Author Topic: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...  (Read 898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48939
...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2020, 07:58:PM »
Padlocked?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44201
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2020, 10:14:PM »
He told lies as well, they were all over the place. Even with the children there. Very risky, very lazy.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44201
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2020, 10:16:PM »
That safety aspect was never mentioned or taken into consideration when there were two children present.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2020, 11:30:PM »
I was going to say, Lookout, I thought I was seeing things.  I'm glad somebody else noticed.

I don't recall seeing a lock on the gun cupboard door in the photographs by D.C. Bird - and bear in mind, that gun cupboard was in Nevill's private den (the downstairs office).  See my explanation of the location here:  http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10301.0.html.  (For context: During the Bamber Inquiry, D.C. Bird got himself confused about its whereabouts - though in fairness, this is only understandable, really, given the passage of time).

I have to say, without wishing to be unduly disrespectful of the dead, Nevill Bamber was culpable in this tragedy.  It is quite apparent that his safety awareness was zero, precautions were completely absent, and I don't consider it any excuse to say that it was the norm for the time or typical of rural people or farmers.  If he was nervous of Jeremy, then Nevill should have barred him from the firearms under his care and kept his firearms and ammunition secure.  He failed in this duty, unequivocally.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2020, 11:31:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Hartley.

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3168
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2020, 08:24:AM »
I was going to say, Lookout, I thought I was seeing things.  I'm glad somebody else noticed.

I don't recall seeing a lock on the gun cupboard door in the photographs by D.C. Bird - and bear in mind, that gun cupboard was in Nevill's private den (the downstairs office).  See my explanation of the location here:  http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10301.0.html.  (For context: During the Bamber Inquiry, D.C. Bird got himself confused about its whereabouts - though in fairness, this is only understandable, really, given the passage of time).

I have to say, without wishing to be unduly disrespectful of the dead, Nevill Bamber was culpable in this tragedy.  It is quite apparent that his safety awareness was zero, precautions were completely absent, and I don't consider it any excuse to say that it was the norm for the time or typical of rural people or farmers.  If he was nervous of Jeremy, then Nevill should have barred him from the firearms under his care and kept his firearms and ammunition secure.  He failed in this duty, unequivocally.

I'm not sure I recall seeing a padlock either.

How safety aware was Peter? Who knows, I guess it is easy to be critical after the event, perhaps rightly so.

It seems that:
1. Majority of guns and ammunition were stored in a cupboard in the downstairs office in the under stair cupboard, apparently secured with a padlock.
2. Some guns were stored in the downstairs WC/shower room, including Pargetter's weapon, although he claims he removed the bolt to make it inoperable.

Is there anything else related to weapon storage/use which would influence an opinion on how safety concious Neville was regarding firearms?

Any previous incidents?

Perhaps a conclusion is being drawn to suit a particular narrative.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2020, 10:33:AM by Hartley. »

Offline Hartley.

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3168
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2020, 08:31:AM »
Not so sure about the padlock.


Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2020, 12:15:PM »
I'm not sure I recall seeing a padlock either.

How safety aware was Peter? Who knows, I guess it is easy to be critical after the event, perhaps rightly so.

It seems that:
1. Majority of guns and ammunition were stored in a cupboard in the downstairs office in the under stair cupboard, apparently secured with a padlock.
2. Some guns were stored in the downstairs WC/shower room, including Pargetter's weapon, although he claims he removed the bolt to make it inoperable.

Is there anything else related to weapon storage/use which would influence an opinion on how safety concious Neville was regarding firearms?

Any previous incidents?

Perhaps a conclusion is being drawn to suit a particular narrative.

To be clear, I am referring to Nevill, not Peter.  I assume that's just an error on your part.

There is no padlock.  You can clearly see from the photograph taken by D.C. Bird that there is no loop or similar fitting on the jamb in to which a hasp would fit.  That would be a primitive mechanism anyway, but even that is absent.

No conclusion is being drawn to suit a particular narrative.  That's your forte, Hartley.  I simply state what can be concluded from the known facts, which in turn I derive from:

(i). the incident itself;
(ii). the photograph above;
(iii). the statement of P.C. Dryland;
(iv). the statement of David Boutflour.

Can you gainsay this?

I conclude that Nevill Bamber was an irresponsible firearms owner, and his conduct contributed to the incident, and I consider that he was culpable - albeit he was a victim himself.  I also believe that these conclusions lend weight to Jeremy's story and the possibility of Sheila being in possession of a rifle that night.  Nevill, a magistrate, had misled the authorities about his firearms management, and knowing this, would have been concerned about the implications of contacting the police.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2020, 01:15:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2020, 12:37:PM »
To be clear, I am referring to Nevill, not Peter.  I assume that's just an error on your part.

There is no padlock.  You can clearly see from the photograph taken by D.C. Bird that there is no loop or similar fitting on the jamb in to which a hasp would fit.  That would be a primitive mechanism anyway, but even that is absent.

No conclusion is being drawn to suit a particular narrative.  That's your forte, Hartley.  I simply state what can be concluded from the known facts, which in turn I derive from:

(i). the incident itself;
(ii). the photograph above;
(iii). the statement of P.C. Dryland;
(iv). the statement of David Boutflour.

Can you gainsay this, while keeping a straight-face?

I conclude that Nevill Bamber was an irresponsible firearms owner, and his conduct contributed to the incident, and I consider that he was culpable - albeit he was a victim himself.  I also believe that these conclusions lend weight to Jeremy's story and the possibility of Sheila being in possession of a rifle that night.  Nevill, a magistrate, had misled the authorities about his firearms management, and knowing this, would have been concerned about the implications of contacting the police.

See, in particular, Sheet 10 of David Boutflour's police statement of 17th. September 1985.

