ChatterBank5 mins ago
What is Barry Georges' real name?
Why does the news always refer to him as Barry George when his real name is actually Barry Bulsara? It is illegal to call him by his wrong name when legally he changed his name by deed poll to BULSARA didn't he? Infact. Was he sentenced as Barry George or Bulsara? If the judge sentenced him as Barry George then that's a mistake isn't it? He would technicly be a free man.?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vladimer . Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.His real name is Barry George, and he only adopted the name Barry Bulsara because he falsely claimed to be a cousin of Freddie Mercury, whose real name was Bulsara. I think that he did not change his name by deed poll, but even if he did it doesn't matter. People are often charged under a variety of names, such as "A, known as B, also known as C" etc, es[pecially if the police have not been able to ascertain the real or original name of a suspect. His conviction could not be challenged on the basis of whether they used the right name or not, as long as it was clear which person was being referred to.
jimmer: Barry George a.k.a. Barry Bulsara is the man who murdered Jill Dando.
jimmer: Barry George a.k.a. Barry Bulsara is the man who murdered Jill Dando.
-- answer removed --
I deliberately wrote "...is the man who murdered Jill Dando" rather than "... is the man who was convicted of murdering Jill Dando" because I was half-expecting an interesting debate about his guilt or otherwise.
I have always believed that he really did commit the murder, and is therefore "guilty" in fact, but at the same time I have always believed that the evidence in his trial was not strong enough to justify a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, and that he should therefore be "not guilty" in law. I was very surprised when he was convicted, but I'm not losing any sleep about it.
For me, the strongest evidence suggesting that he did it was his suspicious pattern of movements immediately afterwards trying to establish a false alibi.
I have always believed that he really did commit the murder, and is therefore "guilty" in fact, but at the same time I have always believed that the evidence in his trial was not strong enough to justify a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, and that he should therefore be "not guilty" in law. I was very surprised when he was convicted, but I'm not losing any sleep about it.
For me, the strongest evidence suggesting that he did it was his suspicious pattern of movements immediately afterwards trying to establish a false alibi.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.