Author Topic: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.  (Read 14089 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #75 on: December 30, 2018, 06:29:PM »
There exists no evidence, and none was found by the COLP investigators, to suggest that a silencer which has supposedly been sent to the lab ' at Huntingdon on 30th August 1985, under an exhibit reference of DB/1 (23), had somehow and in somewhat mysterious circumstances, been transferred back to Essex police in good time, to enable Eastwood and Oakey to fingerprint it on 13th September 1985, at 1800hrs, and then sent back to the lab' for an unprecedented third occasion (20th September)?

For such nonsense to be true, we would end up with a silencer handed back to police on two occasions, by the lab' so that police could fingerprint the same silencer, once in 13th August 1985 when Glynis Howard gave the first silencer (SJ/1) back to Cook for that purpose, and an as yet unknown second occasion, if the silencer was handed back on an unprecedented second occasion, by some unknown person, so that hypothetically Eastwood and Oakey could carry out their fingerprint examination!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17935
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #76 on: December 30, 2018, 08:03:PM »
I reiterate that Anthony Pargeter and Jackie did not owe Nevill Bamber any sum of money. There was a family discussion in which various options to deal with the inheritance of Clifton House were discussed, but Nevill ultimately decided to borrow the necessary finance to convert the property into flats from the bank, and this process at no stage involved Anthony and Jackie Pargeter.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 32549
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #77 on: December 30, 2018, 08:40:PM »
I reiterate that Anthony Pargeter and Jackie did not owe Nevill Bamber any sum of money. There was a family discussion in which various options to deal with the inheritance of Clifton House were discussed, but Nevill ultimately decided to borrow the necessary finance to convert the property into flats from the bank, and this process at no stage involved Anthony and Jackie Pargeter.

Thanks for that, Steve. I thought, when I read what Mike has -wrongly- claimed, that I must have the generations muddled. I couldn't fathom how Nevill's late sister's offspring could possibly have owed Nevill -their uncle- such a vast sum entailed to property he'd inherited from his mother and their grandmother.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #78 on: December 30, 2018, 11:37:PM »
I reiterate that Anthony Pargeter and Jackie did not owe Nevill Bamber any sum of money. There was a family discussion in which various options to deal with the inheritance of Clifton House were discussed, but Nevill ultimately decided to borrow the necessary finance to convert the property into flats from the bank, and this process at no stage involved Anthony and Jackie Pargeter.

Unfortunately, you are wrong, it was true that Neville took out a bank loan totalling about £100,000 to pay for the refurbishment of the 5 bedroomed house, but there was a gentleman's agreement between Neville and the Pargeters,  that Neville would recoup their share of the costs once the flats were put on the market and sold on..
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 02:29:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #79 on: December 31, 2018, 08:44:PM »
It was Neville Bambers personal decision to share the inheritance of his mother's Guildford property, with the Pargeters - she left the house solely to Neville..
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17935
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #80 on: December 31, 2018, 08:52:PM »
Unfortunately, you are wrong, it was true that Neville took out a bank loan totalling about £100,000 to pay for the refurbishment of the 5 bedroomed house, but there was a gentleman's agreement between Neville and the Pargeters,  that Neville would recoup their share of the costs once the flats were put on the market and sold on..
I'm not sure what you mean by "their share of the costs" since they were not involved upfront monetarily. Nevill had already sold two of the flats and one was sold subject to contract, upon which the bank overdraft of £120k would be cleared. The remaining two flats were on a 99-year lease, after which time they would revert to the progeny of Nevill in the ratio 50:50, with Jeremy receiving half and Anthony and Jackie the other half.


Why would Anthony Pargeter take the risk of killing the golden goose when in effect the whole of Nevill's estate would go to Jeremy apart from the 25% he probably would have to sue for anyway if there was only a gentleman's agreement and nothing written down in law that he and his sister Jackie were entitled to it?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 08:53:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17935
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #81 on: December 31, 2018, 08:53:PM »
It was Neville Bambers personal decision to share the inheritance of his mother's Guildford property, with the Pargeters - she left the house solely to Neville..
So what? That gives more of a motive to Jeremy to overturn the will in its entirety.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 32549
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #82 on: December 31, 2018, 09:15:PM »
I'm not sure what you mean by "their share of the costs" since they were not involved upfront monetarily. Nevill had already sold two of the flats and one was sold subject to contract, upon which the bank overdraft of £120k would be cleared. The remaining two flats were on a 99-year lease, after which time they would revert to the progeny of Nevill in the ratio 50:50, with Jeremy receiving half and Anthony and Jackie the other half.


