• 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.

As was discussed before, the striking feature about the case is the similarity of the evidence against Stone and the alleged evidence against Bellfield. A disputed confession reported by a third party may not be compelling, but that was the main evidence against Stone. Stone is not somebody who will attract sympathy, but it seems incredible that somebody can be convicted on this basis and with an absence of forensic evidence.

I was wondering whether this has dragged on so long because the CCRC was waiting for the media attention from a couple of years ago to die down. Perhaps I'm too cynical.
 
Levi Bellfield has reportedly confessed to the Russell murders in a detailed written statement, according to Stone's solicitor.

I think it's best to be cautious about this until it is investigated.
 
https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2...killer-bellfield-confesses-to-russell-murders

"Bellfield, who is serving a life sentence for the murder of 13-year-old Milly, has written a statement with details of the killings of both Lin and Megan in 1996, according to the legal team representing Michael Stone."

Michael Stone is presently serving a prison sentence for the murder and he is not due parole until next year at the earliest. Obviously this case now needs to be fast tracked as a likely miscarriage of justice and Stone should be released pending the result.
 
I've been reading very persuasive arguments for Stone's innocence for many years. I may have linked to one by a senior lawyer earlier in the thread. But as we see time and time again, once a conviction is achieved everyone closes ranks and chants "nothing to see here folks."

I would say that this is nowhere near a done deal yet. It's another one of these cases where the authorities have backed themselves into a corner and will do anything they can to "save face". They will challenge Bellfield's confession, assert that it's a false confession to draw attention to himself and so on. Bellfield will pretty much have to prove he did it against heavy judicial scepticism. And even if he does, there's a chance they'll then claim Bellfield and Stone were joint perpetrators. That's happened before.

Still, it does answer one question. People kept saying, if Stone didn't do it and the actual murderer is at large, where are the rest of his victims? This type of crime looks like a serial killer. Some even speculated the actual murderer might have emigrated, or perhaps been killed in an accident or died of illness or drugs.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I've been reading very persuasive arguments for Stone's innocence for many years. I may have linked to one by a senior lawyer earlier in the thread. But as we see time and time again, once a conviction is achieved everyone closes ranks and chants "nothing to see here folks."

I would say that this is nowhere near a done deal yet. It's another one of these cases where the authorities have backed themselves into a corner and will do anything they can to "save face". They will challenge Bellfield's confession, assert that it's a false confession to draw attention to himself and so on. Bellfield will pretty much have to prove he did it against heavy judicial scepticism. And even if he does, there's a chance they'll then claim Bellfield and Stone were joint perpetrators. That's happened before.

Still, it does answer one question. People kept saying, if Stone didn't do it and the actual murderer is at large, where are the rest of his victims? This type of crime looks like a serial killer. Some even speculated the actual murderer might have emigrated, or perhaps been killed in an accident or died of illness or drugs.
Click to expand...

There is a chance that Bellfield is falsely confessing to get attention, given he has life without parole. I think Stone's conviction is unsafe regardless. I agree there is a risk this won't be properly investigated, even if the confession does contain details that could only be known to the killer. It wouldn't be too difficult for police to find a way around that.

One detail I read in the news reports is that the missing shoelace that was supposedly tested to destruction (the excuse for it being unexpectedly missing) had been found in police storage in 2020. I hadn't heard about that before.
 
Last edited:
Like many people I always thought Bellfield was at least as likely a suspect as Stone, and there were doubts about the safety of Stone's conviction, but Bellfield's then-girlfriend seemed to be definite at the time and again in 2017 that he had an alibi. But people can make mistakes, or lie.
 
There was evidence suggesting someone else was in the vicinity of the murders who wasn't Stone and was a more likely suspect, but I'm not at all clear that that person resolves to Bellfield.

Nevertheless I go back to the Lesley Moleseed case. When Stefan Kiszko was acquitted another possible suspect came up, someone called Raymind Hewlett. The circumstantial evidence seemed strong, definitely a much more promising case than against Kiszko. However the police decided not to prosecute because they said, when they got down to the details, the case against Hewlett was flawed just as the case against Kiszko had been, and they didn't want to go after an innocent man for a second time. Commentators on the case weren't happy, they thought Hewlett was the probable murderer.

Then, years later, the DNA in the case (which had been lost and then found as in this case, and entered into the police database) lit up like a Christmas tree against Ronald Castree, who was subsequently discovered to have been in the area at the time and a watertight case was made against him.

So thinking you know the real killer after the innocent man has been exonerated isn't always that straightforward.
 
I didn't mean that if it wasn't Stone it must be Bellfield. I seem to remember there being a bloody fingerprint inside a zipped-up lunch box which wasn't Stone's, and I assume that it wasn't Bellfield's either or the defence would have said so.
 
I probably expressed that badly. I meant, just because we were thinking it was the other guy who was seen in the area doesn't mean it's not Bellfield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom