The Jury Room S01E01
Category
🦄
CreativityTranscript
00:00In the series you're about to see, we review real murder cases in which the convicted killer
00:11refuses to accept the guilty verdict. Days, weeks, even months of courtroom deliberations
00:17may have been held, but generally cases whittle down into a handful of key disputed points
00:23of evidence. Our specifically selected jury will review the original trial evidence alongside
00:30revelatory new evidence or analysis. Will you and the jury find the convicted killer
00:35guilty, or perhaps not guilty?
00:43Hello I'm Will Hanrahan, welcome to the jury room. Today we are hearing the case of Michael
00:47Stone. Here's how it all began.
00:57On a beautiful country lane, a mother and her two daughters return from a swimming gala.
01:01A man emerges threateningly, demanding money. He ties the hands of all three with toweling
01:06and then attacks them with a hammer. The mother and one of her daughters die whilst the other
01:10is so badly hurt that her assailant assumes she was dead. He killed the family dog too.
01:17Michael Stone is found guilty of the horrific murders, but twenty years on he still denies
01:21it. Did he do it? The CBS reality jury room will debate the case of Michael Stone, a cold
01:28hearted killer or an innocent suffering a miscarriage of justice.
01:40This is Michael Stone, a troubled man. He was attending a psychiatric unit because of
01:48his dark and menacing moods and according to one nurse, fantasised about killing. Days
01:54after an e-fit photo representing an image of the man who had killed Lynn and Megan Russell
01:59appeared on TV, the psychiatrist at the same unit contacted police to say it could be his
02:05patient, Michael Stone. Arrested, he would eventually be found guilty by a majority verdict.
02:12In the jury room, twelve specifically selected citizens will be asked to revisit the case
02:17and consider evidence not heard by the original jury before reaching their own verdict. Will
02:23they find Michael Stone guilty or not guilty? Throughout our series, we'll be hearing from
02:29Colin Sutton, a former senior Met detective. This is the case for the prosecution.
02:43As Lynn Russell and her two daughters, Megan and Josie, walked down the country lane in
02:46Chillingdon, Kent, they were to suffer a frenzied attack.
02:51It's one of those crimes that is in the memory of most people and you know, you mention the
02:57names and even if people don't know the names, you say, yeah, you know the one where the
03:02woman was with the dog and the two daughters and they got hit with a hammer and two of
03:07them, oh yeah, I remember that and then the little girl survived. Yeah, I mean, it's something
03:11that, you know, fortunately it's something that we're just not accustomed to happening.
03:16Seemingly just a random, pointless, brutal attack on somebody doing something as innocently
03:25as taking her daughters home from a swimming gala. You know, it's one of those cases where
03:33the community, the country really as a whole, quietly demands a result, quietly demands
03:41that justice be done and the person responsible is brought to justice.
03:47A witness provided a description and an e-fit of the assailant was produced. The e-fit was
03:52corroborated by the surviving daughter Josie. This image was subsequently shown on TV.
03:57Great response that comes back from the public because the public wants to solve this.
04:02So, you know, there's lots of calls in and suggestions as to who it might be.
04:07Amongst them is one from a professional person from a psychiatrist. They recognise the picture
04:14or say the picture looks like a patient that they dealt with. That's Michael Stone
04:21and that during the treatment he confided in somebody that he'd had fancies about killing
04:26somebody. The witness who provided the original e-fit said that the man drove a beige Escort.
04:33Other witnesses confirmed seeing a similar car in the area around the same time.
04:38There's a sighting of a car nearby which is a Ford, which in beige colour, Michael Stone
04:43actually owns a Ford. Following his arrest, Michael Stone, concerned that people in prison
04:48were trying to get confessions out of him, requested to be moved to a segregation unit.
04:53Whilst at that unit, he received a tirade of abuse from other prisoners,
04:57but not from his cellmate next door. His name, Damien Daly.
05:02Daly comes to his rescue and has such an effect and a kind of power over the other prisoners that
05:10he's able to provide Stone with some protection and it's this protection that he offers that
05:16makes Stone trust him. And Daly then says that Stone tells him what really happened and he tells
05:27him by talking, you know, along a metal pipe that goes between the two cells. Two other witnesses
05:34were presented at trial claiming that Stone had said things amounting to a confession.
