Talk:Michael Stone (criminal)

message: Well, I for one regard his conviction as unsafe, since no evidence of any kind was presented to the court or jury to indicate even his presence at or near the crime scene. The only evidence was that another convicted criminal, known to be a pathological liar, claimed that Stone had confessed by shouting the fact to him from the next door cell whilst awaiting trial. Er, that's it. That's the evidence. It is known that Stone had suffered for many years from mental instability. He knew it himself, and had asked to be taken into the care of an institution. He was refused, for the reasons given in the article, viz, his condition was regarded as untreatable, so under English law, they couldn't detain him, even at his own request. Fairlightseven 18/12/08
The article says some people still hold Stone's conviction as unsafe, however, the only evidence is this is from newspaper articles from 1999 - long before the more recent legal proceedings. I believe the statement should be removed unless more recent evidence can be produced. Dan100 (Talk) 08:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conviction unsafe? 

message: However, the issue which really mattered, but which was not made clear to the jury, was the screamingly obvious fact that even if Stone had shouted his confession from the rooftops for the whole world to hear, it wouldn't have made the confession any more credible in proving that he was actually the murderer. This was because anybody following the news could have cobbled together the same confession.
Very One-Sided and Tabloidy; also the Last Link in External Links seems non-notable and non-useful. J.J.Sagnella (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-heavy section 

message: There is no longer a requirement that treatments actually work, nor is there a requirement that patients participate in the treatment (ex: with taking therapies and other therapies that require active participation by the patient), merely that the treatment is considered appropriate, and is readily available to the patient.
The bit in brackets in the above sentence does not make sense to me. I can't fix it because I don't understand what it's trying to say, and I can't access the referenced source. Please reword. Thanks, RandomLettersForName (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly worded sentence 

message: The article does not make clear whether in fact Damian Daley was in fact found guilty of the offense for which he was on remand or, if so, what sentence he got - or indeed what sentence would have been normal for such an offense by a career criminal with his record.  This information is important to assessing Daley's credibility. Also the fact that the witness who admitted lying had also fabricated a confession, should be made clearer.  After all, the fact that the police accepted and made use of a fabricated confession indicates how determined they were to convict Stone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.84.56 (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate of Damien Daley 

message: The articles in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly (may be behind a pay wall but sometimes can be accessed for free if you search for them by google instead of using the link)
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Unconvincing-Conviction-Michael-Stone-%E2%80%93-Part-1
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Unconvincing-Conviction-Michael-Stone-%E2%80%93-Part-2
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Unconvincing-Conviction-Michael-Stone-Part-3
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Unconvincing-Conviction-Michael-Stone-%E2%80%93-Part-4
are written by two barristers to argue for Stone's innocence and could contain a lot of references to primary sources, explanations of details like the boot-lace that was lost by police.
Someone with time&patience might search through this to see if the existing article is lacking anything important that might be found there.
The last of the articles summarizes evidence of Stone's innocence:
 The significant height disparity between Josie Russell’s description of the murderer and Stone’s height (6ft 1in as against 5ft 7in);
 Josie’s description of the murderer’s hair as yellow and spiky contrasted with Stone’s hair;
 The absence of Stone’s DNA on the bootlace;
 The total absence of any relevant microscopic evidence from Stone’s car;
 The absence of any such evidence linking him to the murder scene;
 The finding of hairs there which did not belong to him or the Russells;
 The bloodstained fingerprint on one of the girl’s lunchbox which could not have been Stone’s and was very unlikely in the circumstances to have been made by Lin Russell;
 The absurdity of Stone confessing to Daley when he had just been moved into segregation at his own request to avoid contact with co-inmates who might want to allege he had confessed to them;
 The disappearance of the near complete length of boot lace from police custody at a time when in the light of continuing developments in DNA research tests on it could have led to Stone’s exoneration.
Createangelos (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other material that can be added to this article 

message: The double murder is more notable than him & should have its own article rather than be a redirect to this article. Jim Michael (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chillenden murders]] 

message: It's surprising that there is no source with a date of birth. His record at FreeBMD seems to be this one, which shows his birth was registered in the 2nd quarter. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: I’ve heard a claim that Stone had served in, or tried to join, the military.  Does anyone know if this is true, or has a source?  Wally Tharg (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military service?