The Mammoth Book of Celebrity Murders (54 page)

George did however fit the general description of the attacker, had a previous conviction for a serious crime and had been interviewed over the murder of Rachel Nickell, but had been released
without charge. Was it the paranoia caused by previous suspicions which prompted George to set out the case for his defence before he had even been accused? Many believe so for he was always
concerned when serious crimes were committed in his area and was always waiting for a knock at the door. He explained these reasonings to the police as they were clearly highly suspicious of his
actions, but above all George believed that the alibi itself was what counted, although the police did not hold the same view. Just one month after his initial police interview George was arrested
on suspicion of killing Dando and was charged three days after that with her murder. He was sent to Belmarsh Prison whilst awaiting trial and was frequently questioned by police, but now in the
presence of his high-profile defence counsel, Michael Mansfield QC.

Convicted already by the press, George’s time in Belmarsh Prison, south-east London, was a frightening experience. “It was hell,” he said, “I was terrified. I really
thought I was dead. I kept my head down, never spoke to anybody.” Staying close to the warders for protection he could see the bigger prisoners staring across at him, trying to get his
attention, but he kept his eyes averted. George was the target of much intimidation; the other prisoners would shout names and spit in his food and drink. Dando was such a popular icon of
television that to some extent people thought they knew her. As an attack on a lone woman, the crime was considered as bad as a sex attack or a paedophile case as far as the other prisoners were
concerned. Ironically it was the imprisonment of Lord Jeffrey Archer, an old friend of Dando’s, that finally averted some of the attention from him; considered a privileged toff, he too
became a target for abuse.

On closer examination of the facts the case against George was weak. Susan Bicknell, who saw George on the morning of the murder, and remembered him because he was her first case, was sure that
she could place him at HAFAD at around 11.50 a.m. Yet more than a year after the event a number of her colleagues thought they remembered seeing him at around two in the afternoon, a fact which, if
true does not preclude him being there in the morning. So long after the event, the police should have been wary of their recollections, yet seemed intent on using the statements of those who had
not dealt with George that day, over and above Susan Bicknell, who had every reason to recall George being there. The emergence of a £250,000 reward for information leading to a conviction
cannot easily be forgotten when considering the veracity of witness statements. Such an amount of money can be used to discredit statements given, just as it can potentially encourage people to
embellish or slightly alter facts.

The murder weapon was never found. It never turned up in a rubbish bin nor has it been retrieved from a sewer pipe, and cannot therefore be linked to its owner or the murderer that day. Further
circumstantial evidence was accumulated in respect of George and his apparent liking for guns. As a young man he had joined the TA and enjoyed telling those he knew that he was in fact in the SAS.
He had always been prone to exaggerating to those who would listen, claiming once to be called Paul Gadd of Gary Glitter fame, and on another occasion taking the name Steve Majors, the first and
last names of the actor Lee Majors and his character from the television series
Bionic Man
. George failed his basic training for the TA and had to leave; instead he tried to join a local gun
club but again failed entry when he was unable to provide a credible reference. In a series of tenuous links, the police traced people who had known George and who were able to confirm that he had
at least some interest in guns. One old acquaintance said George had been in possession of a number of gun magazines and had bought books on the subject of weapons. Another person had come forward
to say that George had fired a blank round at him as a joke, using a replica firearm. All of these reported facts suggest nothing more than a passing interest, nothing that could be described as an
obsession, and if taken out of the context of Dando’s murder are the weakest of platforms on which to pursue a conviction. The police did recover the gun magazines, which had been in
George’s flat for 17-odd years and used the items as a way of confirming George’s interest in guns.

Also found in the flat were some 200 other newspapers and magazines for George was a hoarder who very rarely threw anything out. On analysis of these items the police discovered that out of the
200 or so editions, only eight of them contained any reference to Dando and none of them had been highlighted or in any way marked out for special attention – not the typical find for someone
who the police tried to claim was obsessed with Dando, no pictures of her on the wall, no tape recordings of her many TV appearances. He had however become interested in Freddie Mercury and the
signs of this were evident in his flat, but again there was no indication that his interest had developed into an unhealthy obsession. Experts commented that whoever killed Dando was likely to have
been obsessed with her and would have talked quite openly about the focus of his or her attention, yet not one person who knew George could recall him ever mentioning her name – unlike
Freddie Mercury whom he talked about frequently. Like many people George was interested in celebrity and had over time managed to take a number of photographs of famous people, but not one of Dando
although he lived within one mile of her home, and there is no indication that he actually knew her address.

Throughout the period in which the trial was being prepared the media ran many tributes to Jill Dando and famous personalities, including Sir Cliff Richard, one of her friends, spoke of his
affection for her. The newspapers meanwhile presented the case for the prosecution – he had been in jail for attempted rape, and he was an oddball, a loner who had an unhealthy interest in
guns. The conflicting facts regarding the alibi and the sightings of multiple suspects, potentially working as a team, were disregarded once George was arrested and charged, another fait
accompli.

