Author Topic: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer  (Read 1285 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2020, 01:24:AM »
   Campion was a brilliant poster and a very entertaining conversationalist. I had the brief pleasure of exchanging a few phone calls with him and had a few interesting conversations with him. I say conversations but it was mostly one way with Victor regaling me with tales and tips. He was always good fun to talk with and is a sadly missed poster.

I like people who are a bit leftfield.  I trust it's not offensive towards Campion's memory to say that he was.

when the thread on Claire Powell and her identity was being discussed

Do tell us more....
« Last Edit: July 23, 2020, 01:25:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2020, 02:23:AM »
I like people who are a bit leftfield.  I trust it's not offensive towards Campion's memory to say that he was.

Do tell us more....
    I am sure that Campion himself would be happy to be called leftfield.

    As for the Claire Powell discussion...
    There was a discussion/thread at the time where the authors of books and their credibility was being discussed. I had called into question the credibility and motives of some writers on the case, who I regard as not serious investigative writers, but rather writers of what I call "murder porn". Roger Wilkes and his previous output had been discussed but to be fair to him, he did at least have a check-able history.
    Claire Powell's book was published at around the same time as Roger Wilkes book, both pro guilt. Despite searches, no trace could be found of any Claire Powell who might be responsible for the book although she claimed to have visited Bamber in prison a number of times to discuss the book.
    Interestingly, or not, depending on your cynicism, the pro guilt books, one by an author(Wilkes) whose previous output had undoubtedly been murder porn, ie. writing about historic infamous murders with nothing further to add and only to cater to a market who like reading about horrific murders(each to their own); the other by the elusive Claire Powell were published in 1994 which was just prior to the destruction of much evidence, overseen and directed by Special Branch. No book had been written in the 8 years since the trial and then two published within 4 days of each other both pro guilt by writers with no reputation as investigative writers.
    Campion during one of telephone discussions pointed me in the direction of some correspondence between Mike Tesko and Roger Wilkes. Wilkes said something about Wendy visiting Bamber at the same time in one letter and this Wendy was also writing a book.
    There is obviously no book by anyone called Wendy but the lady in question appears to be Wendy Brading, a Journalist at the time for the East Anglia Daily Times, who wrote all Bamber related stories in the local press. The speculation is that Claire Powell is a pseudonym for Wendy Brading.
     It is discussed here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4690.0.html  With plenty of choice Campion comments.
     Hope this helps, Chevalier, and you can enjoy more enlightenment from the truly unique Campion.

Online Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11269
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2020, 08:43:AM »
Hartley was more or less a spin doctor for the relatives.

Part spin doctor, part myth buster.


Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2020, 11:51:AM »
    Claire Powell's book was published at around the same time as Roger Wilkes book, both pro guilt. Despite searches, no trace could be found of any Claire Powell who might be responsible for the book although she claimed to have visited Bamber in prison a number of times to discuss the book.
    Interestingly, or not, depending on your cynicism, the pro guilt books, one by an author(Wilkes) whose previous output had undoubtedly been murder porn, ie. writing about historic infamous murders with nothing further to add and only to cater to a market who like reading about horrific murders(each to their own); the other by the elusive Claire Powell were published in 1994 which was just prior to the destruction of much evidence, overseen and directed by Special Branch. No book had been written in the 8 years since the trial and then two published within 4 days of each other both pro guilt by writers with no reputation as investigative writers.
    Campion during one of telephone discussions pointed me in the direction of some correspondence between Mike Tesko and Roger Wilkes. Wilkes said something about Wendy visiting Bamber at the same time in one letter and this Wendy was also writing a book.
    There is obviously no book by anyone called Wendy but the lady in question appears to be Wendy Brading, a Journalist at the time for the East Anglia Daily Times, who wrote all Bamber related stories in the local press. The speculation is that Claire Powell is a pseudonym for Wendy Brading.
     It is discussed here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4690.0.html  With plenty of choice Campion comments.
     Hope this helps, Chevalier, and you can enjoy more enlightenment from the truly unique Campion.

