• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Russell murders, new suspect.

Nessie said:
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.
Click to expand...


However, there is currently nothing to show that Bellfield was at the murder scene. It may be too late to get that evidence, as it is obviously too late to go over his car and the clothes he was wearing that day. The bootlace has been lost, which is the main item of forensic evidence that might have had his DNA on it. I wonder if there is anything else in store that could be subjected to further testing?
 
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...

And what about your ignoring the fact that Bellfield has an alibi via his ex- girlfriend who claims he spent the entire day and night with her and attended a birthday party in Twickenham?


Of course, Stone is a more reliable witness in your view.
 
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...


We don't know what Stone's lawyers claim Bellfield confessed. If it is based on the 'doubt casting' raised in the tv documentary, I can't see they have much of a case.
 
Rolfe said:
However, there is currently nothing to show that Bellfield was at the murder scene. It may be too late to get that evidence, as it is obviously too late to go over his car and the clothes he was wearing that day. The bootlace has been lost, which is the main item of forensic evidence that might have had his DNA on it. I wonder if there is anything else in store that could be subjected to further testing?
Click to expand...

The tv programme - as produced by Stone's defence lawyers - claim that DNA rules out Stone, but could include Bellfield.

What they do not say is that if the DNA haplotype found was - say - R1b1b2a1a, then that would fit 30%- 40% of the male population of Great Britain. See: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28873-R1b1b2a1a

This type of stuff is called lying by omission: it lets the viewer believe - hey, that was Bellfield's DNA at the scene.

This is how the Avery 'Making of a Murderer' defence lawyers worked. They left a whole lot out. No wonder the great US public were baying for Avery to be freed based on the defence lawyers PR campaign. (Ditto the WM3.)

Truth is, it is so easy to manipulate public perception via the mass media. Stone's lawyers are simply taking lessons from Avery, WM3 and Amanda Knox.

So Bellfield attacked his victims with a hammer, but guess what, Stone also has a conviction of doing the same.

Like the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, Bellfield had a pathological hatred of women. Bellfield's targets are supposedly blondes.
Well, that doesn't fit Lin, but you haven't told us that.

The fact Stone was registered in the region at a Cash Converters four hours before the crime indicates he was short of cash (these shops give you cash in exchange for goods). He was a junkie. Josie heard the man ask Lin for cash and then went mad when she sais she didn't have any.

Bellfield spent the day with his girlfriend celebrating her birthday. I don't think she is a credible witness, but police were satisfied with the alibi and she was a witness for the prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
However, there is currently nothing to show that Bellfield was at the murder scene. It may be too late to get that evidence, as it is obviously too late to go over his car and the clothes he was wearing that day. The bootlace has been lost, which is the main item of forensic evidence that might have had his DNA on it. I wonder if there is anything else in store that could be subjected to further testing?
Click to expand...

I was thinking it was too late for any forensics, particularly regarding Bellfield. I wonder of his DNA has been compared with any found at the scene?
 
Vixen said:
The tv programme - as produced by Stone's defence lawyers
Click to expand...

Citation required here, I think.

- claim that DNA rules out Stone, but could include Bellfield.

What they do not say is that if the DNA haplotype found was - say - R1b1b2a1a, then that would fit 30%- 40% of the male population of Great Britain. See: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28873-R1b1b2a1a

This type of stuff is called lying by omission: it lets the viewer believe - hey, that was Bellfield's DNA at the scene.
Click to expand...

Codswallop. It says exactly what it says and no more - it excludes Stone and could include Bellfield. If that's what the DNA does, then that's what it does. How you can call this lying by omission completely eludes me.
 
Fascinating.

Meanwhile, the Chillenden Murders credits:

Produced and Directed by
Matt Rudge

Executive Producer
Colin Barr
Ruth Kelly

Producer
Lila Allen

Stephen Kamlish isn't listed as a producer. How come?
 
Vixen said:
Of course, Stone is a more reliable witness in your view.
Click to expand...


Quit with telling me what my view is. I don't really have one, while yours seems already to be fixed even though you've demonstrated poor knowledge of the case on several points already.

I think Bellfield is a more likely perpetrator based on his record, although Stone's profile certainly puts him in the frame too. I think either or both of them could be lying their little heads off, which is why I'm interested in what the evidence turns up.

