The handwritten notes of Miss Marples (Ann Eaton) - read them here for yourself

[smiffy]

Lets crank things up a little....One of Ann Eatons notes in which its clear she is listing questions she seems to want to ask the police etc...there are 2 of these lists.

Now before going further, especially with this one...., we need to consider if it is a genuine made at the time note, or a fake meant to deceive.

If a fake it may have 2 purposes....1/ If Ann and others were responsible for the killings at whf it may be a clever construct created to show "ignorance" of what happened by asking questions rightly or wrongly.
2/ It was fabricated to incriminate JB in order to aid in getting him convicted.
In my view option 2 is certainly not served by the note involved.
In my view I think option 1 is possible but am far more convinced that the note is a genuine note madein the days immediately after the incident at whf.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So working on it being a genuine note... lets kick off with when it could have been made..

the question ...was the site(sic) on the gun?.......well this was answered by the police when Ann and others asked the police (DI Jones and DS Jones and maybe others) questions on the morning of the 9th of august. Therefore by the simplest of logic...such a question must have been written prior to that meeting....so the note had to have been written on either the 7th or 8th august.

As the sights and silencer and other gun info was unknown to Ann etc prior to the murders it seems Pargetter's arrival and stay over on the night of the 8th /9th august would supply info that a silencer and sight was on the gun when he visited whf in the last weekend of July. So pargetter seems to have spoken with Ann and others about the gun .

Ann poses the question .....were they low or high velocity bullets?

NOW THIS IS VERY INTERESTING.
Pargetter is why....

In evidence he claims to have been in the gun cupboard etc on his visit...admired and checked out the rifle ...would obviously to him, have sussed the 10 shot magazine  and seen the supply of ammunition Ralph had bought etc and be in no mistake that it was low velocity hollow points as expected for shooting rabbits.  Pargetter also knew the type of interest Ralph and JB had in firearms and they were not interested in target shooting as such. Pargetter could easily tell from his delving in the boxes that the Bamber .22 ammunition was all the same type of  packaging and all low velocity hollow point.

So if Pargetter had really removed his .22 rifle and associated stuff like all his own ammuntion , then he would be able to tell Ann that it must have been low velocity bullets used in the shootings as that would have been the only available ammunition present. But as the quesion is asked and the gun details as to what or what was not fitted to the rifle come from Pargetter so info about low or high velocity ammunition possibilities must also have come from Pargetter. This being because he used both types of ammunition and kept both types at whf along with his .22 rifle, sight and silencer and magazines.

nb...in his COLP interview when asked about his .22  ammunition Pargetter supplied fictional details in regards to the type he claimed to have...he invented a new "type" that has never existed...so obviously his refusal to answer what ammunition he really had is important enough for him to lie about. His gun interests fit with him using both high and low velocity type bullets.

SO GOING BY THE QUESTION ON ANN EATONS NOTES IT CAN BE STATED THAT IT IS FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT PARGETTERS RIFLE AND SILENCER AND AMMUNITION WAS AT WHF AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT

[smiffy]

SPILT MILK AND SUGAR.

Where or who did Ann get this from before the morning of the 9th of august?

It seems to be an unlikely thing to have appeared in press reports so such a source seems ot be ruled out, unless anyone can prove differently.

If known directly it may be from her own  involvement or the involvement of others working with her in the incident at whf.

PC Robert Carr...the met police officer who had no business poking his nose in...possibly.

An EP officer ..most likely Mick Clarke or Stan Jones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spilt milk and sugar suggests someone may have been making drinks in the kitchen. The placement of the kettle and a mug seem to support this idea.
So if trying to sell the story of 4 murders and a suicide in the early days the story of spilt milk and sugar suggests the start of the shootings occurred in the kitchen between persons present..ie Sheila and Ralph.

Whether is was true or not...this information (or misinformation) seems to have made its way to the nosey Ann within the first day or so.

[smiffy]

lets look at some of Ann's early questions.

While she questions whether Ralph and/or Sheila received cuts she does not enquire this of June. One can presume therefore this tells us something about what Ann really honestly thinks and not later lies meant to mislead. That she doesnt ask about cuts on June but also enquires if June was praying exposes that in her mind Ann thought June to be religiously obsessed and also unlikely to resist if attacked.  In regards to Ralph and Sheila she anticipates both as being likely to fight or resist to defend themselves or to engage in the use of force as a possible attacker....arising from the cuts questions.


