Russell murders, new suspect.

[Nessie]

News that Levi Bellfield, already convicted murderer, has made a confession to killing Lin and Megan Russell in Kent in 1996. The admission, to another prisoner, allegedly contains details only the killer would know.

Then there is also a witness who says she reported seeing a man, who she now identifies as Bellfield near the scene of the murder. Apparently she made the initial report on the day of the murder. When she later saw Bellfield in publicity for a later trial, she is sure it was him.

The conviction of Michael Stone for the murder was primarily on a supposed admission he made. There was no forensic evidence linking him, which is odd considering the ferocity of the attack with a hammer, that also killed the dog the Russells had with them.

The MO is also like Bellfield, who killed Amelie Delagrange with strikes from a blunt instrument.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-42144445

Initially this looks pretty compelling Stone is the wrong man for the murders. The sad thing is that despite the evidence, this will likely take a long time, as the justice system hates to admit it has made a mistake with a conviction.

 

[Rolfe]

Have you seen this? The part about the Russell murders is a few pages in.

http://www.davidwolchover.co.uk/docs/Gaol Cell Confessions.doc

I read it about six years ago and I've doubted that they got the right guy ever since. Of course since the guy they pinned it on seems to be an actual psychopath it's a bit difficult to argue he should be freed.

 

[MikeG]

Thanks Rolfe. That's a very persuasive and interesting piece.

 

[Rolfe]

The thing about the legality of accepting evidence of a confession made to a third party which the accused then denies being questionable because it's hearsay is something I never thought about. It sounds as if it shouldn't be admissible but the courts have been turning backflips for centuries to get these confessions in under the radar.

 

[MikeG]

I once reported to the police a conversation I had had with a neighbour who had seen an (illegal, obviously) handgun in another neighbour's vehicle. They (the police) didn't even entertain it. This was hearsay. If that's the standard police operate at, how the courts can take the blindest bit of notice of "he told me"-type evidence without corroboration is utterly beyond me.

As a fun aside, Bellville and Stone are held in the same prison (Durham, from memory). I'll bet they have some interesting conversations when they bump into each other.

 

[Matthew Best]

He's hardly a "new suspect". He's been considered a likely perpetrator of this crime for ages.

The interesting thing here is that the main evidence against him seems to be a confession to a cellmate that he now denies having made, which is exactly the same evidence that was used to convict Stone in the first place. So Stone's legal team are saying the evidence that shouldn't have been enough to convict their client, should be enough to convict someone else's client.

 

[Darat]

He's hardly a "new suspect". He's been considered a likely perpetrator of this crime for ages.

The interesting thing here is that the main evidence against him seems to be a confession to a cellmate that he now denies having made, which is exactly the same evidence that was used to convict Stone in the first place. So Stone's legal team are saying the evidence that shouldn't have been enough to convict their client, should be enough to convict someone else's client.

Not quite - listened to an interview with one of the solicitors involved, there is meant to be a difference in the confessions. Stone's alleged confession only included details of the murders that were already in the public domain and being reported in the press at the time of the confession, Bellfield's confession is supposed to have details about the murders that have not been made public.

If the legal team can "prove" that those details were not in the public domain when Bellfield is alleged to have made his confession then that does indicate that he has knowledge only the murderer or an accomplice could have.

Problem I see with that argument is that the details may not have been in the press but I am sure they would have been known to various police officers, police personnel, solicitors, barristers etc. so Bellfield could have obtained the information from those sources, even indirectly.

 

[Nessie]

I once reported to the police a conversation I had had with a neighbour who had seen an (illegal, obviously) handgun in another neighbour's vehicle. They (the police) didn't even entertain it. This was hearsay. If that's the standard police operate at, how the courts can take the blindest bit of notice of "he told me"-type evidence without corroboration is utterly beyond me.

As a fun aside, Bellville and Stone are held in the same prison (Durham, from memory). I'll bet they have some interesting conversations when they bump into each other.

They should have done some checks and then acted. I remember a similar incident, which, because there was no intelligence held on the person with the alleged gun, two cops were sent to the house just to ask if he had any. Turns out he had loads, but they were all airguns and legal. Some just looked like "real" guns.

If there had been intelligence on the person suggesting involvement in say an OGC, then expect the premises to be raided by armed officers.

