Cyanoacrylate (Superglue) Fuming Chamber And The Blood Flake

[scipio_usmc]

Thought I'd let you get on with your psychoacrylate fuming or whatever, with scipio. 

Maybe GH was requested not to open it up at that stage... who knows?

DB was insistent that it was still sticky for some reason two days after the murders, and I don't doubt him.

Blood might have been sucked back into the moderator through drawback or contraction of exhaust gases, leaving the opening without... again, who knows?

Thanks for the link to all the YouTube stuff I've been watching and what they've recommended for me to view - Solidworks tutorials, the horrendous effects of Krokodil, Sticky Vicky, and not forgetting the best pie shop in Wiggin.

It was suggested the stickiness was from a cleaning agent. The suggestion was that Jeremy cleaned it off but missed a few tiny spots and didn't realize there was blood inside let alone the potential significance of such blood.

[scipio_usmc]

Two questions -

What does "scattered fragments, 1/16" dia. 1/5 bore" in the moderator's opening refer to - blood or paint?

What is that unlabelled large mark on the left-hand side - blood or paint?

Blood.  There was also a tiny bit of blood on the "face" of the moderator which means on the flat outside surface surrounding the opening. The paint was in the knurled portion of the moderator.  The knurled portion scratched the mantle and that allowed it to deposit inside the grooving of the knurled portion.  The knurled portion is the only part of the moderator that dry paint could adhere too. The rest of the moderator was smooth.

The blood on the outside was high velocity impact back spatter. The blood on the inside was drawback which in most simple terms is back spatter when the barrel is fired at contact range. At contact range the blood is drawn inside the opening otherwise it will hit the outside of the weapon and shooter unless the weapon is not being used at close or intermediate range.  The location of the shot will dictate whether back spatter will occur.  If spatter occurs the range will determine whether it hits the shooter/weapon, goes inside or does neither.  Spatter can hit a bystander not merely a shooter.  Spatter doesn't always prove one is a shooter it simply will prove for sure one was close by when the shooting or beating occurred.

[scipio_usmc]

As far as I'm aware the "scattered fragments" refers to paint. 

The unlabelled mark seems to be duplicated further down the page on the left hand side?  The sketch shows three (or four?) blood stains and yet in the top rhc GH produces a key for 2 blood stains?  Perhaps she means two stains on the flat surface?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053

No the fragments are the blood she removed from inside the opening.  The line goes to the hole and it expressly says inside opening.  Above that is a line pointing to spatter found outside the opening on the flat face.

The second diagram deals with the paint.  It was found in the knurled portion. Most of the moderator is smooth there is nothing for dry paint to adhere to.  The knurled portion has grooving and some dry paint deposited inside the grooving.  This is the only portion that had paint because it is the only portion the paint could adhere to.  The grooving also enabled it to scratch the paint of course. The grooving is similar to a file.

Note that there also was a blood stain found int he knurling not just paint.

[Holly Goodhead]

The trial testimony was that very little blood from the beating could theoretically get inside and if it did then it would not be able to far at all. The jury was told there was too much blood and it was too deep inside to be from the beating.

I agree it is difficult to see how blood from any beating NB sustained from the rifle/silencer ended up inside the silencer (which I don't believe even left the gun cupboard on that fateful night).  For the record I haven't seen any evidence of what the jury were told in this regard.  Are you able to provide any documentary evidence supporting your assertions?

Rivlin felt that his best chance was to try to get the jury to believe it possibly was a mixture and hope the jury would feel this amounted to reasonable doubt.  This was a weak argument for numerous reasons but the best he could do under the circumstances.  Evidence that went against this was the jury being told it was unlikely any of the wounds to June and Nevill were contact wounds thus unlikely there would be any chance of drawback.  Worse still hey were told the only way for it to be a mixture and for this not to be detected would be if the blood did not intimately mix yet testing showed blood would intimately mix in a moderator.

