Cyanoacrylate (Superglue) Fuming Chamber And The Blood Flake

[Holly Goodhead]

On 15th August DI Cook took the rifle and silencer to the Police Scientific Development Branch (now known as Centre For Applied Science And Technology) at Sandridge, Hertfordshire in an attempt to reveal latent fingerprints on the two items. 

This involved placing the items in a cyanoacrylate (superglue) fuming chamber which works by reacting with chemicals contained in fingerprints.  The airtight chamber contains a few drops of superglue in an open container which is situated on a heater.  Once the superglue reaches boiling point it will boil away into the surrounding atmosphere creating a concentration of gaseous cyanoacrylate. If any latent fingerprints exist anywhere inside the chamber, they will eventually be exposed to the gaseous cyanoacrylate. This exposure and the natural humidity contained in the atmosphere are enough to trigger the reaction automatically with the chemicals in fingerprints to reveal latent fingerprints. 

Two vids to explain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fey7XzbYdyM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb1Gkk7KeMU

What has this got to do with the flake of blood found in the silencer?  When John Hayward tested the flake of blood in the silencer on 12th Sept he did so by way of conventional serological analysis.  This was clearly AFTER the silencer and flake of blood had been subjected to the heat and humidity in fuming chamber (above).  The problem is that blood samples found at crime scenes on nonporous surfaces, such as the flake within the silencer, need very careful handling especially if the blood sample is to be analysed by way of conventional serological analysis.  Such a sample must never be exposed to heat and humidity otherwise it will destroy its evidential value.  So how did the flake survive the heat and humidity in the fuming chamber?  This just reinforces my view that the silencer was deliberately contaminated.

For the naysayers Google "Collection and preservation of blood evidence heat and humidity".  You just need to be mindful that in JB's case we are talking about conventional serologcial analysis of blood and not DNA testing.  Blood samples for DNA testing do not need to be of such good quality as blood for conventional serological analysis.

It should now be possible to carry out a straightforward and cost effective test by introducing blood the size of the flake into a Parker Hale silencer and subjecting to the same treatment as the silencer underwent on 15th Aug in the fuming chamber.  If the flake is then unable to produce results for serological analysis then it really is game over for the flake of blood which underpins JB's conviction.

JB could then go straight to the DPP or CPS and disclose the material, rather than presenting the material to the CCRC.  If it is clear cut the DPP/CPS can then agree - and have done so on occasions - that they will not oppose an appeal against conviction and in that situation the case can be fast tracked to the Court of Appeal, with a bail application made immediately pending the hearing of the appeal.

5

[scipio_usmc]

Extreme heat and humidity CAN damage blood that doesn't mean it WILL damage blood to the extent that it can't be tested successfully. 

You always try to make a hard rule out of possibilities like when you took the claim that bone and other tissue CAN be present in spatter and insisted it must be present. 

Such twisting accomplishes nothing in a legal setting.

[Holly Goodhead]

Extreme heat and humidity CAN damage blood that doesn't mean it WILL damage blood to the extent that it can't be tested successfully. 

You always try to make a hard rule out of possibilities like when you took the claim that bone and other tissue CAN be present in spatter and insisted it must be present. 

Such twisting accomplishes nothing in a legal setting.

Yes it's just a hypothesis at this moment in time but one that I'm cautiously optimistic about   

George Schiro a forensic scientist with 30 years experience states a "large" (quarter size) blood sample is usually required in good condition for conventional serological analysis.  You don't need me to tell you the size of a quarter coin but for the benefit of others who might not know it's 24.26mm in diameter with a 1.75mm width.  The flake measured 6.35mm (quarter of an inch).