You know, that forensic evidence that is entirely lacking against Stone, despite strenuous efforts to find some.
 
Rolfe said:
Quit with telling me what my view is. I don't really have one, while yours seems already to be fixed even though you've demonstrated poor knowledge of the case on several points already.

I think Bellfield is a more likely perpetrator based on his record, although Stone's profile certainly puts him in the frame too. I think either or both of them could be lying their little heads off, which is why I'm interested in what the evidence turns up.

You know, that forensic evidence that is entirely lacking against Stone, despite strenuous efforts to find some.
Click to expand...

There is no mandate that forensic evidence must be produced. A crime that occurs in the open air means that DNA evidence and blood can deteriorate very quickly.

The perp was aware of the hazard of leaving forensic evidence and made sure he removed it.
 
Vixen said:
...

If you commit a crime and plead not guilty, you have a high chance of walking free.....
Click to expand...

Second request for you to evidence that claim. Then you can evidence the claims you have just made about forensic evidence. Thanks.
 
Nessie said:
Second request for you to evidence that claim. Then you can evidence the claims you have just made about forensic evidence. Thanks.
Click to expand...

It is common knowledge:

Figures show that nearly two out of three defendants who pleaded not guilty escaped jail in 2007.
Click to expand...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...er-a-not-guilty-plea-hits-seven-year-low.html

Sorry to hear you didn't know about how DNA deteriorates, but you can do some reading here:

Biological samples collected from crime scenes, mass disasters, and missing persons cases may have been exposed to harsh environmental conditions such as heat, direct sunlight, and water that break down the chemical structure of DNA. Environmental exposure damages DNA by randomly breaking the molecules into smaller pieces.
Click to expand...
https://www.nij.gov/topics/forensics/evidence/dna/research/pages/compromised-evidence.aspx

Perhaps you can advise where you got the idea that forensic evidence is mandatory for a conviction in a murder trial.
 
Sorry to hear that you did not know it was common knowledge that claims are expected to be backed up with links to evidence.

Can you advise me where I claimed forensic evidence is mandatory for a conviction in a murder trial?
 
Does anyone happen to know if there was an outcome for Michael Stone's application to the CCRC to have the case referred for appeal? The last I can find is a CCRC statement dated 29th November that the case was under investigation. I assume it wasn't referred for appeal (unless still under investigation after all this time) but I can't seem to find any statement that it was dismissed either.
 
Elaedith said:
Does anyone happen to know if there was an outcome for Michael Stone's application to the CCRC to have the case referred for appeal? The last I can find is a CCRC statement dated 29th November that the case was under investigation. I assume it wasn't referred for appeal (unless still under investigation after all this time) but I can't seem to find any statement that it was dismissed either.
Click to expand...
The 2010 application? It was refused in December 2011.
 
catsmate said:
The 2010 application? It was refused in December 2011.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I accidentally left out part of the date. I am referring to the 2017 application. There was a lot of media attention around the time, due to the Chillenden murders documentary. I thought whatever the outcome, there would be further media attention after the review but don't recall hearing anything. I searched the CCRC site but found nothing more.

https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-statement-on-the-2017-application-of-michael-stone/
 
Elaedith said:
Sorry, I accidentally left out part of the date. I am referring to the 2017 application. There was a lot of media attention around the time, due to the Chillenden murders documentary. I thought whatever the outcome, there would be further media attention after the review but don't recall hearing anything. I searched the CCRC site but found nothing more.

https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-statement-on-the-2017-application-of-michael-stone/
Click to expand...

Doesn't look like there has been any move yet. Law can be slow moving.
 
It seems the parties in this case have been informed there will not be any case review and their comments are requested.

In short, the application for an appeal has been rejected. The above is just a legal formality.

The team are continuing to appeal and will decide whether they can pursue a case through the Court of Appeal themselves but Mr Bacon said getting support from the CCRC "is just better".

A final decision on the CCRC ruling is due on December 2.

Stone has previously said he would starve himself to death before confessing to the murders.

Bellfield earlier said Stone was bribing him to admit to the killings after passing notes between their cells at HMP Frankland in Durham in 2017 and challenged Stone to take a lie detector test.
Click to expand...
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/chillenden-murderer-loses-latest-appeal-bid-215685/

I saw the documentary, which was from a defence POV, and didn't think the claim Levi Bellfield was the real killer particularly compelling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom