25th November 2010

Dear Mr Trent,

Michael Stone Application

Further to my letters of 21.4.09, 21.6.09 and 22.11.10, I would now like to comment on the DNA aspect of this case which at first glance the CCRC appears to have dealt with to its best ability within its available resources.

It is concerning to note however that the most important items of evidence in this case do not appear to have been examined using modern DNA testing techniques and which were referred to in the statement of Admitted Facts:

(i) SRG/2 – Megan’s blue/green swimsuit which had been found 70 metres away.

(ii) Lin Russell’s right shoe lace which was tied around her wrist (it should have the suspect's DNA on it).

(iii) The single hair found on her tee-shirt which was not microscopically consistent with having come from any of the victims.

(iv) the single hair from her trousers which was consistent with the same source of hair found on Josie Russell’s shoes.

(v) Two of the four hairs found on Josie Russell’s Jelly shoes, one of which was consistent with the hair found on Lin Russell’s trousers, while the other hair was from another unknown source (the remaining two were related to the victims).

(vi) SRG/39 blue tights found wrapped around a tree.

I would also point out that according to the evidence the murderer removed Josie Russell’s Jelly shoes after she had tried to run away, but these shoes along with the unknown hairs found on them have also not been submitted for DNA testing and neither has the white string shopping bag belonging to Lin Russell containing six strips of torn towel which was deposited in a hedge by a male near the scene of the crime.

I cannot stress the importance of ensuring that all of the above items are tested for DNA because any one of them could immediately lead to the correct identification of the murderer.

There are also other matters highlighted in the CCRC’s report dated 25th October 2010 which must give rise for concern to an impartial observer.

Levi Bellfield

The Commission expresses the view that the modus operandi of the above named convicted murderer was different from the Chillenden attacker in that his attacks were against lone young women and not middle-aged women with their children and further he attacked at night in urban locations and not during the day in rural locations.

I believe the Commission should not be too quick to draw such conclusions, because Bellfield’s activities are still being examined by the police and are spread over a long period. In addition to attacking children he was also charged with the attempted murder of Irma Dragoshi (then aged 39) at Longford Village on 16 December 2003.

The modus operandi of targeting victims  at random (with a propensity towards attacking shoolgirls in uniform) by jumping out of a car is a telling feature of the Chillenden Murders. The fact that in 1996 the victims were not lone individuals does not necessarily mean Bellfield’s involvement can be ruled out.

The Commission states [164] that Bellfield’s DNA profile has “effectively” been searched against the NDNAD as a result of the limited search requested on or around June 2008 [63], but there is no indication that Mr Bellfield’s DNA profile had by that time been loaded onto the database.

The search in any event requested around June 2008 produced 138 ‘hits’ on the NDNAD [64], but further enquiries were only made in regard to those nominals who were on the HOLMES database for the Chillenden murder enquiry (ie., those persons who were included in the original pool of potential suspects).

It is difficult therefore to see how any of the searches referred to in points 59-68 could have “effectively” amounted to a comparison of Mr Bellfield’s DNA, because even assuming Mr Bellfield’s DNA profile was on the NNDAD in 2008, the CCRC had not looked beyond the nominals on the Holmes database; furthermore, it had not at that time been asked to compare Mr Bellfield’s DNA as part of their enquiries.

The only DNA tests highlighted in the CCRC’s report which could have produced a DNA profile for an effective comparison with Bellfield’s DNA are those referred to in [151] which were arranged on 14th April 2010. However, "none of these tests were deemed to be clear enough to warrant a search of the NDNAD".

The bootlace [SRG/27] could not in any event be found; the towelling strips [SFM1A] did not produce any non-victim profile; the lunch bag [SRG16] produced no evidence of contribution of DNA from a male individual; the dog collar and lead [SRG/122] did not produce any non-victim DNA.

In order therefore to confirm that “the searches of the database did not produce a match with Bellfield’s profile” [164] the CCRC would firstly needed to have verified that (i) his profile had been loaded onto the NNDAD at the time of a search; (ii) a meaningful DNA profile had been loaded onto the database for comparison. The limited searches referred to in [64] which were carried out in June 2008 could not have included a comparison of Mr Bellfield’s DNA as he was not on the Holmes database for the Chillenden murder enquiry.

The CCRC’s assurance that it has ”searched the composite partial profile and area 34 profile against the NDNAD which contains Bellfield’s profile” [164] is therefore misleading for the above reasons and accordingly Mr Bellfield has not been excluded.

Other Matters

The CCRC states that Dr Johnathan Walker of the FSS left open the possibility that Michael Stone could have contributed some of the non-victim DNA bands seen in the composite partial profile derived from segments of bootlace [61], whereas in fact no such assertion was made.

On the contrary, the CCRC itself goes on to state that according to the enquiries “the partial profiles are not enough to identify any one individual as being the source of the SRG/27 DNA.” [68]

Summary

The CCRC has concluded in it's report dated 25th October 2010 that “all reasonable lines of investigation into DNA evidence have now been exhausted” [161], but this cannot be so if no DNA tests of the items listed in (i) – (vi) have been carried out. These items were painstakingly gathered at the scene of the crime presumably for the purpose of testing them.

The CCRC’s report therefore indicates that important items of evidence have never been subjected to any DNA testing, while no specific comparison of Mr Bellfield’s DNA profile with any previous test results has actually been confirmed.

These are matters which will no doubt be of concern to Mr Stone’s solicitor and hopefully they will be addressed in due course by the CCRC which has traditionally been quite methodical in these types of enquiries.

HOME