That's fascinating about Claire Powell.  Do you know, I only recently bought her book, which was just for completeness as I'd assumed it wasn't very good.  Turns out I was wrong: it's actually quite good, especially in the sections on Sheila.  I immediately googled Claire Powell and I found an IMDB entry, but as you say, her name could be a pseudonym.

I'll read that thread - thanks.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2020, 11:53:AM »
These might be worth reading

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9528.msg441998.html#msg441998

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9070.msg428759.html#msg428759

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10038.msg459000.html#msg459000

Thanks, but again, I think there's a misunderstanding.  I personally do not believe there is sufficient evidence that the silencer was used.  In shorthand: I don't believe the silencer was used.

The purpose of the thread is to test the evidence regarding the distribution of blood in the silencer.  This obviously has to be on the premise that the silencer was used, which I assume for the purposes of the thread only.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2020, 12:53:PM »
Thanks, but again, I think there's a misunderstanding.  I personally do not believe there is sufficient evidence that the silencer was used.  In shorthand: I don't believe the silencer was used.

The purpose of the thread is to test the evidence regarding the distribution of blood in the silencer.  This obviously has to be on the premise that the silencer was used, which I assume for the purposes of the thread only.

The prosecution argued that that silencer was used because blood was inside it.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2020, 12:57:PM »
The prosecution argued that that silencer was used because blood was inside it.

I know.  And?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2020, 01:47:PM »
I know.  And?

They never went into any specifics.

Online Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11269
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2020, 01:51:PM »
I know.  And?

Apologies if I am also digressing but I think the problem that David is referring to, is that no mater how much evidence points away from the sound moderator having been used, whether that is anomalies in blood distribution; burn marks; provenance and custodial record; or whatever, the authorities are immovable. 

However, there has seemed to be a reluctance on the part of defence / campaign to directly canvas the allegation of deliberate contamination.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21691
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2020, 02:48:PM »
The prosecution argued that that silencer was used because blood was inside it.

And paint.

There was a silencer available. Makes sense for Bamber to use it. Then take it off and put it away.

Not sure what else the prosecution need to supply.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2020, 02:51:PM »
Apologies if I am also digressing but I think the problem that David is referring to, is that no mater how much evidence points away from the sound moderator having been used, whether that is anomalies in blood distribution; burn marks; provenance and custodial record; or whatever, the authorities are immovable. 

However, there has seemed to be a reluctance on the part of defence / campaign to directly canvas the allegation of deliberate contamination.

Personally I disagree.  Sorry.

First, it doesn't need to be intentional contamination; it could have been inadvertent/accidental.  The family may even genuinely believe Jeremy is guilty and have introduced the silencer evidence in the genuine, but mistaken belief it is an incriminating artefact.  And they may be right about his guilt but wrong on the evidence.  It's called being right for the wrong reasons.

Second, an appellate bench does not need to take the view that the silencer was intentionally contaminated.  All that needs to be established is that the silencer could have been contaminated.  Once that's established, the evidence has to be considered unsafe and the conviction must be quashed.  If so, that doesn't mean Jeremy is innocent.  Far from it, but the appeal court in that situation isn't being asked to decide guilt or innocence.  That's for a jury at a re-trial (though given the passage of time and deterioration of evidence, I would assume in that scenario the Crown will offer no evidence).

Third, I don't believe the issue was simply that any old blood was found in the silencer.  I think there was a bit more to it. 

It was also that:

(i). probabilistically, the blood had to be assumed to be Sheila's; and,
(ii). the blood must have got there due to a contact/near-contact shot; and,
(iii). the silencer was found in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene.

These points are inter-linked.  It was acknowledged that point (i) was not a 99% 'legal certainty', rather it was more a preponderance of evidence on the facts given (ii) and (iii).  Normally, the prosecution must prove each vital material point beyond reasonable doubt, but what the Crown were saying here is that although we can't be 99% about the blood, if you look at the other points and consider it all in totality, it does point to Bamber. 

