doesn't hold up. The blood on the silencer was Sheila's: how did she put it back in cupboard after her death?
Quote Tweet

William Beck
@WullieBeck
 9h
Replying to @godwontlikethis and @MarkNewbyqsj
There will never be a re-trial after so long has passed.
Bambers blood was not on the silencer but it could have been Boutflours.
I see this having a crucial part to play in overturning his conviction as jury told it could only come from Sheila Caffell.
Judge misdirected jury.

William Beck
@WullieBeck
40m
Why are you repeating the same arguments we heard from Mrs Hall ? (I’ve not argued with William Beck re the Bamber case!)

Max Hood
@godwontlikethis
34m
I know Bamber, he's the typical sociopath. I know equally innocent-looking murderers: it's the brain that is warped; not their appearance. He's nasty, greedy, selfish. Sheila would not have been able to give Neville a beating and shoot him, he would have tackled her in kitchen.

William Beck
@WullieBeck
Replying to
@godwontlikethis
The facts speak for themselves.
I see no credible evidence to base a conviction upon.
Michael O'Brien knows him too and supports him 110 percent.
I would rather listen to him.
6:02 PM · Oct 23, 2019·Twitter for Android
https://mobile.twitter.com/godwontlikethis/status/1187040282036068352

[Nicholas]

6 years on and they still haven’t joined the dots 

Just goes to show “A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes”

William Beck
@WullieBeck
Replying to
@harryrag
 @EmpowerInnocent
 and
@ccrcupdate
His biggest supporter was the woman that went on to marry him she was that convinced of his innocence.
If true that he confessed to her them she must really feel like shit for not only supporting him but marrying him too..
2:34 PM · Oct 22, 2019·Twitter for Android
https://mobile.twitter.com/WullieBeck/status/1186636944643629062?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1186636944643629062&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ftwitter.com%252FWullieBeck%252Fstatus%252F1186636944643629062%26widget%3DTweet



William Beck
@WullieBeck
Oct 22
So have you seen a confirmed signed confession or are you just taking his wifes word for it.
She thought he was that disturbed she could not wait to marry him in prison.
Speaks volumes about her assessment of disturbed individuals.
https://mobile.twitter.com/WullieBeck/status/1186453424122089473

[Nicholas]

Mick Geen father of Ben Geen

“Benjamin Geen is in prison for life. Convicted for two murders and over a dozen cases of grievous bodily harm, the former nurse insists he is innocent and that the evidence against him is entirely coincidental.

“Norman Fenton is a professor of risk management information at Queen Mary London University.

And Ben Geen, he says, might be the victim of what he terms an 'exaggerated coincidence'.

'What you've got is apparently a highly unusual sequence of events happening at this particular hospital.

'If you looked at that individually—what is the probability that this particular nurse would be present at 18 respiratory arrest events at the same hospital within such a short period of time—the probability is incredibly low.'

But Fenton is 'almost certain' that similar patterns would have occurred in a given two-month period in thousands of hospitals across the UK.

'Think of it this way,' Fenton says. 'In most hospitals, the nurses tend to be on duty for at least 50 to 70 per cent of the recorded time.

'For any given nurse to be present at all of those events is still—again—a very, very low probability.

'But what you've got is, let's say, 100 nurses at any given hospital where one of these sequence of events has been observed—again, there is quite a high probability that at least one of them would have been present at all, in this case 18, such events.'

In other words, statistically speaking, Geen won the lottery twice—but it was the wrong kind of lottery.

When Geen's team appealed his conviction on statistical grounds, the court didn't agree with Hutton or Fenton's analyses, arguing that there was no need to statistically validate the opinion evidence of experts.

It's worth noting: neither Hutton nor Fenton were arguing that Geen was innocent, merely making the case for greater statistical rigour.

The court claimed that 'academic statistical opinion, however distinguished, is divorced from the actual facts'.

After all, real people—patients, jurors, healthcare professionals in the high pressure environment of A and E—have to react to a lot more than raw data.