Geoffrey Rivlin was known as a prosecutor not a defender.  Months after JB's trial he quit advocacy to take on the role of full-time judge which says it all imo.  These people are unaccountable when they cock up.  I understand he has always been "helpful" to JB's defence since trial.  Is this the norm or a guilty conscience knowing he cocked up?  How many time do you hear JB "supporters" criticise his defence at trial?  Never.  Instead they blame prosection witnesses, the police, lab staff and just about anyone they can think of but never JB's defence at trial.

I agree the argument about the blood in the silencer representing an intimate mix of NB and June's blood was/is weak.  There was nothing whatsover to stop Geoffrey Rivlin going down the accidental/deliberate contamination route.  The tests used to analyse the blood are not statistically indivualising.  This can be evidenced by the fact RB shared the exact same blood groups with SC/the flake.  It is obvious from the jury's questions to the judge that they misunderstood the whole blood evidence believing the blood in the silencer could only pertain to SC or a remote possibility of NB and June's.  When in fact as stated by Dr Lincoln the blood groups found in the silencer are shared by approx 8% of unrelated white British population - 5th para down:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7083.0;attach=6212

They were told AK1 is more hardy than AK2-1 and that since AK1 was detected then if June's blood had been present then AK2-1 would have been detected.  He hoped the jury would overlook such and simply listen to Hayward saying a mixture was a possibility and them just believing that amounts to reasonable doubt.  He hoped they were not so bright and could be taken in by this.  Obviously another flaw in this is that it is not credible that in a crazy rage she would take the time to go get the moderator to attach it and use it let alone to put it away when she was done.  But this was the best argument the defense could come up with because they are limited by the facts of the case.

Where is the evidence AK2-1 is "more hardy" than AK-1?  John Hayward said had June's blood been present he would have expeted to detect AK2-1 but nothing about it being "more hardy"than AK-1?  The following is from the CoA doc point 454:

However, if there was sufficient of Mrs Bamber's blood present to give the clear cut group A result, he would have "stood a good chance of detecting the AK2-1 which would have gone with it".

I agree the whole idea the blood represented a mix of NB and June's and that SC would return the silencer to the gun cupboard before shooting herself is simply absurd whichever way you look at it.  What was going through Geoffrey Rivlin's mind?  Imo on the one hand he was arrogant thinking the jury would be easily fooled.  On the other hand lacking the balls to go down the accidental/deliberate contamination route. 

Chain of custody is a legal issue and required for authentication. That was satisfied in this case.  By discussing the chain of custody you seem to suggest they should have asserted the blood was planted by the family.  They had no basis to suggest such though. As much as some hate Anne there is nothing to suggest she would be a party to such a deception. Nor is there anything to suggest the family knew Sheila suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback or knew anything about drawback period let alone would know how to plant blood inside so as to simulate drawback. Without being able to prove such knowledge as well as opportunity it is not something courts allow and not something that has much of a chance of a jury believing anyway. You need some evidence to support such happened.

The chain of custody in this case is quite simply appaling and when the Great British public understand the enormity of what went on will quite rightly be outraged:

- Silencer not found at SoC by police but some 3 days later by JB's relatives.
- The relatives did not leave the silencer at SoC and alert police but removed it where they subsequently "examined" it.
- A police officer collected some 2 days later.  Instead of going prepared with an exhibit bag he improvised by using the inner tube of a kitchen roll.  He did not hurry back to the station but sat drinking whisky with the relative.
- The officer handed the silencer in at the police station the following day.
- He did not deal with the administration of the silencer/exhibit correctly circumventing procedures.
- The following day the silencer was submitted to the lab where a scientist examined blood and paint on the outside only.
- Two days later the silencer was taken to a different site miles away for superglue fuming in an attempt to reveal latent fingerprints.  Had the lab identified any blood inside the silencer it would have been removed prior to the superglue fuming as it is known this CAN have an adverse affect on any subsequent testing of blood.
- Some 28/29 days later the police returned the silencer to the lab and hey presto by magic an in tact flake of blood appeared which just so happened to match SC's blood groups!
- By this time the relatives had done a sterling job on the police convincing them of JB's guilt based on nothing more than entirely subjective matters. 
- 30 years ago and with the UK's low rate of gun crime all concerned were out of their depth and JB was like a lamb to the slaughter.

