GUILTY UK - Lin (45) & Megan (6) Russell, Chillenden, Kent, 9 July 1996

[dennistakes14theteam]

There were pieces of towel also. The murderer had torn a towel into strips but then they got ‘lost’ … which imo is very convenient considering a lot of people think Michael didn’t do it

I also just want to point out (re: your last point) that Josie described a man who did NOT fit Michael stones description and yet the police failed to acknowledge that …

 

[rvlvr]

Still waiting for the major evidence/confession to exonerate MS.

I don't know. We convicted people for many years based on witness statements, expert testimony, circumstances. The absence of forensics isnt the absence of guilt. He may believe his own lies at this point. His psychologist put his name in the frame. Bellfields gf has said he was elsewhere that day. It's a tough one.

I hear what you’re saying, but the problem is that a lot of these convictions subsequently turned out to be unsafe, largely thanks to the discovery post-conviction of forensic evidence.

The Peter Sullivan conviction for Diane Sindall’s murder is probably the best example of this. On the surface the case against him looked pretty sound. He confessed more than once, couldn’t account for his movements on the night of the killing, and bite mark evidence seemed to tie him to the crime.

Had it not been for the emergence of DNA evidence, which eventually exonerated him, then Peter Sullivan would still be in prison, because he also appealed his conviction on the basis that his confessions had been improperly obtained and that the bite mark evidence was junk science, and both of these were rejected by the court (‘dealt with at the time’, ‘not new evidence’).

And quite a lot of people would’ve been quite happy to see this man, this ‘beast’ as he was dubbed, die behind bars. In Peter’s case he had DNA to fall back on, but what of those who were convicted and evidence was subsequently lost or destroyed, for instance? Or those who were jailed based on now discredited ‘science’? A different jury may well have been persuaded by the soil evidence presented in the case against Adrian Bradshaw, for example, and he could’ve spent the last two decades of his life imprisoned wrongly for Victoria Hall’s murder.

I think we all agree Stone was a good suspect in this case but something feels off. I don’t know if he’s guilty or not but I feel distinctly uncomfortable locking people up for life off the back of such flimsy evidence. ‘Better a guilty man go free’ and all that.

 

[dennistakes14theteam]

Levi Bellfield's alleged confession to Russell murders - just thought I’d add my proof that he was not who josie described

 

[Mrs Marple]

I hear what you’re saying, but the problem is that a lot of these convictions subsequently turned out to be unsafe, largely thanks to the discovery post-conviction of forensic evidence.

The Peter Sullivan conviction for Diane Sindall’s murder is probably the best example of this. On the surface the case against him looked pretty sound. He confessed more than once, couldn’t account for his movements on the night of the killing, and bite mark evidence seemed to tie him to the crime.

Had it not been for the emergence of DNA evidence, which eventually exonerated him, then Peter Sullivan would still be in prison, because he also appealed his conviction on the basis that his confessions had been improperly obtained and that the bite mark evidence was junk science, and both of these were rejected by the court (‘dealt with at the time’, ‘not new evidence’).

And quite a lot of people would’ve been quite happy to see this man, this ‘beast’ as he was dubbed, die behind bars. In Peter’s case he had DNA to fall back on, but what of those who were convicted and evidence was subsequently lost or destroyed, for instance? Or those who were jailed based on now discredited ‘science’? A different jury may well have been persuaded by the soil evidence presented in the case against Adrian Bradshaw, for example, and he could’ve spent the last two decades of his life imprisoned wrongly for Victoria Hall’s murder.

I think we all agree Stone was a good suspect in this case but something feels off. I don’t know if he’s guilty or not but I feel distinctly uncomfortable locking people up for life off the back of such flimsy evidence. ‘Better a guilty man go free’ and all that.

I do get it.

I have no doubt if he wasn't in prison for this he would have been in prison for killing someone else.

Scrapings from under Lins fingernails are going to be tested for the first time apparently. Although she only had one identified defensive wound, a broken finger. There is the towel evidence too. Apparently the shoelace has been found.

I think the only confirmed sighting we can rely on is the man who saw the towels being dumped. Not sure we can rely on what Josie said, she was traumatised and not really able to communicate that well at that time. At one point she said she couldn't see her mother and sister but at another point it seems she says she could see what was happening.

Well time wil tell - will he be eligible for parole soon anyway? Or not as he won't confess? The three life sentences are presumably concurrent and the min term was 25 years. It's nearly that now.

 

[Bickles]

For me, the thing that stands out is that the bloody fingerprint found on one of the girls' lunch boxes wasn't that of Stone's. So, whose was it?

 

[Mrs Marple]

Not sure if this link has been shared before. Apparently the lunchbox is lost.