But in the case of Geen, what were they reacting to?
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/benjamin-geen-an-unusual-pattern/7287620


When ‘neutral’ evidence still has probative value (with implications from the Barry George Case)
Norman Fenton a,⁎, Daniel Berger a, David Lagnado b, Martin Neil a, Anne Hsu a
abstract
“The likelihood ratio (LR) is a probabilistic method that has been championed as a ‘simple rule’ for evaluating the probative value of forensic evidence in court. Intuitively, if the LR is greater than one then the evidence supports the prosecution hypothesis; if the LR is less than one it supports the defence hypothesis, and if the LR is equal to one then the evidence favours neither (and so is considered ‘neutral’—having no probative value). It can be shown by Bayes' theorem that this simple relationship only applies to pairs of hypotheses for which one is the negation of the other (i.e. to mutually exclusive and exhaustive hypotheses) and is not applicable otherwise. We show how easy it can be – even for evidence experts – to use pairs of hypotheses that they assume are mutually exclusive and exhaustive but are not, and hence to arrive at erroneous conclusions about the value of evidence using the LR. Furthermore, even when mutually exclusive and exhaustive hypotheses are used there are extreme restrictions as to what can be concluded about the probative value of evidence just from a LR. Most importantly, while the distinction between source-level hypotheses (such as defendant was/was not at the crime scene) and offence-level hypotheses (defendant is/is not guilty) is well known, it is not widely under- stood that a LR for evidence about the former generally has no bearing on the LR of the latter. We show for the first time (using Bayesian networks) the full impact of this problem, and conclude that it is only the LR of the offence level hypotheses that genuinely determines the probative value of the evidence. We investigate common scenarios in which evidence has a LR of one but still has significant probative value (i.e. is not neutral as is commonly assumed). As illustration we consider the ramifications of these points for the case of Barry George. The successful appeal against his conviction for the murder of Jill Dando was based primarily on the argument that the firearm discharge residue (FDR) evidence, assumed to support the prosecution hypothesis at the original trial, actually had a LR equal to one and hence was ‘neutral’. However, our review of the appeal transcript shows numerous examples of the problems with the use of hypotheses identified above. We show that if one were to follow the arguments recorded in the Appeal judgement verbatim, then contrary to the Appeal conclusion, the probative value of the FDR evidence may not have been neutral as was concluded.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lagnado-lab/publications/lagnado/ScienceAndJustice.pdf

Improving public understanding of probability and risk with special emphasis on its application to the law. Why Bayes theorem and Bayesian networks are needed

Confusion over the Likelihood Ratio by Professor Norman Fenton

“The 'Likelihood Ratio' (LR) has been dominating discussions at the third workshop  in our Isaac Newton Institute Cambridge Programme Probability and Statistics in Forensic Science.
There have been many fine talks on the subject - and these talks will be available here for those not fortunate enough to be attending.

We have written before (see links at bottom) about some concerns with the use of the LR. For example, we feel there is often a desire to produce a single LR even when there are multiple different unknown hypotheses and dependent pieces of evidence (in such cases we feel the problem needs to be modelled as a Bayesian network)- see [1]. Based on the extensive discussions this week, I think it is worth recapping on another one of these concerns (namely when hypotheses are non-exhaustive).

To recap: The LR  is a formula/method that is recommended for use by forensic scientists when presenting evidence - such as the fact that DNA collected at a crime scene is found to have a profile that matches the DNA profile of a defendant in a case. In general, the LR can a very good and simple method for communicating the impact of evidence (in this case on the hypothesis that the defendant is the source of the DNA found at the crime scene).

To compute the LR, the forensic expert is forced to consider the probability of finding the evidence under both the prosecution and defence hypotheses. So, if the prosecution hypothesis Hp is "Defendant is the source of the DNA found" and the defence hypothesis Hp is "Defendant is not the source of the DNA found" then we compute both the probability of the evidence given Hp - written P(E | Hp) - and the probability of the evidence given Hd - written P(E | Hd). The LR is simply the ratio of these two likelihoods, i.e. P(E | Hp) divided by P(E | Hd).

Full article here: https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2016/11/confusion-over-likelihood-ratio.html

[Nicholas]

harryrag replied
Empowering the Innocent
@EmpowerInnocent
We investigated his claim of innocence to determine its truthfulness & helped get his case referred back to the CoA. We were told that he confessed & then committed suicide but have never seen any evidence that he murdered Joan Albert. How did he do it? The fibres didn’t match?
Quote Tweet

When 'absence of forensic evidence' is not 'neutral' by Professor Norman Fenton (May 2019)
It is widely accepted that ‘evidence of absence’ (such as an alibi confirming that the defendant was not at the crime scene) is not the same as ‘absence of evidence’ (such as where there is no evidence about whether or not the defendant was at the crime scene). However, for forensic evidence, there is often confusion about these concepts. If DNA found at the crime scene does not match the defendant is that ‘evidence of absence’ or ‘absence of evidence’? It depends, of course, on the circumstances. If there is a high probability that the DNA found must have come from the person who committed the crime then this is clearly ‘evidence of absence’ - the fact that it does not match the defendant is highly probative in favour of the defence. On the other hand if the only DNA found at the crime scene is actually unrelated to the person who committed the crime, then this is clearly ‘absence of evidence’ – the fact that it does not match the defendant is no more probative for the defence than for the prosecution (so the evidence is ‘neutral’). The problem is that lawyers and forensic scientists often wrongly assume that absence ‘evidence of absence’ is ‘neutral’. This report (5 pages) includes a 'proof' (using a simple Bayesian network model) of how the experts get it wrong in a real example.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333056875_When_'absence_of_forensic_evidence'_is_not_'neutral'

