Talk:Jill Dando

message: I don't think it's a good idea to mention the Panorama programme of 5th September 2006 until the programme has actually been broadcast in full and the complete details of what it says are known to the general public. Once the programme has been shown it should be given it's own section after the section 'legacy'. A 'current event' tag shouldn't be added for now, a tv programme doesn't really constitute an event. Abc30 18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Panorama (British TV programme)|Panorama]] 

message: She worked for the British broadcasting corp. Also it is better to refer to people as British on an international website such as this. Abc30 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the benefit of User talk:172.141.150.191 based in the United States somewhere near Reston, Virginia, people in Britain have "British" written in their passports and generally identify themselves British first and English, Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish second. Identifying JD as specifically English isn't particularly helpful and not worth continuing a revert war over. Nunquam Dormio 16:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British or English? 

message: I realise that it is always better to focus on a person's life rather than their death, but sadly the way in which she was taken from the world is particularly notable and needs to be included in the introduction. Perhaps a sensitive compromise can be achieved. Abc30 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to death in intro 

message: :Possibly. It definitely looks like a publicity photo which would mean it would come under the fair use policy. The only problem is the site from which it is sourced, but I think the fact that it is undoubtably a publicity photo means it's fine for us to use it. I'm including it. Abc30 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this photo be added to this page? 

message: Looks to me like Barry George gets more attention in this article than its true subject. Suggest move some of it to the page on him. MegdalePlace 17:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree. Remember WP:Bold - why not move it yourself? --Cheesy Mike 17:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, SqueakBox 17:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Barry George]] 

message: It may be considered unfortunate that more than half the article concerns Jill's murder. But her murder was one of the most notable things about her. That said, there is an article on Barry George and material specific to him and his various trials belongs there. 
:As an aside, it is misleading to describe the possibility that a Serb hit-man was the murderer as a "conspiracy theory". That last term is often used to describe fanciful or over-imaginative explanations for high profile events. The consensus is now that the murder did have some Yugoslav connection. Izzy (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The alleged Serbian connection does not have consensus, nor is it a conspiracy theory. It is a theory that was considered by police; it has not been proved or disproved. Jim Michael (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barry George and the murder 

message: 'CCTV evidence of Dando's last journey did not show any sign of her being followed'
what is CCTV?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.48.162 (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCTV  