In this case only the lab had the knowledge about drawback. Yet blood was found right away and there is nothing at all to suggest the lab planted anything. 

You are criticizing them for not using evidence you don't have. You are counting on evidence you will get from testing that you don't yet have and for reasons previously discussed won't have.  Lawyers need witnesses to present evidence.  The defense in this case had zilch to try to attack the moderator evidence. The best they could think up was the rather novel idea of getting Hayward to admit there was a remote possibility it was a mixture and that being able to sway the jury.  While it didn't work it was the only thing they had and better than not making any argument at all.

If defense testing of the blood revealed a preservative agent then the defense would have been able to have an expert note such and say this suggests the blood was planted not directly from a human. But they had no such evidence.  Even today nothing has been found to support such. 

If they didn't suggest the blood was a mixture they would have basically had no defense at all against the evidence and just have featured Jeremy insisting he is innocent.

Aside from no evidence to suggest police planted anything think about it logically. If police had known about drawback and had planted the blood and removed blood from the rifle so the lab would not find any what would the police do?  They would make sure the lab tested such blood right away to come up with their conclusions.  Did police press the lab to test blood right away?   No Cook first  fingerprinted the moderator then superglued it and took his sweet time getting it to the lab.  Did the lab process it right away?  No they took their sweet time as well. Is there anything to suggest police put any pressure on the lab to move faster?  There is nothing the defense could have latched on to.

Officer Cook did you plant any blood?  No

Officer Jones did you plan any blood?  No

Ms. Howard did you plant any blood?  No

Mr. Hayward did you plant any blood?  No
 
Had the defense asked such, after they answered no what could the defense do?  Nothing. How would this help matters even if the court didn't sanction them? People get their ideas about trials largely from TV and things in real life are different.

There's no evidence to suggest only lab staff were familiar with 'draw-back'.  Peter Eaton was a registered gun dealer and members of the police firearms trained.  Many involved were just as likely to be familiar with draw-back as any lab staff were if not more familiar.

Blood inside the silencer was not found straight away.  See above. 

There's no evidence of what was added to the victims' blood samples taken at autopsy and whether or not Dr Lincoln attempted to carry out any tests in this regard.

NGB has stated the defence had grounds to pursue accidental and/or deliberate contamination and I have no reason to doubt him in this regard:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg209325#msg209325

The CPS/DPP NEEDED the fabricated evidence of the silencer to get the case to court.

[scipio_usmc]

I agree it is difficult to see how blood from any beating NB sustained from the rifle/silencer ended up inside the silencer (which I don't believe even left the gun cupboard on that fateful night).  For the record I haven't seen any evidence of what the jury were told in this regard.  Are you able to provide any documentary evidence supporting your assertions?

I didn't save everything I read on blue.  I know for a fact that the blood spatter testimony included such. They didn't even bother to mention that since the butt of the weapon was being used to beat him that means the blood would not even be near the opening.  It just discussed the scientific issues of spatter being able to enter a barrel discussing both the issue of spatter from bullets as well as from beatings. The jury was told that very little spatter could get inside whether by beating or shooting and it would not travel far even if a bit did by coincidence end up in the hole.  The quantity and depth were only associated with drawback.

Geoffrey Rivlin was known as a prosecutor not a defender.  Months after JB's trial he quit advocacy to take on the role of full-time judge which says it all imo.  These people are unaccountable when they cock up.  I understand he has always been "helpful" to JB's defence since trial.  Is this the norm or a guilty conscience knowing he cocked up?  How many time do you hear JB "supporters" criticise his defence at trial?  Never.  Instead they blame prosection witnesses, the police, lab staff and just about anyone they can think of but never JB's defence at trial.

