Levi Bellfield and the Russell murders

[Blue Mist]

Christopher Jefferies. Absolutely horrendous. Some of thise newspaper editors should have gone to prison over what they did to him
There was an excellent TV reconstruction of his trauma

The true story of the Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies

An innocent man arrested for murder, he was vilified by the national press

www.bristolpost.co.uk

That's it cheers, my brother text me he along with many others decided the poor bloke was guilty based on the way the media treated him.
My brother is normally very sensible and yet.......
8 newspapers paid out for defamation of character 8 !! As you say they should have gone to jail.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Sadly a lot of British people seem to be the same. I am racking my brains for the name of the murderer but ..... One case in particular, a foreign female student was murdered. The owner of the house she rented was white, long white hair and appeared different, (odd, eccentric etc) The media decided based purely on his looks, he was guilty. Sadly most of the population also decided the same and he was hounded.
And then the cops arrested the killer

(I have only mentioned he was white to try and jog peoples memories, I can picture him clearly but can't remember the case)

Murder of Joanna Yeates - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Blue Mist]

Murder of Joanna Yeates - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That's the one although how you found it on my description !! The victim was English the murderer was foreign. (Dutch)

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

That's the one although how you found it on my description !! The victim was English the murderer was foreign. (Dutch)

Yeah I did note that although it's infamous because of Christopher Jeffries' arrest and subsequent TV drama. The case was at trial stage when I was a 1st year student, course mates talked about trying to get a seat in the gallery.

I didn't need to google it because I knew exactly what you were talking about.

 

[PinkFinal]

Once they have someone in prison for something they just don't give a shit

See also Stefan Kizsko, Guildford 4 Birmingham 6, Bridgewater 4 etc etc

 

[Blue Mist]

Once they have someone in prison for something they just don't give a shit

See also Stefan Kizsko, Guildford 4 Birmingham 6, Bridgewater 4 etc etc

They are all bad but Stefan Kizsko just seems the worst, perhaps because of his mental ability. I could almost see why the Irish lads got stitched up, the political pressure was huge, but Stefan was just wrong. Add on the fact that it took years to get him freed, that is a huge pain we have to bear.
When these dick head journos go on about human rights and our owners, I often think of Kizsko. We cannot hold our heads up high.

 

[PeteMcFC]

I saw Stefan Kizsko sat on a garden wall near to where he lived with his mum, just before he died. He looked a totally broken man. A complete framing of an innocent man that those responsible should have gone to prison for.

 

[M18CTID]

Twice a jury have ruled otherwise

A lot of it is covered in this thread https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/the-chillenden-murders.328670/ when the documentary was aired in 2017. Stone was originally convicted because another prisoner reckoned he confessed to the murders, but that prisoner subsequently admitted he lied about Stone's confession. That's why the conviction was quashed. At the retrial, he was convicted again based on the testimony of another prisoner.

Whichever way you look at it, it's dodgy as fuck mate. IIRC, there is no forensic evidence linking Stone to the murders and if you take away any supposed confessions to other prisoners, there is literally fuck all to link him to the crime as far as I know. There's no doubt that Stone is a wrong 'un, but that doesn't make it right if it turns out he didn't do it.

As for Belfield, well he's long been suspected as the one who did it and if I was a betting man, I'd say it's him. However, this "confession" of his doesn't sit totally right with me. From what I can remember, he never admitted killing Milly Dowler* so why he would fess up to these murders is a bit of a mystery

*Edit: Scrap that. Belfield did eventually confess to Milly's murder some years after he was convicted according to Surrey police

 

[Blue Mist]

A lot of it is covered in this thread https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/the-chillenden-murders.328670/ when the documentary was aired in 2017. Stone was originally convicted because another prisoner reckoned he confessed to the murders, but that prisoner subsequently admitted he lied about Stone's confession. That's why the conviction was quashed. At the retrial, he was convicted again based on the testimony of another prisoner.

Whichever way you look at it, it's dodgy as fuck mate. IIRC, there is no forensic evidence linking Stone to the murders and if you take away any supposed confessions to other prisoners, there is literally fuck all to link him to the crime as far as I know. There's no doubt that Stone is a wrong 'un, but that doesn't make it right if it turns out he didn't do it.

As for Belfield, well he's long been suspected as the one who did it and if I was a betting man, I'd say it's him. However, this "confession" of his doesn't sit totally right with me. From what I can remember, he never admitted killing Milly Dowler* so why he would fess up to these murders is a bit of a mystery

*Edit: Scrap that. Belfield did eventually confess to Milly's murder some years after he was convicted according to Surrey police

Read the Wiki write up about Stone and the murders. A lot if evidence was not allowed to be presented.
3 prisoners stated Stone had confessed to them, the first prisoner that came forward has never changed his story. One of the others admitted after the first trial that he'd lied, the second admitted a newspaper had paid him basically to lie !!
As a result he was granted a retrial and again found guilty.

 

[M18CTID]

Read the Wiki write up about Stone and the murders. A lot if evidence was not allowed to be presented.
3 prisoners stated Stone had confessed to them, the first prisoner that came forward has never changed his story. One of the others admitted after the first trial that he'd lied, the second admitted a newspaper had paid him basically to lie !!
As a result he was granted a retrial and again found guilty.

Yeah, I've read it. I was aware of most of it. The past criminal record of the accused wasn't allowed to be presented in those days so there's nothing untoward about that - it was the norm. In any case, he was convicted anyway - primarily because a prisoner claims he confessed. For me, that's not a good look - to present that as the main evidence doesn't sit right. Fine if it's used in conjunction with other key evidence, but the fact remains that there is no forensic evidence linking Stone to the murders.

Regarding some of the other evidence that wasn't presented, it seems a big deal is being made of the psychiatrist and nurses saying Stone was making threats to kill in the days leading up to the murders. That's not a big deal for me. There will be mentally ill people all over the country who are forever making threats to kill so Stone is hardly alone in that. That leaves just a couple of other bits - one was what Josie Russell said which wasn't presented in court. She said Stone's face in the newspapers looked familiar but never said it was definitely Stone who carried out the attack. We need to remember that she was the victim of a horrific assault which would've surely had a huge effect on her memory and could've muddied the waters somewhat. The last bit of evidence not allowed to be presented was the police's suspicion that Stone stole a lawnmower just a couple of hundred yards from the murder site. Again, there's no evidence that he did steal it, and it smacks of the police trying to paint a narrative that puts Stone in the vicinity of the murder scene as he was known to steal things to fund his drug habit.

Stone's conviction came about as a result of the evidence of another prisoner, which was backed up by various flimsy bits of circumstantial evidence. That's nowhere near enough to secure a conviction IMO. I will add that that doesn't mean he definitely didn't do it though. It seems that the bootlace is perhaps the key to determining whether or not he did do it, and who did do it if it turns out that it exonerates Stone.