message: It wasn't Barry George. George was a victim of the offender profiling approach that was popular with police in the 1990s. Like Colin Stagg in the Rachel Nickell murder case, George fitted the assumed profile of a perpetrator and was therefore charged regardless of the fact that there was barely a shred of hard evidence against him. Issues with profiling are firstly, the assumed profile may be wrong and secondly, just because someone fits that profile doesn't make them guilty. 
All the circumstances point to a Serb hit-man having done it. The fact that the Dando murder took place a few days after the Belgrade TV studio bombing could be a thousand to one coincidence. But I doubt it was. The method used is very much in character with an old fashioned, eastern bloc hit.
I really doubt that HMG had anything to do with the murder or participated in a cover up. Izzy (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The other possibilities have not been ruled out. It is quite likely that the killer could have been someone who committed a crime that was subsequently featured on Crimewatch. Jim Michael (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Many of the crimes featured on Crimewatch are not petty. Crimes featured include murders, attempted murders, rapes and aggravated burglary. The Serb theory is based on her having fronted an appeal for Bosnians, which lasted a few minutes. Compare that to the length of time she presented Crimewatch. Very few Serbs would have heard of her, or would be interested in her or what she said or did. When you're fighting a war, what someone you've never heard of, whom has no politicial power or weapons, says hundreds of miles away, is an irrelevance. Which is more likely - wanting to kill someone who presented one appeal for aid, or someone who appealed many times to catch criminals? She never publically expressed political beliefs. Prior to the Serb theory, she was only very remotely associated with the Balkans, whereas she was seen as a major figure against crime, even though she only presented the show, and did not investigate or solve crime herself. Someone who was wanted for a crime that was featured on the show presented by her, or whom had served a jail sentence for a crime featured on the show could have hated her enough to kill her. She was very famous in the UK, but in her lifetime was unknown in the Balkans - the appeal she presented would not have been broadcast there. If Serbs wanted revenge on someone in regard to activity in the Balkans, why would they choose a presenter? They would have chosen a political or military person. We don't know there was a hitman, an ordinary criminal could have shot her himself. Or a stalker / obsessed fan / someone who held a personal grudge / someone whose sexual advances she rejected could have shot her. Many murders happen for petty reasons. Muggers sometimes stab their victims to death for the small change they have in their pockets. There have been people beaten to death in pubs due to accidentally spilling someone's drink. Some people will use extreme violence for very petty reasons. Jim Michael (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The Serb theory is not entirely consistent with all the facts, and I think this article gives this theory undue weight. A claim that someone boasted of having shot her is not real evidence. Many people boast of having done things that they didn't do, and many people claim to have seen or heard things that they didn't. The police ruled out everything but the lone stalker theory, which is why they made George their prime suspect. We know that George could not have shot Dando, due to his very severe mental disorders and lack of intelligence, which make him incapable of having disposed of all the evidence. We therefore know that the Metropolitan Police wrongly eliminated or never found her real killer. A local criminal killing her in revenge for her (minor but prominent) part in having him convicted seems more plausible than a military force or paramilitary group from the Balkans who would have previously never heard of her, hiring a hitman because she fronted a short appeal for aid for the Bosnians which would not have been broadcast in the Balkans. Although the killing was done quickly, and the killer escaped, that is often the case with shootings in London that are committed by ordinary criminals, which are sometimes about matters as petty as a £50 unpaid debt. Whilst Dando's murder certainly seems planned, that doesn't mean it was definitely a hitman. Hired assassins are responsible for only a tiny proportion of murders, and they rarely target TV presenters. Actress Rebecca Schaeffer's murder was planned by her killer Robert John Bardo. No hitman involved there, just a stalker who was obsessed with her. Someone like Bardo could have targeted Dando likewise, but got away. Dando could have had a former partner that neither the police, nor anyone who knew her, ever knew about. He could have found out she had a new partner, became jealous and killed her. People often don't tell their friends and family about every partner, especially if the partner is married or the relationship would be met with disapproval. That is why the Disappearance of Claudia Lawrence is so difficult to solve - Lawrence was probably murdered by a lover or former lover that has never been identified, because no-one has a list of all of them. A woman who has had, for example, 50 lovers, will not usually tell her friends and family about all 50; she would probably keep many secret for fear of being considered a slut. It is impossible to eliminate all the sexual partners a person has had, unless a complete list is available. In most cases, such a list cannot be compiled in full. The police may have ruled out all of the sexual partners Dando is known to have had, which may have been 10 men. However, there could have been another two, five or ten that the police have never been aware of, one of whom could have killed her. Jim Michael (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I wonder if the "never proved innocent" comment was prompted by the recent denial of compensation to Barry George?. See : Barry George loses compensation case. Merely being acquitted does not automatically entitle you to compensation. To get compensation you have to demonstrate that some gross miscarriage of justice took place - eg that the police doctored evidence or beat a confession out of you. Izzy (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I came here after reading about claims that Dando was murdered because she was about to expose the names of powerful individuals involved in a big ped.o.phile ring; an episode which was then never aired. I came up short on info on what she was going to present in her next episode  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.181.44 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this theory has had so much exposure recently  - carrying a good deal of conviction  -  that I think it merits a section in the article by now. Valetude (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Who done it?