05:40Stone says to one of the prisoners who he's having a bit of an argument with,
05:44you know, I may have made a mistake with that girl but I'm not going to make the same mistake
05:47with you. Which it's alleged, and one can see why, that he infers that he, I didn't manage
05:54to kill all three of them at the Tillington murders, but I won't make the same mistake
05:59with you and I will be able to kill you. Damien Daly's evidence included knowing
06:08things about the murders that only the killer would know. He'd got that information from
06:13Michael Stone and something else. The witness who described the man she saw that day was asked to
06:18attend an identity parade and described Stone as looking very familiar. Now our jury has selected
06:25a foreperson who will be tasked with collating the opinions and delivering the not guilty or
06:30guilty verdict. Gurpreet has been chosen today. Just out of interest, somebody tell me why you
06:36chose Gurpreet as your foreman? Well he'd done jury service before and so he had that experience
06:44which was a good thing. A lot of us haven't. Okay, trustworthy, experienced man Gurpreet,
06:49thanks for that. Let's first of all analyse what we've just heard shall we and I'll get
06:53some reaction from you. Did these other two witnesses to the confession, was that all at
06:59the same time as he was having the discussion through the pipe? So no. They overheard the
07:03conversation. That was different times but what it's really clear for you to know is I can only
07:09tell you what the original jury heard at this stage so if I don't know the answer it's because
07:13the jury didn't know the answer. Let's find out what your reaction is for the minute to the
07:18prosecution evidence that you've heard. The evidence for me, the psychiatrist and the nurse,
07:26people who are trained to have confidentiality about their patients,
07:32that they came forward seems to me to be a huge step. They wouldn't do that lightly,
07:37not with their training. I think the evidence given by Damien Daley, it's described as
07:45being evidence that would be only known to the killer and without any knowledge of this
07:53information being broadcast in the public way, unlike today where it would be all on the internet,
07:59at that time he wouldn't have had access to that detailed knowledge. It's also
08:07very circumstantial because nobody's actually got a confession face to face.
08:12They've heard somebody's voice that sounded familiar to his voice admitting to a murder
08:16and it's circumstantial that they've seen a car in the area, he owned a car like that car,
08:22but not actually him driving that away to the crime scene or away from the crime scene.
08:27So although it is pretty strong evidence, there's nothing that's 100%
08:33no nothing 100% for against Tracy over here, you've got a comment to make on that. I feel like
08:38there's no forensic evidence, you know, there's no murder weapon with his prints or anything that
08:45we've been told about, so it is, I agree, it is kind of circumstantial. I would like to add that
08:52the girls are quite young, so the survivor girl, she could describe the murderer and a young girl
08:59to remember such a thing proves to me that she was there, she witnessed it, she suffered from it and
09:07returning back, I don't know how many hours later she explained the image of the victim,
09:13of the murderer, sorry, but if she could describe that at a young age, she knows she was there,
09:18she suffered, so I think having that e-image matched the Michael Stone proves to me that he
09:26might be the one, yes. So you're listening to Geeta, if you're forming your opinion and you
09:32disagree with Geeta, that's something that you might, or find Geeta's observation not particularly
09:36relevant, that's something you'll raise with her a wee bit later, don't forget that Josie
09:39corroborated in a sense the witness evidence, another person saw what she thought was the
09:45person who looked like that, he fit that day, Josie saw extra. We're about ready to move on to
09:51the defence case after the break, but is there anything else that you feel you should discuss
09:55between you before we do about that prosecution case you've just heard? I find the personality,
10:01there's this Damien Daly next door and this thing through a pipe, it's almost like something which
10:07is in a bad movie, it just feels very unlikely that he should turn himself into a confidant,
10:15why would he do that? And not face to face, just through a pipe, it seems unreliable. Well of
10:21course they were in cells, so face-to-face evidence can sometimes pass between pipes.
10:26Okay, a jury must find somebody guilty by a majority of 10 to 2 or more, if a jury reaches
10:32a verdict of 9 people saying guilty and 3 not guilty, then they must return a not guilty
10:38verdict, we'll have to remember that. Join us after the break when we'll hear the case for
10:42the defence of Michael Stone.
10:44Welcome back to the jury room, it's time to hear the case for the defence from Barrister Matt Stambury.
11:06Michael Stone's defence in essence was simply that he wasn't there, he'd never been to the
11:12area, there was no forensic evidence linking him to the offences. All along the prosecution
11:18based their evidence on the fact that a beige Ford car had been seen near Cherry Garden Lane.
11:24One of the key witnesses described having seen a beige coloured motor vehicle and there was
11:28no evidence at all that Michael Stone had owned such a vehicle, the evidence was that he had
11:34connected to a red Ford Escort, but there was no evidence at all to connect him to the vehicle
11:40which was associated with the assailant in this case.
11:44Damien Daly's cell-based confession from Stone is crucial to the prosecution, the defence ridiculed
11:50this evidence. Michael Stone had asked to be segregated, moved to the segregation unit,
11:56precisely to avoid being incited to make confessions and the jury are then asked to believe that
12:02having done so and having been removed from association, that he's then voluntarily and with his
12:08head against a pipe in his cell, made a confession in circumstances where that's precisely what he
12:16was seeking to avoid being pressured to do.
12:20Initially there were three prosecution witnesses who gave evidence of alleged confessions.