In other words, the blood in the silencer contributed to a finding of guilt because it formed part of a bigger picture.

Now, my central point here is that I dispute the view that the silencer fits into a bigger picture.  The blood evidence does not support this view.  In turn, this is one of the reasons I reject the assertion that the silencer was used.

Furthermore, while I am not alleging intentional contamination, I think the evidence points to it.  At the moment, this evidence does not quite rise to proof, but it's enough to warrant further inquiries.

The further inquiries would centre around at least two major avenues:

1. Close documentary analysis of the chain of custody records.

2. Expert opinion on the blood evidence to establish if the blood distribution found matches what would be expected.  In particular (among other things), whether passive dripping is a relevant factor allowing for the blood impacting the silencer under ballistic tension.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2020, 02:57:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2020, 02:59:PM »
That's fascinating about Claire Powell.  Do you know, I only recently bought her book, which was just for completeness as I'd assumed it wasn't very good.  Turns out I was wrong: it's actually quite good, especially in the sections on Sheila.  I immediately googled Claire Powell and I found an IMDB entry, but as you say, her name could be a pseudonym.

I'll read that thread - thanks.
   It is definitely a pseudonym, Chevalier. The evidence suggesting Wendy Brading as the real author is circumstantial but persuasive.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2020, 04:41:PM »


First, it doesn't need to be intentional contamination; it could have been inadvertent/accidental.  The family may even genuinely believe Jeremy is guilty and have introduced the silencer evidence in the genuine, but mistaken belief it is an incriminating artefact.  And they may be right about his guilt but wrong on the evidence.  It's called being right for the wrong reasons.



What is that supposed to mean?

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2020, 04:57:PM »
What is that supposed to mean?

It's supposed to mean what it says.  The post is plain English. 

In addition, it's possible that the family intentionally contaminated the silencer in an effort to frame somebody they genuinely believed to be guilty.

So we have five major possibilities, which are not necessarily mutually-exclusive to each other:

INNOCENT - The Crown are wrong, you're right, Sheila did it, and Jeremy is innocent.  Sheila may or may not have used the silencer and the family may or may not have contaminated the silencer.

GUILT - The Crown are right and I'm wrong and the silencer was used by Jeremy to kill his family.  Case closed.  I'm off to the astronomy forum.

MISTAKE - The family have innocently introduced the silencer into evidence, not realising it wasn't used, in the genuine and sincere belief that Jeremy is guilty and that the silencer was used in the shootings.  In this scenario, the silencer may or may not have been contaminated, but if it was, then the contamination was due to mistake or negligence on the part of the family and/or the police.

NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION - The family have framed Jeremy because they believe he is guilty.  In this scenario, they may or may not believe the silencer was used in the shootings, and it may or may not have been used, but irrespective of this, it was intentionally contaminated by the family and/or the police.

MALEVOLENCE - The family have framed Jeremy not caring whether he is guilty or not or while being reckless as to the question of his culpability.  Personally, I think it is rather unlikely the police would involve themselves in this sort of escapade, whether individually or somehow corporately.  Anybody here who differs in that view should provide examples of other cases where this has happened.

I think the most likely explanation is MISTAKE.

However, I also believe NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION is a distinct possibility and it has solid evidence to commend it, though it's far from proved.

In any event, an appellate court only needs to be satisfied that contamination (on whatever basis) could have occurred and the conviction is then unsafe.

I do accept the point being made here that the official position, never mind anything else, is that the silencer is already compromised evidence and weak.  Nevertheless, the way I see it is that you attack at the weakest line of defence.  I don't believe that the Crown's admission that the silencer is weak evidence is a reason not to further attack the silencer.

That being said, I am not a mouthpiece for a probable mass murderer.  I am not on Jeremy's side.  I'm just giving my view about it all.  This whole thing is larger than Jeremy.  It's about justice.  You can't lock somebody up for decades on compromised evidence.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2020, 03:06:AM by QCChevalier »