[Nicholas]

Empowering the Innocent
@EmpowerInnocent
We investigated his claim of innocence to determine its truthfulness & helped get his case referred back to the CoA. We were told that he confessed & then committed suicide but have never seen any evidence that he murdered Joan Albert. How did he do it? The fibres didn’t match?

“Empowering alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions with research, education & support
Project Director, Dr Michael Naughton, University of Bristol.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/with_replies

The problem facing many within the miscarriage of justice community/wrongful conviction arena is they don’t “naturally” “revise” their “(prior) belief about H“ as their denial wont allow them to face reality.
https://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/probability_puzzles/bayes_evidence.html

[Nicholas]

The problem facing many within the miscarriage of justice community/wrongful conviction arena is they don’t “naturally” “revise” their “(prior) belief about H“ as their denial wont allow them to face reality.
https://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/probability_puzzles/bayes_evidence.html

Nick Ross
“Most miscarriage of justice activists quietly bury embarrassing cases like that of Simon Hall,

https://www.nickross.com/blog/

[Nicholas]

Nick Ross
“Most miscarriage of justice activists quietly bury embarrassing cases like that of Simon Hall,

https://www.nickross.com/blog/

Who killed Jill Dando?
“Some argue that, never mind the layer upon layer of coincidences, Barry George simply could not have carried out a murder because he was too slow-witted. Tests showed he had an IQ of 75. That means low average intellectual capability; or to put it another way, roughly 1:12 of the population has his IQ or lower. It is no more unusual than an IQ of 125. Moreover, his record showed he was perfectly capable of functioning and planning:
https://www.nickross.com/who-killed-jill-dando/

[Nicholas]

Wrong man' convicted of Dando killing, says sister
“In an interview for ITV's Tonight With Trevor McDonald, Mrs Diskin derides the police investigation and pours scorn on the health system for not better protecting George.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-58143/Wrong-man-convicted-Dando-killing-says-sister.html

Michelle Diskin Bates claimed on Jeremy Vine here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005v7y

“The media still get value from alluding to the fact that he might have been guilty" (of killing Jill Dando) “and the reason for that is simply because he didn't get any compensation".

Which imo is a classic example of someone yet again attempting to spread further fake news.

Barry George wasn’t compensated because Mr Justice Irwin said: “There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury, properly directed, could have convicted the claimant of murder.”

[Nicholas]

Michelle Diskin Bates claimed on Jeremy Vine here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005v7y

“The media still get value from alluding to the fact that he might have been guilty" (of killing Jill Dando) “and the reason for that is simply because he didn't get any compensation".

Which imo is a classic example of someone yet again attempting to spread further fake news.

Barry George wasn’t compensated because Mr Justice Irwin said: “There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury, properly directed, could have convicted the claimant of murder.”

Barry George has failed to show he’s “clearly innocent” ergo he’s not a victim of a miscarriage of justice. Hence why his sisters book refers to a “wrongful conviction” and not a miscarriage of justice.

3.2 The meaning of “miscarriage of justice”
As set out above, in order to be eligible for compensation under the statutory scheme, the applicant must have been pardoned or had his conviction quashed on the grounds that “a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice”. The statutory scheme did not originally contain any definition of “miscarriage of justice”; however, this changed in March 2014 when the Government legislated to reverse the effect of a Supreme Court judgment.
new statutory definition
Section 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which came into force on 13 March 2014, has reversed the effect of the judgments in Adams and Ali. It inserted a new subsection 1ZA into section 133 of the 1988 Act. Section 133(1ZA) now provides that there will have been a miscarriage of justice “if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence”.
The new definition applies to the determination of any application for compensation made on or after 13 March 2014, and to applications made before that date but which had not finally been determined by the Secretary of State by that date.
The Ministry of Justice’s impact assessment for the change stated that it was being made to ensure that eligibility to the compensation scheme was limited to applicants who could show that they were clearly innocent. It stated that the intended effect was to lessen the burden on taxpayers and reduce unnecessary and expensive legal challenges to Government decisions to refuse compensation.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02131/SN02131.pdf

