The title of this article is not mine. It is the title of one by Mark Metcalf which was published eight years ago
. At that time, Michael Stone had already spent the best part of eight years behind bars convicted of one of the most heinous crimes ever tried in an English courtroom on the most absurd testimony since the Pendle Witch Trials
Yesterday morning, the High Court dismissed his latest application, which the Sherlock Holmes Museum
funded. This means he will have to either go to back to the Criminal Cases Review Commission
or ask the Home Secretary to release the casework examinaton reports to his legal team.
For those readers who are not au fait
with the Chillenden Murders, this article
contains both a short recap and links to the two dedicated Michael Stone websites.
The bottom line is that there is not a shred of evidence—forensic or other—to tie Michael Stone to the quiet country lane where Dr. Lin Russell, her youngest daughter and one of the family dog's were battered to death in a scene of indescribable horror on July 9, 1996.
There is some forensic evidence: DNA from a human male on the towelling strips that were used to tie up the victims, and on a boot lace that was also found at the scene.
The CCRC tested the towel in 2010 using Low Copy Number DNA. It couldn't test the one metre long bootlace dropped at the scene of the crime by the perpetrator, because it had been lost
by either Kent Police or the forensic people.
The question is: whose DNA is on the towel? - because it is not Michael Stone's.
There are some people - including the current writer - who believe the real Chillenden Murderer is serial killer Levi Bellfield
This reasonable hypothesis was given some consideration in January last year after I disrupted the Leveson Inquiry
. Unfortunately, Leveson refused to find me in contempt of court, so the matter was quickly forgotten, but it is reasonable for Kent Police to disclose whether or not the DNA on the ends of the towelling strips is a partial match for Bellfield?
According to John Aidiniantz of the Sherlock Holmes Museum, their refusal to respond to this question "is as good as answering it in the affirmative". If the readings are within Bellfield's profile then that is a good enough reason to allow Stone's legal team to look at the test results from the other items, which has been the main contention of Stone's defence team in seeking the Judicial Review.
He adds: "The fact that permission was granted in March 2012 to Professor Allan Jamieson of the Forensic Institute
to examine the DNA casework examination reports and then withdrawn when a possible DNA link to Bellfield was touted is intriguing, but for whatever reason known only to themselves, Kent Police did do a U-turn and block access to the other test results which were obtained some years ago, but ignored in the heat of the moment following Stone's remarkable [alleged] confession".
Would any British police force cover up evidence of this magnitude in order to keep an innocent man behind bars for the rest of his life?
Anyone who has to ask that question hasn't heard of Stefan Kiszko
, who, although the worst, was neither the first nor the last of a lengthy series of miscarriages of justice that have tainted a legal system that was once the envy of the civilised world.