Ann also enquires in regards to Sheila "was Sheila in night clothes?"

This seems important to Ann and yet she does not ask the same question in regards to June or Ralph. Ann seems to presume both were in nightclothes.

Considering Ann at the time of the writing of the note (if genuine) had been informed that Sheila was found dead on the bed with a bible on her chest and a gun beside her .....then this question needs to be seen in that light...with Sheila as a killer who commits suicide being part of the equation.
One must also factor in the phone call JB claimed to have had from Ralph that Ann knew about and the time of that call.
The question about Sheila wearing night clothes offers two alternatives to that suggestion which Ann would have been thinking about...

they are;
...that Sheila could have been in day clothes...and had not gone to bed fully that night and an episode kicked off that Ralph was dealing with for many hours prior to the call to JB.....(This would tie in with persons making coffee or tea and the milk being out the fridge to be spilled).

..that Sheila was in day clothes as she had not had time to go to bed ...before JB killed her and lied about a phone call from Ralph.

..that Sheila was naked of her own volition ...possibly Ann knew of previous occasions in which Sheila had acted strange and stripped off or had other reasons to view it as being credible.

..that Sheila was naked having been ordered to strip by her killer (JB) and that he made it all up about the phone call from Ralph

..that Sheila was naked either voluntarily or upon the demands of another and it triggered a violent schizophrenic episode.

[smiffy]

in regards to the split milk and sugar which Ann seems to be taking as fact..ie it came from the horse's mouth (an EP officer)...she enquires about such as the sugar being on the clothes of the seeming participants of the attack in the kitchen...ie Ralph and Sheila.

Her reasoning being that if it was present on Ralph's clothes as expected and present on Sheila's then it must have been Sheila that was the killer. On the contrary...if sugar was present on Ralph's clothes and absent on Sheila's then it could be reasoned that Sheila was not the killer and it was someone else.
It all fell apart though when no sugar was reported to be found on either person clothes.

For that suggests if sugar was spilled in the attack then possibly the persons involved were not wearing the clothes they were allegedly found in...
OR that the sugar and milk was only spilled later post police entry and that Ann was misinformed due to ignorance or malice on the part of the police in order to cover up improper police actions.

[Buddy]

Pargeter. did not hold a firearms certificate, so could only legally use his .22 on WHF.
How ,or who bought his ammo? He could not purchase ammo for a firearm because you have to show a certificate to do this.
This being the case he must have had a dodgy supplier, or some other means to get ammo.
EP visited pargeter at his home to view his .22 rifle, yet took know action against him for unlawful possession of a firearm.

[smiffy]

Pargeter. did not hold a firearms certificate, so could only legally use his .22 on WHF.
How ,or who bought his ammo? He could not purchase ammo for a firearm because you have to show a certificate to do this.
This being the case he must have had a dodgy supplier, or some other means to get ammo.
EP visited pargeter at his home to view his .22 rifle, yet took know action against him for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Depends on whether Pargetter had a firearm at his home...which is only in his later COLP interview that he claimed to take it home. EP would only cover Essex and would not cover where Pargetter lived to act on unlawful possesion of a fireman...that would fall to the local police where he lived.

[smiffy]

On the note I am focussing on the question about whether Sheila was wearing night clothes falls after but close to the question about when Pam phoned whf.
Clearly by this time Ann knew of some details of Pam's call but not the actual time.
From this call she would be aware that Sheila was "acting up again" so it would indeed by feasible that Sheila could have had a wobbly and killed the others. If in Ann's mind a link to previous  wobbly episodes could be made with Sheila being naked then such a question and proposition that Sheila was naked at some time becomes very realistic.

If enough of the call content was then known to Ann as to Sheila possibly heading to bed it more or less rules out any day clothes type reasoning leaving the clothing options for Sheila to be either in nightclothes or naked.

[Buddy]

Pargeter. did not hold a firearms certificate, so could only legally use his .22 on WHF.
How ,or who bought his ammo? He could not purchase ammo for a firearm because you have to show a certificate to do this.
This being the case he must have had a dodgy supplier, or some other means to get ammo.
EP visited pargeter at his home to view his .22 rifle, yet took know action against him for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Depends on whether Pargetter had a firearm at his home...which is only in his later COLP interview that he claimed to take it home. EP would only cover Essex and would not cover where Pargetter lived to act on unlawful possesion of a fireman...that would fall to the local police where he lived.

