Cyanoacrylate (Superglue) Fuming Chamber And The Blood Flake

[scipio_usmc]

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.

That is the problem in a nutshell. They would need to conduct a large series of testing that covers every possible angle -such a large number of tests that statistically they could make reliable predictions- and would have to never be able to get a blood test result successfully. Not only would such be expensive and take a long time, based on prior testing it is clear they will be able to get results at least some of the times. The hope they never would get any results is futile since they successfully did so in the past.

If people want to waste their money that is up to them but I would not waste mine in such manner.  Sometimes people need to learn the hard way...

 

[Holly Goodhead]

This process isn't standardised (I posted the article - yo 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 EVERYTIME, you would be on a hiding to no where and the fact is, it doesn't.

Caroline I did read the article.  I do consider that I have good listening skills in every sense of the word although you might beg to differ!  I don't see the relevance of the article with regard to superglue fuming and its impact on subsequent blood testing?  The article is about variables that exist with superglue fuming: size of chamber, heat/humidity settings, exposure time, ingredients of glue etc.

We know the silencer was tested at Sandridge.  This thread contains posts re Sandridge and its history along with its successor Foster and Freeman:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314778#msg314778

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg312991#msg312991
(See the first Youtube vid by Foster and Freeman

We consider we now have all the right players on board to take this forward and remain cautiously optimistic.  If it fails it will be back to the drawing board and we will remain as determined as ever to get to the truth.   

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314370#msg314370
(See last para.)

With regard to your other points they have all been covered in this thread:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314055#msg314055
(NGB tape over end of silencer)

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313438#msg313438
(superglue residues potentially jamming firearms)

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313459#msg313459

Has the silencer been forensically analysed for superglue residues internally and externally?
 
It will be down to those responsible for Sandridge and DI Cook to explain precisely what happened as the prosecution are responsible for the 'chain of custody'.  If they are unable or unwilling then I would suggest the courts will "protect the appellant's postion by making assumptions in his favour" as they did at JB's 2002 CoA hearing when exhibits were destroyed:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[Caroline]

Caroline I did read the article.  I do consider that I have good listening skills in every sense of the word although you might beg to differ!  I don't see the relevance of the article with regard to superglue fuming and its impact on subsequent blood testing?  The article is about variables that exist with superglue fuming: size of chamber, heat/humidity settings, exposure time, ingredients of glue etc.

We know the silencer was tested at Sandridge.  This thread contains posts re Sandridge and its history along with its successor Foster and Freeman:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314778#msg314778

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg312991#msg312991
(See the first Youtube vid by Foster and Freeman

We consider we now have all the right players on board to take this forward and remain cautiously optimistic.  If it fails it will be back to the drawing board and we will remain as determined as ever to get to the truth.   

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314370#msg314370
(See last para.)

With regard to your other points they have all been covered in this thread:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314055#msg314055
(NGB tape over end of silencer)

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313438#msg313438
(superglue residues potentially jamming firearms)

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313459#msg313459

Has the silencer been forensically analysed for superglue residues internally and externally?
 
It will be down to those responsible for Sandridge and DI Cook to explain precisely what happened as the prosecution are responsible for the 'chain of custody'.  If they are unable or unwilling then I would suggest the courts will "protect the appellant's postion by making assumptions in his favour" as they did at JB's 2002 CoA hearing when exhibits were destroyed:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Fill your boots, I can't see how this could go any where but it's your money. Personally, I don't believe he used the silencer and although I don't think this has a cat in hells chance of working - you could be responsible for helping to release a man who killed five people. 

[scipio_usmc]

Caroline I did read the article.  I do consider that I have good listening skills in every sense of the word although you might beg to differ!  I don't see the relevance of the article with regard to superglue fuming and its impact on subsequent blood testing?  The article is about variables that exist with superglue fuming: size of chamber, heat/humidity settings, exposure time, ingredients of glue etc.

We know the silencer was tested at Sandridge.  This thread contains posts re Sandridge and its history along with its successor Foster and Freeman:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314778#msg314778

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg312991#msg312991
(See the first Youtube vid by Foster and Freeman

We consider we now have all the right players on board to take this forward and remain cautiously optimistic.  If it fails it will be back to the drawing board and we will remain as determined as ever to get to the truth.   

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314370#msg314370
(See last para.)

With regard to your other points they have all been covered in this thread:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314055#msg314055
(NGB tape over end of silencer)

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313438#msg313438
(superglue residues potentially jamming firearms)

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313459#msg313459

Has the silencer been forensically analysed for superglue residues internally and externally?
 
