Author Topic: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight  (Read 15797 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14192
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #465 on: November 26, 2018, 12:39:PM »
I would have thought Bellfield's DNA profile would be in the system and on the National Database? He was arrested in 2004 - although he had a number of convictions up to 2002, none of them would have resulted in a full, 10 marker profile on the database, since the new profiles and the standard procedure of routinely obtaining and recording DNA profiles didn't come into being until 2003.

So profiles obtained from the scene of the Chillenden attacks could be compared against Bellfield's profile in the National Database - if they haven't been, the question has to be, why not? Or, if his full, 10 marker profile isn't in the database, why is that?

im sure it is in the database but theres no way there going to test is there it might come up with an answer they dont like.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #466 on: November 26, 2018, 02:05:PM »
Possibly - my post was in response to an earlier post saying Bellfield had refused to give a sample for comparison - I don't think that can be the case, though.

Given the documentary and that the CCRC appear to be still investigating the application made in August last year (I haven't seen anything to say they've come to a conclusion yet), I'd have thought this would have been at the top of their agenda, regardless of whether or not the prosecution/police want it done.

The other possibility is that it's been done and the comparison came back with nothing to link the DNA on the towel strips to Bellfield but, again, I'd have thought the media would have been all over that.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14192
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #467 on: November 26, 2018, 02:59:PM »
Possibly - my post was in response to an earlier post saying Bellfield had refused to give a sample for comparison - I don't think that can be the case, though.

Given the documentary and that the CCRC appear to be still investigating the application made in August last year (I haven't seen anything to say they've come to a conclusion yet), I'd have thought this would have been at the top of their agenda, regardless of whether or not the prosecution/police want it done.

The other possibility is that it's been done and the comparison came back with nothing to link the DNA on the towel strips to Bellfield but, again, I'd have thought the media would have been all over that.

stones solicter said it in the documentry he said at first belfeild was happy to offer a sample the suddenly when pressed on the issue he was not.

you would of heard if belfeilds dna had been elimanated.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #468 on: November 27, 2018, 09:34:AM »
I see.

That's very strange, though - I still don't understand why they would have to ask him for a sample if his profile would already be in the database? Unless a sample was never taken and entered into the database - that would be unbelievable!

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14192
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #469 on: November 27, 2018, 11:39:AM »
I see.

That's very strange, though - I still don't understand why they would have to ask him for a sample if his profile would already be in the database? Unless a sample was never taken and entered into the database - that would be unbelievable!

well theres 3 posbilitys for some resan they cant find

they have got it but are refusing to test it.

tthe police have tested but do not want to release the results.


Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #470 on: November 27, 2018, 02:47:PM »
I found this on the website http://www.michaelstone.co.uk/

Quote
(vii) 5th March 2012 - Kent police have provided authority to Mr Stone's defence team to examine the forensic case files held by the Forensic Science Service.

(viii) 20th July 2012 - Kent police have reversed their decision to provide authority to access the DNA test results stored in the archives of the Forensic Science Service.

The issue for the police and the CPS to address is that the primary exhibit in the case was a 1m long black bootlace which was dropped at the scene of the crime by the perpetrator. The lace was used to strangle Megan Russell. Multiple male DNA readings of D19 -12,14 were detected at various points along the lace, but that reading is not within Stone's profile. The CPS and the police suggested that the DNA must have come from one of Stone's fellow drug addicts while it was being used as a tourniquet; and that was why Stone's DNA was not on the lace, which was used to strangle Megan Russell.

The same reading D19-12,14  was however detected at both ends of the girls' swimming towel, which was torn into six strips by the perpetrator. Male DNA of THO1- 6 was also detected on both ends of these strips. The last person to handle the black lace and the ends of the towelling strips was the perpetrator. These readings of D19 - 12,14 and THO1- 6 must therefore belong to the perpetrator's profile. They are not within Michael Stone's profile and therefore he could not have been the person who brought the lace to the crime scene and then dropped it while making his escape. He could also not have been the person who tore their swimming towel into strips, if the male DNA found on the ends of those strips belonged to the perpetrator. It is not feasible to ignore the significance of these DNA readings, which point towards an unknown assailant.