Pargeter said the police visited him at his home . As regards EP only covering Essex I am sure that permission would have been requested from Bucks police to speak to Pargeter.
Whoever visited Pargeter I am certain that he would have been asked to produce a current certificate.

[smiffy]

Pargeter. did not hold a firearms certificate, so could only legally use his .22 on WHF.
How ,or who bought his ammo? He could not purchase ammo for a firearm because you have to show a certificate to do this.
This being the case he must have had a dodgy supplier, or some other means to get ammo.
EP visited pargeter at his home to view his .22 rifle, yet took know action against him for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Depends on whether Pargetter had a firearm at his home...which is only in his later COLP interview that he claimed to take it home. EP would only cover Essex and would not cover where Pargetter lived to act on unlawful possesion of a fireman...that would fall to the local police where he lived.

Pargeter said the police visited him at his home . As regards EP only covering Essex I am sure that permission would have been requested from Bucks police to speak to Pargeter.
Whoever visited Pargeter I am certain that he would have been asked to produce a current certificate.

Why...if he had no rifle there...he had no need for a certificate?
permission to speak would not give authority to charge for an unrelated offence commited elsewhere.

why would Pargetter tell of nonsense about removing the bolt and always taking it with him so it could not be fired at whf if the relevant thing was that his rifle was not at whf anyway...why did he invent ficticious ammunition that has never been made when he spoke to the COLP in 1991. In fact his bolt story does not even add up if checked over.

[ngb1066]

Pargeter. did not hold a firearms certificate, so could only legally use his .22 on WHF.
How ,or who bought his ammo? He could not purchase ammo for a firearm because you have to show a certificate to do this.
This being the case he must have had a dodgy supplier, or some other means to get ammo.
EP visited pargeter at his home to view his .22 rifle, yet took know action against him for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Depends on whether Pargetter had a firearm at his home...which is only in his later COLP interview that he claimed to take it home. EP would only cover Essex and would not cover where Pargetter lived to act on unlawful possesion of a fireman...that would fall to the local police where he lived.

Pargeter said the police visited him at his home . As regards EP only covering Essex I am sure that permission would have been requested from Bucks police to speak to Pargeter.
Whoever visited Pargeter I am certain that he would have been asked to produce a current certificate.

As I understand it Pargetter did have a Firearm Certificate which permitted him to own the Brno .22 rifle and sound moderator.  However the certificate imposed a restriction limiting the location where  the weapon could be used to WHF.  For that reason Pargeter kept the rifle and sound moderator and ammunition at WHF.  His Firearm Certificate will have permitted him to purchase a defined quantity of ammunition for the rifle.

 

[Buddy]

Pargeter. did not hold a firearms certificate, so could only legally use his .22 on WHF.
How ,or who bought his ammo? He could not purchase ammo for a firearm because you have to show a certificate to do this.
This being the case he must have had a dodgy supplier, or some other means to get ammo.
EP visited pargeter at his home to view his .22 rifle, yet took know action against him for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Depends on whether Pargetter had a firearm at his home...which is only in his later COLP interview that he claimed to take it home. EP would only cover Essex and would not cover where Pargetter lived to act on unlawful possesion of a fireman...that would fall to the local police where he lived.

Pargeter said the police visited him at his home . As regards EP only covering Essex I am sure that permission would have been requested from Bucks police to speak to Pargeter.
Whoever visited Pargeter I am certain that he would have been asked to produce a current certificate.

Why...if he had no rifle there...he had no need for a certificate?
permission to speak would not give authority to charge for an unrelated offence commited elsewhere.

why would Pargetter tell of nonsense about removing the bolt and always taking it with him so it could not be fired at whf if the relevant thing was that his rifle was not at whf anyway...why did he invent ficticious ammunition that has never been made when he spoke to the COLP in 1991. In fact his bolt story does not even add up if checked over.

Smiffy HE DID have a rifle at his home, because he stated that he got the impression the police were inspecting it for maks ect.

