Chillenden murders - knot expert required

Next month Michael Stone will begin his second appeal against
conviction for the 1996 Chillenden murders. Information about the case
can be found at

http://www.ismichaelstoneguilty.org/

Both trials were also very widely reported.

I can't say too much here but there will be some big developments at
the next appeal and he is quietly confident of winning it. That being
said, he is looking for a knot expert. One of the key exhibits was a
lace found at the murder scene which was said to have been used as a
tourniquet by a drug addict. Stone was addicted to heroin. DNA was
found on the lace, but it's not his, hardly surprising as he wasn't
there.

Anyone with any interest in this case please contact me at

a_baronATntlworld.com [replace AT with @ of course, I don't want to
get spammed to death.]

Also, if anyone shares my view that it would have been extremely
difficult for one individual to commit these murders, please let me
know.

If you visit the site, please sign the guestbook; try to say something
intelligent.

I gotta ask, after doing a cursory reading of that website...
Is there no one who has been perceived to have been wrongly convicted of a
crime who is REALLY a good guy apart from the crime for which he's
(probably) been wrongly convicted?

What I'm asking is, why devote so much energy to attempting to free a
criminal scumbag who was convicted with doubts about the case against him,
when surely there are NON-criminal scumbags who have had the same things
happen to them -- and they are much more deserving of people's time,
attention, and effort?

It may be a "perversion of justice" to let a guy rot in prison for a crime
he may not have committed for the simple reason that you know he's
undoubtedly been guilty of many other crimes for which he was not tried nor
convicted.

They do this a lot on the show "Law and Order": they can't get a guy who
really *belongs* in prison convicted on the big nasty thing he did, but they
hang him on something else, and the end result is they get a guy in prison
who belongs in prison!

I can't say I care much about Mr. Stone -- sorry. He may not have done
these murders, but he surely should be in prison based on the reports of his
past criminality. Like society is worse off for having him incarcerated?
Puhlease.

-Jeffrey

"Alexander Baron" wrote in message
om...
Next month Michael Stone will begin his second appeal against
conviction for the 1996 Chillenden murders. Information about the case
can be found at

http://www.ismichaelstoneguilty.org/

Both trials were also very widely reported.

I can't say too much here but there will be some big developments at
the next appeal and he is quietly confident of winning it. That being
said, he is looking for a knot expert. One of the key exhibits was a
lace found at the murder scene which was said to have been used as a
tourniquet by a drug addict. Stone was addicted to heroin. DNA was
found on the lace, but it's not his, hardly surprising as he wasn't
there.

Anyone with any interest in this case please contact me at

a_baronATntlworld.com [replace AT with @ of course, I don't want to
get spammed to death.]

Also, if anyone shares my view that it would have been extremely
difficult for one individual to commit these murders, please let me
know.

If you visit the site, please sign the guestbook; try to say something
intelligent.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 07:08:20 GMT, "Jeffrey"
wrote:

They do this a lot on the show "Law and Order": they can't get a guy who
really *belongs* in prison convicted on the big nasty thing he did, but they
hang him on something else, and the end result is they get a guy in prison
who belongs in prison!

Sometimes referred to as "framing a guilty man".

There are very great dangers in that attitude. Firstly, the
possibility that the person who has decided the man is guilty (of
anything) has got it wrong. There are plenty of nasty people who have
not broken the law, but we would *like* them to be punished - and
could be easily convinced of their guilt.

Secondly, being convicted of a crime that the person did not commit
often results in that person becoming very bitter and anti-social,
creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Thirdly is the knowledge that every innocent person jailed usually
means that a guilty person has got away with his crime and may be
encouraged to do it again. (I say "usually", because there are cases
where no crime has in fact occurred at all).

Fourthly, there's the "slippery slope". If it is OK to frame a
"nasty" person, then how about a "not so nasty" person? Eventually we
get to the stage where actual guilt or innocence comes second to
"getting a result," and any person in a position where we can bend the
evidence to present a convincing case is fair game. Ask Barry George.

--
Cynic

In within
uk.politics.crime, 'Cynic' wrote:

They do this a lot on the show "Law and Order": they can't get a guy who
really *belongs* in prison convicted on the big nasty thing he did, but they
hang him on something else, and the end result is they get a guy in prison
who belongs in prison!

Sometimes referred to as "framing a guilty man".

There are very great dangers in that attitude. Firstly, the
possibility that the person who has decided the man is guilty (of
anything) has got it wrong. There are plenty of nasty people who have
not broken the law, but we would *like* them to be punished - and
could be easily convinced of their guilt.

"I think he's a 'criminal'"
"Yeah, so do I"
"Ok, let's fake up some evidence and get him locked away"
"Yeah, that'll please the bosses, shame we can't tell them"

Already happens a lot I reckon. You can't expect morals from 'people'
who have *willingly* signed away their right to think, in favour of
obeisance to a PLC owned government and its efforts to enslave a
population.

What's more, when they do attempt to think, it's not going to be
especially accurate.

--
Dave Johnson -

x-no-archive: yes
"Jeffrey" wrote:

What I'm asking is, why devote so much energy to attempting to free a
criminal scumbag who was convicted with doubts about the case against him,

Because our criminal system calls for conviction based on proof beyond any
reasonable doubt. Criminal trials are not about whether the guy done it or
not. The point of a criminal trial is to find out whether his accusers can
prove that the guy did it.

when surely there are NON-criminal scumbags who have had the same things
happen to them -- and they are much more deserving of people's time,
attention, and effort?

Who decides which scumbag is deserving of getting framed for a crime he did
not commit and which one is not?

