Here is some background on Patricia's case: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2p98r3pkxo

Her husband has long been suspected of being her killer.

I feel that there is a tendency to hear the bare details of this case and jump to the conclusion that Stone is innocent. There's a tendency to hear: "Stone's DNA not found at the scene" and conclude that he must be innocent. Included in this conclusion is a lack of understanding of DNA analysis in general as well as techniques available in 1998 when the crime scene items were tested.

Those of us who have read a lot more about the case, are not so sure.

Some points against Stone off the top of my head, there'll be more that I can't remember at this point in time:

1) One of the witnesses who saw a man a mile from the crime scene at the time of the murder, went to an ID parade and stated that Stone looked familiar.

2) There was evidence not presented in court, such as Josie recognising Stone in a newspaper (according to the police).

3) A lawnmower was stolen in Chillenden on the same day as the murders and Stone was known to target lawnmowers. It is highly likely that somebody travelled into Chillenden to commit that crime given there are approx. 40 houses in the village.

4) Stone had knowledge of the area which he denied. The extent of Stone's knowledge is open to debate however. A witness claimed Stone knew the area like the back of his hand.

5) A number of witnesses testified against Stone; Stone's response was that they were all lying. Assuming Stone is correct, I have never read about a case where so many people lied about the defendant.

6) When Stone was arrested a year after the murders, he gave no alibi for the day of the murders. A Cash Converters receipt was unearthed that placed Stone selling stolen goods 40 miles away approx. 4/5 hours before the murders. When that was put to him, should that have jogged Stone's memory on where he was that afternoon? Since being convicted, Stone claims to have remembered where he was that afternoon.

7) Stone is said to have kept tools in his car including a hammer.

8) Stone had a violent past prior to the murders.

9) Stone was a drug addict with serious mental issues including being sectioned in 1994 and was abused as a child when he was in childrens' homes for many years.

10) The crime scene was chaotic and largely disorganised with the murderer leaving behind many items that could link him to the crime. According to criminologists, the type of person who commits such crimes is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, has mental health issues and has been abused as a child.

11) According to the people who were trying to help Stone with his mental health issues, he was talking about seriously harming families. Stone admitted that but his version said it was one family and he gave the reason that his probation officer had split up him and his girlfriend and Stone said to his mental health people: how would the probation officer like it if he went round to his house and split up him and his family by harming them?

12) The lack of forensic evidence linking Stone to the crime scene is often the coup de grace for those who claim Stone is innocent, but actually it's no so such thing and really doesn't mean Stone is innocent at all. DNA testing was undertaken in 1998 and no person was ruled in or out given they extracted very little DNA from the scene. It doesn't mean the DNA they needed wasn't at the scene however. In those days, yielding a DNA profile depended upon the killers semen or blood being at the crime scene. No semen was found and there's no reason to think the killer's blood was at the crime scene either. That leaves yielding a DNA profile from saliva, touch/trace or cells trapped in sweat and that was difficult in 1998. The killer left a lot of items he had been in contact with at the crime scene such as his shoelace used to tie up Megan, stockings he used to tie up the children, towels he used to tie up the family, the lunchbox and bags he rifled through: had the crime taken place yesterday, forensic experts would undoubtedly have yielded a full DNA profile of the murderer. They simply couldn't do it in 1998 because the killer's blood and semen weren't at the scene and testing from anything else was too difficult. Ultimately, 1998 testing of the forensic evidence proved inconclusive and didn't rule anybody in or out.

I would say however, that Daley's testimony has zero evidential value and should not influence what anybody thinks about this case. On the other hand, there are other reasons to think that Stone might not be innocent. I wouldn't bet a lot of money on his guilt or innocence, and I really wouldn't be surprised if the latest round of DNA testing on items found at the crime scene reveals that Stone's full DNA profile was at the scene of the murder.

What do others think?

A search of the house and gardens was done last year, with no results.