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/blood-print.html

http://www.forensicscienceresources.com/georgecv.htm

The prosecution claim JB murdered the victims in quick succession with a total of 25 shots fired and one of the two shots to SC causing 'draw-back'.  By this time the silencer was warm or hot.  Any blood drawn into the silencer would be almost instantaneous with discharge of the rifle.  Meaning hot gasses were still exiting over the blood (see gif below).  It is then claimed JB placed the silencer in a bag.  Plastic bags can be harmful to blood samples but I accept this would be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify.  Plus I'm unsure whether the bag was plastic or cloth.  The silencer remained in situ until the relatives discovered it on 10th Aug.  It was taken to Oak Farm in the boot of AE's car.  Again another potentially hazardous environment.  It was then placed in a wardrobe ? until DS Jones collected on 12th Aug.  Another car journey to EP on 13th Aug when it was handed to DI Cook who took it to the lab where scientist Glynis Howard examined the outside.  It was then handed back to DI Cook who transported it back to EP.  On 15th August another car journey to Sandridge where it was subjected to the fuming chamber in an attempt to reveal latent fingerprints.  It was also photographed.  It then remained with EP until it was transported again to the lab around 12th Sept for further analysis. 

The 'chain of custody' shows many harmful environments which are likely to degrade a blood sample.  Some can easily be quantified others not. 

I think given the small sample that the fuming chamber alone would kill it dead. 

Other potential hazards are ultra-violet light but I guess given the 'flake' was trapped between the baffles it was well protected  &%+((£

[attachment deleted by admin]

[scipio_usmc]

Yes it's just a hypothesis at this moment in time but one that I'm cautiously optimistic about   

Cautiously optimistic about what?  It is a known fact proven in real world settings that drawback has been able to be successfully tested.  It is a know proven fact in real world settings blood can successfully be tested despite super glue fuming.

Your hope that someone will be able to prove it can never be tested successfully has already been proven wrong.

Mark my words there will be nothing that comes of any new tests. You can remain hopeful all you like but when all is said and done remember what I said- so I don't have to bother telling you I told you so. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Cautiously optimistic about what?  It is a known fact proven in real world settings that drawback has been able to be successfully tested.  It is a know proven fact in real world settings blood can successfully be tested despite super glue fuming.

Your hope that someone will be able to prove it can never be tested successfully has already been proven wrong.

Mark my words there will be nothing that comes of any new tests. You can remain hopeful all you like but when all is said and done remember what I said- so I don't have to bother telling you I told you so.

Are you able to provide any links to support your assertions that cyanoacrylate fuming is not detrimental to blood that is subsequently tested by way of conventional serological analysis?

It is not just that the environments per se had the potential to harm the evidential value of the flake but that once removed from those environments and kept at ambient temperature it was susceptible to degradation from bacteria.

There's not a great deal on line about cyanoacrylate fuming and conventional serological analysis of blood. Probably because the two tests crossed over ie as cyanoacrylate fuming became an established method of recovering latents fingerprints, conventional serological analysis of blood was succeeded by DNA testing.   

What I've discovered so far is that cyanoacrylate fuming is detrimental to DAB processing.  DAB processing is a method used to recover fingerprints in blood which reacts with hemoglobin present in blood and the chemical Diaminobenzidine (DAB) ie don't subject objects to the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber with bloody fingerprints as the chamber will render the bloody fingerprints useless for subsequent DAB testing as it is detrimental to hemoglobin.  The fuming chamber reveals latent fingerprints on non porous objects but it is not able to reveal fingerprints in blood.

John Hayward identified Haptoglobin (Hp) in the sample which binds to hemoglobin above, so yes I'm feeling optimistic. 

The norm at a scene of crime would be for all blood evidence to be collected and preserved using established methods.  In JB's case it was anything but.

"Cyanoacrylate fuming is detrimental to D.A.B. processing".

http://www.cbdiai.org/Reagents/dab.html

[John]

On 15th August DI Cook took the rifle and silencer to the Police Scientific Development Branch (now known as Centre For Applied Science And Technology) at Sandridge, Hertfordshire in an attempt to reveal latent fingerprints on the two items. 

This involved placing the items in a cyanoacrylate (superglue) fuming chamber which works by reacting with chemicals contained in fingerprints.  The airtight chamber contains a few drops of superglue in an open container which is situated on a heater.  Once the superglue reaches boiling point it will boil away into the surrounding atmosphere creating a concentration of gaseous cyanoacrylate. If any latent fingerprints exist anywhere inside the chamber, they will eventually be exposed to the gaseous cyanoacrylate. This exposure and the natural humidity contained in the atmosphere are enough to trigger the reaction automatically with the chemicals in fingerprints to reveal latent fingerprints. 

