Russell murders, new suspect.

[Nessie]

What other/better method do we have than a fair and proper trial in a court of law?

The present system needs to be better at following its own rules regarding investigating all reasonable lines of enquiry and disclosing all evidence, including exculpatory so that the jury or judge gets everything. Not just a cherry picked prosecution version/story.

If you commit a crime and plead not guilty, you have a high chance of walking free, thanks to sympathetic jurors (cf the recent case of the guy charged with tampering with his wife's parachute), thus, the tiny number who are found 'guilty' after an often long and exhaustively fair trial - perhaps a third - have achieved the high bar threshold of 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt'.

Evidence please.

I was juror in a case where the defendant openly admitted he committed the assault, yet my fellow jurors came back with 'not guilty'.

In a murder trial, the bar is even higher. There is no benefit from convicting the wrong person.

In the case of the Chillenden murders, posters here are baying, 'Where is the forensic evidence' yet wilfully ignoring the fact the perpetrator took great pains to remove evidence from the scene. The bootlaces used to tie the victims were removed from the scene. One was accidentally left behind and an eye witness saw a highly agitated man such that she was able to stare at his face in the car mirror and provide an e-fit. The e-fit clearly shows someone with sticking out ears. Bellfield's ears are close to his head. So the claim, 'Oh, the e-fit could fit Bellfield' is an attempt to shoe-horn post-hoc backwards suspect-centric logic to 'the alternative theory'.

An eye witness said Stone visited their house with a blood splattered t-shirt within the time frame of the crime.

But we are to ignore all this, because the public love a romantic 'wrong man spends 20-years in jail' sob story and conveniently overlook the fact there was a fact-finding merits trial, with twelve just men/women bending over to give a fair and true verdict to the best of their ability, only after hearing all of the evidence put before the court (note: not just selected bits).

Stone knew things that were not in the public domain. He described the towels the woman and child were strangled with as 'wet', for example.


If there is merit in this 'new evidence' it is utter paranoid conspiracy theory to assert the criminal review committee will reject it automatically 'because they cannot bear to admit they were wrong'.

If Stone is attempting a fraudulent stunt to immorally gain compensation, then he should be charged further and his lawyers reported to the Bar Standards as to their conduct.

No, I am asking that the new evidence regarding the jail confession and other evidence is examined asap (the legal system is too slow in pretty much everything it does, potential miscarriages of justice should be fast tracked) and that lessons should be learned regarding the evidence that pointed away from Stone being the killer, which the police pretty much ignored.

 

[Rolfe]

This is the only murder Stone has been accused/convicted of. So what we have is one serial killer and an aggressive violent man in the same area at the same time, which is far more probable.

Yes, that's a better way of looking at it. And the police latched on to the aggressive violent man who wasn't actually a murderer and ignored the serial killer. If indeed they knew about him. I'm not convinced the original police investigation was really at fault here - though you may well be right that they didn't spread the net widely enough when they thought they had found someone.

 

[Rolfe]

No, I am asking that the new evidence regarding the jail confession and other evidence is examined asap (the legal system is too slow in pretty much everything it does, potential miscarriages of justice should be fast tracked) and that lessons should be learned regarding the evidence that pointed away from Stone being the killer, which the police pretty much ignored.

I'm pretty stunned at the suggestion that a prisoner trying to clear his name should be "charged further", and that his lawyers should also be disciplined for assisting him in his attempt to clear his name. This is the language of a police state.

 

[Vixen]

People are saying 'where is the forensic evidence' because you claimed there was forensic evidence linking Stone to the crime scene. We are still waiting to hear what it is.

I thought I heard it mentioned in the tv doc on the Chillenden Murders. I can't find the reference, so it appears I am mistaken about that.

However, the police believe the laces used to tie up the victims were some kind of ligatures - used by junkies to find a vein and inject.

Stone was a junkie, kept a hammer in his car, had a record of violent behaviour.

Josie who was at the scene of the murders heard the attacker demand money and set about Lin when she said she didn't have any cash.

This ties in with the junkie profile as junkies will steal anything to fund their habits. When I used to park for work in Highbury I had my car broken into twice - including a courtesy car - just to have my driving shoes stolen (in a carrier bag) and the corutesy car radio.

The police said 'probably a junkie', as only a desperate person such as a junkie would go to such lengths for such small returns.

 

[Vixen]

I'm pretty stunned at the suggestion that a prisoner trying to clear his name should be "charged further", and that his lawyers should also be disciplined for assisting him in his attempt to clear his name. This is the language of a police state.

The charge should be bribery and attempted fraud if the motive is simply for Stone to claim false compensation for his 20-year jail sentence.

If his new evidence is genuine, then I am confident the criminal review committee will send it back to the appeal court accordingly.