12:27The defence case was always that these were unreliable witnesses, they were prisoners, convicted people
12:35not to be trusted and people who had their own motives perhaps for giving a false account.
12:46That's Matt Stanbury, a defence barrister. Let's analyse the case now for the defence with the jury.
12:54First, let's talk about the witnesses and their role and what Matt Stanbury there representing the defence had to say.
13:00Does anything strike anybody that the confession evidence was vital to the prosecution but from unreliable people?
13:07Yes, very unreliable because it comes from convicted criminals. They could have their own agenda,
13:12they could have, as I said, when he went to prison, not many people took to him.
13:17He never had many friends, he made friends with Damien Daly but he could have his own agenda against those.
13:28I don't think it's very reliable at all.
13:30But against that you have to say that in prison there's a general hatred of child killers and this random attack
13:42in broad daylight of a woman and two children is the kind of thing which outrages the most hardened con.
13:48They don't like that kind of thing. So I take your point but I would say the other side,
13:54they would just, hardened guys would just say yeah but that's out of order, that's a step too far.
14:00Just adding on from what you said as well, so the general paralysis of when people are in prison,
14:06so if there's a little thought that he might get out, maybe he might make that story to add,
14:12because it's that general relationship that prisoners have that they don't want one over the other and stuff like that.
14:18So yeah, I don't think it's, for me, reliable enough from that standpoint.
14:23And what were his actual words when he confessed? Did he actually confess specifically to the crime?
14:30We heard something about, he made a comment about, I made some mistake with that girl
14:34and I won't make that mistake again with you. Did he actually categorically confess to the crime
14:40or did he make some comment that might suggest he was confessing?
14:45Can I ask that?
14:46That's the evidence the jury had to consider.
14:48Psychiatric illness, was there any schizophrenia there? Had he been hearing voices?
14:56Was he talking through the pipe because there was a voice from the other end of the pipe talking to him?
15:02And I think that needed to be looked at and explained to the jury.
15:07Can anybody respond to that, from what we've heard?
15:10Well, he had already got psychiatric problems, we know that, because his psychiatrist and the nurse said about him having homicidal thoughts.
15:21But going back to Belle's point earlier about the prisoners hating child killers, particularly,
15:27or people that commit crimes against children, could it then be argued that the prisoners gave the evidence they gave
15:36because they thought that he had done it and they wanted to make sure he couldn't get out and do it again?
15:41On that point, we hear or we heard that some of the evidence given by Daly would only be known by the killer themselves.
15:55Now, if that detail had been passed over as part of this confession from the cell, then why would he know that?
16:05But the police would have to know, wouldn't they?
16:07Yeah, the police would know, but how would the next-door cellmate know that information unless he'd been told by somebody?
16:18I think what Jess is saying, though, is that possibly he's been told that in the police process? I don't know.
16:24Also, coming to the car, he said that there's no physical evidence of him owning such a car.
16:31Yeah, I was told he has a red car.
16:33Yeah, and it's a red car that he owns. There's no investigation that's been made to the fact that he may have borrowed this car.
16:40This car's been stolen, this car was found abandoned.
16:44So they don't know who was driving this car. It could be completely circumstantial to any evidence.
16:49Bryn, you're a former police officer. Do you imagine that they didn't investigate the provenance of that car?
16:54They would have investigated and they would have looked at his associates to see who may have had a car like that.
17:01I don't know the ins and outs of the case in the investigation of this particular murder.
17:09But we would look at all associates, trying to tie in cars, trying to eliminate vehicles and people,
17:17and where they would walk about the locations.
17:22I also find it very hard to believe that there wasn't any forensic evidence, considering the fury of the attack.
17:29Where was the murder weapon? Where was the actual murder weapon found?
17:32And surely there must have been some forensic evidence of himself. It was quite a vicious...
17:36Any DNA left on the victim? The dog may have bitten the guy.
17:40Yeah, no, for me, I think... The fact that there's no forensic evidence, that's...
17:44And the weapon, I think, is a big thing for me. Because if you can't put a weapon in the murder case,
17:49then how do you actually prove that he did it?
17:52It could have been anywhere else or it could have been exactly somebody else, but how do we know?
17:58So, for me, it's a big one. If you can't put the weapon with the crime, then how can you prosecute someone?
18:03You also can't put the person at the place. No, that's the biggest thing.
18:07You can't say that the person drove the car because the police looked at it
18:10and there doesn't seem to be any tie-in with him using the car.
18:13There's no 100% concrete evidence, really, against him at the minute.
18:17When you find a car, you'd think you'd find footprints, fingerprints.
18:22But they only said that they thought the car was beige.
18:26I think that's a very good point, Janet, and thank you for raising it.
18:29There was actually discussion amongst all services, prosecution and, indeed, the defence cases as well,
18:34discussed what the colour of the car was, what was established there was a Ford car nearby.
