Neville Bambers firearm certificate all in order in 1984...

[guest29835]

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.

Hartley,

P.C. Dryland clearly and unambiguously states that he visited the farm before the murders to conduct his inspection.  It was 12 months before (which also raises the interesting question of whether Essex Police were due to re-inspect the firearms around the time of the murders).

Nevill was negligent about firearms safety, to put it charitably.  Anybody who denies this is just in denial about what is staring them in the face.  I would go as far as to say that Nevill was culpable in the shootings.

P.C. Dryland and Essex Police clearly have a vested interest in providing misleading information.  They clearly have an interest in pretending that when the official visit was conducted in August 1984, they found proper safety measures were taken.  There is nobody around to gainsay them, except Jeremy himself.  It is very likely that P.C. Dryland is lying, as explained in previous posts above. Either he is lying about turning a blind eye to things or he did not conduct a proper inspection in the first place.

I have already explained exhaustively and logically what leads me to this conclusion.  You have said nothing to disturb that conclusion other than completely ignoring what I have said and what is plain as day and instead offering your own opinion.

[guest29835]

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.

I've discovered, or rather re-discovered, something else. 

In Robert Boutflour's statements to COLP, he describes how the downstairs office was new (converted from the scullery) and he had not seen it before maybe July 1985.  This means it could have been converted after the visit by P.C. Dryland.  (Q. Was the work done by Dennis Wager?).

Robert Boutflour's statements still confirm that the guns were all over the house but the main storage was in the same location, so it does look like that cupboard was used for guns even when it was in the scullery.  However, if the scullery was converted after P.C. Dryland's visit, then this does open up the possibility that, during the conversion works, the padlock mechanism was removed from the cupboard, and maybe a new door was fitted with a nylon ball catch - which, if so, would mean that P.C. Dryland was telling the truth.

It would assist to have a full copy of Robert Boutflour's police statement of 10th. September 1985.  The copy currently in the archive is not complete, but maybe we should give the police and P.C. Dryland the benefit of the doubt and just say that the works were done after 4th. August 1984, and before that, Nevill was using a padlocked cupboard.

[guest2181]

Hartley,

P.C. Dryland clearly and unambiguously states that he visited the farm before the murders to conduct his inspection.  It was 12 months before (which also raises the interesting question of whether Essex Police were due to re-inspect the firearms around the time of the murders).

Nevill was negligent about firearms safety, to put it charitably.  Anybody who denies this is just in denial about what is staring them in the face.  I would go as far as to say that Nevill was culpable in the shootings.

P.C. Dryland and Essex Police clearly have a vested interest in providing misleading information.  They clearly have an interest in pretending that when the official visit was conducted in August 1984, they found proper safety measures were taken.  There is nobody around to gainsay them, except Jeremy himself.  It is very likely that P.C. Dryland is lying, as explained in previous posts above. Either he is lying about turning a blind eye to things or he did not conduct a proper inspection in the first place.

I have already explained exhaustively and logically what leads me to this conclusion.  You have said nothing to disturb that conclusion other than completely ignoring what I have said and what is plain as day and instead offering your own opinion.

Yes Dryland says he visited WHF to inspect the firearms in respect of the renewal on 4th August 1984. The murders occurred on 6-7th August 1985 and Drylands statement is dated 16th October 1985.

The question really is why would Dryland say that a padlock was fitted, after the murders, when it is clear from photographs that there wasn't one.

Do we know what or which weapons the certificate related to, the singular and plural are both used in the statement.
The statement is written 14 months after his inspection, is he relying on his memory alone and therefore is he mistaken?

The room doesn't look recently decorated from the photographs. Perhaps Robert didn't visit recently.

People can draw conclusions, but really they are just suggestions.

[guest29835]

Yes Dryland says he visited WHF to inspect the firearms in respect of the renewal on 4th August 1984. The murders occurred on 6-7th August 1985 and Drylands statement is dated 16th October 1985.

The question really is why would Dryland say that a padlock was fitted, after the murders, when it is clear from photographs that there wasn't one.

Do we know what or which weapons the certificate related to, the singular and plural are both used in the statement.
The statement is written 14 months after his inspection, is he relying on his memory alone and therefore is he mistaken?

The room doesn't look recently decorated from the photographs. Perhaps Robert didn't visit recently.

People can draw conclusions, but really they are just suggestions.

I think we need to remember that P.C. Dryland will be assumed to be basing his statement on his own records.  It's not a matter of recollection.