Why would Anthony Pargeter take the risk of killing the golden goose when in effect the whole of Nevill's estate would go to Jeremy apart from the 25% he probably would have to sue for anyway if there was only a gentleman's agreement and nothing written down in law that he and his sister Jackie were entitled to it?


And why, if Nevill had been so magnanimous, did they suddenly 'owe' him vast sums of money? Surely it would have been grossly unfair -and quite unlike Nevill- to lend his family money to enhance property he owned and was beneficiary of. I could see, perfectly, had he loaned a sum to them formally, that he might deduct such from the sum he gave them from his mother's estate. However, as the alleged loan was only on a gentleman's agreement terms, IF such a loan existed, he was probably in no hurry to have it returned.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #83 on: January 01, 2019, 07:09:PM »
I'm not sure what you mean by "their share of the costs" since they were not involved upfront monetarily. Nevill had already sold two of the flats and one was sold subject to contract, upon which the bank overdraft of £120k would be cleared. The remaining two flats were on a 99-year lease, after which time they would revert to the progeny of Nevill in the ratio 50:50, with Jeremy receiving half and Anthony and Jackie the other half.


Why would Anthony Pargeter take the risk of killing the golden goose when in effect the whole of Nevill's estate would go to Jeremy apart from the 25% he probably would have to sue for anyway if there was only a gentleman's agreement and nothing written down in law that he and his sister Jackie were entitled to it? an agreement does not have to be written in law, a gentleman's agreement would, and does suffice - stop for one moment and ask yourself why when Jeremy took his relatives to court in a civil action, why didn't Jeremy set out a case for his full entitlement to grandma Bambers estate? He only sought a judgement favouring himself with respect to his parents estate(s), and his share of Mabel Speakmans estate, , and a piece of land which Neville Bamber paid for in relation to acreage that Peter and Ann Eaton showed interest in purchasing! The thing is, although provisionally, Neville agreed to purchase that piece of land, as part of a gentleman's agreement, with a view to the Eaton's later buying it off him, Neville rewarded Jeremy for showing more of an interest in the farming business by telling Jeremy that he would be getting the acreage! Now, before you start getting on your high horse, listen up, the Eaton's never raised enough monies to purchase the aforementioned acreage prior to the tragedy! Therefore, Sonny, the acreage belonged to Jeremy, and as I understand it, that was all that Jeremy benefitted from, arising out if this tragedy, oh and a nominal payout for being a shareholder in Osea Road Camp site...
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 07:15:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #84 on: January 01, 2019, 08:06:PM »

And why, if Nevill had been so magnanimous, did they suddenly 'owe' him vast sums of money? this was for the executor of Neville Bambers estate needed to deal with lawfully..Surely it would have been grossly unfair No, not unfair at all.. -and quite unlike Nevill- to lend his family money to enhance property he owned and was beneficiary of Neville's mother left her residence to Neville, not for it to be shared with anyone else! I have the civil papers, you don't, Neville offered the Pargeter brother and sister 50% share in his mother's estate, on the proviso that both would have to stand 50% of the cost of refurbishment of granny Bambers five bedroom Guildford house, which were transformed into separate flats, or bedsits, or whatever, their share of their 50% cost of those refurbishments to be recuperated by Neville Bamber upon the sale of one flat, or apartment... I could see, perfectly, had he loaned a sum to them formally, why would anyone make such a thing up? that he might deduct such from the sum he gave them from his mother's estate. it is what it is, and what it was, once Neville died, the debt should have e become part of his estate! I have a very strong feeling that the executor of Neville Bambers estate cooked the books so to speak, because once Jeremy was convicted the relatives came to a gentleman's agreement t between themselves, where the Boutflours and Eaton's were happy to take June Bambers estate, and let the Pargeter brother and sister to take Neville's estate!However, as the alleged loan was only on a gentleman's agreement terms, (legally binding) IF such a loan existed, he was probably in no hurry to have it returned. Yes, because he didn't know that he would die in the kitchen downstairs on the 7th August 1985, or who would shoot him, subdue him, and finish him off...