18:39That's been established. It's also established there were different arguments in the different case
18:44that Michael Stone had lots of cars, one of which might or might not have been a Ford.
18:49On the other side of the coin, there was an allegation and suggestion from the prosecution side that he had had such a car.
18:54So that was something that the jury had to weigh up.
18:56Do we believe what was being said to us? Do we not believe what was being said to us?
19:00But I think it would be fair to ask, I wonder, would you expect a murderer to keep the murder weapon?
19:06No.
19:08So could it surprise us that no murder weapon was found?
19:11Surely some sort of DNA evidence, like, on the victims.
19:17And even the car.
19:19Hair, nails, anything as such.
19:22There's so many big factors missing. Not even one that's been found.
19:27Sorry, the fact was he wasn't arrested straight away, so everything could have been disposed of and sterilised
19:36and that wouldn't be found anyway, unless by chance it was found in a bin or something like that.
19:44And nobody said it was actually him. They all said he looked similar to the person that carried out the crime.
19:51Nobody actually said, it's definitely him, he looks similar.
19:55But for the record, it was a psychiatrist who saw the e-fit and said, that's Michael Stone.
20:00It was a psychiatric nurse who said he'd given this comment to her about having homicidal tendencies.
20:04I think the evidence is taken, the prosecution would argue, that you take the evidence in the totality.
20:10That if you individually go for bits of evidence and try to destroy them, that you're missing the bigger picture, they would say that.
20:16Of course, the defence would argue completely differently.
20:18The totality is made up of individual bits of information and you've got to assess them individually.
20:22Okay, thank you very much.
20:24Convicted prisoners are not automatically granted an appeal.
20:29I have to go through something called the Criminal Cases Review Commission
20:32and they have to send to that commission, with the defence teams, new evidence,
20:36which the CCRC deems as worthwhile enough to put to an appeal court,
20:41where three judges sit and can quash the conviction altogether.
20:45In 2001, five years after the murder, Michael Stone was granted an appeal, and this is why.
20:56Well, of course, at the first trial there were three witnesses who claimed to have heard confessions from Michael Stone.
21:02There was then the retrial after one of the prisoners retracted his account of having heard a confession.
21:12And another witness was shown to have received substantial payments from the media for his account of hearing a confession.
21:21The appeal court held that the conviction against Michael Stone was not sound.
21:26It ordered a retrial.
21:28A jury now heard from just one witness to a confession, as well as the other evidence offered at the first trial.
21:36By a majority of 10 to 2, that second jury found Michael Stone guilty.
21:42But in Part 3, we're going to hear new evidence which Michael Stone supporters believe prove he's an innocent man.
21:50Join us after the break.
22:06In 2005, Michael Stone was granted a second appeal.
22:11The defence argued that the original trial judge had not stressed enough to the jury that the prosecution witness, Damien Daly, was a known liar.
22:20Daly had said that he knew details from the murder site that only the killer would know, and which he'd got from Stone.
22:26Perhaps the court was told he'd got that information from the media.
22:32That appeal was dismissed.
22:34But on this episode of The Jury Room, we're going to bring you new evidence which Stone's defence campaigners believe prove he's innocent.
22:42And it rests on a simple theory.
22:44That another man was guilty.
22:55Around that time, there was a notorious killer who preyed on young girls and women when out.
23:00He attacked them at random.
23:02There's another potential killer in this case, namely Levi Belfield.
23:05Levi Belfield has been convicted of killing three other women and girls, and is suspected of possible involvement in other crimes as well.
23:17Stone's defence team believe that he fits the description and used the same modus operandi when killing.
23:23Test the exhibits for his DNA, they say, and it might prove him, Levi Belfield, to be the real killer.
23:30One of those exhibits is a shoelace that was found at the scene.
23:35That appears now to be unavailable, to have disappeared from the police property store.
23:42There appears to be some residue from it left, but not sufficient for testing comparison.
23:48And also, there are other exhibits that the defence would want to examine.
23:52There's some toweling that was used to bind the hands of the victims in this case.
23:56And those acting for Michael Stone would want to have that examined to ascertain whether there is any forensic possibility of exonerating Michael Stone.
24:10Central to the case against Stone has been confession evidence heard by a solo witness.
24:14And new facts have emerged.
24:16The nature of the character of Damien Daly.
24:19Now, of course, it was known about at the time that Mr Daly was a convicted criminal, that he'd been involved with drugs, he'd been involved with violent offending.
24:27But subsequent to giving his evidence at Mr Stone's trial, he was released and he went on to commit murder himself.
24:37His conviction for murder still further undermines his credibility in the eyes of any jury.
24:44And secondly, there's this important aspect about another potential suspect, namely Levi Belfield.
