Gwyrch Castle Investigation 12

Gwrych Castle Investigation 12-04-2003

On Saturday 12^th April 2003 Chris & Eleanor Thompson of Derwent Paranormal Investigators assisted the North Wales Occult Research team with an investigation at Gwrych Castle near Abegele in North Wales. Although a beautiful and imposing castle when viewed from the A55 approaching Conwy, the castle has been allowed to fall into total disrepair over the last 18 years by its American owner and is now in an unsafe and dangerous condition. As most of the roof is missing, the floors below have collapsed and other areas have been vandalised and stripped.

The castle was built in 1819 for Lloyd Hesketh Bamford-Hesketh and remained in the family until the death of his granddaughter Winifred, Countess of Dundonald in 1924. In 1928 her husband, Lord Dundonald, who had been left out of her will, bought the castle back for £78,000, selling the contents to pay for it. The castle finally left the families hands in 1946 when it was sold by the 13^th Earl of Dundonald.

With the current condition of the castle it was almost impossible to find any safe locations to set up and leave our equipment within the remaining ruins, so our indoor experiments were restricted to a single room, which still had a partially remaining roof. Video and audio recordings were taken at another location of a séance and an ouija session.

Investigation Report

To view the investigation and timeline for the whole evenings events please see the NWOR website

Thermometer & Hygrometer Readings

	Sensor 1		Sensor 2		Sensor 3
Time	Temp	Hygro	Temp	Hygro	Temp	Hygro
21:30	8.8	69%	9.9	66%	9.4	64%
21:40	8.8	70%	9.9	66%	9.4	64%
21:50	8.8	70%	9.9	67%	9.3	64%
22:00	8.8	70%	9.7	67%	9.3	64%
22:10	-	-	9.7	67%	9.3	65%
22:20	-	-	9.7	67%	9.2	66%
22:30	8.7	71%	9.7	68%	9.2	66%
22:40	8.7	71%	9.7	68%	9.2	66%
22:50	8.7	72%	9.6	68%	9.2	66%
23:00	8.6	72%	9.6	68%	9.2	67%
23:10	8.6	72%	9.6	68%	9.1	67%
23:20	8.6	72%	9.6	68%	9.1	67%
23:30	8.6	72%	-	-	9.1	67%
23:40	8.6	73%	9.6	69%	9.1	67%

Although there were no unexpected changes in either temperature or humidity readings during the 2-hour session we have no explanation as to why sensors 1 and 2 failed at various times as there was no possible interruptions from either electrical or other radio frequencies within the area. As both sensors recovered we can also eliminate battery failure as the cause.

Location of Equipment and Video / Audio results

Key

1 Thermo/Hygro sensor 1

2 Thermo/Hygro sensor 2

3 Thermo/Hygro sensor 3

4 Remote PIR alarm

5 Thermo/Hygro & PIR receiver units

6 Video Camera (22:30-23:30)

NB Between 21:30 and 22:00 an analogue Dictaphone was placed between 3 and 4.

Initial inspection of the video tape has shown no obvious results.

The analogue Dictaphone, located between the thermo / Hygro sensor 3 and the remote PIR alarm requires further examination as just as the tape has been started, I announce the start time only to have it repeated back. Click here to listen to the audio

Audio results recorded during Ouija session

A digital audio recorder was placed about 2 meters away from the Ouija session on the brickwork of what would have once been a window. At regular intervals throughout the whole recording there are knocking noises that require further analysis.

Video results from one of the séance sessions

During one of the séances a video camera was left mounted on a tripod to record the event. After about 70 seconds of filming a white streak passes across from left to right. Just before two minutes have elapsed a shadow is cast on the back wall. This is seen and commented on by the participants of the séance, but explained away as a leaf blowing about in front of a torch, which is lay on the ground. As the wind was constant throughout the recording and neither the torch nor the leaf was interfered with it would therefore be anticipated that the occurrence would reoccur. This however did not happen during the 15 minutes of recording.

	Results from web cam using motion detection software

	When we originally reviewed the pictures taken using a web cam connected to a laptop computer running motion detection software we immediately discounted the pictures taken as human contamination. However or revisiting the pictures we noted 8 consecutive pictures which we have converted into a short mpeg movie file. Below is a description of some of the individual pictures which we have shown as a timeline.

	03:04:46	Standard shot taken by motion detection camera.
	03:04:48	Suspected camera flash, but has the motion detection software picked up a mist swirling around the stairs.
	03:04:56	This could be the shadow of the photographer walking back up the stairs in someone else’s flashlight, but their head doesn’t appear to be attached to their body.
	03:04:57	The shadow has disappeared from view within 1 second.
	03:04:58	Slightly enhanced lighting noted on the staircase
	03:54:59	No changes detected for the last 50 minutes
	03:55:09	Minor changes drecorded by detection software

	Conclusions
	It would be very easy to dismiss the above consecutive shots taken by the motion detection software applying the scenario that someone contaminated the location by walking down the first flight of stairs, taking a photograph in the area and returning back up the stairs whilst a third party lit the way for them using a torch thereby casting their shadow on the wall. However, if we consider that the motion detector acted quickly enough to capture the flash from the camera then we must also assume that the torch, guiding the way back up the stairs, was illuminated for a maximum of one second. This would not give sufficient time for the photographer to ascent the staircase. Also, as noted in the timeline, the head of the shadow does not appear to be attached to the body. It is up to the individual to draw his or her own rational explanation to this occurrence.