Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight

[JackieD]

Well there's too much damning evidence against Jeremy Bamber if that's your point, and I doubt it would fit neatly into two hourly shows as was the case with Stone.

There's not one single piece of damning evidence for me and don't forget I had the ask Jeremy anything when I was talking to him on the phone

That's the plan a six part series at the least

[Steve_uk]

There's not one single piece of damning evidence for me and don't forget I had the ask Jeremy anything when I was talking to him on the phone

That's the plan a six part series at the least

The problem is the more the public learns of the Jeremy Bamber case the more his guilt is assured; with Stone it's the inverse.

[JackieD]

The problem is the more the public learns of the Jeremy Bamber case the more his guilt is assured; with Stone it's the inverse.

I can assure you it will be the opposite when it is revealed who built the case against Jeremy

[nugnug]

the diffrence in the cases is though you can descrdit the proscution evdence in call a lot things into ustion in jeremys case its impossable to prove he dident do it and im not certan he dident do it.

in stones case its not only possble to prove his innonce its pretty easy to.

[guest7363]

Don't know how true this is, Bellfield even offered to do a DNA sample?  Sunday Mirror has the letters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4636932/Levi-Bellfield-claims-Michael-Stone-tried-bribe-him.html

[nugnug]

belfied has refused to give a dna sample and still does dispite repeated requsts from stones soliciters.

he also has no albi for the day in qustion did you watch secound part justice.

[guest7363]

belfied has refused to give a dna sample and still does dispite repeated requsts from stones soliciters.

he also has no albi for the day in qustion did you watch secound part justice.

Hi Nugnug, no I've been away so I have got to watch the second part, I know you can't believe newspapers but I just picked it up from the Mail online, there's a better account in the Mirror?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/evil-levi-bellfield-claims-fellow-10683247

While I've been away I've listened to the complete series of Daniel Morgan on Podcast, unbelievable Met police corruption.  It's called UNTOLD have a listen.

[Steve_uk]

It doesn't look good for Stone if the allegations are true, though it doesn't prove guilt conclusively one way or the other.

[Adam]

Whether Bellfield is innocent or guilty he will never give a DNA sample.

Serial killers will only admit to crimes or rule themselves out if there is conclusive proof one way or the other. Being linked to unsolved crimes keeps them in the public eye.

Stone's lawyers can ask the police to order Bellfield to give a DNA sample. Or the police may already have a sample they could give them. What the criteria is for Stone's lawyers getting the police to do either of these things, I don't know.

[guest7363]

Whether Bellfield is innocent or guilty he will never give a DNA sample.

Serial killers will only admit to crimes or rule themselves out if there is conclusive proof one way or the other. Being linked to unsolved crimes keeps them in the public eye.

Stone's lawyers can ask the police to order Bellfield to give a DNA sample. Or the police may already have a sample they could give them. What the criteria is for Stone's lawyers getting the police to do either of these things, I don't know.

I would have thought in Bellfields case the Police will have a DNA sample already, then its checked straight away on the data base.  They don't need permission to take it either.

Unless they have got his name mixed up, he's now not called Levi Bellfield it's, Yusuf Rahim he's converted to Islam

[nugnug]

Whether Bellfield is innocent or guilty he will never give a DNA sample.

Serial killers will only admit to crimes or rule themselves out if there is conclusive proof one way or the other. Being linked to unsolved crimes keeps them in the public eye.

Stone's lawyers can ask the police to order Bellfield to give a DNA sample. Or the police may already have a sample they could give them. What the criteria is for Stone's lawyers getting the police to do either of these things, I don't know.

the fact he wont he give a dna sample says to me he cant be anthing else but guilty i mean who refuses to give a dna sample if there inocent.

[Adam]

I would have thought in Bellfields case the Police will have a DNA sample already, then its checked straight away on the data base.  They don't need permission to take it either.

Unless they have got his name mixed up, he's now not called Levi Bellfield it's, Yusuf Rahim he's converted to Islam

The documentary said Stone's lawyers wrote to Bellfield himself asking him for a DNA sample.

[guest7363]

the fact he wont he give a dna sample says to me he cant be anthing else but guilty i mean who refuses to give a dna sample if there inocent.

Hasnt he offered though Nugs?  Also surely the police have a DNA sample? 

[guest7363]

The documentary said Stone's lawyers wrote to Bellfield himself asking him for a DNA sample.

Would you pass on a DNA sample to some Lawyer who wrote to you for one?  Why should he, the police have it anyway and it will have been checked on the data base.  Who knows what some outsider could do/add to any sample?

[guest7363]

the fact he wont he give a dna sample says to me he cant be anthing else but guilty i mean who refuses to give a dna sample if there inocent.

If the police came and asked for a DNA sample, yes I would give it, I wouldn't give it to some Lawyer requesting it though, just to clear me of something I've not been charged with.