message: Why are two editors removing info from the infobox? Four things have been removed: place of death, education, ethnicity and net worth. Such info is meant to be in the infobox. It is in its correct place; there is nothing odd about it. The last edit to the page falsely claims three people disagree with me; it is actually only two. Jim Michael (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The net worth parameter is intended for living people, it is not for the value of their estates after death. The infobox documentation states it is for Current estimated net worth, if relevant. Similarly I don't believe that the education parameter is meant to say she has two A-levels which is trivial in my opinion, but instead to state where she was educated - I looked but couldn't find any other example of the parameter being used in the way that you did.  --Simple Bob (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a rule about net worth not being stated in dead people's infoboxes, then I think that rule should be changed. Where does it say whether it should be the school or the qualifications that should be stated next to education? I don't see it, which is why I stated her qualifications. How about the other two things: place of death and ethnicity, both of which were recently removed? Jim Michael (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree with Izzy. The infobox is meant to be a summary of a person, not a pedantic document of every aspect of a person's life (or death). The info certainly does belong in the body of the article, but overloading the infobox with too much information looks odd. The work you have done in the body of the article is excellent and long may it continue. As for rules, there are few rules on Wikipedia but there is consensus. It would be nice if a few other editors could chime in with their opinions to see if we can build consensus on how this article should be developed. --Simple Bob (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A fully loaded infobox is too much information. It needs to be limited to aspects related to the subject's notability: not net worth or ethnicity in this case. William Avery (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nationality, residence, years active and employer are all very relevant to her notability. She was very famous in the UK, she was murdered outside her house, and was notable for her career with the BBC, for whom she presented prime-time shows on BBC1. Jim Michael (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And all that is documented in detail in the article. The point being made by all three of us is that the infobox is a summary. --Simple Bob (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would a summary not include important points about the subject which are routinely included in infoboxes? How can anyone seriously argue for not including her place of death? Not including the employer she worked for for most of her career and which made her famous? Not including which years her career covered? Jim Michael (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Blanking is considered vandalism - see WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. If the info is sourced and relevant, then it should be in the infobox if the parameter is present. There is no rule that an infobox should only be half-full. Jim Michael (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a rule that material should be relevant, especially for infoboxes which are as noted a summary.  Net worth may be appropriate for Bill Gates or the Sultan of Brunei, but was Jill Dando notable for how much she was worth?  That makes it a distraction.  Simialr how was her ethnicity relevant to anything?  Similarly, I agree the education element is primarily used ofr an alta mater, not highlighting how comparatively uneducated she was.  OF the fields in dispute, only the residence entry strikes me as remotely relevant. 193.61.255.83 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with last re the net worth. Would Jim Michael be so keen to detail it if it had totalled, say, 22,764 pounds? Should every human subject of a wiki article have their net worth listed? Should, say, Barry George's net worth be listed on his page? Given Dando's career and apparent success in that career, her net worth upon death is not unexpected, noteworthy or relevant. As for education, it would suffice to note the place of her furtherest "completed" education. Any further details should be restricted to the main text in Early Life. I would like to see a guideline implemented urging that human subjects included in articles be granted as much privacy as relevance permits. Being, dead or alive, in some way connected with a Wiki article, should not be synonymous with open season being declared on the minutae of your private life. Galloptious (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of infobox info 

message: From the Family and Personal Life section..
"[Former fiance, Alan] Farthing married fellow medic Janet Stowell on 20 March 2008.[28]"
This appears to me to be entirely irrelevant and should be removed. Or are we going to enter details of all significant future milestones in the ex-fiance's life on this page?  Galloptious (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex-fiance tangent 

message: As regards this idea that the Serb connection is mere speculation which should not be given "undue weight" in the article. As time has gone on it has become increasingly widely perceived that Dando was the victim of a Serb hitman. This is suggested by a striking conjunction of motive, method and opportunity. While it is true that much of the current media discussion of Dando's murder is speculative it don't alter the fact that there is a 95% probability that Dando was the victim of a Serb hitman. Izzy (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nowhere near being a fact that there's a 95% chance of a Serb hitman having been her killer. It's likely that he was neither Serbian nor a hitman. Jim Michael (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who done it #2? 

message: It is my understanding that an "acquittal" is what happens when a JURY (or a judge performing a bench-trial of a defendant who has waived their right to trial by jury) finds that the evidence of guilt falls short of "beyond reasonable doubt". When you appeal a conviction and you win your appeal, it's a "reversal of conviction". It is NOT an acquittal. The appeals-court may prohibit you being retried, in which case you're off scot-free. They can allow you to be retried and then perhaps the prosecutor will decide NOT to retry you because circumstances have changed. Or you can retried, by prosecutors who are careful not to make the mistakes that caused you to win your appeal, and then you can be convicted or acquitted. But you can't be acquitted on appeal. YOUR OWN ARTICLE on Barry George says that he was RETRIED after the appeal. So obviously he was not "acquitted on appeal". He was acquitted when he was tried AGAIN. Obviously the appeals-court only reversed the earlier conviction, without prejudice against re-trying. Who is the person who ensures that one WikiP article is consistent with another?2604:2000:C682:B600:7416:F2ED:A67C:BEE3 (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, Christopher. The term "acquitted on appeal" was being used too loosely in the Introduction and I have corrected it. Izzy (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Acquitted on appeal? Is that possible?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jill Dando. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819002817/http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/content/twm/flatfiles/jilldando/JillsGarden/GardenIndex.aspx to http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/content/twm/flatfiles/jilldando/JillsGarden/GardenIndex.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Jill Dando. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130505074040/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Jill-Dando-s-dad-dies-91-Weston/article-699954-detail/article.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Jill-Dando-s-dad-dies-91-Weston/article-699954-detail/article.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130505140538/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/years-don-t-know-killed-Jill/article-936486-detail/article.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/years-don-t-know-killed-Jill/article-936486-detail/article.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140722221125/http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Plymouth-journalist-Jill-Dando-knew-BBC/story-21663985-detail/story.html to http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Plymouth-journalist-Jill-Dando-knew-BBC/story-21663985-detail/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726212502/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Jilll-Dando-tried-expose-BBC-paedophile-ring/story-21666998-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Jilll-Dando-tried-expose-BBC-paedophile-ring/story-21666998-detail/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As regards Jimthing's contribution concerning the BBC's 2019 documentary show. I guess this show is topical but in the long term it has no significance and doesn't merit any mention in the article. My own impression of the show was that it was lacking in key respects but offered some explanation for why the police investigation focused on Barry George. Most British murders are carried out (a) by someone who knows the victim, or (b) by a crazed individual acting on an opportunist basis. Once the police had dismissed (a) they moved readily to (b). And started engaging in all this offender profiling. Possibilities other than (a) and (b) were never seriously considered at the outset.
Update. There have been numerous TV shows and newspaper articles about this case. The latest BBC show isn't particularly significant and we cannot make special mention of all relevant media items in the article. While the show is topical I guess mention of it can stay. But I don't see it is a permanent feature of the article. But I will hear what anyone has to say.Izzy (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy - April 2019 BBC TV show 

