Miscarriages of justice watchdog is examining key exhibits in 1996 double murder that could prove the innocence of Michael Stone who was convicted on the ‘slimmest evidence imaginable’
Finger nail scrapings taken from the body of Lin Russell could prove the innocence of a man convicted of murdering the mum and her daughter Megan, his barrister has revealed.
The forensic evidence is believed to have never been tested and is among a number of items that are currently being examined using the latest forensic techniques. Lawyers acting for Michael Stone, the man convicted of the brutal hammer attack in Chillenden, Kent, have commissioned a review of the evidence.
The 18-page analysis of the case by Angela Gallop, a forensic scientist, highlights missed opportunities in the original investigation and suggests new tests that might prove without doubt who did it. Stone, 63, was found guilty and is serving three life sentences for killing the 45-year-old mother and her six-year-old daughter, who were found bludgeoned to death on July 9, 1996.
READ MORE: ‘My father used me in plot to murder my mum and ruined my life’READ MORE: James Bulger’s dad vows to fight killer Jon Venables after ‘Monster’ makes freedom bid
Lin’s other daughter, Josie, then nine, survived despite suffering severe head injuries and made a remarkable recovery. The three, as well as their dog Lucy, were tied up and beaten with a hammer. No scientific or identification evidence links Stone to the scene.
He was convicted at Maidstone crown court in 1998 by a verdict of 10 to two after the jury heard from three witnesses who claimed he had confessed in jail. His conviction was quashed after two were discredited. Stone was found guilty for a second time by a majority verdict in 2001.
Fellow prisoner and violent drug addict Damien Daley, a self confessed liar, told the court Stone had admitted the crime as they talked from next-door cells. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice, has instructed its own forensic expert to begin a fresh round of testing. Stone has always maintained his innocence.
Gallop, whose team got convictions for two of Stephen Lawrence’s killers, was commissioned by Stone’s barrister Mark McDonald. Mr McDonald told the Sunday Times: “One of the reasons why I think Stone is innocent is he’s on the phone to me every day saying, ‘Try testing this, try testing that’. Someone who thinks their DNA might be there doesn’t keep banging on about testing things.”
Among the items that Ms Gallop believes could offer clues are fingernail scrapings from Lin’s left hand, which she said the files showed were “apparently never tested”. A bootlace found close to the crime scene was stained with the victims’ blood and police believed it was used to strangle Megan.
Testing of 75 areas originally found traces of male DNA that did not match Stone. There was not enough to search police databases. Stone’s legal team wants it to be retested using the latest technology. Kent police previously claimed it had been lost before it reappeared six years ago.
Jim Fraser, a forensic scientist who worked on the original case, believes a fingerprint found on one of the girls’ lunchboxes could provide answers using modern testing. “It’s a case that sits on a knife edge and it would be amazing if it could be resolved,” he said. “Whether Stone did it or not, he has been convicted on the slimmest evidence imaginable.”
A pair of red plastic jelly shoes belonging to Josie may also offer fresh clues. Ms Gallop believes looking at the untested backs of the heels may produce a DNA match. Other items listed for checking include the ankles of Lin’s trousers, where she may have been grabbed, and the handle of a string bag with bloodstained strips of torn-up swimming towel used to restrain the victims.
Gallop wrote: “[Reflecting on] everything we have learnt from successful reinvestigations of past cases, and latest versions of new techniques now available we believe [there is] scientific work that could reasonably be done in an attempt to reveal physical traces that had been left behind by the offender on the victims and/or at the crime scene, and which therefore could be used to definitively identify him.”