 

[Nessie]

The thing about the legality of accepting evidence of a confession made to a third party which the accused then denies being questionable because it's hearsay is something I never thought about. It sounds as if it shouldn't be admissible but the courts have been turning backflips for centuries to get these confessions in under the radar.

I think the issue is specialist knowledge. Show that and the witness to the conversation has now got specialist knowledge, which is not just hearsay.

Another example of what appears to be hearsay being used as evidence is in rapes, where the person who the victim initially reports the rape to becomes corroboration. That person is speaking to not just what the victim said, but their demeanour and appearance.

 

[Nessie]

I think the most damning evidence is the witness who reported it was Bellfield she saw that day!

Plus the MO for the Russells was exactly the same as the other murders and attacks he committed. Random, violent batterings.

The jail cell confession is the weakest of all the reasons to suspect Bellfield did it. It has served the purpose of getting publicity.

It is sadly typical of the police to fixate on one suspect and ignore evidence which points to another.

 

[Rolfe]

He's hardly a "new suspect". He's been considered a likely perpetrator of this crime for ages.

The interesting thing here is that the main evidence against him seems to be a confession to a cellmate that he now denies having made, which is exactly the same evidence that was used to convict Stone in the first place. So Stone's legal team are saying the evidence that shouldn't have been enough to convict their client, should be enough to convict someone else's client.

I'm not sure how long "ages" is. When I originally read that article by Wolchover in about 2011 I don't remember anything about Bellfield. At that time one of the points against Stone was that since he had been locked up there had been no similar crimes committed. It was speculated that, if Stone was innocent, the real murderer might have gone abroad - or indeed be locked up for something else, which of course covers Bellfield.

Do you know when Bellfield first came into the picture?

I don't think that anybody sensible is suggestiong convicting Bellfield on the basis of an alleged confession to a jailhouse snitch alone. What is being suggested is that he be seriously investigated for the murders. One impediment to that is that Michael Stone is sitting in jail with a conviction for the crime. It's solved. Why would they re-open it?

 

[Vixen]

My contribution here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12094823#post12094823

 

[Rolfe]

I am quite sceptical, as I saw Stone's defence lawyers putting forward their case on a minority channel with a little watched documentary. They use they typical defence lawyer spin:

- They claim Stone was convicted on merely circumstantial evidence.

- They put forward arguments as to why they did not think it was his car that was seen by witnesses (pure opinion)

- They put forward a alternative perpetrator.

- The alternative perpetrator is someone with a string of murder convictions under his belt (so, the argument seems to suggest, why not stick another one on him?)

- The claim Bellfield has 'made a full confession' should be taken with a pinch of salt. They brought this up in the tv documentary, and it turns out to be another 'a prison inmate claims Bellfield confessed to him in prison he did it' (shades of Shawkshank Redemption).

The police did respond and there is incriminating forensic evidence which points to Stone. They didn't give any credence to the Bellfield theory.

the public seem to love a 'wrongfully convicted' story.

The fact this tired defence has today made headline news indicates how gullible the media is to these claims of 'new evidence', which turns out to be old hat which was already discredited at the time, from what I can discern.

Do tell us about the "incriminating forensic evidence that points to Stone".

I don't really care which of them did it, but I do care about the truth.

Mind you, there seems to be a lot to be said for keeping Stone safely behind bars regardless, and while that's hardly justice I can see the pragmatic logic of it.

 

[Vixen]

Do tell us about the "incriminating forensic evidence that points to Stone".

I don't really care which of them did it, but I do care about the truth.

Mind you, there seems to be a lot to be said for keeping Stone safely behind bars regardless, and while that's hardly justice I can see the pragmatic logic of it.

It was to do with the bootlaces, came up in The Chillenden Murders tv documentary.

I find it amusing people lay more store in tabloid sensationalist newspapers than on a proper trial in a court of law.

Megan, the young girl who survived the murders of her mother and sister is insistent it was Stone.

Compare and contrast with James Hanratty - the so-called 'A6 murderer' - who also had a huge media 'innocence' campaign. His victim, who survived but is permanently disabled and in a wheelchair (raped and her lover murdered) was similarly adamant it was Hanratty. People preferred the romantic notion of 'a man wrongly hanged'.

