Backspatter phenomena, could not have occurred at time of fatal shot under chin

[chochokeira]

The report below illustrates the problems that may arise when witnesses are paid for their stories by the press.

"Newspapers paid West witnesses"

"Murder trial: Wakeham concerned at tabloids' cash deals"

Colin Brown and Rhys Williams. The Independent 13 November 1995: Sections of report follow

"Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, is preparing to make a strong attack on the press over payments to witnesses in the Rosemary West trial.

The former Cabinet minister has told close colleagues that he is waiting until the trial is over, but he is planning to warn the press that they must show restraint or face action. The PCC's code of practice contains a clause forbidding "payment or offers or of payment for stories, pictures or information ... to witnesses or potential witnesses in criminal proceedings".

Several witnesses in the West trial have admitted having contracts with the media. Anne Marie Davis, Mrs West's stepdaughter, received pounds 3,000 from the Daily Star, Caroline Owens, who was attacked by the Wests in 1972, will eventually get pounds 20,000 from the Sun and Kathryn Halliday, who said she had a lesbian relationship with Mrs West, has been paid pounds 8,000 by the Sunday Mirror.

Stephen and Mae West, who have not given evidence, have been bought up by the News of the World.

The defence in the Rosemary West trial challenged the evidence of some witnesses in court, warning the jury that the more sensational accounts they gave, the more the media would pay for their stories. Richard Ferguson QC, acting for the defence, told the court in Winchester that there may have been "an element of amateur dramatics" in the way some witnesses gave evidence.

He continued: "You may think that, consciously or unconsciously, they know that what they will be paid is contingent upon there being convictions in this case."

"...Lord Wakeham's concern reflects mounting worry in legal and political circles about the press's conduct in criminal trials. Mark Stephens, solicitor for the Taylor sisters, whose convictions for murder were quashed last year after prejudicial reporting of their trial, said paying witnesses could jeopardise criminal cases.
"It was an issue in the OJ [Simpson] case. People who think they may be able to sell their story ... may enhance or add to their accounts. So the risk is outright lies or embellishment," Mr Stephens said.

"The problem you have as a lawyer when faced with this is that you don't know a witness has been bought, so you're not able to cross-examine them in a trial."

Mr Stephens said that a law could be framed to ensure that witnesses could not be approached before the end of a trial.

Lord Wakeham has told friends that he finds some of the reporting on the West trial too much to bear and he is thought to be considering an inquiry into the possibility of tightening the code of conduct."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PuFt30eXvEwJ:www.independent.co.uk/news/newspapers-paid-west-witnesses-1581685.html+UK,+NEws+of+the+World,+paid+witnesses&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk

[mike tesko]

According to Mr Fletcher a fire arms expert who gave evidence at the 2002 appeal stated that:

If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was “virtually certain” that Sheila Caffell’s blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said “a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight”.

So one would assume that Sheila's blood would be found either in the muzzle of the gun or in the silencer.

Her blood was not found in the muzzle of the gun.

So I would suggest that this would add weight to the possibility that the blood found in the silencer was indeed Sheila's.

How would the lack of blood from both gun muzzle and silencer be explained otherwise?

I'm confused - which silencer are you talking about exactly?

I believe he refers to the moderator (silencer)  - for most, the term moderator is synonymous with silencer, although some like to make a distinction (Jeremy Bamber in particular!)
The muzzle is simply the end of the gun...


So:
In theory, the blood SHOULD end up in the end of the silencer (if fitted) OR inside the end of the gun (if not fitted), but it would not go all the way through the silence AND into the end of the gun.


That make sense?

I realise what a silencer is and the implications of its use if it was used. But, correct me if I'm wrong - there was more than one silencer in the possession of the police at various times, wasn't there?

---------------------------

Yes, police had at least three different identical looking Parker hale silencers, in their possession as part of this investigation:-

SBJ/1, sent to Lab' on 13th August 1985

DB/1, sent to Lab' on 30th August 1985

DRB/1, sent to Lab' on 26th September 1985

[guest154]

According to Mr Fletcher a fire arms expert who gave evidence at the 2002 appeal stated that:

If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was “virtually certain” that Sheila Caffell’s blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said “a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight”.

So one would assume that Sheila's blood would be found either in the muzzle of the gun or in the silencer.

Her blood was not found in the muzzle of the gun.

So I would suggest that this would add weight to the possibility that the blood found in the silencer was indeed Sheila's.

How would the lack of blood from both gun muzzle and silencer be explained otherwise?

