Superglue problems when Silencer examined on 23rd August 1985

[ngb1066]

Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff.  I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc.  Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it?  Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?

--------------------

Not yet...

Here, have a look at this - where on this Lab' general examination record, does it mention that the silencer in question, was / is coated in super-glue residue?

It mentions blood, and paint, but no super-glue...
In my opinion, it can't be the same silencer that was exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 1985...

Please convince me that I am wriobng...

I can see paint mentioned but not blood. However there is a reference to superglue on the right hand side of the sheet, suggesting that the tape attached to the silencer was there for protection during the fingerprinting process using superglue.  Am I missing something here?  There appear to be two different handwriting styles on the sheet - I do not know whether there is any significance in this.

--------------

Excuse me, good points, but adhesive tape refers to paint found upon it, not to Super-glue reside from the tests carried out on 23rd August 1985?

I agree, it does look as if the adhesive tape had flecks of paint on it, picked up when it had at an earlier stage been put over the end of the silencer.  The writer of the note has obviously been informed that this was in connection with a fingerprinting process using superglue, but there is no reference to the presence of any superglue residue.  Would this be a sticky coating if present and therefore easily detectable?  The date on the form appears as if it may have been altered - I do not know if there is any significance in that.

[mike tesko]

Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff.  I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc.  Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it?  Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?

I think it's a question of being able to concentrate for long enough rather than anything else. I must admit I don't really have enough patience for the silencer thing. 

----------------------

Silencer evidence is key to these convictions, so perhaps you should try to pay more attention...

I've tried, but all this speculation presented as facts is confusing the issue. You haven't even proved that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.

----------------------------------------------

Lets approach it from another angle - are you saying that EP did not still have a silencer in thier possession by 20th or 26th September 1985?

[Kaldin]

Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff.  I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc.  Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it?  Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?

I think it's a question of being able to concentrate for long enough rather than anything else. I must admit I don't really have enough patience for the silencer thing. 

----------------------

Silencer evidence is key to these convictions, so perhaps you should try to pay more attention...

I've tried, but all this speculation presented as facts is confusing the issue. You haven't even proved that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.

----------------------------------------------

Lets approach it from another angle - are you saying that EP did not still have a silencer in thier possession by 20th or 26th September 1985?

I have no idea. I haven't got beyond the claim that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.

[mike tesko]

Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff.  I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc.  Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it?  Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?

I think it's a question of being able to concentrate for long enough rather than anything else. I must admit I don't really have enough patience for the silencer thing. 

----------------------

Silencer evidence is key to these convictions, so perhaps you should try to pay more attention...

I've tried, but all this speculation presented as facts is confusing the issue. You haven't even proved that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.

----------------------------------------------

Lets approach it from another angle - are you saying that EP did not still have a silencer in thier possession by 20th or 26th September 1985?

I have no idea. I haven't got beyond the claim that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.

---------------

Look, stop being awkward - look at the following attached document, are you saying that you do not accept that a silencer was sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers, and to be fingerprinted on either 20th or 26th September 1985?

Stop being pathetic, and and tell me the truth...

[Kaldin]

Yes, but it's not clear if it's a new silencer or one which is being resubmitted.

Anyway, I think I understand the superglue method now, so something good has come of this thread. 

[clifford]

Mike, I admire you dedication to JBs cause, but I feel you were done wrong by the police, and need to get revenge.
Are you clutching at straws, with all this about silencers. The patholgist said that after the first shot[non fatal] to SC it would have rendered her unable to move about. If this was the case it does not matter if the silencer was in place or not.

[mike tesko]

Yes, but it's not clear if it's a new silencer or one which is being resubmitted.

Anyway, I think I understand the superglue method now, so something good has come of this thread. 

----------------

Listen - I do not take you or the other members on this forum to be mugs, I know most of you, or if not all of you, are very intelligent, and that sometimes you try to make argument against things which appear or which might be important. Now, am I right in saying that you are conceding that EP had a silencer in their possession, after 30th August 1985, which they submitted to the Lab' on either 20th or 26th September 1985, to be checked for fibers and blood, and to be fingerprinted?

Please answer, yes, or no...

[Kaldin]

Yes, but it's not clear if it's a new silencer or one which is being resubmitted.

Anyway, I think I understand the superglue method now, so something good has come of this thread. 

----------------

Listen - I do not take you or the other members on this forum to be mugs, I know most of you, or if not all of you, are very intelligent, and that sometimes you try to make argument against things which appear or which might be important. Now, am I right in saying that you are conceding that EP had a silencer in their possession, after 30th August 1985, which they submitted to the Lab' on either 20th or 26th September 1985, to be checked for fibers and blood, and to be fingerprinted?

Please answer, yes, ior no...

Yes.

[mike tesko]

Mike, I admire you dedication to JBs cause, but I feel you were done wrong by the police, and need to get revenge.
Are you clutching at straws, with all this about silencers. The patholgist said that after the first shot[non fatal] to SC it would have rendered her unable to move about. If this was the case it does not matter if the silencer was in place or not.

----------------------------

Me, after revenge?

Why do I need revenge?

I do accept your criticism, however, but you are wrong about me taking all this on, to get revenge against the police, and the CPS, and the courts...

The pathologist said something completely different to what you report, actually in one of his reports - he said that Sheila could have moved around for a short while after she received the original shot, and before the second shot was inflicted...

I have the actual report that says this...

This is different to EP's argument that both shots were inflicted simultaneously, one shot after the other, in a split second...

in my opinion...

What do you say?

[clifford]

yes

[clifford]

Did a short while mean sprinting up the stairs.

[mike tesko]

Did a short while mean sprinting up the stairs.

-------------------------------------------------

I think the best way forward, from both sides, is to suggest the there was some delay between both shots being inflicted...

[clifford]

I thought that both shots were quite close.

[Kaldin]

Hey! I answered Mike's question and now the subject is being changed. 

[mike tesko]

I thought that both shots were quite close.

---------------------------

EP originally tried to suggest that both shots were inflicted close together, but the pathologist (Peter Venezis) speaks about there being a delay where the victim  could have moved / walked around a bit...

Are you suggesting that both these explanations are consistent, one with the other - or different, please explain what you point of view is with regard to these matters?