So what, in JAG we did both. Working both sides just gives one a better perspective. Former prosecutors make some of the best defense attorneys because they know ever angle a prosecutor has. The problem is when someone who never handled a particular matter before such as never handled murders or the like is tasked with defending someone.  There is a learning curve and they may or may not be able to learn sufficiently.

I have no problem blaming a defense lawyer who does a horrible job by missing something significant but that didn't happen here. The defense here had lousy facts and there was really no hope of winning this case except getting a jury of who hated the police and would never trust the police no matter what and acquit no matter what.   There are people like that and for all we know they may have gotten 2 jurors of such a nature we don't know what the 2 who voted to acquit were like. Chances of getting more than 3 in a lot of 12 is not good though which is why they feel 10 is good enough for a majority verdict and don't feel any need to go lower.

Jeremy could not have been a worse client.  He acted snide on the witness stand and many of the things he told police and on the stand even were less than helpful to his cause. Calling Julie before police was a mistake and lying about calling police first only compounded it.  He told police he called them right away but at the trial he admitted he waited a while and said he didn't call 999 because he didn't initially appreciate there was an emergency it took time for it to soak in and only after it soaked in did he recognize there was an emergency and that he had better call police.  This was a horrible explanation for not dialing 999. All such accounts for is a delay in calling police it fails to explain why he didn't dial 999. Logically once it sunk it that there was an emergency he should have called 999 at the point.  He basically said it sunk in that there was an emergency then he panicked and figured he better call police and looked up a number.  He had told the police that he didn't realize 999 would be faster which is something he told police as well.  How could you not know that it would be faster to dial 999 than to go get a number and look it up? There is only so much a defense attorney can do to try to ameliorate such things. That is apart from the moderator and things like leaving too many bullets in the kitchen for his story of loading the gun there and then leaving the bullets to be true.  When everything is taken into account this is a horrible case.

F Lee Bailey did a lousy job defending Patty Hearst that was a winnable case even though the judge was biased and made bad rulings. I can criticize specific things he said and did which from a lawyer perspective were poor.  In this case there is nothing like that, the facts and evidence were simply bad and they lost as a result.

I agree the argument about the blood in the silencer representing an intimate mix of NB and June's blood was/is weak.  There was nothing whatsover to stop Geoffrey Rivlin going down the accidental/deliberate contamination route.  The tests used to analyse the blood are not statistically indivualising.  This can be evidenced by the fact RB shared the exact same blood groups with SC/the flake.  It is obvious from the jury's questions to the judge that they misunderstood the whole blood evidence believing the blood in the silencer could only pertain to SC or a remote possibility of NB and June's.  When in fact as stated by Dr Lincoln the blood groups found in the silencer are shared by approx 8% of unrelated white British population - 5th para down:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7083.0;attach=6212

The testimony at trial was that it was impossible for accidental contamination to be a cause of the blood it got there either by drawback or deliberately placed there was the testimony.  So there was no way to argue innocent contamination. That is the most the defense could get so far as being able to suggest planting.  They had no one to question who could suggest anything particular.

Evidence it entered on the record by questioning witnesses.  There was no one to question who would help support the claim of evidence being planted because nothing was uncovered to suggest any planting of evidence occurred.  If he asked what it would take to plant evidence the difficulty of planting evidence in the moderator and concealing the finding of blood in the rifle would would have simply made the jury not even consider it a possibility. That's the only other thing that could have been asked.   

Where is the evidence AK2-1 is "more hardy" than AK-1?  John Hayward said had June's blood been present he would have expeted to detect AK2-1 but nothing about it being "more hardy"than AK-1?  The following is from the CoA doc point 454:

However, if there was sufficient of Mrs Bamber's blood present to give the clear cut group A result, he would have "stood a good chance of detecting the AK2-1 which would have gone with it".