Lin and Megan Russell's murders were two of the UK's most brutal. Now, as the Mail launches The CRIME DESK, we exclusively reveal it's being reinvestigated after 30 years - with an already notorious killer in the frame… A most brutal killing reinvestigated. Welcome to THE CRIME DESK

I find it odd that Stone wanted to be isolated because he was worried other prisoners would claim he confessed. Why say that? I guess he was a known criminal and had enemies...but it's almost like he pre-empts it. How intelligent do we think this man is..?

His constant protests don't mean anything, Bamber keeps insisting he is innocent and l don't believe him, either.

The only credible eyewitness describes someone 35-40. Too old for Bellfield. Michael was 36 at the time.

If not Stone, l don't think it was Bellfield. He usually only attacked one female at a time. He wouldn't have asked for money, either. Also when he started to kill, he did it regularly. This would have been a five year gap. Its not him.

Could have been a random drug addict who has since died.

 

[sl77]

There was a small amount on a shoe lace l think. And another small source. The lace apparently disintegrated through repeated testing. Or was lost. Or maybe both.

They rediscovered it around 2023

 

[joe jones]

I hear what you’re saying, but the problem is that a lot of these convictions subsequently turned out to be unsafe, largely thanks to the discovery post-conviction of forensic evidence.

The Peter Sullivan conviction for Diane Sindall’s murder is probably the best example of this. On the surface the case against him looked pretty sound. He confessed more than once, couldn’t account for his movements on the night of the killing, and bite mark evidence seemed to tie him to the crime.

Had it not been for the emergence of DNA evidence, which eventually exonerated him, then Peter Sullivan would still be in prison, because he also appealed his conviction on the basis that his confessions had been improperly obtained and that the bite mark evidence was junk science, and both of these were rejected by the court (‘dealt with at the time’, ‘not new evidence’).

And quite a lot of people would’ve been quite happy to see this man, this ‘beast’ as he was dubbed, die behind bars. In Peter’s case he had DNA to fall back on, but what of those who were convicted and evidence was subsequently lost or destroyed, for instance? Or those who were jailed based on now discredited ‘science’? A different jury may well have been persuaded by the soil evidence presented in the case against Adrian Bradshaw, for example, and he could’ve spent the last two decades of his life imprisoned wrongly for Victoria Hall’s murder.

I think we all agree Stone was a good suspect in this case but something feels off. I don’t know if he’s guilty or not but I feel distinctly uncomfortable locking people up for life off the back of such flimsy evidence. ‘Better a guilty man go free’ and all that.

There has to be things wrong with his conviction as it keeps getting reexamined, I have always felt he was wrongly convicted, we shall see if he gets any relief this time

 

[joe jones]

Not sure if this link has been shared before. Apparently the lunchbox is lost.

Lin and Megan Russell's murders were two of the UK's most brutal. Now, as the Mail launches The CRIME DESK, we exclusively reveal it's being reinvestigated after 30 years - with an already notorious killer in the frame… A most brutal killing reinvestigated. Welcome to THE CRIME DESK

I find it odd that Stone wanted to be isolated because he was worried other prisoners would claim he confessed. Why say that? I guess he was a known criminal and had enemies...but it's almost like he pre-empts it. How intelligent do we think this man is..?

His constant protests don't mean anything, Bamber keeps insisting he is innocent and l don't believe him, either.

The only credible eyewitness describes someone 35-40. Too old for Bellfield. Michael was 36 at the time.

If not Stone, l don't think it was Bellfield. He usually only attacked one female at a time. He wouldn't have asked for money, either. Also when he started to kill, he did it regularly. This would have been a five year gap. Its not him.

Could have been a random drug addict who has since died.

Many serial killers don't stick to one way of killing, or the same amount of victims in an attack, I don't know if it's Bellfield but I am more sure its not stone, and the description Josie gave was given by a traumatized child, who had suffered brain injury due to her attacker, I am sure she tried to recall what she saw of her attacker but I wouldn't say her description of the attacker could be solely relied upon, plus eyewitness testimony from anybody is found to be notoriously unreliable under scientific conditions never mind asking a child who has just witnessed and lived through the horrendous ordeal she had

 

[sl77]

Could have been a random drug addict who has since died.

The area is similar to a Midsomer Murders village, with farmland everywhere. It's not really a place with drug addicts wandering around.

I still think this is schizophrenia. Asking for money.... Then going through a child's lunchbox? The person was not of sound mind.

 

[tes1984]

Schizophrenia and drug addiction aren't mutually exclusive though, and whoever committed the murders was of sound enough mind to avoid detection.

I thought the fingerprint on the lunchbox was suspected to be from Lin Russell, although I might be misremembering.

It was an idyllic place, but I certainly wouldn't rule out the idea of drug addicts in the area.