As to why he is mistaken, it does seem unlikely to me that he could get it wrong, and the circumstances do point to both Nevill and P.C. Dryland basically making misrepresentations; but, as stated above, an additional factor is that Nevill had converted part of the scullery into an office, albeit that it's the same gun cupboard in the same place.  It could be that the cupboard veneer only dates back to the conversion, which opens up the possibility that there was a padlock at the time of P.C. Dryland's visit.

[guest7363]

I think we need to remember that P.C. Dryland will be assumed to be basing his statement on his own records.  It's not a matter of recollection.

As to why he is mistaken, it does seem unlikely to me that he could get it wrong, and the circumstances do point to both Nevill and P.C. Dryland basically making misrepresentations; but, as stated above, an additional factor is that Nevill had converted part of the scullery into an office, albeit that it's the same gun cupboard in the same place.  It could be that the cupboard veneer only dates back to the conversion, which opens up the possibility that there was a padlock at the time of P.C. Dryland's visit.

What is very clear, I’ve not picked up where anyone has had to unlock it?

[guest2181]

I think we need to remember that P.C. Dryland will be assumed to be basing his statement on his own records.  It's not a matter of recollection.

As to why he is mistaken, it does seem unlikely to me that he could get it wrong, and the circumstances do point to both Nevill and P.C. Dryland basically making misrepresentations; but, as stated above, an additional factor is that Nevill had converted part of the scullery into an office, albeit that it's the same gun cupboard in the same place.  It could be that the cupboard veneer only dates back to the conversion, which opens up the possibility that there was a padlock at the time of P.C. Dryland's visit.

Your first paragraph is simply an unknown. You have no idea whether Dryland relied on his notes or not, as you say it is just an assumption.

[guest29835]

Your first paragraph is simply an unknown. You have no idea whether Dryland relied on his notes or not, as you say it is just an assumption.

The police issue firearms certificates.  As part of that process, they keep records.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that P.C. Dryland was referring to records when making his statement some time later.  The only reason the assumption is needed is because P.C. Dryland doesn't spell out that this is the basis of his own statement.

Furthermore, P.C. Dryland does not qualify his statement.  He is very specific and certain about his impressions of Nevill's firearms management and what he found and saw.

It's not difficult.  The only unknown we have here is the question of when the downstairs office conversion was completed.  If it was completed prior to 4th. August 1984, then it is quite likely that P.C. Dryland has lied.  If, on the other hand, it was completed after 4th. August 1984, then we may have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

In any event, Nevill Bamber's conduct in regard to his firearms was poor and he was culpable in the tragedy.

[guest29835]

What is very clear, I’ve not picked up where anyone has had to unlock it?

They didn't, as such.  As explained above, the gun cupboard was locked, but it was only a nylon ball catch lock, so the guns were not secured.  Apparently, there were Bamber guns all over the house when David Boutflour went round a few days after the tragedy.  Also, Anthony Pargeter's guns were routinely stored in the downstairs wash room.  Robert Boutflour confirms the impression of lax firearms storage, and additionally mentions that Nevill kept a shotgun under the bed, not for safety reasons, but because it was valuable.

[guest2181]

You're not making any sense Hartley.

The police issue firearms certificates.  As part of that process, they keep records.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that P.C. Dryland was referring to records when making his statement some time later.  The only reason the assumption is needed is because P.C. Dryland doesn't spell out that this is the basis of his own statement.

Furthermore, P.C. Dryland does not qualify his statement.  He is very specific and certain about his impressions of Nevill's firearms management and what he found and saw.

It's not difficult, Hartley.

The only unknown we have here is when the downstairs office conversion was completed.  If it was completed prior to 4th. August 1984, then it is quite likely that P.C. Dryland has lied.  If, on the other hand, it was completed after 4th. August 1984, then we may have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That's simply not the case.

We cannot positively say that Dryland referred to his notes. It doesn't say so.

You are assuming he referred to notes prior to writing the statement, but you do not know that. It's possible that he did, but it's possible that he didn't for any number of reasons.

Your conclusion is a suggestion only, a possibility and nothing more.

It doesn't look like the office was recently decorated/converted.

[guest29835]

That's simply not the case.

We cannot positively say that Dryland referred to his notes. It doesn't say so.

You are assuming he referred to notes prior to writing the statement, but you do not know that. It's possible that he did, but it's possible that he didn't for any number of reasons.

Your conclusion is a suggestion only, a possibility and nothing more.

It doesn't look like the office was recently decorated/converted.