The anorak that George had been wearing was taken for analysis and was discovered to have traces of firearms discharge residue (FDR) inside the jacket pockets which matched that discovered at
the murder scene inasmuch as it was made up of the same elements. Unlike a ballistics report which can confirm a particular bullet was fired from a particular gun, the FDR analysis could not be so
conclusive. The fact is that residue found inside the jacket pocket could have come from one of the gun magazines that George owned, or for that matter from a common or garden firework, such is the
commonplace nature of this substance. The probability of the residue arriving there from a magazine that George hadn’t handled for years, or for that matter a firework, are probably slim, but
there is a chance that it arrived on that article of clothing due to poor police controls at George’s flat, giving rise to contamination. There are a couple of ways in which it is thought
this could have occurred, the first being at the time of his arrest. The police entered his house carrying a range of guns, not unusual given that they were about to arrest a person suspected of a
shooting. It was during this initial search of the house that officers turned the jacket pockets inside out whilst searching for evidence, an act which in the presence of the police weapons could
have led to a cross-contamination of the jacket. At a later date the jacket, which had been stored in a protective bag to protect it from contaminants, had been sent to a photographic studio where
it had been removed in order that it could be photographed. Unfortunately the bullet and cartridge were also in the studio, as well as Dando’s front door and other related items, for a
similar purpose at the same time, another opportunity for cross-contamination. A scientist acting for the defence, Dr Lloyd, a forensic scientist of over 30 years standing, made a study of the
particles at the time and commented, “It is my view that this evidence is not reliable as evidence of the defendant’s involvement in the shooting. There is no particular reason why this
particle can be so related to the shooting of Miss Dando.”

In a further break with procedure, the van in which the jacket had been taken away had not been prepared in line with the approved police procedures, procedures intended to protect items to be
used as evidence from any form of contamination.

To contest the testimony of Susan Bicknell, who placed George at the HAFAD centre at 11.50 a.m., the police located witness, Susan Mayes, who believed she could place George in the vicinity of
Gowan Avenue at around 7 a.m., hours before the murder took place. Although she claimed to have studied the man for a full six seconds, she later provided descriptions which were contradictory,
initially stating that the man she saw had smart, short-cut hair, but then changing it later to saying that he had longer, untidy hair. It has been claimed since that the police tried to influence
Mayes’s decision. Other informants came forward, but most were only able to promote the idea of George being a bit odd – very possibly true, but not the hard-hitting evidence usually
required to secure a conviction.

In addition to the mounting evidence, tenuous though it certainly was, there is George himself, a nervous, shifty sort of person, someone who finds it difficult to look you in the eye. Paranoid
about police interest in him generally, he was nervous and acted like he was guilty, which for a copper with a nose for the bad guy would be a compelling enough reason to pursue him. It is strange
that his “guilty” behaviour many months after the trial, had not been evident when he was seen by Susan Bicknell at the HAFAD centre less than 30 minutes after the crime and that he was
unflustered, not sweating and calm, something he could not now manage whilst under police questioning.

George had been brought up on the tough White City housing estate in West London, the product of a broken home; he was a restless child who did not make friends easily. He invented fantasy lives
for himself, lives where he was important and glamorous, the motive ultimately presented by the police for his killing of Dando.

In May 2001 the respective legal teams entered court ready to debate the innocence or otherwise of Barry George. Michael Mansfield QC, George’s defence counsel, commenced by saying that he
believed Jill Dando was the victim of an organized underworld hit and that the case against his client was hanging by the merest of threads. The prosecution, led by Orlando Pownall, based their
case on a mixture of circumstantial evidence: George had an interest in guns and some vague interest in Dando; certain eyewitnesses had placed him at the scene in the hours before the killing took
place; and the forensic evidence, the speck of gunpowder found in his jacket pocket.

In a legal game of “ping-pong”, one side then the other sought to dismantle the other’s arguments. The defence hammered home the alibi that placed George at the HAFAD centre at
11.50 a.m.; the prosecution claimed other witnesses placed him there after that time, giving him the opportunity to commit the crime. The prosecution argued that the forensic material found on
George’s jacket proved he had used a weapon; the defence claimed contamination from a bungled scene of crime investigation. Each brought forward experts on this point. Robin Keeley, acting
for the prosecution, claimed that it was unlikely that the forensic material got onto the jacket after the garment was seized and that he was confident that it was the result of a firearms
discharge. The police, who had denied taking guns into George’s flat, now faced witnesses who claimed to have seen armed police entering the premises with their guns clearly visible, a
damning piece of evidence and one that, if true, would imply a significant conspiracy of silence on the individual officers’ parts. The embarrassment of a poor scene-of-crime investigation
would not be as bad as a claim of conspiracy, or worse, that an innocent man should go to jail. The prosecution claimed the motive was simply that George had an unhealthy interest in Dando, a claim
the defence argued could not be proven, citing the multitude of magazines and papers which contained so little reference to Dando as proof.

And finally the murder weapon had never been found, the missing link that could have provided the evidence needed to secure a safe conviction.

On balance the case did hang by a thread, however, George’s own behaviour during cross-examination did not help his position. Irrespective of his “shifty” mannerisms, George at
one point claimed he did not know who Dando was, clearly a lie, but given his situation perhaps understandable – he was after all fighting for his freedom. When asked by DC Tim Snowden how
the gunpowder residue had got into his pocket, he replied, “I cannot explain. I have no knowledge,” and then when pressed further that it had got there because he had shot Miss Dando
and that it matched the residue found at the scene, he responded, “I cannot explain that.”

His pathetic, confused retorts only served to make him look guilty and the defence’s explanations in response to these specific points seemed to get lost along the way, even though
reporters in court claimed that Mansfield was able to completely denounce the forensic arguments. After the two sides had summarized their cases, the trial judge, Mr Justice Gage, warned the seven
women and five men not to allow any feelings of prejudice or sympathy to affect their judgement. The prospect of sympathy for Barry George would not have been an emotion the defence would have
expected, however, the need to make a conviction, with an entire nation watching and awaiting an outcome, was a situation George and his team would have been understandably afraid of. The Judge
continued, “I doubt throughout the United Kingdom there can be many adults – or even children – who have not read about her death or this case.” Truer words could not have
been spoken, the coverage had been immense and one sided in favour of the prosecution. Although the Judge summarized the main points of both the defence and the prosecution, it was the
prosecution’s main threads that seemed to carry the greatest weight as the jury retired to consider their verdict on 27 June 2001.