24:49And how that links to the forensic exhibits that the defence would want to have examined.
24:56The omissions and failures add up to a very suspicious establishment case, according to Stone's defenders.
25:02The key witness to the confession, already an admitted liar and drug abuser, has further confirmed how erratic he can be by being convicted of murder himself.
25:12All things considered, it's time, they say, for a reassessment of the case against Michael Stone.
25:22Well, this is the reaction of Colin Sutton to that evidence, and he knows the Levi Belfield case intimately.
25:29I have very good knowledge of the Levi Belfield case, and indeed of Levi Belfield, the man.
25:35What I would say was, our investigation into Levi Belfield told us that on the day of the Chiltern murders,
25:43Levi Belfield was in West London, Surrey borders, having a meal with his then girlfriend and some family.
25:52to celebrate a birthday, and couldn't have been in Kent at that time.
26:01His attacks were using something like a hammer, in some cases.
26:06He always attacked people that were alone, and I've no reason to suspect that Levi Belfield would actually attack people that were alone.
26:16And I've no reason to suspect that Levi Belfield would actually attack a child with a hammer.
26:24His hammer attacks were on adult women, and he had very distinct and discreet areas where he offended.
26:36Taking all that together, I don't believe that he killed Megan and Lim Russell.
26:43Damian Daly has been convicted of murder since the trial.
26:46Stone's campaigners believe he would now be considered even more untrustworthy by the original jury that convicted Michael Stone.
26:54The fact that Damian Daly is now himself a proven murderer, again, I don't have too much of a problem with,
27:02because, you know, even amongst murderers there is a line, I guess,
27:09and a random hammer, violent, brutal attack on a mother and her two daughters is probably beyond the line of most people, including most murderers.
27:22Evidence not disclosed at the original trial could strengthen the case against Michael Stone.
27:29If a new jury were given all the available information so that they could come to a new decision,
27:36they would also have to be given the information that Michael Stone himself has previously attacked people using a hammer as a weapon and been charged with it.
27:45And the original jury at either trial weren't given that information.
27:50So, I don't think Levi Belfield committed it.
27:55I think if we believe the confession evidence and the past evidence that's there about Michael Stone's propensity to attack like that and the psychological evidence,
28:06I think taken together, it is a reasonable decision for a jury to come to to convict him.
28:15So Sutton, the man who investigated Levi Belfield, believes the theory that Levi Belfield is the killer is incorrect.
28:23Kemper Lease, by the way, have said of the forensic evidence, that's the physical evidence, the shoelace and the towels, that they've been often tested for DNA.
28:32No new revelations have been made as a result of that. No new evidence has cropped up.
28:37And to retest and retest simply makes the Russell family's suffering go on.
28:42So that's the latest evidence.
28:45I mean, Balmouni, how did you react when you heard that if we are to reveal new evidence, which might lean towards defending Michael Stone,
28:54we should also reveal that he'd been arrested beforehand for attacks with a hammer in a violent attack and that was never told to the original jury?
29:01Well, that shocked me. Yeah, that took me aback. I was going down a particular path and that stopped me on that path because that's pretty damning.
29:10I would love to know more detail of it. I mean, it's presumably while he was having treatment or what? Is other stories known?
29:18Well, you'll recall, Belle, in the 90s, previous convictions weren't admissible.
29:21No, no, I know.
29:23And so that wasn't admissible and it was a conviction for an offence. So we know that. That we'd have to know now.
29:29We also discover that the killer, according to the defence team, may have been Levi Belfield.
29:35Where do we sit with that now, having heard from Colin Sutton too?
29:38No, I don't. I mean, that was very near where I lived, the Levi Belfield cases, and I just don't think it follows with this crime.
29:46They were all individual girls on their own, sometimes late at night with just a hammer.
29:53I can't imagine that Levi Belfield would attack a mother and two girls and it was out of the catchment area as well.
30:00All those crimes were very near to where I lived.
30:05Generally, the crimes tend to happen within their area because they know the areas where they can place bodies.
30:11I just can't imagine him travelling there.
30:13He also had an alibi of being at a meal.
30:15And there was him somewhere else.
30:17Yeah, he had an alibi as well.
30:19Was that a stone alibi, he was having a meal?
30:21Well, what we know is that the alibi was given by Levi Belfield's girlfriend who despised him and had given evidence to the police,
30:30which led to the conviction of Levi Belfield.
30:33So it wasn't in her interests to lie, to say Levi Belfield was somewhere, but it wasn't.
30:38I think the point, Tracey, I'll ask you, the point is, what weight do you give Colin Sutton for saying,
30:44as the investigating officer into Levi Belfield, I looked at this and I don't believe he was the guilty man?
30:48That actually changed my mind, to be honest, because especially after now knowing that they've tested and retested and there was forensic evidence,
30:59I'm sure he wouldn't come to that conclusion lightly without checking, and it looks like he has done his...