It will be down to those responsible for Sandridge and DI Cook to explain precisely what happened as the prosecution are responsible for the 'chain of custody'.  If they are unable or unwilling then I would suggest the courts will "protect the appellant's postion by making assumptions in his favour" as they did at JB's 2002 CoA hearing when exhibits were destroyed:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

The prosecution said the court could use DNA samples from family members and assume that very close matches to DNA of a relative was the DNA of a victim.  This was to avoid having to argue over destruction of the blood samples.

The prosecution made those concessions know that they would argue any such victim DNA was the result of contamination.

The moderator was not destroyed it was tested for DNA.

Nothing destroyed had any ability to exonerate Jeremy. There wasn't any blood or other tissue evidence or anything that would have to be the killer's DNA which could be used to exonerate him.  If there is a rape/murder and semen recovered and yet they make no attempt to test it because they are scared it will not match the accused and destroys it then the prosecution has a problem.   Nothing of the sort happened here there is nothing that would for sure have the blood or DNA of the killer.  There is nothing which would be able to alter the moderator findings that was destroyed to avoid testing it.

If t hey failed to test the blood in the moderator, destroyed it and simply argued it had to be Sheila's blood from her fatal wound because no other wound on anyone was a contact would that would result in questions of why it was destroyed. But that didn't happen here.

There is nothing that can be argued as evidence being destroyed to try to prevent the defense from being able to test it to prove his innocence.

[scipio_usmc]

Fill your boots, I can't see how this could go any where but it's your money. Personally, I don't believe he used the silencer and although I don't think this has a cat in hells chance of working - you could be responsible for helping to release a man who killed five people. 

Nothing she does or pays for has any chance of getting him released. There is more a chance of someone forcing me to get a sex change operation and turning me into a woman.

It will just be a waste of time and money but if people want to do such it is their loss.  I prefer not to build up false hope though it sets up a big let down.

[Holly Goodhead]

The prosecution said the court could use DNA samples from family members and assume that very close matches to DNA of a relative was the DNA of a victim.  This was to avoid having to argue over destruction of the blood samples.

The prosecution made those concessions know that they would argue any such victim DNA was the result of contamination.

The moderator was not destroyed it was tested for DNA.

Nothing destroyed had any ability to exonerate Jeremy. There wasn't any blood or other tissue evidence or anything that would have to be the killer's DNA which could be used to exonerate him.  If there is a rape/murder and semen recovered and yet they make no attempt to test it because they are scared it will not match the accused and destroys it then the prosecution has a problem.   Nothing of the sort happened here there is nothing that would for sure have the blood or DNA of the killer.  There is nothing which would be able to alter the moderator findings that was destroyed to avoid testing it.

If t hey failed to test the blood in the moderator, destroyed it and simply argued it had to be Sheila's blood from her fatal wound because no other wound on anyone was a contact would that would result in questions of why it was destroyed. But that didn't happen here.

There is nothing that can be argued as evidence being destroyed to try to prevent the defense from being able to test it to prove his innocence.

Yes I appreciate the silencer wasn't destroyed but the CoA ruled in JB's favour as certain exhibits were destroyed:

491. A part of this ground of appeal relates to the destruction of June Bamber's blood sample. It is not suggested that that can be used as a free standing ground of appeal but it is combined with the DNA evidence to suggest that the appellant may have been deprived of the chance of advancing even stronger evidence that the DNA was from June Bamber. On the evidence of the two scientists, we would feel that the only safe course for us to take is to conclude that the major component of the DNA on the baffles did originate from June Bamber. When we made clear to Mr Turner that this would be our approach and queried whether in such circumstances the destruction of the samples from June Bamber could be said to prejudice the appellant, Mr Turner recognised the force in the point and after taking specific instructions from the appellant decided not to pursue that aspect further. We have therefore not considered the circumstances in which the blood samples were destroyed since they have no bearing upon any other aspect of this case.

[Caroline]

That is the problem in a nutshell. They would need to conduct a large series of testing that covers every possible angle -such a large number of tests that statistically they could make reliable predictions- and would have to never be able to get a blood test result successfully. Not only would such be expensive and take a long time, based on prior testing it is clear they will be able to get results at least some of the times. The hope they never would get any results is futile since they successfully did so in the past.

If people want to waste their money that is up to them but I would not waste mine in such manner.  Sometimes people need to learn the hard way...

 

I agree, and they would have to 'replicate exactly' what Cook did - same equipment etc.

I'm not really sure what is being suggested? Is it that the silencer couldn't have been exposed to fuming, because there was no residue? (Not sure how that would help Jeremy) OR that the flake was put inside the silencer after testing because it could be grouped whereas the outside blood could not? Not sure how this would help either because the holes could have been taped. We know it went back to the lab for further tests - perhaps this was the intention all along?