The same gentleman's agreement that Neville originally set into motion involving the acreage which Peter and Ann Eaton were very interested in, turned out to be land which Neville gave to Jeremy, and Neville had a similar gentleman's agreement concerning the 5 bedrooms Guildford house that his own Mother left entirely to him, when he told the Pargeter pair that between them they stood to benefit by 50% from the development and transformation of the house into flats, and or appartments, but that they would have to stand 50% of the cost of the refurbishments! As things stand, no monies ever exchanged hands, or were paid from bank account to another - but, had not Neville died, the Pargeters would have had 50% of the cost of the refurbishments deducted from any income arising out of the sale of the premises! Neville Bamber borrowed £100,000 from the bank to cover the cost of the refurbishments, that makes it £50,000 they owed to Neville Bambers estate, at the time of Neville Bambers death - a hefty amount by anyone's standards, people have been known to kill people for less!

Add into this scenario that Anthony Pargeters Brno rifle and his Parker hake silencer fired at least one shot during this shooting tragedy, what more needs to be said?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 08:19:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 32549
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #85 on: January 01, 2019, 08:35:PM »
The same gentleman's agreement that Neville originally set into motion involving the acreage which Peter and Ann Eaton were very interested in, turned out to be land which Neville gave to Jeremy, and Neville had a similar gentleman's agreement concerning the 5 bedrooms Guildford house that his own. Mother left entirely to him, when he told the Pargeter pair that between them they stood to benefit by 50% from the development and transformation of the house into flats, and or appartments, but that they would have to stand 50% of the cost of the refurbishments! As things stand, no monies ever exchanged hands, or were paid from bank account to another - but, had not Neville died, the Pargeters would have had 50% of the cost of the refurbishments deducted from any income arising out of the sale of the premises! Neville Bamber borrowed £100,000 from the bank to cover the cost of the refurbishments, that makes it £50,000 they owed to Neville Bambers estate, at the time of Neville Bambers death - a hefty amount by anyone's standards, people have been known to kill people for less!

Add into this scenario that Anthony Pargeters Brno rifle and his Parker hake silencer fired at least one shot during this shooting tragedy, what more needs to be said?


Oh! NOW I understand. Nevill gets the lot, in it's entirety, from his mother, and then tells his niece and nephew, her grandchildren, that providing they stump up 50% of the refurbishment costs, they'd get 50% of the sale of the development.................the catch being that they'd have to contribute an enormous sum to make this possible which would have severely reduced that 50%. I've heard of speculating to accumulate. So had Jeremy!!! He gained rather more than 50%.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12617
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #86 on: January 02, 2019, 10:13:AM »
Everything is pointing to no silencer being present at the Lab' by 12th September 1985, this has to be taken seriously, because no general examination record exists confirming that MDF dismantled a silencer at the lab' on that date! There only exist two different general examination records pertaining to the submission and examination of a silencer, one dated 13th August 1985, the other, dated 25th September 1985...

Lab records show the silencer threads and flake found within were tested for blood groups on the 12th of September thus it must have been taken apart by then.

« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 10:13:AM by David1819 »

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #87 on: January 02, 2019, 11:31:AM »

Oh! NOW I understand. Nevill gets the lot, in it's entirety, from his mother, and then tells his niece and nephew, her grandchildren, that providing they stump up 50% of the refurbishment costs, they'd get 50% of the sale of the development.................the catch being that they'd have to contribute an enormous sum to make this possible which would have severely reduced that 50%. I've heard of speculating to accumulate. So had Jeremy!!! He gained rather more than 50%.

Grandma Boutflour didn't leave the Pargeter kids any share at all of the 5 bedroom property in Guildford, Neville agreed to them taking a 50% share in its refurbishment and resale! Part of the gentleman's agreement was that 50% of the refurbishment costs would be recovered by Neville when all the flats were sold off. He invested £100,000 in the refurbishments, and told them that he would recoup their 50% share of the costs from the sale of the flats, in addition to his 50% share of the profits! You work that out as you like,. They never physically paid any of the costs back because Neville died, and his entire estate went to the Pargeters, after an agreement between them and the Boutflours / Eaton's was subsequent finalised - in effect, once Jeremy was convicted, Neville Bambers Estate became their own, but between the time of Neville's death and the date of Jeremy's conviction they owed £50,000 to Neville Bambers estate! A similar situation arose in connection with June Bambers estate involving the other relatives, in particular, Peter Eaton who was selling off farm machinery belonging to and (N & J Bamber Ltd) prior to Jeremy becoming convicted!
« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 11:34:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 32549
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #88 on: January 02, 2019, 12:56:PM »
Grandma Boutflour didn't leave the Pargeter kids any share at all of the 5 bedroom property in Guildford, Neville agreed to them taking a 50% share in its refurbishment and resale! Part of the gentleman's agreement was that 50% of the refurbishment costs would be recovered by Neville when all the flats were sold off. He invested £100,000 in the refurbishments, and told them that he would recoup their 50% share of the costs from the sale of the flats, in addition to his 50% share of the profits! You work that out as you like,. They never physically paid any of the costs back because Neville died, and his entire estate went to the Pargeters, after an agreement between them and the Boutflours / Eaton's was subsequent finalised - in effect, once Jeremy was convicted, Neville Bambers Estate became their own, but between the time of Neville's death and the date of Jeremy's conviction they owed £50,000 to Neville Bambers estate! A similar situation arose in connection with June Bambers estate involving the other relatives, in particular, Peter Eaton who was selling off farm machinery belonging to and (N & J Bamber Ltd) prior to Jeremy becoming convicted!