31:06I have a few different points.
31:08If you compare the images, Mr Belfield has a very distinct forehead line, and so does the image, whereas Mr Stone doesn't.
31:18His is very, very light, so that's one point which I think it could be Belfield.
31:23Second point was, because it's his girlfriend, it could be just covering up for him, so I don't believe the alibi at all.
31:29The third point was that Belfield has been proven that he attacks with a hammer to somebody who's alone, adult women,
31:37said by the prosecution, but it could be that the mum was alone, the daughters were still in the swimming pool...
31:43No, no, they were together.
31:45All three of them were together. Ignore the third point, the first two, it is then.
31:49Can anybody respond to that?
31:51Yes, so first of all, I agree with the first point you made with the distinct mark on the forehead.
31:56I picked that up myself, that it was quite similar.
31:59The second point you raised in terms of the girlfriend, we said that the girlfriend despised him, right?
32:05There was no love lost between them, and girlfriend was extremely helpful to the conviction of Levi Belfield.
32:10Yeah, so for me, if she had a dislike against him, but she puts him somewhere there, then I can probably believe that.
32:20So, obviously, they must have had problems before in the past, so if she's going to have a way to say that he was there,
32:27then I think I'd believe that.
32:29She said that at a certain time, and then in a later date gave evidence that put him away for another crime, is that true?
32:36So at that time, she might have been under pressure to say they were at a mill.
32:39Were there any waitresses or bartenders or anyone who collaborated at all?
32:43Yeah, it's debatable in terms of that point, either way, but I think that's the only point for me,
32:49or one of the points that says he might not have done it.
32:54And what about, Bel, the fact that this chap Damien Daly, he was attacked as an unreliable witness in the original trial.
33:02Now we've discovered he's been released from prison for the offence that he was in, and he's become a murderer.
33:06Does that tell us anything?
33:08Yeah, he's a bad guy. Definitely a bad guy. That very much puts me off.
33:14Yeah, I think, yeah, it makes him more unreliable. It has to.
33:19The only thing that worries me slightly is, I mean, sorry, not just...
33:24is the point that the country, prosecution said, the country as a whole demanded a result.
33:33And I'm still feeling that a lot of this is circumstantial.
33:38I mean, you don't want to feel that an innocent man is behind bars,
33:42whether he's attacked people before, he's got mental problems, all the rest of it.
33:48You know, we've had, there are cases where the police are very, very keen to secure a conviction,
33:53and I'm a great admirer of the police, I have to say.
33:56It worries me that, you know, there's a lot of pressure to get a conviction here.
34:00And that could put an innocent man away, and this is kind of niggling me, because you made that point.
34:05Which also means there's a guilty man still out there.
34:07Yeah, exactly. And the only real evidence we've got is the confession from Damien Daly.
34:15If you look at everything, that's the only...
34:17Final point from Ben?
34:18I also don't believe it has to be Levi Belford or Stone, I don't believe it has to be one or the other.
34:23I think that maybe the police have concentrated so much on one or the other
34:26that they've completely convinced themselves it isn't Levi Belford, there must be Stone.
34:31Well, these, you've very clearly now established all the issues that you're going to have to debate in part four,
34:35which is when I'm going to ask you to come to a verdict.
34:38So, it's their turn next, join us in part four.
34:45Welcome back. It's time, time for our jury to come to their verdict.
34:50Is Michael Stone guilty or not guilty?
34:53First, a summary of the prosecution and defence case.
35:15In a horrific case, a mother and two daughters were attacked.
35:18Lynn Russell and her little girl Megan were killed.
35:20The other daughter, Josie, survived her appalling injuries.
35:24Michael Stone was arrested.
35:26Witnesses claimed they had seen someone like him at the scene of the crime,
35:30saw a car the like of which he owned.
35:32Police also point to a psychiatric nurse who said that Stone had fantasised about killing.
35:38And then there is the confession he made to a fellow prisoner whilst on remand.
35:43Two juries believed Damien Daly, the man who heard Stone, admit his guilt.
35:48The defence points to a mystery about disappearing evidence which might clear Stone,
35:52the unreliability of the confession evidence made even more pronounced
35:56by the latest revelation about the man to whom he confessed.
35:59Then there's the failure of the police to really prove Stone ever owned,
36:03the sort of car seen at the murder scene, and the absence of any forensic evidence.
36:09So, to our jury. Gurpreet, over to you.
36:13All right, so shall we just start from the top and just work our way down
36:17for our opinions and what we think? Is that all right, yeah?
36:20Right, yeah, perfect.
36:22I don't think there's enough evidence.
36:25Everything points to someone like Stone, a car like,
36:34a nurse's statement, one nurse's statement,
36:39and if he's got mental health issues,
36:42most mental health patients might state something like that.
