The Chillenden murders

[cushioncovers]

Anyone watching?

I'm watching it now. It's so so sad. I'm not conviced about Stone's guilt at this point of watching either, though I haven't finished the programme yet.

I'm half way through the first episode and it's not clear if he did do it.

Such a sad case and such a waste of life

I lived locally at the time. That poor family! Have this recorded to watch later.

Can you tell me where this is on please?

I remember it at the time despite only being a teenager. I've also seen another documentary many years ago which showed it from Shaun's POV. Harrowing.

It's on bbc2

Thank you

There's a Kate Atkinson novel, When will there be good news, that starts with an event that must be based on the Russell murders. I read it soon after I had DS, and while I remembered the Russell murders from when they happened when I was a teen, it took that novel and being a mother myself to bring it home to me how utterly heartbreaking it was.

What did anyone else think after the second part? It seems to me that Stone's conviction is unsafe - telling that the bootlace is missing when there's the possibility DNA evidence could be obtained from it now. I compared photos of a 1990 Ford Sapphire (Levi Bellfield's ex girlfriend said her car was a G reg which would make it 1990) with a later 90s Escort and they look very similar.

Caught up with the second part last night. If I was on the jury with all of the evidence they had in that programme, I'm not sure I'd have been able to convict him beyond all reasonable doubt. I did agree with the woman that said that while the evidence was starting to suggest it wasn't him, he was still a dangerous man and the public were safer while he was behind bars (or words to that effect).

There was an awful lot of detail in the press at the time - I'm not sure that much would be divulged these days, though of course there were two trials: really difficult for a jury to separate what they have learned away from court from the evidence in the court case. The murders were infamous and I think there was a suggestion Stone was remanded prior to trial for his own protection as much as anything.

If he didn't commit the murders then he will have spent 25 years in prison for someone else's crimes by the time he is eligible for parole. No doubt he was a criminal, but it will be one of the greatest miscarriages of justice if he has been wrongfully convicted.

Just catching up with it tonight, so sad and fascinating. A good production. Furious with the bloody Sun for forging/bribing those fellow prisoners' testimonies!

I'm not entirely convinced of stones guilt after watching the programmes. But after 2 trials and 2 guilty verdicts I wondered if I was missing something. In my experience it comes down to who you believe in the witness box. How reliable the witnesses are. The prisoner who 'grassed' came across rather well apparently.

But no DNA evidence is a deal breaker for me. There was too much doubt so I'd have to go not guilty.

My money is on bellfield.

Heartbreaking story.

I watched it and started to think of Bellfield before he was mentioned on the programme.

For me, like the posters above, it was the lack of DNA evidence. I struggle to believe that in/after the act of commuting such a frenzied and awful crime Stone would have been able to remove all DNA traces of himself from the scene, particularly as at that time DNA evidence was less understood by everyone.

I think it was Bellfield too AND the e fit really looked like him.

What about the bloodied fingerprint on the lunchbox?. I thought they had established that it wasn't Stones due to the lack of whorls, why didn't they compare with Bellfields?

I really think they need to reopen the case.

Bellfield won't provide his DNA or fingerprints to the case.

Surely Bellfield's fingerprints and DNa are on record from his other convictions? Does he have to right to refuse for them to be used? I didn't understand that

I wondered that too Notyoda. After all lots of past crimes are coming under scrutiny of advances in DNA profiling, surely it's the same for fingerprints?

This was a private investigation. I think unless he is arrested for the murders, it all has to be voluntary.

Wondered the same Notyoda. It wasn't made clear at all.

Just catching up on this, who's bellfield?

Levi Bellfield. He killed Milly Dowler, Amelie Delagrange and Marsha McDonell. And tried to kill another woman called Kate Sheedy. All with hammers over the head. When he was convicted it was said there were more. Also if it was him not only is it a miscarriage of justice but if he'd been locked up then the others would never have died. Something with this case has never sat right with me and I am only more convinced they have the wrong man after watching this. How can they lock up a man for 25 years with no DNA evidence? I can only think it is because DNA testing wasn't as sophisticated as it is now. This programme has made me want to learn more about criminal psychology.

It shows how far forensics have progressed in 20 years.

The police were under pressure to get someone for this crime.

Stone was a bad egg so he fitted the bill.

Maybe he did do it.

But I don't think the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I'd bet on bellfield. (Triple convicted murderer)

I don't think the case against Stone stacks up now either. Bellfield seems a likely suspect but isn't talking.

Bloody hell! Is bellfied close to the area. Just watching second episode x

I always wondered about Bellfield for the murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins in Hastings in 1997. All too similar and they were never quite able to hold her foster father accountable despite 3 trials. All just so awful.