[Holly Goodhead]

The superglue fuming test should be easy to replicate?

Photographs were taken prior to the silencer entering the chamber and this along with documentary evidence should show whether or not the ends were taped.  However the heat and humidity from the chamber is likely to be more damaging to the blood flake than the superglue fumes. 

Introduce a sample of blood to a number of silencers the same size as the flake, same position ie under 1st/2nd baffle.  Wait 28/29 days (silencer superglue fumed 15th Aug; blood flake analysed 12th/13th Sept) cut the flake in 5, as John Hayward did, and run the tests for the antigens (ABO groupings); protein Haptoglobin (HP) and the three enzymes Phosphoglucomutase (PGM), Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (EAP) and Adenylate Kinase (AK).

We know the PGM test failed when John Hayward carried out the tests.  If one of the other four tests consistently fails then its game over for the flake/silencer.  This is clear evidence that the flake was not in the silencer when it was superglue fumed.

And for the naysayers check out the table and ask yourself why the flake was able to produce significantly more blood test results than the other exhibits? 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462

It's simply not the case that blood from a scene of crime will be capable of producing test results.  Quantity and quality are key.  The flake was small and due to handling and the length of time taken to analyse the flake the quality was likely to be poor.

[Caroline]

The superglue fuming test should be easy to replicate?

Photographs were taken prior to the silencer entering the chamber and this along with documentary evidence should show whether or not the ends were taped.  However the heat and humidity from the chamber is likely to be more damaging to the blood flake than the superglue fumes. 

Introduce a sample of blood to a number of silencers the same size as the flake, same position ie under 1st/2nd baffle.  Wait 28/29 days (silencer superglue fumed 15th Aug; blood flake analysed 12th/13th Sept) cut the flake in 5, as John Hayward did, and run the tests for the antigens (ABO groupings); protein Haptoglobin (HP) and the three enzymes Phosphoglucomutase (PGM), Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (EAP) and Adenylate Kinase (AK).

We know the PGM test failed when John Hayward carried out the tests.  If one of the other four tests consistently fails then its game over for the flake/silencer.  This is clear evidence that the flake was not in the silencer when it was superglue fumed.

And for the naysayers check out the table and ask yourself why the flake was able to produce significantly more blood test results than the other exhibits? 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462

It's simply not the case that blood from a scene of crime will be capable of producing test results.  Quantity and quality are key.  The flake was small and due to handling and the length of time taken to analyse the flake the quality was likely to be poor.

"Photographs were taken prior to the silencer entering the chamber and this along with documentary evidence should show whether or not the ends were taped.  However the heat and humidity from the chamber is likely to be more damaging to the blood flake than the superglue fumes."

You know that these pictures still exist? What documentary evidence? If the ends were taped it's game over for the theory and even if they weren't it doesn't mean that the blood flake would be damaged given that it was inside. You would have to run this test many times but that still wouldn't prove that 30 years ago blood was planted inside the silencer.

[Holly Goodhead]

"Photographs were taken prior to the silencer entering the chamber and this along with documentary evidence should show whether or not the ends were taped.  However the heat and humidity from the chamber is likely to be more damaging to the blood flake than the superglue fumes."

You know that these pictures still exist? What documentary evidence? If the ends were taped it's game over for the theory and even if they weren't it doesn't mean that the blood flake would be damaged given that it was inside. You would have to run this test many times but that still wouldn't prove that 30 years ago blood was planted inside the silencer.

No I don't know if the photos and documents exist.  They should but then so should the exhibits that were destroyed.  Either way I don't see it as being that relevant.  The manufacturers and the research centre at Sandridge should be able to confirm what the processes and procedures were at the time.  If they are not then the courts are likely to rule favourable terms in JB's favour as outlined above.

Why is it game over if the ends were taped?  The chamber was potentially harmful by way of heat, humidity and the fumes.  Forensic analysis of the silencer testing for superglue residues will probably confirm one way or the other.

If the tests are run as I have outlined above and one or more of the blood groups are consistently negative this will show the flake was unable to sustain the environment in the chamber and/or the ambient temp before and after.  The prosecution claim one silencer.  A silencer that contained a flake of blood as a result of drawback/SC's contact wound.  If it is put through the same environment as the flake and unable to deliver the test results its game over for the flake. 

The tests need to match the scenario from the claimed drawback to blood analysis of the flake at the lab as closely as possible including time kept at ambient temperature before and after the fuming chamber. 

I wouldn't describe it as a theory more a hypothesis at this stage. 

In fact when I first contacted the forensic service provider around the beginning of February it was based on heat from the rifle being fired, hot gasses in the silencer, size of flake and time kept at ambient temperature.