Two vids to explain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fey7XzbYdyM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb1Gkk7KeMU

What has this got to do with the flake of blood found in the silencer?  When John Hayward tested the flake of blood in the silencer on 12th Sept he did so by way of conventional serological analysis.  This was clearly AFTER the silencer and flake of blood had been subjected to the heat and humidity in fuming chamber (above).  The problem is that blood samples found at crime scenes on nonporous surfaces, such as the flake within the silencer, need very careful handling especially if the blood sample is to be analysed by way of conventional serological analysis.  Such a sample must never be exposed to heat and humidity otherwise it will destroy its evidential value.  So how did the flake survive the heat and humidity in the fuming chamber?  This just reinforces my view that the silencer was deliberately contaminated.

For the naysayers Google "Collection and preservation of blood evidence heat and humidity".  You just need to be mindful that in JB's case we are talking about conventional serologcial analysis of blood and not DNA testing.  Blood samples for DNA testing do not need to be of such good quality as blood for conventional serological analysis.

It should now be possible to carry out a straightforward and cost effective test by introducing blood the size of the flake into a Parker Hale silencer and subjecting to the same treatment as the silencer underwent on 15th Aug in the fuming chamber.  If the flake is then unable to produce results for serological analysis then it really is game over for the flake of blood which underpins JB's conviction.

JB could then go straight to the DPP or CPS and disclose the material, rather than presenting the material to the CCRC.  If it is clear cut the DPP/CPS can then agree - and have done so on occasions - that they will not oppose an appeal against conviction and in that situation the case can be fast tracked to the Court of Appeal, with a bail application made immediately pending the hearing of the appeal.

If only it was so simple Holly.  The way I see it Jerry's conviction is based on a hell of a lot more than a speck of blood found in the sound moderator.  The forensics in this case reveals a sequence of events which are indisputable and consistent with Jerry and not Sheila being guilty.  In order to overturn the conviction every bit of that forensic evidence will have to be discredited and I for one can never see that happening.  I'm afraid the magic piece of evidence which Jerry and his supporters rely on is an illusion.

For Jeremy Bamber to walk he will have to prove his innocence.  After all this time reasonable doubt just won't cut it!

[Holly Goodhead]

The following is unrelated to the blood and not really important in the grand scheme of things.

Page 21 of the following:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2001/lpu.pdf

The accumulation of cyanoacrylate glue fumes on some parts of a firearm could have an
unfavorable effect during a subsequent firearms examination. In those instances when a firearms
examination is to be done or anticipated, each chamber opening (e.g., the cylinder of a revolver)
and each barrel opening should be covered with a small piece of tape (just large enough to cover
the opening) before fuming with glue. Ensure that the area to be covered by the tape is
processed by other appropriate methods, prior to covering. Remove the tape after the
cyanoacrylate glue fuming process.

Is this the reason, in full or part, the rifle malfunctioned when Malcolm Fletcher carried out firearms testing?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871

[Myster]

DI Ron Cook in conversation with CAL (2013)...

He explains: ‘One of the fingerprint development techniques being researched then was cyanoacrylate – superglue fuming – which was ideal for untreated metals such as guns. Sandridge was an experimental research establishment where authorized personnel were allowed to use the equipment, but it took time. You had to book a slot, then take items away to be photographed because Sandridge didn’t have those facilities, and take them back to complete the process. It wasn’t a matter of just rolling up at the door. The other issue was that we didn’t know then whether superglue treatment affected blood groupings. Fortunately, that turned out fine.’

Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. (p. 239). Pan Macmillan.


I think the breech damage of the rifle had nothing to do with superglue fuming, but was the result of mishandling, i.e. when Jeremy used it to batter the living daylights out of his father, with either the butt-end directed at his face or in a pistol-whipping action which caused the linear bruising on his right forearm.

[Holly Goodhead]

DI Ron Cook in conversation with CAL (2013)...