An examination of test results obtained from other items handled by the perpetrator would enable further DNA readings in the perpetrator's profile to be determined. If the foregoing readings of D19-12,14 and THO1- 6 are within Mr Bellfield's profile then Kent police and the CPS have a clear duty to allow unfettered access to the DNA test reports for further appraisal.

(ix) 14th April 2013 - A Judicial Review oral hearing is to take place in the High Court on 11th June 2013, which challenges the decision of Kent Police's refusal to allow access to the forensic case files.

(x) 30th September 2013 - The JR application was refused as being "totally without merit"  PDF

(xi) 8th October 2013 - Mr Stone's legal team intend to present a fresh application to the CCRC on the basis of the DNA findings discovered on the towelling strips in 2010 using the low copy number DNA testing method

So, if I'm reading that correctly, the police have refused to release the forensic files detailing the DNA results on the lace and the towel strips - that means there is "nothing" (in evidential terms) for Michael Stone's defence/appeal team to compare Bellfield's DNA with, even if his DNA profile is in the database.

Just like the Kevin Nunn case, they have the evidence but refuse to release it because it could destroy their case - and that's called justice??

The bottom line is that the three "markers" identified (12, 14 and 6) are not in Michael Stone's DNA profile and therefore come from some other male's DNA. How did Michael Stone manage to tie up and strangle the victims using these objects without leaving his DNA on them yet somehow, left another male's DNA undisturbed on them?

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #471 on: November 28, 2018, 04:37:AM »
Possibly - my post was in response to an earlier post saying Bellfield had refused to give a sample for comparison - I don't think that can be the case, though.

Given the documentary and that the CCRC appear to be still investigating the application made in August last year (I haven't seen anything to say they've come to a conclusion yet), I'd have thought this would have been at the top of their agenda, regardless of whether or not the prosecution/police want it done.

The other possibility is that it's been done and the comparison came back with nothing to link the DNA on the towel strips to Bellfield but, again, I'd have thought the media would have been all over that.
   My "educated guess" as to why Bellfield's DNA has not been tested against the profiles found at the scene would be that because officially the case is solved. The police would surely only be checking the DNA database against unsolved crimes, to do otherwise might throw up some interesting results in other cases too. Having said that, I would be surprised if Bellfield's DNA hadn't been cross checked "unofficially" especially with the reasonable grounds for suspicion.
     Whatever these "unofficial results" we would not be told either way, in my view.
     There is already a better circumstantial case to be built against Bellfield than the fabricated nonsense  presented as a case against Stone. It would surprise no-one to find that Bellfield was the source of the DNA.
   

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #472 on: November 28, 2018, 10:44:AM »
I agree, but it's interesting that it was different in the Luke Mitchell case - three years after he was convicted, DNA from another man was run through the database in relation to a completely separate event and threw up a match to a condom found near the body. The Crown released that information to the defence. Even though the police refused to investigate further on the basis that the case was closed, the match itself was disclosed.

That was, however, more than 10 years ago and we know the situation has just got worse since.

I suspect, like the Kevin Nunn case, they already know (or strongly suspect) what the DNA would say and are simply sitting on the information - after all, in their eyes, two convictions are better than one. It's not as if Michael Stone would get a huge compensation payout, given the new approach to that, so the only reason for keeping him imprisoned is that the conviction, itself, is the "prize" for the system and they don't want to give it up.


Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14192
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #473 on: November 28, 2018, 02:19:PM »
I agree, but it's interesting that it was different in the Luke Mitchell case - three years after he was convicted, DNA from another man was run through the database in relation to a completely separate event and threw up a match to a condom found near the body. The Crown released that information to the defence. Even though the police refused to investigate further on the basis that the case was closed, the match itself was disclosed.

That was, however, more than 10 years ago and we know the situation has just got worse since.

