The New Silencer Evidence...

[Cambridgecutie]

As per the C5 doc and another of PB's pig skin experiments it now appears there's another attempt to undermine the silencer, which is obviously a step in the right direction given it underpins the conviction.

Many will recall ITV's Tonight programme from 2012 where PB attempted to illustrate that the marks on NB's back were caused by the barrel of the rifle and not the silencer.  (Firing alone was not enough to cause sufficient heat so the barrel and silencer were heated up by a blow torch).  This was an attempt to show the silencer was not used but obviously even if the test had any validity it would not have precluded JB or SC using the silencer and then removing it. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly the CCRC rejected it.  It also highlighted the fact it did not overcome the main obstacle with the silencer evidence ie the blood flake. 

[Cambridgecutie]

The new experiment now attempts to compare SC's gunshot wounds with and without the silencer attached in terms of the difference in 'powder tattooing' (and maybe the abrasion marks in general?)  This can be seen in the C5 doc at 48.22:

https://www.channel5.com/show/white-house-farm-murders-jeremy-bamber-is-innocent

[Jonathan]

Has this even gone to the CCRC? The 2021 application argued there was a second silencer.

[Cambridgecutie]

Has this even gone to the CCRC? The 2021 application argued there was a second silencer.

I don't know. 

[Jonathan]

I believe this is what's being talked about

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/27/the-silencer-and-the-white-house-farm-murders-is-this-the-evidence-that-could-free-jeremy-bamber

it was not part of the 2021 submissions. Maybe someone can confirm if it has now gone the the CCRC?

[Cambridgecutie]

Images attached:

[Cambridgecutie]

I believe this is what's being talked about

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/27/the-silencer-and-the-white-house-farm-murders-is-this-the-evidence-that-could-free-jeremy-bamber

it was not part of the 2021 submissions. Maybe someone can confirm if it has now gone the the CCRC?

Yes apparently the test was commissioned by the Guardian as per the C5 doc but I have no idea whether it has gone to the CCRC. 

[Cambridgecutie]

Images attached:

I see a number of issues with this:

- Is there a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it at trial?  It is not some new scientific discovery like, for example, dna.  The defence called its own witnesses by way of Major Mead (ballistics) and Prof Knight (pathology).  I have never read testimony from the former so I do not know whether it was adjudicated at trial.  I suspect not based on the cross examination of Malcolm Fletcher.

- The lower wound was said to be up to 3 inches away.  The upper wound has been described variously as 'loose contact and near contact'.  Near being 1 - 3 mm away.  Does this alter the outcome? 

- Previous experts by way of the Italian pathologists and the US pathologists (names escape me) have submitted testimony to the effect the appearance of the wounds were inconsistent with a silencer fitted or words to this effect.  The CCRC rejected on the basis of the blood certainly and possibly the paint, scratches and hair.

- My take is that the case, taken at face value, is strong: silencer with all the contaminants, SC's state in terms of her person and nightwear ie lack of debris, JM's testimony etc.  I am reminded of Patrick O'Connor's comment during the Louis Theroux docu, as per my tagline, and I just don't see the above being enough to turn the heads of 3 appeal court judges. 

[Cambridgecutie]

I am struggling to understand the difference between the 2011/12 tests and the tests recently undertaken?

https://www.lccsa.org.uk/gun-experts-raise-doubts-over-jeremy-bamber-murder-verdict/

[Rob_]

I am struggling to understand the difference between the 2011/12 tests and the tests recently undertaken?

https://www.lccsa.org.uk/gun-experts-raise-doubts-over-jeremy-bamber-murder-verdict/

I maybe wrong Cc but I thought it was because the two shots to Sheila could be either contact or near contact?

 “The pattern imprint on the skin is not large enough to suggest that a silencer was used, either at very close range or in contact with her body. These are close-range bullet holes, and the nature of the moderator or silencer is such that you’d expect some form of pattern imprint equivalent to the diameter of the silencer if it was used in contact or at very close range.”

[Cambridgecutie]

I maybe wrong Cc but I thought it was because the two shots to Sheila could be either contact or near contact?

 “The pattern imprint on the skin is not large enough to suggest that a silencer was used, either at very close range or in contact with her body. These are close-range bullet holes, and the nature of the moderator or silencer is such that you’d expect some form of pattern imprint equivalent to the diameter of the silencer if it was used in contact or at very close range.”

Yes the experts are attempting to use the wounds and gunshot residue to determine whether or not a silencer was used.  But I don't really see the difference between what was undertaken in 2011/12 and what has recently been undertaken by PB?  What was undertaken in 2011/12 has already been rejected by the CCRC so how is PB's work going to add to anything further? 

[ngb1066]

Yes the experts are attempting to use the wounds and gunshot residue to determine whether or not a silencer was used.  But I don't really see the difference between what was undertaken in 2011/12 and what has recently been undertaken by PB?  What was undertaken in 2011/12 has already been rejected by the CCRC so how is PB's work going to add to anything further?

It was not actually rejected in 2012.  The CCRC response, based upon the reports of the experts, was that further tests were needed.  The CCRC refused additional time for this and then issued their final SOR. 

[Jonathan]

This is not a ground with the CCRC - or not as far as we know. It seems to be a product of the Guardian commissioning
Professor Jason Payne-James since the CCRC application was made.

What we do know is that one of the grounds still being considered is that Sheila was shot from a distance so could not have done it herself.

[David1819]

It was not actually rejected in 2012.  The CCRC response, based upon the reports of the experts, was that further tests were needed.  The CCRC refused additional time for this and then issued their final SOR.

And not challenged by a counter expert either if I remember correctly.

[Adam]

The silencer evidence was not challenged at all at trial.

Jeremy knew he had used a silencer so no point asking his defence to challenge the blood evidence.

He started challenging it from the mid 90's onwards.