The lock fitted to the veneer door was a simple nylon ball catch.  The catch plate must be out of sight, or it could even be a hole drilled into the jamb.  Either way, it is not secure, because you just twist/turn the handle fitted to the veneer. 
« Last Edit: August 31, 2020, 12:38:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2020, 01:31:PM »
See, in particular, Sheet 10 of David Boutflour's police statement of 17th. September 1985.

The lock fitted to the veneer door was a simple nylon ball catch.  The catch plate must be out of sight, or it could even be a hole drilled into the jamb.  Either way, it is not secure, because you just twist/turn the handle fitted to the veneer.

Before I leave this, here are the possible explanations for P.C. Dryland's statement:

1. P.C. Dryland did not actually inspect the gun cupboard.  This is possible because Nevill may have produced the firearms for inspection elsewhere in the house, maybe in the kitchen, and P.C. Dryland may have assumed that, Nevill being a magistrate, and everything seemingly in order, he needn't check further.

2. Nevill previously had a more secure mechanism on the cupboard door, which Nevill himself or somebody else has removed for whatever reason.

3. Jeremy removed the lock on the cupboard on the night of 6th./7th. August 1985, and also maybe left guns lying around the house, so as to give the impression of laxity on Nevill's part in his management of firearms, believing this would assist his story.

Regarding 2, on reflection, a loop/hasp mechanism would not work as the jamb seems to jut out from the wall considerably.  It would also not be logical to replace a hasp/throw and catch hole with a nylon ball catch.  For that reason alone, I think we can dismiss 2.

Regarding 3, I believe it was Anthony Pargeter's gun that was stored in the downstairs washroom, which suggests Jeremy would have no reason to leave guns other than the rifle lying around; but in any event, leaving guns all over the place and changing the lock on the gun cupboard would just be one more complication to add to his tasks on the night, would leave prints and potentially arouse suspicion. 

That leaves us with 1, and that's what I would go for.  I suspect P.C. Dryland did not carry out a proper inspection.

P.C. Dryland's statement pre-dates the visit to K.D. Radcliffe's in November 1984, but I have seen no reliable mention of gun cupboards/safes elsewhere in the house and it would seem logical for Nevill to store the guns in the den.  If Jeremy wanted regular access to the rifle, Nevill could surely have given him a key on whatever basis. 

Whether Nevill misled the police, we can't say.  It could easily be that the absence of a padlock mechanism is based on a misunderstanding, with the police officer assuming it was secure and Nevill perhaps not understanding his responsibilities, or not caring, but I think we are being very generous to Nevill there.  He was an experienced firearms owner and a magistrate and must be assumed to have known his responsibilities in the necessary detail.

In any event, Nevill does not come out of this well, in my view.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2020, 01:41:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2020, 11:46:PM »
With the below close-up, we can clearly see that David Boutflour was correct in his description of the lock, and it's conclusive that the cupboard was not secure.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2020, 11:47:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2326
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2020, 07:04:AM »
To be clear, I am referring to Nevill, not Peter.  I assume that's just an error on your part.

There is no padlock.  You can clearly see from the photograph taken by D.C. Bird that there is no loop or similar fitting on the jamb in to which a hasp would fit.  That would be a primitive mechanism anyway, but even that is absent.

No conclusion is being drawn to suit a particular narrative.  That's your forte, Hartley.  I simply state what can be concluded from the known facts, which in turn I derive from:

(i). the incident itself;
(ii). the photograph above;
(iii). the statement of P.C. Dryland;
(iv). the statement of David Boutflour.

Can you gainsay this?

I conclude that Nevill Bamber was an irresponsible firearms owner, and his conduct contributed to the incident, and I consider that he was culpable - albeit he was a victim himself. I also believe that these conclusions lend weight to Jeremy's story and the possibility of Sheila being in possession of a rifle that night.  Nevill, a magistrate, had misled the authorities about his firearms management, and knowing this, would have been concerned about the implications of contacting the police.

And I always believed Neville didn’t call the police because Sheila’s actions would have led to her losing the twins forever
Was this never bought up at trial
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline Robittybob1

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2020, 08:21:AM »
Is this the gun cupboard that the silencer was found in days after the event?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2020, 09:56:AM »
Is this the gun cupboard that the silencer was found in days after the event?

Yes

Offline Hartley.

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3168
Re: Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2020, 10:26:PM »
To be clear, I am referring to Nevill, not Peter.  I assume that's just an error on your part.

There is no padlock.  You can clearly see from the photograph taken by D.C. Bird that there is no loop or similar fitting on the jamb in to which a hasp would fit.  That would be a primitive mechanism anyway, but even that is absent.

No conclusion is being drawn to suit a particular narrative.  That's your forte, Hartley.  I simply state what can be concluded from the known facts, which in turn I derive from:

(i). the incident itself;
(ii). the photograph above;
(iii). the statement of P.C. Dryland;
(iv). the statement of David Boutflour.

Can you gainsay this?

I conclude that Nevill Bamber was an irresponsible firearms owner, and his conduct contributed to the incident, and I consider that he was culpable - albeit he was a victim himself.  I also believe that these conclusions lend weight to Jeremy's story and the possibility of Sheila being in possession of a rifle that night.  Nevill, a magistrate, had misled the authorities about his firearms management, and knowing this, would have been concerned about the implications of contacting the police.

Yes I meant Nevill, just a typo on my part.

Clearly there is no padlock on the under stair cupboard, perhaps in those days a nudge and a wink was enough to persuade Dryland, however his statement is after the murders, so why would he say what he said if it wasn't accurate, it doesn't make much sense to me if it could be so easily contradicted.

I still don't jump to the conclusion that Nevill was careless regarding firearms, perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn't, or maybe somewhere in between.