Michael Stone has been tried twice for the murders of Lin Russell, one of her daughters and the attempted murder of the other young daughter. Twice he has been convicted. Yet he strongly protests his innocence. To be realistic, the vast majority of killers do. Yet, I do have strong reservations about the guilt of Michael Stone. It seems that he was convicted on the flimiest of circumstantial evidence. The attack on the Russell's was horrific, and IF Stone did commit it, he thoroughly deserves to be where he is.
Michael Stone was a man with a psychiatric history and he told his shrink that he felt like attacking somebody. He informed the Police and after the attack, he came upon the Police radar. There seemed to be a complete lack of forensic evidence, but help came in the shape of the jail informer. This is a long used technique generally used to fit people up or somebody is looking to have his sentence greatly reduced, and is ready to lie through his teeth to achieve it. The informer used was called Daly, yet his claim of Stone spilling the details is ridiculous. Stone asked to be put in solitary TO AVOID the "Cellmate Confession" scenario. Daly claimed Stone shouted it through the wall and could not stop himself. Really?
Another point that is NOT argued, is that another inmate made a statement which later he retracted, yet it seems to be unclear why he withdrew it? This man claimed that Stone attacked him(And I do remember reading this at the time) and shouted "I made a mistake last time but I won`t make one now" insinuating "I left one alive before not now!" meaning the Russells. He withdrew this allegation yet it never crops up in documentaries on the case. Why? Did this man not get the offer he sought? Think about it; Would you shout something like that? Or would you think it was the figment of the imagination of either the inmate or the Police? It would certainly back up the ridiculous claim of Daly`s.
Two more points to ponder; We have never heard if Daly received his rewards, which would have been an extremely sympathetic parole hearing, due to his "Public Spiritedness," and what copper Norman Brennan said on live TV. Brennan works with Victims Support. Nothing wrong with that, but it is what he said on TV-AM. In a chat with the sister of Michael Stone, he said,"I was privy to evidence that showed your brother was guilty!" I thought this was an astonishing statement to make. It seems Stone was convicted on weak circumstantial, but Brennan, from his own mouth, seems to have seen evidence that apparently a jury never saw. If Brennan "Was privy" to concrete evidence, we do NOT see this in documentaries, and these programmes imply that Stone was convicted on some circumstantial with no forensic links to the crime. I concede I may be wrong but I certainly remember vividly many details. The withdrawn allegation, the Brennan claim. I would like to see the FULL details on this case and if proof is there that it WAS Stone, I will shout it from the rooftops.