I agree the whole idea the blood represented a mix of NB and June's and that SC would return the silencer to the gun cupboard before shooting herself is simply absurd whichever way you look at it.  What was going through Geoffrey Rivlin's mind?  Imo on the one hand he was arrogant thinking the jury would be easily fooled.  On the other hand lacking the balls to go down the accidental/deliberate contamination route.

AK2-1 is mitochondrial based it is more durable than AK1 which is cytosolic.  Adenylate kinase degrades over time unless refrigerated and some other variables come into play as well. Ak2-1 degrades more slowly thank AK1.  Part of the reason why they would have expected to be able to detect AK2-1 was because AK1 was detected.  Another reason of course is just that it breaks down slower and was within the window where it should have been able to be detect it.  It's not impossible for all adenylate kinase in a sample to be too degraded to get a result though. Some defense attempts were made to question the AK1 finding and suggesting perhaps no result was obtained but Lincoln and no one else really were willing to say they made it up.  Testing a larger sample would have been better, cutting it into 5 parts really reduced the size significantly.  In fact, sometimes labs would do multiple tests in combination (batch test) on the same sample.  For instance run PGM, AK and ADA all at once on the same sample.  They could have divided it in half or 3 parts instead of 5 and done batch tests.  Some labs chose not do it that way though and some stopped.  I have no idea why they stopped, I never saw anything that suggested it skewed results doing such batch testing.  Sometimes scientists will do things in fads. 


What was going through Rivlin's mind was that he had zilch and the best he could think of to try to get jurors to disregard the evidence and find reasonable doubt was them hearing the prosecution expert say it was possible to be a mixture.  He hoped hearing the word possible would sway them and that they would ignore "remote", ignore the evidence Hayward presented of why he said he didn't believe it happened and ignore the nonsense of her putting it away and just taking the position crazy lady will do anything.  That is the position plenty of supporters on blue take.  They just say crazy people do things that make no sense and you can't ever figure out why.  That is wrong of course, usually there is a method to their madness one just has to figure it out.

Still many people have preconceived notions about crazy people and drug users for that matter and such can be exploited by one side or the other.  He didn't just try to use such for the moderator issue but also the issue of her washing and changing clothes.

The chain of custody in this case is quite simply appaling and when the Great British public understand the enormity of what went on will quite rightly be outraged:

- Silencer not found at SoC by police but some 3 days later by JB's relatives.
- The relatives did not leave the silencer at SoC and alert police but removed it where they subsequently "examined" it.
- A police officer collected some 2 days later.  Instead of going prepared with an exhibit bag he improvised by using the inner tube of a kitchen roll.  He did not hurry back to the station but sat drinking whisky with the relative.
- The officer handed the silencer in at the police station the following day.
- He did not deal with the administration of the silencer/exhibit correctly circumventing procedures.
- The following day the silencer was submitted to the lab where a scientist examined blood and paint on the outside only.
- Two days later the silencer was taken to a different site miles away for superglue fuming in an attempt to reveal latent fingerprints.  Had the lab identified any blood inside the silencer it would have been removed prior to the superglue fuming as it is known this CAN have an adverse affect on any subsequent testing of blood.
- Some 28/29 days later the police returned the silencer to the lab and hey presto by magic an in tact flake of blood appeared which just so happened to match SC's blood groups!
- By this time the relatives had done a sterling job on the police convincing them of JB's guilt based on nothing more than entirely subjective matters. 
- 30 years ago and with the UK's low rate of gun crime all concerned were out of their depth and JB was like a lamb to the slaughter.

There's no evidence to suggest only lab staff were familiar with 'draw-back'.  Peter Eaton was a registered gun dealer and members of the police firearms trained.  Many involved were just as likely to be familiar with draw-back as any lab staff were if not more familiar.

Blood inside the silencer was not found straight away.  See above. 

There's no evidence of what was added to the victims' blood samples taken at autopsy and whether or not Dr Lincoln attempted to carry out any tests in this regard.