message: Some contributors to the article remain convinced that the "Serb hitman" is a fanciful conspiracy theory. I am of the opinion that it is at least 95% probable that the Serbs did it. There is a conjunction of motive, method and opportunity that points to them. The ITV documentary shown on 28/04/19 indicated that this was the most likely explanation for the killing. Izzy (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This documentary didn't seem to get as much media coverage as the BBC programme of a few weeks ago did, but mention of its content should be included here, particularly as the article discusses the hitman theory already, and it is a credible one. This is Paul (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Izzy, you dismiss the BBC programme, yet are in favour of the ITV programme. The ITV documentary hardly mentioned any possibilities other than Serbs, assuming their vague boasts were true and not considering the other possibilities: a criminal she helped catch through Crimewatch, a former lover or a stalker. The police wouldn't have been able to find & rule out everyone who was involved in the crimes which were featured in the many episodes of CW which she presented. They also were unlikely to have known who all her lovers were - most people have had lovers whom their families & friends are unaware of, so to say that they've all been accounted for is more likely than not untrue. A stalker would also have been likely - ruling out Barry George, who didn't even seem to have an interest in her, doesn't mean that she didn't have any stalkers. The Serb theory is highly unlikely because Dando wasn't known in the Balkans prior to her death. It's far-fetched that killing a journalist who wasn't known in the Balkans would be a response to the NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters. She wasn't involved in NATO or the bombing. Also, 2 or 3 days is a very short time to select a victim, then organise a contract killing on her. They wouldn't have known who she was, so they'd have had to find out where she lived, followed her etc. Also, if Serbs had wanted to kill a journalist who was from a NATO country in revenge for the bombing, they'd have done so locally. There were many journalists from various countries in the Balkans at the time - and it would have been much simpler & easier for them to select a target there. Why send a hitman to London to kill someone whom they hadn't heard of?! Jim Michael (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who done it #3 

message: Hi, Capital etc. I agree with your view that Dando was probably killed by a Serb gunman. That is a 95% probability. The only other slightly plausible scenario is that Dando was killed by a crazed stalker. But how many crazed stalkers are expert assassins and have access to the workshop facilities required to modify guns and ammunition?. However discussion of the Yugoslav connection now occupies near 45% of the article. And I wonder if this is excessive?. Maybe some of the material you have added is unnecessary detail and/or repetitive?. Any thoughts?. Izzy (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another plausible scenario; this is that Barry George did in fact murder Jill Dando. That is why there was a retrial. Emmentalist (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

text: You've ignored my comment which is immediately above yours, in which I explained the reasons why it's unlikely that her killer was a Serb. Their claim of responsibility was vague & unsubstantiated. I also said what the other possibilities are. You've decided to be 95% sure that her killer was a Serb; I'd put the probability at less than 10%. Jim Michael (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who done it #4 

message: I have edited out the reference to 2000 suspects at the end of the lead. I am making this clear here in case other editors disagree as this is obviously a sensitive article and I have not been involved with it before. My rationale is that saying the crime was never solved 'in spite of' the police having 2000 suspects seems to have the opposite of the intended effect. Having 2000 suspects would be an indicator that the police were not close to solving the case. NB: My own view is that the police were confident they had the right person and that is why the 2000 figure is bandied about, but this does not affect form of this part of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmentalist (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: 2000 suspects