His body was exumed some years later, and guess what? His DNA matched the murder scene.

So he was guilty all along, despite some landlady in a Bed and Breakfast claiming to be an eyewitness he was at her lodgings at the time of the murders.

 

[Darat]

It was to do with the bootlaces, came up in The Chillenden Murders tv documentary.

I find it amusing people lay more store in tabloid sensationalist newspapers than on a proper trial in a court of law.

...snip...

You can source your evidence once you've said what it is!

What is the forensic evidence?

 

[Rolfe]

It was to do with the bootlaces, came up in The Chillenden Murders tv documentary.

I find it amusing people lay more store in tabloid sensationalist newspapers than on a proper trial in a court of law.

Megan, the young girl who survived the murders of her mother and sister is insistent it was Stone.

Compare and contrast with James Hanratty - the so-called 'A6 murderer' - who also had a huge media 'innocence' campaign. His victim, who survived but is permanently disabled and in a wheelchair (raped and her lover murdered) was similarly adamant it was Hanratty. People preferred the romantic notion of 'a man wrongly hanged'.

His body was exumed some years later, and guess what? His DNA matched the murder scene.

So he was guilty all along, despite some landlady in a Bed and Breakfast claiming to be an eyewitness he was at her lodgings at the time of the murders.

The girl who survived is called Josie. I would have thought anyone at all familiar with the case would know that. She has never insisted that it was Stone. She didn't pick him out of a lineup.

The bootlace thing is very fully covered in the Wolchover article and there is no incriminating evidence against Stone from that. His DNA was not found. So where is this "incriminating forensic evidence" to be found?

Everybody knows that the posthumous DNA testing proved Hanratty was guilty. That doesn't mean everybody is guilty. You're just handwaving now.

Disclaimer: I thought Stone was guilty until I read the Wolchover article. It was a bit of a surprise to me that there was any doubt. I can see why the police pursued him as a very likely suspect.

 

[Vixen]

The girl who survived is called Josie. I would have thought anyone at all familiar with the case would know that. She has never insisted that it was Stone. She didn't pick him out of a lineup.

The bootlace thing is very fully covered in the Wolchover article and there is no incriminating evidence against Stone from that. His DNA was not found. So where is this "incriminating forensic evidence" to be found?

Everybody knows that the posthumous DNA testing proved Hanratty was guilty. That doesn't mean everybody is guilty. You're just handwaving now.

Disclaimer: I thought Stone was guilty until I read the Wolchover article. It was a bit of a surprise to me that there was any doubt. I can see why the police pursued him as a very likely suspect.

If there is a case for innocence, then I am sure the criminal review committee will look at the so-called 'new' evidence objectively, dispassionately and fairly.

The ridiculous idea put forward by some that 'it will be brushed under the carpet because they cannot bear to admit they made a mistake' is complete rubbish.

It is important to bear in mind both the recent tv documentary and the recent mass media campaign is led by Stone's own defence team.

I watched the tv programme and was disappointed it was merely the usual defence exercise of 'casting doubt' on the prosecution evidence and presenting 'an alternative perpetrator'. This is nothing that could not have been - and should have been - brought up at the original trial.

I would bear in mnd the caveat of who is spearheading the crusade to 'free Michael Stone'.

Paddington Bear is innocent.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think David Wolchover has ever been part of Stone's defence team and he has been pointing out the flaws in the conviction for ten years and more. He also makes a good case for possible police misconduct in "losing" the main part of the bootlace, the item that could clear all this up if it were tested for DNA using modern methods. Like it or not, the police are extremely reluctant to face up to the fact that they got a wrong answer. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if something that might reveal that that had happened was mysteriously vanished from the evidence store.

I don't believe it was unreasonable for the police to have suspected Stone, and I'm not aware of any police misconduct in the investigation that led to his conviction. Sometimes inquiries get the wrong person through no particular fault of anyone's but simply because one possible suspect has been apprehended and another possible suspect remains at large, unrecognised as such. But the police really, really don't like having their convictions overturned, especially in a high profile case like this.

I would expect Stone's defence team to be prominent in any campaign to prove his innocence - I can't see why they wouldn't be. This is of no consequence. The evidence is what's important, not who is pointing it out.