 

[Elaedith]

This ties in with the junkie profile as junkies will steal anything to fund their habits. When I used to park for work in Highbury I had my car broken into twice - including a courtesy car - just to have my driving shoes stolen (in a carrier bag) and the corutesy car radio.

The police said 'probably a junkie', as only a desperate person such as a junkie would go to such lengths for such small returns.

In that case, it seems rather strange that Lyn Russell's watch and necklace, the only things of any value, were not stolen.

 

[Vixen]

In that case, it seems rather strange that Lyn Russell's watch and necklace, the only things of any value, were not stolen.

What sort of watch and necklace were they?

 

[Elaedith]

What sort of watch and necklace were they?

I have no idea. I don't know if that information is even available.

 

[Rolfe]

The charge should be bribery and attempted fraud if the motive is simply for Stone to claim false compensation for his 20-year jail sentence.

If his new evidence is genuine, then I am confident the criminal review committee will send it back to the appeal court accordingly.

Logic fail.

In order to get any compensation, the case not only has to be sent back to court by the CCRC, Stone has to win the appeal. And even then, compensation is far from assured. To get compensation he not only has to win on the grounds that the conviction is manifestly unsafe, he also has to show that he is "clearly innocent". In practice the only way that hurdle can be cleared is if Bellfield is convicted.

You're talking as if compensation can somehow be achieved just by submitting a case to the CCRC, which is obvious nonsense. Even if an appeal is granted and then he wins it, he might well not get any compensation. Compensation is only going to enter the picture if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Bellfield did it. So the idea that "he's only putting forward this case to get compensation" is ridiculous.

What you are actually suggesting is that if someone tries to clear their name and fails to have their case accepted by the CCRC, not only should they be sentenced to additional punishment, but their lawyers also should be punished. This is unconscionable.

 

[Rolfe]

I thought I heard it mentioned in the tv doc on the Chillenden Murders. I can't find the reference, so it appears I am mistaken about that.

However, the police believe the laces used to tie up the victims were some kind of ligatures - used by junkies to find a vein and inject.

Stone was a junkie, kept a hammer in his car, had a record of violent behaviour.

Josie who was at the scene of the murders heard the attacker demand money and set about Lin when she said she didn't have any cash.

This ties in with the junkie profile as junkies will steal anything to fund their habits. When I used to park for work in Highbury I had my car broken into twice - including a courtesy car - just to have my driving shoes stolen (in a carrier bag) and the corutesy car radio.

The police said 'probably a junkie', as only a desperate person such as a junkie would go to such lengths for such small returns.

So, no evidence at all linking Stone to the murders then, just that he fitted the profile of the killer. That's not enough to convict. It was all they had until the alleged confession, which is why the judge directed the jury at the original trial that if they didn't believe Daley's evidence about the confession then they could not convict. (Hint. Those of us with some passing familiarity with the case already knew there was no foreisic evidence against Stone. You have to stop this habit of coming into threads and stating as fact things which you have incorrectly remembered from some documentary or other.)

So, you have two people who fit the profile in the vicinity. Bellfield fits it even better because his modus operandi for killing was to beat his victims around the head with a hammer. Stone, in contrast, never killed anybody (else)? Why do you think any of this points to Stone rather than to Bellfield?

 

[Elaedith]

It's ironic that anyone could mis-remember forensic evidence from the Chillenden Murders documentary as implicating Stone. The conclusion was that DNA evidence from the crime scene pointed to an unknown male and was ruled out as coming from Stone.

 

[Rolfe]

I haven't seen the documentary but the Wolchover article makes this perfectly clear also.

Vixen also thought the surviving girl was called Megan. People who wade in all self-righteous and accusatory when they know next to nothing about the case they're commenting on really get on my nerves.

 

[Vixen]

Logic fail.

In order to get any compensation, the case not only has to be sent back to court by the CCRC, Stone has to win the appeal. And even then, compensation is far from assured. To get compensation he not only has to win on the grounds that the conviction is manifestly unsafe, he also has to show that he is "clearly innocent". In practice the only way that hurdle can be cleared is if Bellfield is convicted.

You're talking as if compensation can somehow be achieved just by submitting a case to the CCRC, which is obvious nonsense. Even if an appeal is granted and then he wins it, he might well not get any compensation. Compensation is only going to enter the picture if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Bellfield did it. So the idea that "he's only putting forward this case to get compensation" is ridiculous.

What you are actually suggesting is that if someone tries to clear their name and fails to have their case accepted by the CCRC, not only should they be sentenced to additional punishment, but their lawyers also should be punished. This is unconscionable.

Not my claim, guv. Bellfield's laywers claim they have proof in the form of written notes from Stone that he is conspiring to get Bellfield to take the rap so that he can claim compensation.

