Superglue problems when Silencer examined on 23rd August 1985

[clifford]

Bloody hell a copper who told the truth,phone the guiness of records

[mike tesko]

Bloody hell a copper who told the truth,phone the guiness of records

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

Those who choose to introduce a lie, or a number of lies, into their evidence, often mask those lies by surrounding them with elements of the truth...

[mike tesko]

Anyway...

A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...

By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...

Do you agree, or not?

[mike tesko]

I want to have confirmation from EP, and the lab'. that on either the 20th / 26th September 1985, a different silencer was sent to, or received at the lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted - and the conclusions of those examinations (please)...

Why, after 26 years there is still no confirmation from EP or the Lab' at Huntingdon, that on either the 20th /' 26th September 1985, a silencer was sent to the lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

[Kaldin]

Anyway...

A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...

By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...

Do you agree, or not?

No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.

[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?

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

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.

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

If there was red paint on the silencer, how did they know it was red paint if it was coated in super-glue residue?

[Kaldin]

Could we perhaps have all the available documents which show when a silencer was sent to the lab and received at the lab?

[mike tesko]

Anyway...

A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...

By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...

Do you agree, or not?

No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.

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

Taking up that point, where is there any evidence that the silencer (DB/1) which had been sent to the lab', on 30th August 1985, had been returned to EP, to enable them to be in possession of it, to resubmit it to the lab' on 20th / 26th September 1985, to be checked for fibers?

Where is the information about this silencer being submitted to the lab' on either 20th / 26th September 1985, and any conclusions after its examination?

[mike tesko]

Why did the exhibit references to the silencer, became changed, altered, from SBJ/1 to DB/1 and ultimately to DRB/1, after the submission of the silencer to the Lab' on either 20th / 26th September 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.

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

If there was red paint on the silencer, how did they know it was red paint if it was coated in super-glue residue?

I have no expertise on this - I was never involved in a case as a barrister in which superglue fingerprint testing was an issue.  Is the residue something which obscures every other detail on the object?  If it is a thin film it might still be possible to see red paint.  On the other hand there is no reference on the lab report form to the presence of superglue residue, which is perhaps surprising given the reference to the use of the tape in connection with previous superglue testing for fingerprints.  What do you believe happened here Mike?

 

[Kaldin]

Anyway...

A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...

By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...

Do you agree, or not?

No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.

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

Taking up that point, where is there any evidence that the silencer (DB/1) which had been sent to the lab', on 30th August 1985, had been returned to EP, to enable them to be in possession of it, to resubmit it to the lab' on 20th / 26th September 1985, to be checked for fibers?

Where is the information about this silencer being submitted to the lab' on either 20th / 26th September 1985, and any conclusions after its examination?

Perhaps there is a reference to it in the Dickinson report. I've read that report but it only goes up to 6th September as posted by you on SFJ.

[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?

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

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.

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

If there was red paint on the silencer, how did they know it was red paint if it was coated in super-glue residue?

I have no expertise on this - I was never involved in a case as a barrister in which superglue fingerprint testing was an issue.  Is the residue something which obscures every other detail on the object?  If it is a thin film it might still be possible to see red paint.  On the other hand there is no reference on the lab report form to the presence of superglue residue, which is perhaps surprising given the reference to the use of the tape in connection with previous superglue testing for fingerprints.  What do you believe happened here Mike?

 

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

I think they (somebody) tried to match all the different silencers, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, as being one and the same silencer, so that they could rely upon the suggestion that the relatives found the silencer on 10th August 1985, and that inside it (DRB/1) was found the crucial flake of blood (A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1), which produced the crucial blood group evidence that was attributed to SC, and paint upon it which came from the aga surround...

They transfered the blood and the paint evidence form DB/1 to the Bamber (DRB/1) silencer, so that they could introduce and rely upon the argument that if the Bamber silencer was used in the shooting of Sheila, somebody had to remove it and take it downstairs, and hide it inside the gun cupboard, after SC was shot dead...

In my opinion...

This is the way, I see it...

[ngb1066]

Anyway...

A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...

By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...

Do you agree, or not?

No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.

I am not sure you are correct on this.  The "Action" form completed by DS Davison dated 13/9/85 shows him asking for examination of "the following" for blood, fibres and fingerprints.  There are then three numbered items listed which are clearly what he is asking to be examined.  It is true that item 3 reads "check silencer for fibres" but surely that is just repeating or emphasising the generic request at the top of the form, rather than saying that in the case of the silencer he only wanted an examination to be made for fibres?

 

[mike tesko]

If silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the Lab' from 30th August 1985, and the crucial blood flake was found inside it, and EP had another silencer (DRB/1) in their possession, which they did not send to the lab' at Huntingdon,. until 20th / 26th September 1985, then it could not have been the same silencer, and EP have not explained how this other silencer (DRB/1) came to be in  their possession, from 11th September 1985, onwards?

[Kaldin]

I think they (somebody) tried to match all the different silencers, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, as being one and the same silencer, so that they could rely upon the suggestion that the relatives found the silencer on 10th August 1985, and that inside it (DRB/1) was found the crucial flake of blood (A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1), which produced the crucial blood group evidence that was attributed to SC, and paint upon it which came from the aga surround...

They transfered the blood and the paint evidence form DB/1 to the Bamber (DRB/1) silencer, so that they could introduce and rely upon the argument that if the Bamber silencer was used in the shooting of Sheila, somebody had to remove it and take it downstairs, and hide it inside the gun cupboard, after SC was shot dead...

In my opinion...

This is the way, I see it...

Even if you're right, you've still got the problem of how the blood and paint got onto the DB/1 silencer. Is that the one you think David Boutflour found in the garage? If so, that's even worse because it means that someone went and put it in the garage rather than the gun cupboard.

How do you think the blood and paint got onto the DB/1 silencer?