 

[Vixen]

The girl who survived is called Josie. I would have thought anyone at all familiar with the case would know that. She has never insisted that it was Stone. She didn't pick him out of a lineup.

The bootlace thing is very fully covered in the Wolchover article and there is no incriminating evidence against Stone from that. His DNA was not found. So where is this "incriminating forensic evidence" to be found?

Everybody knows that the posthumous DNA testing proved Hanratty was guilty. That doesn't mean everybody is guilty. You're just handwaving now.

Disclaimer: I thought Stone was guilty until I read the Wolchover article. It was a bit of a surprise to me that there was any doubt. I can see why the police pursued him as a very likely suspect.

From the DAILY MAIL

There is no doubt in Josie’s mind that the right man, Michael Stone, is behind bars for the murder of her mother and sister, and she is angry about the way in which the family’s wounds were reopened earlier this year when the BBC screened a controversial documentary called The Chillenden Murders.

So, Josie Russell does believe it was Stone.

As a recap of the prosecution evidence:

Mr Sweeney said Stone had an intimate knowledge of the Chillenden area as he had lived in the vicinity as a child in children's homes.

He also said Stone was broadly consistent with the e-fit compiled by the witness who saw the attacker driving away.

He added that Stone also kept tools, including hammers, in the back of his car and that after the murders he had gone to a friend's house with his T-shirt splattered with blood. He also burnt his clothing after the attack.

<snip>

"With all three bodies lying close to each other in the little copse, obviously believing he had accomplished his objective of killing all three humans and the dog, the attacker must have undone the six bloodied strips and put them into Josie's swimming bag and took them away.

"Why go to all that trouble?

"One explanation would be that he was aware of the risk of being traced by leaving a trail of himself at the scene."

Mr Sweeney added that the bodies' movement was consistent with their hands being untied after their death.

The court heard that Stone could be traced going into the Cash Converters shop in Chatham High Street around four hours before the killings but no trace was found of him after that point.

<snip>

After the attack the man left the copse and drove his car back along the way he had come.

The court heard that a woman spotted the car and was driving behind it for several minutes, noticing that the man inside was extremely agitated.

Mr Sweeney: "He kept looking at her through his mirror and she got a sufficiently good look at him to make an e-fit of the man she had seen."

Around half an hour after the murders had taken place, a man was spotted around a mile away from the murder scene in an agitated state.

Mr Sweeney said: "He perhaps realised he had dropped his shoelace at the scene and weighing up the pros and cons of going back. He then dropped the string bag containing the bloodied towel strips in a hedgerow and drove off making good his escape."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-71602/Stone-boasted-murders.html

Latest update: Bellfield, in the same prison as Stone, claims he was bribed to take the blame so Stone could claim compensation for his number of years in jail.

In a statement, Miss Cooper said: “Mr Bellfield denies the murders of the Russell family and denies ever making such a confession.

“Mr Stone has offered payment to our client, which he anticipates receiving as compensation for time served in custody.

“Our client has three notes from Mr Stone in this regard which has been given to the prison service, together with a number of complaints regarding Mr Stone about his persistent attempts to get our client to accept responsibility for his (Mr Stone’s) crimes.

“Mr Bellfield instructs that he has invited Mr Stone to undertake a polygraph test, which has been declined.

 

[Vixen]

I don't think David Wolchover has ever been part of Stone's defence team and he has been pointing out the flaws in the conviction for ten years and more. He also makes a good case for possible police misconduct in "losing" the main part of the bootlace, the item that could clear all this up if it were tested for DNA using modern methods. Like it or not, the police are extremely reluctant to face up to the fact that they got a wrong answer. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if something that might reveal that that had happened was mysteriously vanished from the evidence store.

I don't believe it was unreasonable for the police to have suspected Stone, and I'm not aware of any police misconduct in the investigation that led to his conviction. Sometimes inquiries get the wrong person through no particular fault of anyone's but simply because one possible suspect has been apprehended and another possible suspect remains at large, unrecognised as such. But the police really, really don't like having their convictions overturned, especially in a high profile case like this.

I would expect Stone's defence team to be prominent in any campaign to prove his innocence - I can't see why they wouldn't be. This is of no consequence. The evidence is what's important, not who is pointing it out.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the police. Once a case goes to trial - based on a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service quite independently of the police - it is out of police hands.