36:48It was the prisoner who said he was the witness to the admission of the murderer,
36:55who was a murderer himself.
36:59There are no forensic evidence to commit him whatsoever,
37:05no actual 100% proof.
37:09The only two credible witnesses, really, are a psychiatric nurse or a nurse
37:14who he could well have been trying to impress with the news of this horrendous thing
37:19that had been going on, who knows, and the psychiatrist who has no reason
37:24to, you know, not state that he thinks that's his client,
37:28but therefore, if he's wrong, I think an awful lot of the evidence
37:31sort of goes around those two people.
37:33As for the DNA, which was tested and tested and tested,
37:36they haven't come up with anything on Stone.
37:38So, if they've tested it to the point they have, OK,
37:41they might have ruled out Belfield, et cetera, but they haven't ruled in Stone.
37:45For me, the EFIT image wasn't enough of a resemblance to Michael Stone,
37:52and the only evidence we've got is an unsafe confession through a pipe.
37:59There's just not enough evidence for me.
38:02Yeah, and on the point of the witnesses, I remember saying,
38:05someone like him.
38:07Is that enough, someone like him, to put him away for doing this crime?
38:12Someone like him.
38:13For me, that's not...
38:15Yeah, so that's not liable for me, if you say someone like him.
38:19Bryn, can I hear from the ex-bobby?
38:21Was he put on an ID grid? I'm sure we heard that, he was put on an ID grid.
38:25The witness who'd seen the man in the park who gave that EFIT description
38:29described Michael Stone as looking particularly familiar.
38:32Yeah.
38:33But could that be because he's local?
38:35He wasn't that local.
38:37He was local enough, but he wasn't that local.
38:39He wasn't there every day.
38:40There's no evidence to suggest he was there every day.
38:43The fact that he'd actually...
38:45I know he committed another crime with a hammer,
38:48it was a robbery, I believe, which is quite different to a murder,
38:54I would imagine.
38:55It was single women, was it?
38:57No, that was Belfield.
38:58No, Levi Belfield murdered single women that were alone on a common
39:03or walking down the road.
39:06But Michael Stone, I believe, had committed some other crimes.
39:10He'd committed a GBH crime with a hammer.
39:12Oh, GBH crime.
39:13Yeah, and it was a robbery.
39:15And evidence was given by Josie that the man who attacked her mum
39:20and her sister and Josie herself had asked for money.
39:23Oh, OK.
39:24I think that's in the public record.
39:26I look at this and it is confusing.
39:29Belfield, yeah, he was put in by who?
39:32By a defence solicitor.
39:34Defence solicitor at his job to try and undermine the case of the prosecution.
39:38Yeah.
39:39Slip in, let's put in a little bit of doubt.
39:42But the person that did the e-fit,
39:44they said they saw this gentleman in the area,
39:48that they didn't actually see him commit any crime,
39:50he just happened to be walking in the area.
39:54And the victim said it looked similar.
39:56Where does Damien Daly fit in that picture?
40:00Well, I can tell you that, well, exactly, you tell me,
40:02because this is a man who was on remand and subsequently served a sentence
40:07for drugs and violence-related crimes.
40:10And he's subsequently been released and he's got himself,
40:12he's still in the drugs culture and he has committed a murder
40:15for which he's been convicted.
40:17That's the star witness that the prosecution put throughout this case.
40:21And he got out early because of the testimony.
40:24I can't comment on that.
40:25And claiming he's had that confession made
40:27puts him into a sort of starry role, you know, which he would want.
40:31You know how people want to star in their own mini-drama
40:35within the bigger drama.
40:37So he's a key witness.
40:38That's what muddies the waters with that.
40:41Very credibility.
40:42However, because he's a murderer,
40:44should not automatically exclude him from anything, you know.
40:49To Belle's point, Belle made the point earlier
40:52that there's a particular vilification inside prisons for child murderers.
40:55Yes.
40:56Do you think that's relevant?
40:57It is relevant because, you know, there is a line.
41:02Lots of different cultures, there is a line which should never be crossed.
41:07But he's in prison.
41:09We don't know where he's got this information from,
41:12whether he's read it in the newspapers.
41:15We don't believe it was put into the media,
41:18the exact detail which Daly has actually told the police.
41:23Or had he been fed the information on purpose by a prison guard or whatever?
41:28We don't know that, but that's never been proven.
41:32Nobody's ever suggested that,
41:34that he's been given the information by a prison officer or a police officer.
41:38He's just come up and said, I've got some information for you.
41:42I don't want to kind of take on the fact
41:45that he was convicted of murder after the fact
41:48because we don't know enough about that case, what kind of case.
41:52We don't know if it was a child.
41:54He still might have a line and felt that...
41:57It was drug-related, it was an argument between a drugs gang.