But under the conditions you claim, unless/until such time the properties were sold off (do we know if this had occurred prior to Nevill's demise or during the interim till Jeremy's conviction?) the Pargeters were in receipt of zilch -their gains dependent on the completion and sale of such- therefore there would have been no outstanding debt on their part.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Robert Boutflours tampon and silencer theory.
« Reply #89 on: January 02, 2019, 01:09:PM »
Lab records show the silencer threads and flake found within were tested for blood groups on the 12th of September thus it must have been taken apart by then.

There was no silencer present at the lab' on the 12th September 1985, the flake mentioned in these lab records was the flake which David Boutflour scraped from the outside of one of the silencers previously using a razor blade! The swab from the threads was taken from the first silencer SJ\1 (22) on the 13th August 1985, when Glynis Howard examined that silencer at the Lab' on that day. Howard returned that silencer (22) to Cook at the lab' on that same day! As I say, no silencer at the lab' bearing a lab' item number 22 by the 12th September, only a lab' item number 23, bearing the exhibit reference, DB/1, submitted or taken to the lab' on the 30th August 1985. This item (23) was almost certainly the flake of dried blood that David Boutflour had scraped off silencer SJ\1 (22) earlier, which he took from the outside of (22) prior to Peter Eaton having handed over that particular silencer to DS Jones on evening 12th August 1985. The documentation you seek to rely upon to try and suggest there must have been a silencer which had been dismantled at the Lab' by that date (12th September 1985), clearly refers to a flake from silencer (22), and thread - yes, the loose flake that young Boutflour scraped from the outside of (22), and a swab taken from the thread of (22) by Glynis Howard a month earlier. ..

Boutflour states he scraped a flake off the outside of the silencers found in the gun cupboard, that he used a razor blade to carry out this exercise! He kept the flake because he told COLP it fascinated him! He told the COLP investigators that Essex police knew what he had done! So, if Essex police, and then COLP knew what David Boutflour had done in removing a flake of dried blood from the outside of the silencer he found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, which was not handed over to the police when Peter Eaton handed over the first silencer to DS Jones, on Evening of 12th August 1985, ask yourselves at what point did Essex Police get told that David Boutflour had tampered with the first silencer? Who told them? What did they tell the police? What did the police do once they found out that David Boutflour had scraped a flake of dried blood from the outside of the silencer (22)? Did the police let David Boutflour keep the flake all to himself? Or, did Essex police seize it from him? If they seized it from him, what did the police do with that flake of dried blood? Why didn't Essex police tell the CPS what David Boutflour had done? If the CPS knew, why didn't they disclose this information to the defence? Did the police not only seize this crucial flake of dried blood, but did they submit the flake to the Lab' so that it could be analysed? Was this flake exhibit DB/1 (23) that was sent or taken to the lab' on 30th August 1985, a flake of dried blood scraped off the first silencer (22)? Everything points to this being the case, the flake which young Boutflour had scraped from the outside of the first silencer (22) was at the lab' in time for it to analysed from the 12th September 1985, in fact, a total of 4 blood groups were obtained during tests carried out on a solution made of the flake, on 12th, 13th, 18th, and the 19th September 1985. Identifying what David Boutflour did officially with that flake of dried blood, who took possession of it, where it was provisionally stored, when was it submitted to the lab', who took it there, and who examined it, and what results were obtained once it was analysed, remain at the heart of the matter - I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the blood group activity which has been identified as belonging exclusively to Sheila Caffell, supposedly found on the baffle plates inside 'the' silencer, DRB/1 (22), was in fact the same flake of dried blood which young Boutflour had scraped from the outside of the silencer! A fact known about by all the parties concerned, except the defence. Steps should be taken to discover what happened to the Boutflour flake?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 01:25:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...