You ? Me? The guy cleaning toilets at the main railway station?

It may be a "perversion of justice" to let a guy rot in prison for a crime
he may not have committed for the simple reason that you know he's
undoubtedly been guilty of many other crimes for which he was not tried nor
convicted.

Knowing that somebody is guilty of suomething is not enough. You must be
able to prove it. If you can't, the scumbag goes free. Better luck next
time.

They do this a lot on the show "Law and Order": they can't get a guy who
really *belongs* in prison convicted on the big nasty thing he did, but they

Right. Have somebody explain to you the difference between a TV show and
real life. Hint: You don't get an Emmy for getting out of paying a parking
ticket.

I can't say I care much about Mr. Stone -- sorry. He may not have done
these murders, but he surely should be in prison based on the reports

I don't see anyone asking you to be sorry for anybody. But of course you
should not expect any sympathy if an over zealous prosecutor decides to
frame you because you look kind of guilty to him and if you did not commit
the crime he's charging you with, you look like somebody who might have
committed some other crimes.

Come to think of it, you do sound like some sort of a criminal. Maybe we
should lock you up before you do something terrible. For your own good, of
course.

--
Karl Pollak, Richmond, British Columbia
Sea Scouting in Canada at http://www.seascouts.ca/

On Tue, 28 Sep , Karl Pollak wrote:


Because our criminal system calls for conviction based on proof beyond any
reasonable doubt. Criminal trials are not about whether the guy done it or
not. The point of a criminal trial is to find out whether his accusers can
prove that the guy did it.

Damn, Karl. Just when I was thinking you and I would find it hard to
agree on something ...

Regards,
O J Gritmon

In message . net,
Jeffrey writes
I gotta ask, after doing a cursory reading of that website... Is there
no one who has been perceived to have been wrongly convicted of a crime
who is REALLY a good guy apart from the crime for which he's (probably)
been wrongly convicted?

Stephen Dowling and Stefan Kizsco spring to mind, although they also
seem to fit the "local weirdo" pattern (see below).

What I'm asking is, why devote so much energy to attempting to free a
criminal scumbag who was convicted with doubts about the case against
him, when surely there are NON-criminal scumbags who have had the same
things happen to them -- and they are much more deserving of people's
time, attention, and effort?

There is one key reason for this: in the light of this and the Barry
George case, it appears there is a mindset in (some of) the police that
if they cannot get the real killer, they can always just lock up the
local weirdo. Now, whatever your views may be on locking up the weirdos,
I strongly object to real killers being left to roam the streets and
kill again.
--
Richard Miller

"Richard Miller" wrote in message
...
In message . net,
Jeffrey writes
I gotta ask, after doing a cursory reading of that website... Is there
no one who has been perceived to have been wrongly convicted of a crime
who is REALLY a good guy apart from the crime for which he's (probably)
been wrongly convicted?

Stephen Dowling and Stefan Kizsco spring to mind, although they also
seem to fit the "local weirdo" pattern (see below).

What I'm asking is, why devote so much energy to attempting to free a
criminal scumbag who was convicted with doubts about the case against
him, when surely there are NON-criminal scumbags who have had the same
things happen to them -- and they are much more deserving of people's
time, attention, and effort?

There is one key reason for this: in the light of this and the Barry
George case, it appears there is a mindset in (some of) the police that
if they cannot get the real killer, they can always just lock up the
local weirdo. Now, whatever your views may be on locking up the weirdos,
I strongly object to real killers being left to roam the streets and
kill again.
--
Richard Miller

Generally concerns "clear up rates".
Wasn't it Kent Police who at one time had
a better than 100 percent clear up rate for
burglary by getting felons to falsely confess
and "taken into consideration".

Even in serious crimes and convictions shown
to be miscarriages has there ever been a re-
investigation, new trial and conviction of a
different perpetrator for the original crime ?

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

On 24 Sep 2004 05:02:47 -0700, (Alexander
Baron) wrote:

Next month Michael Stone will begin his second appeal against
conviction for the 1996 Chillenden murders.

There's been a lot of talk about the "Aunt Polly"
theory of justice. (A thimble rap on the knuckles
which won't go amiss even if he is innocent of
this crime because there are plenty of other cases
where he was guilty but wasn't caught/punished.)
As though it doesn't matter whether the crime and
punishment have anything to do with each other.

It made for an amusing scene in Mr Twain's book,
_Tom_Sawyer_, but it isn't law and it isn't a basis
for justice.

It is categorically ***WRONG***. Punishment
MUST be associated with a particular crime
and be clearly seen to be so. Otherwise it
is simple persecution against some people by
society because society "doesn't like them".
This starts an entirely too-slippery slope.

--
--Pete
"Peter W. Meek"
http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/

Peter W. Meek wrote in message . ..
On 24 Sep 2004 05:02:47 -0700, (Alexander
Baron) wrote:

Next month Michael Stone will begin his second appeal against
conviction for the 1996 Chillenden murders.

There's been a lot of talk about the "Aunt Polly"
theory of justice. (A thimble rap on the knuckles
which won't go amiss even if he is innocent of
this crime because there are plenty of other cases
where he was guilty but wasn't caught/punished.)
As though it doesn't matter whether the crime and
punishment have anything to do with each other.

It made for an amusing scene in Mr Twain's book,
_Tom_Sawyer_, but it isn't law and it isn't a basis
for justice.

It is categorically ***WRONG***. Punishment
MUST be associated with a particular crime
and be clearly seen to be so. Otherwise it
is simple persecution against some people by
society because society "doesn't like them".
This starts an entirely too-slippery slope.

Nobody knows of a bootlace expert then?