We could speculate about many things but until the tests are carried out it remains simply a hypothesis which I'm cautiously optimistic about.

Don't forget bacteria!

[Caroline]

No I don't know if the photos and documents exist.  They should but then so should the exhibits that were destroyed.  Either way I don't see it as being that relevant.  The manufacturers and the research centre at Sandridge should be able to confirm what the processes and procedures were at the time.  If they are not then the courts are likely to rule favourable terms in JB's favour as outlined above.

Why is it game over if the ends were taped?  The chamber was potentially harmful by way of heat, humidity and the fumes.  Forensic analysis of the silencer testing for superglue residues will probably confirm one way or the other.

If the tests are run as I have outlined above and one or more of the blood groups are consistently negative this will show the flake was unable to sustain the environment in the chamber and/or the ambient temp before and after.  The prosecution claim one silencer.  A silencer that contained a flake of blood as a result of drawback/SC's contact wound.  If it is put through the same environment as the flake and unable to deliver the test results its game over for the flake. 

The tests need to match the scenario from the claimed drawback to blood analysis of the flake at the lab as closely as possible including time kept at ambient temperature before and after the fuming chamber. 

I wouldn't describe it as a theory more a hypothesis at this stage. 

In fact when I first contacted the forensic service provider around the beginning of February it was based on heat from the rifle being fired, hot gasses in the silencer, size of flake and time kept at ambient temperature.

We could speculate about many things but until the tests are carried out it remains simply a hypothesis which I'm cautiously optimistic about.

Don't forget bacteria!

We're talking 30 years in a case where a conviction was achieved - I very much doubt that such records will exist without such, you can't replicate. The tests in the US came to nothing and I can't see how this is much different. But you may be right and I may be wrong.

[Holly Goodhead]

We're talking 30 years in a case where a conviction was achieved - I very much doubt that such records will exist without such, you can't replicate. The tests in the US came to nothing and I can't see how this is much different. But you may be right and I may be wrong.

As far as I can see the tests I am proposing are completely different.  They are black and white; either the flake withstands the environments and produces the blood results or it doesn't.  It's not down to opinion.  The tests in the US were based on opinion.

1.4 pretty much sets out everything. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/143865/fsb-chap3-sec10and11-development.pdf

It's not just the chamber but ambient temp before and after and the potential for bacteria to set in which would degrade the blood/flake.

You need to research it yourself if you're interested: conventional serological analysis of blood and gel electrophoresis. 

[Caroline]

As far as I can see the tests I am proposing are completely different.  They are black and white; either the flake withstands the environments and produces the blood results or it doesn't.  It's not down to opinion.  The tests in the US were based on opinion.

1.4 pretty much sets out everything. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/143865/fsb-chap3-sec10and11-development.pdf

It's not just the chamber but ambient temp before and after and the potential for bacteria to set in which would degrade the blood/flake.

You need to research it yourself if you're interested: conventional serological analysis of blood and gel electrophoresis.

Thanks, will read up on it.

[scipio_usmc]

Yes I appreciate the silencer wasn't destroyed but the CoA ruled in JB's favour as certain exhibits were destroyed:

491. A part of this ground of appeal relates to the destruction of June Bamber's blood sample. It is not suggested that that can be used as a free standing ground of appeal but it is combined with the DNA evidence to suggest that the appellant may have been deprived of the chance of advancing even stronger evidence that the DNA was from June Bamber. On the evidence of the two scientists, we would feel that the only safe course for us to take is to conclude that the major component of the DNA on the baffles did originate from June Bamber. When we made clear to Mr Turner that this would be our approach and queried whether in such circumstances the destruction of the samples from June Bamber could be said to prejudice the appellant, Mr Turner recognised the force in the point and after taking specific instructions from the appellant decided not to pursue that aspect further. We have therefore not considered the circumstances in which the blood samples were destroyed since they have no bearing upon any other aspect of this case.

The COA didn't rule in his favor. The prosecution agreed to stipulate that DNA that was a close to a relative was that of a victim. This stipulation meant there would be no harm by the destruction of the blood samples and no reason for the COA to take a look at whether the defense could argue it was prejudiced by the destruction and whether the destruction was done for a nefarious reason.

The stipulation was made with full knowledge that the fact victim DNA being found failed to help Jeremy one bit because they already knew that no blood had been detected so there was no way to establish it was blood based and it was most likely the result of contamination.

[david1819]

That is the problem in a nutshell. They would need to conduct a large series of testing that covers every possible angle -such a large number of tests that statistically they could make reliable predictions- and would have to never be able to get a blood test result successfully.

For all we know DI Cook could have in his notes somewhere that he covered both ends to prevent the fumes from going inside.