NGB has stated the defence had grounds to pursue accidental and/or deliberate contamination and I have no reason to doubt him in this regard:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg209325#msg209325

The CPS/DPP NEEDED the fabricated evidence of the silencer to get the case to court.

1) You still keep ignoring that on Aug 13 human blood was removed from the inside not merely found on the outside.

2) The family examination of the moderator consisted of looking at it. There was very specific testimony of who was present when it was found and what they did with it. There is no reason to doubt their claims. If they opened it up they could have ended up destroying evidence and losing evidence but nothing suggests that they did such.  There was testimony one tried to open it but luckily failed. This is where police efforts loom large.  Imagine if he opened it and the flake was lost.  That would have eliminated the flake evidence. 

3) Knowledge of drawback is an obscure even today, assuming that gun dealers know about drawback is silly.  The only requirements to become a gun dealer is to register with the government. Those who deal with issues that involve drawback are the ones who know about it.  Forensic experts are taught about it.  lawyers who handled cases that involve drawback learn about it or who take courses that discuss it will learn about it.  Some courses that address various issues are in the context of required continuing legal education but there are also various seminars put together for lawyers that don't give CLE credits (many jurisdictions require taking a certain number of CLE credits each year) but are simply to make a lawyer more effective by teaching them about subjects helpful.  Police usually would only learn about such things on the job but now there are more forensic courses and the like which they take so they could be more generally aware.  Being a gun seller and hunter means nada.

Even someone who knows generally about drawback will not simply know whether a shot is one that will cause it without there being testing or being provided with specific information. It will only happen when there is a contact wound.  It won't happen with all contact wounds the location is significant as well as whether there is clothing in the way. A prior nearby wound will greatly increase the chance and volume of drawback.  These are all things that have to be looked at which the family and even police had no way to know about until the lab told them.

4) I don't think you realize just how many times people bring police evidence. Police don't always find evidence on their own.  While it was lousy police work to not take all the firearms, bullets, and accessories right away there is no evidence that any harm came from it.  Potentially evidence could have been lost so they should strive to do better. If the flake had been lost by the family opening it that would have resulted in there being less evidence.  the lost hair wound up being meaningless but they had no idea at the time this would be the case and should have been more careful.

The same reason the family and police didn't know anything about drawback is why Jeremy didn't and that is why he didn't realize he should make sure he removed the moderator before shooting Sheila. Forensic shows have opened the masses to things they had no idea about in Jeremy's day like GSR and blood spatter. Drawback is a derivative of spatter but even today is not mentioned much and not known by many.  But for this case most people on this site and blue would never have even heard of it. So you can't fault Jeremy too much.  Now telling Julie his plans on the other hand was quite stupid. For that he deserves an idiot award and he deserve another for not dialing 999 and yet another for calling Julie before police. He should have foreseen the problems. 

[david1819]

2) The family examination of the moderator consisted of looking at it. There was very specific testimony of who was present when it was found and what they did with it. There is no reason to doubt their claims.

This is if you take their word for it.

Specific testimony includes RWB stating that while they discovered the sound moderator he was looking at the fingerprint dusting that was done throughout the house. The significance of this is that the house was not dusted for prints until early September.
 

Now telling Julie his plans on the other hand was quite stupid. For that he deserves an idiot award and he deserve another for not dialing 999 and yet another for calling Julie before police. He should have foreseen the problems.

Guilty or not I do not believe he told Julie anything. Allot of what Julie told police are theories that can be found in RWBs diary long before she came forward, Ideas and theories that RWB gave to the police.

You also have Julies September statement were she claims Jeremy told her that Neville had been shot 7 times, The problem here is that Neville was shot 8 times and the figure of 7 shots was erroneously published in the newspapers and tabloids! Hence it take's only a shade of common sense to work out were she actually got that from.


