Michael Stone, convicted in 2001 for the murders of Lin and Megan Russell in Kent, has undergone a DNA test as part of ongoing efforts to re-examine his case. The murders occurred in July 1996 in Chillenden, where Lin Russell, 45, and her six-year-old daughter were found bludgeoned to death. Stone, now 65, was also convicted of the attempted murder of Megan’s nine-year-old sister, Josie.

Stone received three life sentences with a minimum term of 25 years. Despite his conviction, no forensic evidence directly linked him to the crime, and he has consistently maintained his innocence. Earlier this year, it was announced that original evidence would be re-analyzed using advanced forensic methods in hopes of uncovering new information.

The recent DNA testing utilized DNA-17 technology, which examines 16 specific DNA regions plus a gender marker. This method has been influential in recent years, notably contributing to the overturning of Andrew Malkinson’s conviction in 2023 after he spent 17 years imprisoned for a rape he did not commit.

Stone’s legal team, led by solicitor Paul Bacon, expressed cautious optimism about the testing. Bacon stated that they hoped the DNA review would identify the true perpetrator and ultimately lead to Stone’s release through the Court of Appeal after decades of incarceration.

Questions surrounding Stone’s conviction have persisted since the original trial. At the time of the murders, Stone was a 37-year-old heroin addict with a history of violent offences and had no established alibi. Complicating the case, serial killer Levi Bellfield, convicted of murdering 13-year-old Milly Dowler in 2002, allegedly confessed to the Russell murders in 2017, although he later withdrew the claim. Bellfield is reported to have made additional written confessions since then.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), responsible for investigating possible miscarriages of justice, confirmed it has conducted extensive inquiries into both forensic and other elements of Stone’s application for review. The commission noted that its threshold for referring a case to the Court of Appeal requires a real possibility that the conviction would be overturned — a criterion not met in previous applications but currently under fresh consideration given new evidence and testing.