[Nicholas]

Freed 'IRA man' loses claim for damages
“Nicholas Mullen, 54, was cleared by the Court of Appeal three years ago because of what it called a "blatant and extremely serious failure to adhere to the rule of law" by those responsible for bringing him to court.
In the High Court yesterday, Lord Justice Simon Brown said Mullen's "conviction had been secured at too high a price, but by no means does it follow that the claimant should also be financially compensated for the loss of his liberty".
The judge, upholding a decision by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, to refuse him compensation, said Mullen was "not entitled to be treated for all the world as if he was entirely innocent".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1385656/Freed-IRA-man-loses-claim-for-damages.html

And Barry George was hardly an innocent man given his previous for stalking women.

[Nicholas]

About the estate’s value according to Will Woodward.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/07/willwoodward

About the Jill Dando Institute according to wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCL_Jill_Dando_Institute

[Nicholas]

Barry George has failed to show he’s “clearly innocent” ergo he’s not a victim of a miscarriage of justice. Hence why his sisters book refers to a “wrongful conviction” and not a miscarriage of justice.

Opinion: “Courts and Controversy – consequences of the Jefferies contempt case” – Brian Cathcart
4 09 2011

The UK press may show more restraint in reporting of high-profile cases if contempt laws are vigorously enforced, says Brian Cathcart.

The next time there is a sensational murder — something on the scale of the Ipswich or Soham cases — you may notice something different about the media coverage. Reporters may show restraint of a kind that is not familiar. In fact, they might actually obey the law.

The Contempt of Court Act of 1981 prohibits all but the most straightforward reporting in a crime case from the moment “proceedings are active”, in other words once someone is arrested. The idea is to ensure that coverage does not interfere with the course of justice, for instance by prejudicing the eventual jury. But for years, when a big, competitive story came along, many editors and reporters in national media simply ignored the Act and continued to publish often grotesque allegations about a suspect after arrest and even sometimes after they were charged. Think Colin Stagg, Barry George, Karen Matthews and others — and Stagg and George were later shown to be innocent
https://inforrm.org/2011/09/04/opinion-courts-and-controversy-consequences-of-the-jeffries-contempt-case-brian-cathcart/


“The conviction of Barry George for the murder of the TV presenter Jill Dando was one of the biggest stories of last year. But did he really do it? On the eve of George's appeal, Brian Cathcart shows how flimsy the evidence against him was https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/a-question-of-identity-183860.html

[Nicholas]

“The conviction of Barry George for the murder of the TV presenter Jill Dando was one of the biggest stories of last year. But did he really do it? On the eve of George's appeal, Brian Cathcart shows how flimsy the evidence against him was https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/a-question-of-identity-183860.html

Also on the eve of Barry George’s appeal James Murray for the Sunday Express (7th Nov 2007) published:

Fears for Jill’s ‘vulnerable’ killer on eve of his appeal
CONTROVERSY: Lawyers have cast doubt on Barry George’s 2001 conviction for murdering Jill Dando
FRIENDS and relatives of Barry George are becoming increasingly concerned for his welfare on the eve of his appeal against his conviction for killing TV presenter Jill Dando.
George, 47, has placed himself on the “ vulnerable prisoner” list at Belmarsh jail in south London.
That follows his transfer from high-security Whitemoor Prison in Cambridgeshire, in preparation for his three-day appeal hearing, which starts tomorrow at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Going on to the “vulnerable” list usually indicates that prisoners have become concerned about their safety or are feeling unwell.
Yesterday George’s sister Michelle Diskin had expected to visit him but was refused entry at Belmarsh on the grounds that he had gone on the list at Commission has cast doubt on a key piece of forensic evidence – a speck of firearms residue found in the pocket of George’s coat a year after Ms Dando was shot dead on her doorstep in Gowan Avenue, Fulham, south-west London, in April 1999.
George’s barrister, William Clegg, QC, will argue that the forensic science service itself has even cast doubt on the value of the evidence.
Police had originally said the speck matched firearms residue found on the hair and clothing of Miss Dando.
Janet Herbert, who was a juror in George’s original trial in 2001, told BBC1’s Panorama last week: “I just felt shocked that on that little evidence anybody could be locked away for the rest of their life.”
The foreman of the jury also told the programme that if the firearms evidence had been presented differently then they would have returned a different verdict. George’s solicitor Jeremy Moore said: “If the appeal is
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/sunday-express-1070/20071104/281724085194449

(Full article doesn’t appear to be available to copy from press reader)