He explains: ‘One of the fingerprint development techniques being researched then was cyanoacrylate – superglue fuming – which was ideal for untreated metals such as guns. Sandridge was an experimental research establishment where authorized personnel were allowed to use the equipment, but it took time. You had to book a slot, then take items away to be photographed because Sandridge didn’t have those facilities, and take them back to complete the process. It wasn’t a matter of just rolling up at the door. The other issue was that we didn’t know then whether superglue treatment affected blood groupings. Fortunately, that turned out fine.’

Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. (p. 239). Pan Macmillan.


I think the breech damage of the rifle had nothing to do with superglue fuming, but was the result of mishandling, i.e. when Jeremy used it to batter the living daylights out of his father, with either the butt-end directed at his face or in a pistol-whipping action which caused the linear bruising on his right forearm.

Yes I was aware of DI Cook's comments in CAL's book but I didn't bother posting them as they seem irrelevant.  &%+((£   When the silencer/flake underwent the fuming process on 15th Aug the flake hadn't even been identified so the fact DI Cook states it didn't affect groupings doesn't really mean much?  If the silencer was deliberately contaminated, as I think it was, who was responsible for oversight and the chain of communication to flag up the fuming process?  How does DI Cook know the fuming process didn't have a detrimental affect on the flake analysed on 12th or 13th Sep?  Did JB's defence test it?  Not as far as I can see.

The rifle still exists so it should be possible to foresnsically analyse it for superglue residues but as I said its not really important in the grand scheme of things anyway.

[Holly Goodhead]

One of the reasons I am sceptical about the 'flake' is that the blood on the rifle was unable to be grouped by way of conventional serological analysis referred to as 'grouping' below.

From CoA document:

71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful.

462. In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.

So why was the flake able to yield results but not the splashes and smears?  Especially given the splashes and smears were not exposed to harmful environments?  The blood testing on the rifle was carried out on 13th Aug (a month before the flake) and before entering the fuming chamber.

[Holly Goodhead]

If only it was so simple Holly.  The way I see it Jerry's conviction is based on a hell of a lot more than a speck of blood found in the sound moderator.  The forensics in this case reveals a sequence of events which are indisputable and consistent with Jerry and not Sheila being guilty.  In order to overturn the conviction every bit of that forensic evidence will have to be discredited and I for one can never see that happening.  I'm afraid the magic piece of evidence which Jerry and his supporters rely on is an illusion.

For Jeremy Bamber to walk he will have to prove his innocence.  After all this time reasonable doubt just won't cut it!

Sadly I think it might be with regards to the flake.  I say sadly because if I am right regarding my hypothesis and the flake then surely it is something Paul Terzeon and Geoffrey Rivling QC should have picked up on pre-trial?  My understanding is that the blood flake found in the silencer matching SC's blood serology which the prosecution claim was there as result of draw-back underpins JB's conviction.  This is certainly the view of JB's defence:

"The possibility that the blood grouping result achieved by the prosecution which indicated that Sheila Caffell's blood was in the silencer, was potentially the best point the Crowns had at trial and consequently was examined closely"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=569.0;attach=1865

If tests prove my hypothesis correct then it must be the silencer was deliberately contaminated?  If other aspects of the prosecution case against JB were strong then why would there be a need to fabricate evidence?

I don't believe it is necessary to take apart every aspect of the prosecutions case for a conviction to be quashed.  My understanding is that some new evidence is required that had jurors known about at trial might have altered their verdicts.  No one knows what weight jurors gave to the various aspects of the prosecutions case.  We only know taken as a whole 10 of the 12 jurors found JB guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

[Holly Goodhead]

For those reading this thread that might be assisting JB I just wish to add that I personally would not trust JB's defence at trial as far as I could throw them.  If they say they covered off the fuming chamber I would still recommend independent testing.  Geoffrey Rivlin QC (and possibly to a lesser extent Paul Terzeon) will not want their professional reputations in tatters.  I believe  they will do anything and I mean anything to protect their reputations.  No doubt hoping if anything comes to light they can get off on non-disclosure rather than their own complacency and incompetence. 

 

[Holly Goodhead]

Are you able to provide any links to support your assertions that cyanoacrylate fuming is not detrimental to blood that is subsequently tested by way of conventional serological analysis?