You're 100% right.

[Reader]

. . . unless another gun was used.

[mike tesko]

. . . unless another gun was used.

-------------------------------------

or if blood in barrel of gun was blasted out into silencer during unofficial test firings of rifle / silencer / control bullets...

[lebaleb]

Could the recoil from the shot have moved the end of the gun away from the wound as the bullet entered her neck? The way the gun was being held I would expect that. Or could the gasses have been released through the first wound hole?

[mb1]

If no Back-spatter at time of fatal shot under chin - no need for anyone to remove silencer from barrel of gun and take it downstairs to conceal it in the gun cupboard, as alleged by Prosecution case

(1) No Backspatter at time of fatal shot under chin, path and trajectory of fatal bullet, up through base and roof off victims mouth and deposited in her brain

(2) No need for anyone to remove silencer and take it downstairs to hide it in the gun cupboard, after Sheila was killed

(3) No silencer photographed on weapon allegedly found on body of Sheila...

I strongly doubt having just wiped out 5 people, in a possibly dimly lit situation COULD check the inside of the silencer for blood.
I do think they might wipe it, or check it for obvious signs of blood, but anything more? no.

Besides, why even leave it at the house in the first place?

If Sheila committed suicide, why put the silencer away? I can understand taking it off, but not putting it away.
If Jeremy murdered her, then the same, why put the silence back and not take it with him? (it's a gamble to take it with him, but arguably a greater one not to).

Yes. Jeremy couldn't possibly have known that the police would not look for all articles associated with guns in the house, and he couldn't have known that they would miss the silencer. In fact, you'd expect them to have taken all the firearms and associated articles away really.

There was allegedly blood on the outside of the silencer, so the killer didn't even bother to wipe it - that's quite careless isn't it?

Sheila could have taken the silencer off and put it back in the cupboard. She could have put the gun back in there too and taken it out again later to shoot herself minus the silencer. I know that sounds a bit far fetched, but so does the idea that Jeremy would just put the silencer back in the cupboard without even checking to see if there was blood on it.

I wonder if they examined the box the silencer was found in. You'd think there would be some blood in it which had transferred from the outside of the silencer.

On this matter, we think alike.
Trouble is this -

If JB did it, his thought processes aren't quite typical of most. He killed 5. Enough said. So who's to say what level of arrogance, carelessness, adrenalin rushed confusion he was in?
If he didn't do it, then the putting the silencer back in the cupboard is equally 'bonkers'.

Either way, killing 4 then yourself is quite extreme, and killing 5 every bit as much. So whoever did it was not thinking rightly! Mapping that onto OUR minds is possibly our downfall.

Here's what I think though (on the assumption JB planned it, as best he could).

1) It's going to look like a robber, or suicide. Robbery is messy and they need to find the killer, so suicide works best (helpful of Sheila to have instability issues too)
2) Do I need to use a moderator? Might be best if I do, so as to make sure I'm not heard by distant farm hands etc.
3) Either I don't yet know that sheila will stuggle, or find impossible to shoot herself with the moderator fitted, or I do know about that problem, and decide the last shot will require it to be removed - they won't know there was a moderator used, because they;ll see the suicide gun, and that's that.
4) If I take the silencer with me, and for whatever reason I get caught with it - I'm done for. If I leave it at the house - it's just one of lots of gun stuff, and they probably won't even look. I might even clean it if I have to then put it back where it belongs

There is actually every chance he didn't think through every last detail (like backspatter) and was possibly too arrogant to think they might work out it was murder. Who knows?
If he hadn't actually known she couldn't kill herself easily with the moderator fitted, it MIGHT have been a last minute issue, and lucky he spotted the problem. So he removes it, shoots her without it, then has the silencer in his hand.... what does he do? he was GOING to leave it on the gun, but he can't do that now... panic panic ... put it back in the drawer.

Feasible?

I used to feel the same way about the silencer, incredulous that the killer would leave it, but now believe the opposite. It HAD to be left.

If I am the killer and not Sheila...

Act One:
Have killed the boys (at least) with the silencer.
Suppose the forensics may be able to prove a silencer was used and others know it was usually
       on the gun.
Can make it look as if Sheila returned the silencer, but she wouldn't have been able to make it
       disappear.
Intend to leave on the silencer, but realise when I place the gun in Sheila's arms that there is a reach 
       problem.
Remove the silencer. Now it can't have Sheila's DNA on the inside so I clean it (with the tampon?).
       Blood, hairs, paint - anything on the outside of the moderator is fine (as long as it's not me) and
       would be expected. So I return it to the cupboard.
Plods enter stage left, glance down, say "Suicide - easy paperwork on this. Crimes committed, crimes
       solved. Who's for the pub?"