Sorry Hartley, but it won't work. 

1. The police issue firearms certificates and keep records.
2. The police refer to these records.
3. The statement of P.C. Dryland is worded without any form of qualification or caveat whatsoever.
4. If P.C. Dryland wasn't sure, he would either indicate this in his statement or not provide the statement at all.  He is clearly relying on a mixture of memory and records, including his own pocketbook and official records.  This is reasonable to assume because all police officers do this.
5. If the downstairs office conversion happened prior to 4th. August 1985, then P.C. Dryland is probably lying (for the reasons explained exhaustively earlier in the thread).  If after 4th. August 1985, then he may still be lying, but I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't mind criticism because sometimes we can all be wrong, but I just think you're being obtuse here and showing a lack of common sense.  And I think you're doing this intentionally. 

I think the reason you're being like this is because you know that Nevill's poor handling of the firearms, and possible police culpability in this, fits more with a scenario of Sheila as the killer.  That's why you're worried.

By the way, I have a copy of Nevill's firearms certificate.  It can be downloaded from the Forum.

[guest7363]

Where was this standing cupboard next to the Gun Cupboard?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5817.0;attach=37853

[guest2181]

Sorry Hartley, but it won't work. 

1. The police issue firearms certificates and keep records.
2. The police refer to these records.
3. The statement of P.C. Dryland is worded without any form of qualification or caveat whatsoever.
4. If P.C. Dryland wasn't sure, he would either indicate this in his statement or not provide the statement at all.  He is clearly relying on a mixture of memory and records.  This is reasonable to assume.
5. If the downstairs office conversion happened prior to 4th. August 1985, then P.C. Dryland is probably lying (for the reasons explained exhaustively earlier in the thread).  If after 4th. August 1985, then he may still be lying, but I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't mind criticism because sometimes we can all be wrong, but I just think you're being obtuse here and showing a lack of common sense.  And I think you're doing this intentionally. 

I think the reason you're being like this is because you know that Nevill's poor handling of the firearms, and possible police culpability in this, fits more with a scenario of Sheila as the killer.  That's why you're worried.

By the way, I have a copy of Nevill's firearms certificate.  It can be downloaded from the Forum.

It's not criticism, I'm not even sure it's that important.

You simply can't say in any certainty that something was the case because in your opinion it is reasonable for it to be. It might even be likely, but we simply do not know for certain, however many times it is repeated.

Did Dryland examine official documents prior to making his statement? We simply do not know. That is the real and complete answer.

I think assumptions are being made.

Perhaps all that was needed was a signature and a date of inspection, perhaps Dryland carried out 10 of the inspections a week or 600 in 14 months, perhaps he made a mistake in his recollection and didn't refer to any notes (if such things exist).

Do we even know what records are kept, or rather were kept back then?
Did firearms have to be locked away in 1984, I recall some discussion that shotguns didn't need to until the 1987 amendment. What about long barreled .22 rimfire rifles?

[guest7363]

 

It's not criticism, I'm not even sure it's that important.

You simply can't say in any certainty that something was the case because in your opinion it is reasonable for it to be. It might even be likely, but we simply do not know for certain, however many times it is repeated.

Did Dryland examine official documents prior to making his statement? We simply do not know. That is the real and complete answer.

I think assumptions are being made.

Perhaps all that was needed was a signature and a date of inspection, perhaps Dryland carried out 10 of the inspections a week or 600 in 14 months, perhaps he made a mistake in his recollection and didn't refer to any notes (if such things exist).

Do we even know what records are kept, or rather were kept back then?
Did firearms have to be locked away in 1984, I recall some discussion that shotguns didn't need to until the 1987 amendment. What about long barreled .22 rimfire rifles?

It gets all rather confusing, they seem to be talking about the gun cupboard being in the scullery next to the washroom not under the stairs?  Hammersley is asked when did he learn of the exsistance of  the gun cupboard and he says it was several weeks later?

[guest2181]

It gets all rather confusing, they seem to be talking about the gun cupboard being in the scullery next to the washroom not under the stairs?

Some shotguns were stored in the ground floor WC/Shower room, perhaps that is where they are referring to?

[guest7363]

Some shotguns were stored in the ground floor WC/Shower room, perhaps that is where they are referring to?

Could this be the place that is inspected Hartley and passed as the gun cupboard, like you say I bet their was only a certain type of gun needed to be under lock?  It seems strange that no one ever questions why the cupboard wasnt locked, or the rifle put under locked  even when interviewing Bamber?