It is not just that the environments per se had the potential to harm the evidential value of the flake but that once removed from those environments and kept at ambient temperature it was susceptible to degradation from bacteria.

There's not a great deal on line about cyanoacrylate fuming and conventional serological analysis of blood. Probably because the two tests crossed over ie as cyanoacrylate fuming became an established method of recovering latents fingerprints, conventional serological analysis of blood was succeeded by DNA testing.   

What I've discovered so far is that cyanoacrylate fuming is detrimental to DAB processing.  DAB processing is a method used to recover fingerprints in blood which reacts with hemoglobin present in blood and the chemical Diaminobenzidine (DAB) ie don't subject objects to the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber with bloody fingerprints as the chamber will render the bloody fingerprints useless for subsequent DAB testing as it is detrimental to hemoglobin.  The fuming chamber reveals latent fingerprints on non porous objects but it is not able to reveal fingerprints in blood.

John Hayward identified Haptoglobin (Hp) in the sample which binds to hemoglobin above, so yes I'm feeling optimistic. 

The norm at a scene of crime would be for all blood evidence to be collected and preserved using established methods.  In JB's case it was anything but.

"Cyanoacrylate fuming is detrimental to D.A.B. processing".

http://www.cbdiai.org/Reagents/dab.html

"Cyanoacrylate fuming can be detrimental to all blood DAB processing. DAB processing must be completed before
 processing with cyanoacrylate"

Page 24:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj2-bTkjrHLAhXCuRQKHSS8A44QFggiMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Flab%2Fforensic-science-communications%2Ffsc%2Fjan2001%2Flpu.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFv3wpeYREiJzOS2y0cUtImjnD2uQ

I accept the above statement isn't the same as saying cyanoacrylate fuming can be detrimental to blood serology testing but it gives an indication that the technique is detrimental to blood or part of its constituents.  Hardly surprising if the fumes are capable of adhering to firearm mechanisms and causing them to malfunction.  See post #6

[Holly Goodhead]

I've been unable to find any info relating to cyanoacrylate fuming and blood sereology testing.  Probably because investigators and forensic scientists would know that blood intended for further testing must be removed or tested prior to entering the chamber to preserve its evidential value.

Blood for DNA testing is different in that poor quality samples are capable of yielding a profile unlike blood samples used for serology testing which require good quality samples to yield results.

[scipio_usmc]

"Cyanoacrylate fuming can be detrimental to all blood DAB processing. DAB processing must be completed before
 processing with cyanoacrylate"

Page 24:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj2-bTkjrHLAhXCuRQKHSS8A44QFggiMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Flab%2Fforensic-science-communications%2Ffsc%2Fjan2001%2Flpu.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFv3wpeYREiJzOS2y0cUtImjnD2uQ

I accept the above statement isn't the same as saying cyanoacrylate fuming can be detrimental to blood serology testing but it gives an indication that the technique is detrimental to blood or part of its constituents.  Hardly surprising if the fumes are capable of adhering to firearm mechanisms and causing them to malfunction.  See post #6

Can be is meaningless. You need to establish it always degrades blood to the point that one can NEVER EVER successfully obtain a testing result.  You can't establish such because it is not true.  There are numerous cases where blood evidence was used after super glue fuming.  That is true of both conventional as well as DNA testing of blood.

When bodies are left outdoors exposed to the elements for long periods before being found there is a good chance DNA and other evidence will be washed away or so badly decomposed so that no successful results can be obtained.  Yet on some occasions such results still have been successfully obtained.  In such a case you would want to argue the results must have been fabricated because they can never be obtained but there is no such hard and fast rule.

You are doing the equivalent here. You want to argue it is not possible for results to be successfully obtained and thus they must have been fabricated. You are taking passages that say it is possible for the evidence to be spoiled and choosing to interpret such as a hard and fast rule that it will be damaged and no result can ever be obtained.  You are not choosing such position because science tells you this is the case, you have no such sources.  You take this position because your goal is to dismiss the evidence and inventing such a hard rule is the only way for you to be able to do so. There is no such rule though. Nothing is going to come of this.