42:01I feel like to discredit someone because they committed a murder
42:06and its actions after giving evidence is somewhat by the by.
42:11I think I did that before and I'm hearing you
42:14and I think you're very fair, I think it's true.
42:17So you have to morally separate off the guy who was in prison
42:22who could well have heard this and could well be telling the truth
42:26and the fact that he was in the drug culture and then committed a crime.
42:30And they could be separate.
42:32Damien, is there any way he could have heard?
42:34Because you say it's only stuff that only the murderer would know.
42:37The defence at appeal argued that he could have got it from the media,
42:40the information.
42:41That was argued at appeal,
42:43that the evidence that Damien Daly said he had heard
42:46he could have got from the media.
42:48That was an argument used.
42:50But you couldn't have heard it from...
42:52Do you not know, when you're in prison,
42:54I would imagine that you hear who's in for what.
42:57Deliberately from the press and the media.
43:00Because people don't need to know these things.
43:03So if those details haven't been publicised,
43:09then Damien has heard that from the horse's mouth.
43:13But surely unless they were the killer,
43:15they wouldn't know specific details.
43:17Even in interrogation, surely the police,
43:20if they want you to trip yourself up,
43:23they don't want you to be fed the information to say,
43:26well, I definitely didn't do this, this and this.
43:29That's also why they hold back information,
43:31because sometimes people will say they're guilty
43:33when they're in fact innocent as well.
43:35I can't see there's any definite evidence here at all,
43:39apart from two credible witnesses.
43:41One might have been trying to impress,
43:43and the other one, it might be wrong.
43:45For me, the two strongest parts of the evidence
43:48are the psychiatrist, the psychiatric nurse,
43:52and the fact that he'd committed a hammer attack before.
43:56Because I don't know, obviously, specifically the psychiatrist,
44:01how many patients they have, but to look at a picture,
44:04hear a crime and think, oh, hang on a minute,
44:06that sounds very much like this person that I'm looking after.
44:10It's just, for me, that's quite a big flag.
44:13Yeah.
44:14That is probably quite reliable.
44:16So I'm going to ask you all to come to your verdicts.
44:18Gopri, get ready, you're doing the sums.
44:21Go that way.
44:22I'm going to start with Belle, who I think we heard from early on
44:27when we first started analysing the various pieces of evidence.
44:32I'm going to ask you the simple question,
44:34do you find Michael Stone guilty or not guilty?
44:36And Gopri's going to pronounce on our verdict at the end.
44:39So, Belle Moody, do you find Michael Stone guilty or not guilty?
44:46Not guilty.
44:48Kim, I'm going to go over to you on your side of the jury.
44:53Do you find Michael Stone guilty or not guilty?
44:58Not guilty.
45:01Jess, next to you.
45:03Do you find Michael Stone guilty or not guilty?
45:06Guilty.
45:08Coming back over to your side, Bryn,
45:11do you find Michael Stone guilty or not guilty?
45:14Guilty.
45:16Nicole, next to Bryn, what's your verdict?
45:18Do you find Michael Stone guilty or not guilty?
45:21Not guilty.
45:23And Ben, do you find Michael Stone guilty or not guilty?
45:28Based on the evidence, not guilty.
45:30Geeta, on your side of the jury,
45:33do you find Michael Stone guilty or not guilty?
45:37Not guilty.
45:39Trevor, next to you.
45:41Guilty or not guilty?
45:43Not guilty.
45:44Tracy, moving along that line.
45:46Guilty or not guilty?
45:48Guilty.
45:49Kerry, your verdict, please, on Michael Stone.
45:51Guilty or not guilty?
45:53I don't think it's enough to convict him, so not guilty.
45:57Janet, before we go to Gurpreet,
46:00your verdict, please.
46:03Do you find Michael Stone guilty or not guilty?
46:06Not guilty.
46:08Finally, to you, Gurpreet.
46:10Do you find Michael Stone guilty or not guilty?
46:13Not guilty.
46:15OK, you'll have to do your sums.
46:17You simply have to pronounce on the basis
46:20that if ten people found Michael Stone guilty,
46:23then he's guilty, ten or more.
46:25If it's fewer than ten, then he's not guilty.
46:28Please stand to deliver your verdict.
46:33What is the jury room verdict in the case of Michael Stone?
46:36Is he guilty or not guilty?
46:40Not guilty.
46:44Thanks, Gurpreet, very much,
46:46and thank you to our jury room for considering the evidence
46:49and coming to your verdict.
46:51This has been a four-television trial
46:53based on the facts and the evidence established
46:55in the case against Michael Stone.
46:57The jurors are members of the public.
46:59The defence team believe Michael Stone's case
47:01should be examined again by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
47:04They believe him not guilty.
47:07What's your verdict?
47:09We'll see you next time on the jury room.
47:43.