           

[Holly Goodhead]

This thread has gone way off topic.  Post #79 has introduced the phone calls.  I cannot even see a tenuous link between the phone calls and previous posts/thread topic?  Post #80 has continued with the phone calls.

All we ask it that anyone posting here signs up to the three high level rules on the homepage:

* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
* Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight
* Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!

By all means discuss the phone calls in an appropriate thread, either existing or create a new one.

The three high level rules are designed for everyones benefit.  When threads go off topic they can become unwieldy.

This thread will be tidied up and revelant text/posts moved.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Myster]

Please Miss!  Will tidying up include Reply#72 which wandered off onto those naughty video tutorials you view in private?  No wonder you're looking a bit sheepish.
I might be tempted to have a shifty if you remove my YouTube video link! 

[Caroline]

The instructions for Cyanoacrylate Fuming include 'covering up chamber openings' with tape https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2001/lpu.pdf. This would protect any substances inside. Also, to repeat the original test, the conditions would have to be exactly the same (equipment, materials, timings) and as this article suggest, that would be impossible. http://www.labconco.com/news/cyanoacrylate-fuming-variables

[scipio_usmc]

This is if you take their word for it.

Specific testimony includes RWB stating that while they discovered the sound moderator he was looking at the fingerprint dusting that was done throughout the house. The significance of this is that the house was not dusted for prints until early September.

What does that have to do with anything?  They got a number of inconsequential things wrong in their statements because the amount of time that passed by the time they gave such statements. One thing wrong was that Boutflour thought Anne showed him the damage to the mantle earlier than she actually did. That resulted in worthless conspiracy claims that he found the damage before police so might have caused it though the date he was there to look at it was after.

If they took it apart that would have resulted in lost evidence.  None of them say they saw anyone take it apart and none say they did take it apart. There is nothing that suggests opened it let alone that they planted blood which would require far more expertise than they possessed. People keep making up hat they would know all about drawback and all about the nature of Sheila's injuries but this is not in the least bit true.  People who choose to believe the family planted evidence are people who simply don't want to believe Jeremy is guilty and will choose to believe anything they can to avoid facing reality.   
 

Guilty or not I do not believe he told Julie anything. Allot of what Julie told police are theories that can be found in RWBs diary long before she came forward, Ideas and theories that RWB gave to the police.

You also have Julies September statement were she claims Jeremy told her that Neville had been shot 7 times, The problem here is that Neville was shot 8 times and the figure of 7 shots was erroneously published in the newspapers and tabloids! Hence it take's only a shade of common sense to work out were she actually got that from.


           

Most of what Julie said was not found in RWB's diary. The most damning things were all said by her only such as all about the long term planning he had been doing. The content of the 3 phone discussions she had with him, 1 before the murders and 2 after were not contained in the diary.  The hitman story was not in his diary.  Nothing suggests she saw that diary and consulted with Boutflour anyway before speaking to police.  You don't want to believe her so simply look for something you can hang your hat on to avoid admitting you just don't want to and want to pretend you have some rational reason for not believing her.

She clearly was telling the truth about the caravan break-in.  She admitted to various crimes that she had no need to admit to further demonstrating she was doing it to fully come clean.  She had no reason to make up the hit man claims if she wanted to just make up things to hurt Jeremy she would have said he admitted to her to killing everyone.  He had no alibi she had no need to make up a hitman claim. If making up that he told her such she would have said he failed to name the hitman not give a name so police could prove the claim false.  Numerous things support her claims including but not limited to him calling her before he called police.  that is extremely damning and lying about calling police immediately when in fact he called her first is even more damning.

For all you know Jeremy himself believed he only shot Nevill 7 times. it is actually fairly common for shooters to get the number of shots they fired and times they hit a victim wrong.  Even on the range where there is far less to take away your concentration than in real life situations people will lose track because you have to religiously count and keep a running tally.