The lawyers for Stone claim to have 'new evidence'. I didn't see anything in the tv documentary that was new evidence in the legal sense of the word (i.e, was not known of as of the time of the trial, or that the new evidence could not have been known of as of the time of the trial).

The review committee will want to know: why didn't this so-called new witness who now claims to have seen Bellfield not listed as a witness as of the time of the trial?

The other major criterion is 'does the new evidence bring a reasonable propsect of success in overturning the conviction?'

In other words, yes, some things said at trial turn out to be false or inaccurate afterwards, but does it change the substance or the material weight of the evidence?

Why did the defence not challenge it at the time, when they had ample opportunity to do so?

Simply producing a witness twenty years later claiming she saw Bellfield near the scene of the crime on the day, leaves me feeling sceptical.

 

[Vixen]

So, no evidence at all linking Stone to the murders then, just that he fitted the profile of the killer. That's not enough to convict. It was all they had until the alleged confession, which is why the judge directed the jury at the original trial that if they didn't believe Daley's evidence about the confession then they could not convict. (Hint. Those of us with some passing familiarity with the case already knew there was no foreisic evidence against Stone. You have to stop this habit of coming into threads and stating as fact things which you have incorrectly remembered from some documentary or other.)

So, you have two people who fit the profile in the vicinity. Bellfield fits it even better because his modus operandi for killing was to beat his victims around the head with a hammer. Stone, in contrast, never killed anybody (else)? Why do you think any of this points to Stone rather than to Bellfield?

Please can you stop personalising your comments.

The trial wasn't decided by comparing two criminals against each other.

Once again, you ignore eye witness evidence from the only surviving victim.

 

[Vixen]

I haven't seen the documentary but the Wolchover article makes this perfectly clear also.

Vixen also thought the surviving girl was called Megan. People who wade in all self-righteous and accusatory when they know next to nothing about the case they're commenting on really get on my nerves.

It was a genuine typo. I have never been good with names.

You haven't really explained in which way this is 'new evidence' in the legal meaning of the word.

 

[Nessie]

.....
Simply producing a witness twenty years later claiming she saw Bellfield near the scene of the crime on the day, leaves me feeling sceptical.

That witness was already known, but had been ignored. Now, with the additional evidence of an admission by Bellfield and the MO is far more like Bellfield than Stone, there are three reasons to believe the wrong person has been convicted. Each on its own was not enough.

 

[Matthew Best]

With the proviso that I haven't studied the case in detail, I had my doubts about the conviction when it happened. My memory is that there really wasn't much in the way of evidence against Stone, other than a jail confession which he denied, and the fact that his psychiatrist thought he was the sort of person who might do such a thing. It always seemed unsafe to me, but of course I wasn't at the trial, like Vixen was.

 

[Nessie]

The issue that convinced me was that despite advances in forensic science, nothing has been produced to show Stone was at the murder scene. That is very odd for a scene which would have produced a lot of evidence, with two people killed, one badly injured and the dog.

 

[Rolfe]

Please can you stop personalising your comments.

The trial wasn't decided by comparing two criminals against each other.

Once again, you ignore eye witness evidence from the only surviving victim.

No, you are vastly over-interpreting the eyewitness evidence. Josie has never identified Stone as her attacker. She has merely expressed confidence in the conviction, which is extremely common among victims of crime who derive comfort from the thought that the perpetrator has been convicted and are extremely resistant to the thought that the wrong person might have been blamed.

 

[Rolfe]

Not my claim, guv. Bellfield's laywers claim they have proof in the form of written notes from Stone that he is conspiring to get Bellfield to take the rap so that he can claim compensation.

If Stone can make a successful case to the CCRC, if he can then win an appeal, and if a subsequent case against Bellfield is successful in obtaining a conviction, Stone may get compensation. Perhaps more importantly for him, he will be freed from jail, though whether the rest of us should be happy about that is another question.

How on earth is this "conspiring to get Bellfield to take the rap"? If Stone had somehow pressurised Bellfield to make a false confession in order to get Stone acquitted that might merit that description. But a prisoner putting forward a reasonable case to the CCRC in the hope of winning an appeal isn't "conspiring to get compensation", however Bellfield's lawyers want to frame it.

The proposition that prisoners should be punished further for trying to mount an appeal and that their lawyers should be disciplined for assisting them is outrageous.

ETA: I don't know how it is in English law, but it seems to me that what Stone is putting forward is very similar to the "special defence of incrimination" in Scots law. With this defence there is no need for the accused to prove that someone else committed the crime, or even to show that there is a better case against someone else than there is against them. All they have to do is to show that there is a credible, plausible case against someone else. This is a perfectly proper defence.