I suspect, like the Kevin Nunn case, they already know (or strongly suspect) what the DNA would say and are simply sitting on the information - after all, in their eyes, two convictions are better than one. It's not as if Michael Stone would get a huge compensation payout, given the new approach to that, so the only reason for keeping him imprisoned is that the conviction, itself, is the "prize" for the system and they don't want to give it up.

my gues is that in lukes case they knew there was a fair chance that the dna they were disclosing would not help the defence as there was a fair chance another explantion could be found for the dna being there.


where as in mickes cass disclosing the dna to the defence would destroy the crown case as it could of only come from the killer no other posble explantation.

and if it turned  outthe doner of that dna is a convicted serial kiler already that would be game over that couldent possble make a credible arggument for stone being guilty.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2018, 03:20:PM by nugnug »

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14192
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #474 on: November 28, 2018, 03:41:PM »
   My "educated guess" as to why Bellfield's DNA has not been tested against the profiles found at the scene would be that because officially the case is solved. The police would surely only be checking the DNA database against unsolved crimes, to do otherwise might throw up some interesting results in other cases too. Having said that, I would be surprised if Bellfield's DNA hadn't been cross checked "unofficially" especially with the reasonable grounds for suspicion.
     Whatever these "unofficial results" we would not be told either way, in my view.
     There is already a better circumstantial case to be built against Bellfield than the fabricated nonsense  presented as a case against Stone. It would surprise no-one to find that Bellfield was the source of the DNA.
   

well if i was them i think i might just a little unaficail checkto try and prove it wasnt belfeild then if it turned out not to bei could make it public im sure unoficaily they have checked and im sure if the result came back as not being belfeilds they would make that public but theyhave not done so.

so im guessing that tey the dna does belong to belfeild.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14192
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #475 on: December 06, 2018, 06:00:PM »
ive allways wondered why josie russel waved to the car.

Offline IndigoJ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #476 on: December 24, 2018, 02:09:PM »
the shoe lace was tested in 75 areas for possible DNA, the majority gave full or partial results as belonging to Megan and some matched Josie, in some cases the samples taken failed to provide sufficient detail to enable meaningful comparison to any DNA. http://www.michaelstone.co.uk/stone/autopsy.pdf

so i would conclude there was no DNA taken that matched anyone other than Megan and Josie.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14192
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #477 on: December 24, 2018, 03:51:PM »
the shoe lace was tested in 75 areas for possible DNA, the majority gave full or partial results as belonging to Megan and some matched Josie, in some cases the samples taken failed to provide sufficient detail to enable meaningful comparison to any DNA. http://www.michaelstone.co.uk/stone/autopsy.pdf

so i would conclude there was no DNA taken that matched anyone other than Megan and Josie.

they were tied with the bootlace so its more or less imposable for the killer to have left no traces on there.

weathr or there isn't can only be established be testing them which the police at shit scared to do for some reason.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #478 on: December 29, 2018, 05:59:PM »
the shoe lace was tested in 75 areas for possible DNA, the majority gave full or partial results as belonging to Megan and some matched Josie, in some cases the samples taken failed to provide sufficient detail to enable meaningful comparison to any DNA. http://www.michaelstone.co.uk/stone/autopsy.pdf

so i would conclude there was no DNA taken that matched anyone other than Megan and Josie.
   And you would be wrong. Unidentified male DNA was detected at various points of the lace. The same DNA readings as those found on the ends of the towel used to tie the victims. These readings are not within Stone's DNA profile and by definition are not within any of the victims profiles.
   It is not even arguable that, "there was no DNA taken that matched anyone other than Megan and Josie." There was unidentified Male DNA on the towel strips and the lace.
   D19 -12,14 and THO1- 6 are the specific male DNA readings found and they don't belong to Stone.
   You can have your own opinions but not your own facts.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14192
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Stone New Evidence Tonight
« Reply #479 on: January 10, 2019, 02:50:PM »
   And you would be wrong. Unidentified male DNA was detected at various points of the lace. The same DNA readings as those found on the ends of the towel used to tie the victims. These readings are not within Stone's DNA profile and by definition are not within any of the victims profiles.
   It is not even arguable that, "there was no DNA taken that matched anyone other than Megan and Josie." There was unidentified Male DNA on the towel strips and the lace.
   D19 -12,14 and THO1- 6 are the specific male DNA readings found and they don't belong to Stone.
   You can have your own opinions but not your own facts.

well the word unitenitfeid would tend to suggest that.