Jeremy could have told her the wrong number because he believed the paper or because he misremembered.  He could have told her the right number and she could have forgotten and had 7 stuck in her mind because of the paper. We will never know which of these is the case.  It makes no difference though.  Getting such wrong doesn't suggest she made up the entire story of him telling her he wanted to burn them and so forth.

There is a big difference between incorrectly thinking he told her 7 shots when he said 8 and thinking he repeatedly said he wanted to kill them when it never happened.

The level of detail she told is well beyond what someone trying to make up stories would be capable of. His own actions and other evidence proving Sheila didn't kill anyone and that he made up the call from Nevill just further harms him as does calling her before police. That he did that suggests he kept her in the loop of what he was doing. 

I have yet to see anyone come up with good reasons to doubt Julie's claims and something solid to suggest she was lying and had a reason to lie. People lie for a reason and saying she did it to get back at him for flirting with a girl in front of her after they broke up is simply silly.


Jeremy could have screwed up and believed he only shot him

[scipio_usmc]

The instructions for Cyanoacrylate Fuming include 'covering up chamber openings' with tape https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2001/lpu.pdf. This would protect any substances inside. Also, to repeat the original test, the conditions would have to be exactly the same (equipment, materials, timings) and as this article suggest, that would be impossible. http://www.labconco.com/news/cyanoacrylate-fuming-variables

Moreso the concern is about detrimental effects on ballistics testing, like it getting in rifling and changing rifling marks but tape could potentially be used to prevent anything being done to blood inside. Cook was never asked about whether he did such or not on the stand and not asked to write it down but he could have verbally told someone. The defense could have been aware he did so but much more likely is that the defense knew super glue fuming didn't prevent successful blood testing so didn't feel any need to ask if he took efforts to tape up the openings because even he had not done so it would not matter.

 

[Caroline]

Moreso the concern is about detrimental effects on ballistics testing, like it getting in rifling and changing rifling marks but tape could potentially be used to prevent anything being done to blood inside. Cook was never asked about whether he did such or not on the stand and not asked to write it down but he could have verbally told someone. The defense could have been aware he did so but much more likely is that the defense knew super glue fuming didn't prevent successful blood testing so didn't feel any need to ask if he took efforts to tape up the openings because even he had not done so it would not matter.

 

There are too many unknown variables to make this 'revelation' even credible.

[Holly Goodhead]

Please Miss!  Will tidying up include Reply#72 which wandered off onto those naughty video tutorials you view in private?  No wonder you're looking a bit sheepish.
I might be tempted to have a shifty if you remove my YouTube video link! 

Yes I agree we don't want anything too prescriptive and certainly nothing that removes fun and spontaneity with the odd one or two liner thrown in!  But when posts veer from a superglue chamber/blood flake to the phone calls in the same breath it's time for me to whip round with the duster and hoover and tidy up.  Problem is I've yet to master the art of how to move posts! 

[Holly Goodhead]

There are too many unknown variables to make this 'revelation' even credible.

What are the unknown variables connected to this 'revelation'?  Once an exhibit is seized the responsibility for 'chain of custody' is with the prosecution:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

[Caroline]

What are the unknown variables connected to this 'revelation'?  Once an exhibit is seized the responsibility for 'chain of custody' is with the prosecution:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

This process isn't standardised (I posted the article - you just had to read it) everyone does it differently. We don't know what Cook did or how he did it and to do what you are suggesting, you couldn't just stick the silencer in a fuming chamber - it would have to be the same chamber that Cook used, using the same type of chemical (it's not just super glue from the pound shop) and the same times etc. We don't know if he covered the ends of the silencer and as there didn't seem to be any residue on it, we don't know if what he did even worked. However, just because there isn't any residue doesn't mean he didn't complete the process, he just may not have carried out the procedure correctly. I don't believe the silencer was used, but I don't see how repeating the cyanoacrylate process would prove anything at all. Unless it can be PROVEN that this process destroys blood EVERY TIME, you would be on a hiding to no where and the fact is, there is no evidence to suggest it does.