Act Two:
Forensic results come back - can't tie Sheila to firing or loading the gun.
The fan is switched on.

The silencer has to be there, whoever the killer is.
The only real question is whether or not it's Sheila's blood inside.

[Kaldin]

Why return it to the cupboard though? If one anticipates that it can be established that a silencer was used, putting it in the cupboard would be stupid. Having cleaned the inside, one would leave it next to Sheila's body surely.

[jon]

Why not flush the tampon ?

[Kaldin]

Why not flush the tampon ?

Was there one found then?

Another point - it seems to me that if the inside of the silencer was cleaned with a tampon, whoever did it took great care to preserve whatever was on the outside of the silencer. There was a hair on it, there was blood on it, and there was paint on it as well, and yet we're supposed to believe that someone held it, poked a tampon inside it and pulled it through the other side without wiping the outside?

[mb1]

Why return it to the cupboard though? If one anticipates that it can be established that a silencer was used, putting it in the cupboard would be stupid. Having cleaned the inside, one would leave it next to Sheila's body surely.

Then you are actively highlighting it - not good if you have shot Sheila twice with it on.
You're not sure, but you have to hedge your bets on this one. You have to take the chance of 'hiding it in the open'.

I think it's commonly agreed that it was used, the difference being was Sheila included.
Irrespective of Sheila as killer or killed, the silencer has to be there.

It's not a defence argument to say 'if I were the killer I would have taken the silencer with me'...  :D

[Kaldin]

Why return it to the cupboard though? If one anticipates that it can be established that a silencer was used, putting it in the cupboard would be stupid. Having cleaned the inside, one would leave it next to Sheila's body surely.

Then you are actively highlighting it - not good if you have shot Sheila twice with it on.
You're not sure, but you have to hedge your bets on this one. You have to take the chance of 'hiding it in the open'.

I think it's commonly agreed that it was used, the difference being was Sheila included.
Irrespective of Sheila as killer or killed, the silencer has to be there.

It's not a defence argument to say 'if I were the killer I would have taken the silencer with me'...  :D

Then why blatantly leave blood, hair, and paint on the outside of it if he was hedging his bets?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Tampon packaging I believe.
Not sure if that meant a box, or wrapper

I've never had the impression it was an actual tampon - not from the statements RB and AE made.

[mb1]

Why return it to the cupboard though? If one anticipates that it can be established that a silencer was used, putting it in the cupboard would be stupid. Having cleaned the inside, one would leave it next to Sheila's body surely.

Then you are actively highlighting it - not good if you have shot Sheila twice with it on.
You're not sure, but you have to hedge your bets on this one. You have to take the chance of 'hiding it in the open'.

I think it's commonly agreed that it was used, the difference being was Sheila included.
Irrespective of Sheila as killer or killed, the silencer has to be there.

It's not a defence argument to say 'if I were the killer I would have taken the silencer with me'...  :D

Then why blatantly leave blood, hair, and paint on the outside of it if he was hedging his bets?

Because 4 people have been murdered and 1 is supposed to have killed herself.
What's on the outside should be there.
Sheila on the inside can't be there.

And yes, you flush the tampon.

If the silencer is missing, and the forensics say a silencer was used, the game is up.

[Kaldin]

Why return it to the cupboard though? If one anticipates that it can be established that a silencer was used, putting it in the cupboard would be stupid. Having cleaned the inside, one would leave it next to Sheila's body surely.

Then you are actively highlighting it - not good if you have shot Sheila twice with it on.
You're not sure, but you have to hedge your bets on this one. You have to take the chance of 'hiding it in the open'.

I think it's commonly agreed that it was used, the difference being was Sheila included.
Irrespective of Sheila as killer or killed, the silencer has to be there.

It's not a defence argument to say 'if I were the killer I would have taken the silencer with me'...  :D

Then why blatantly leave blood, hair, and paint on the outside of it if he was hedging his bets?

Because 4 people have been murdered and 1 is supposed to have killed herself.
What's on the outside should be there.
Sheila on the inside can't be there.

And yes, you flush the tampon.

If the silencer is missing, and the forensics say a silencer was used, the game is up.

But he would surely hope that the silencer wouldn't be found and that it would be overlooked. If there's blood etc on it, that's not going to happen.