[smiffy]

Pargeter. did not hold a firearms certificate, so could only legally use his .22 on WHF.
How ,or who bought his ammo? He could not purchase ammo for a firearm because you have to show a certificate to do this.
This being the case he must have had a dodgy supplier, or some other means to get ammo.
EP visited pargeter at his home to view his .22 rifle, yet took know action against him for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Depends on whether Pargetter had a firearm at his home...which is only in his later COLP interview that he claimed to take it home. EP would only cover Essex and would not cover where Pargetter lived to act on unlawful possesion of a fireman...that would fall to the local police where he lived.

Pargeter said the police visited him at his home . As regards EP only covering Essex I am sure that permission would have been requested from Bucks police to speak to Pargeter.
Whoever visited Pargeter I am certain that he would have been asked to produce a current certificate.

Why...if he had no rifle there...he had no need for a certificate?
permission to speak would not give authority to charge for an unrelated offence commited elsewhere.

why would Pargetter tell of nonsense about removing the bolt and always taking it with him so it could not be fired at whf if the relevant thing was that his rifle was not at whf anyway...why did he invent ficticious ammunition that has never been made when he spoke to the COLP in 1991. In fact his bolt story does not even add up if checked over.

Smiffy HE DID have a rifle at his home, because he stated that he got the impression the police were inspecting it for maks ect.

hold on NEWBIE.....
lets make it clear...nowhere in his evidence to EP did he claim to have taken his rifle home.
It was the COLP in 1991 that looked at "his" rifle at his home...so lets get that clear ..
He also claimed to have a type of ammunition that was never made. Do you accept that he DID in fact own such ammunition because he said he DID?

Why would Ann Eaton question whether low or high velocity bullets were used unless they were present and she had information that they were present. Pargetter should have been able to tell her that the Bambers only had low velocity hollow points but yes, that he had his rifle , silencer (old) and ammunition at whf and that included both low and high velocity types which the killer could have used...
hence her question about the matter which she wished to ask the police about.

[smiffy]

Let's see about another question that arose on Ann Eaton's list before the morning of 9th august.

"was nevill shot upstairs first"

In the early days with the info she had to hand..very limited..she had no reason to really suspect Ralph was shot first upstairs. (the balance of evidence suggests he was not....the buller cases claimed to be found there are likely to be part of the misdirection).

The shot upstairs first relies on more than one shot being fired at him. This she would not have been told directly in the early days and would be by implication from being told he was "BADLY SHOT"...ie more then one bullet..probably many.

However the milk and sugar stories and the knowledge of him being found in the kitchen suggests an attack in the kitchen (even without the phone call from JB being counted) and nothing in the bedroom.

Well that is as it seems...except for one possible other reason to think Ralph could have been shot upstairs first....and that would be if she heard about JB and the 2 police officers reports of someone moving about in the bedroom when they first arrived at the scene. If indeed Ann had heard of this then it follows she could think that person was Ralph and hence her question.

[Buddy]

Pargeter. did not hold a firearms certificate, so could only legally use his .22 on WHF.
How ,or who bought his ammo? He could not purchase ammo for a firearm because you have to show a certificate to do this.
This being the case he must have had a dodgy supplier, or some other means to get ammo.
EP visited pargeter at his home to view his .22 rifle, yet took know action against him for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Depends on whether Pargetter had a firearm at his home...which is only in his later COLP interview that he claimed to take it home. EP would only cover Essex and would not cover where Pargetter lived to act on unlawful possesion of a fireman...that would fall to the local police where he lived.

Pargeter said the police visited him at his home . As regards EP only covering Essex I am sure that permission would have been requested from Bucks police to speak to Pargeter.
Whoever visited Pargeter I am certain that he would have been asked to produce a current certificate.

Why...if he had no rifle there...he had no need for a certificate?
permission to speak would not give authority to charge for an unrelated offence commited elsewhere.

why would Pargetter tell of nonsense about removing the bolt and always taking it with him so it could not be fired at whf if the relevant thing was that his rifle was not at whf anyway...why did he invent ficticious ammunition that has never been made when he spoke to the COLP in 1991. In fact his bolt story does not even add up if checked over.

Smiffy HE DID have a rifle at his home, because he stated that he got the impression the police were inspecting it for maks ect.

hold on NEWBIE.....
lets make it clear...nowhere in his evidence to EP did he claim to have taken his rifle home.
It was the COLP in 1991 that looked at "his" rifle at his home...so lets get that clear ..
He also claimed to have a type of ammunition that was never made. Do you accept that he DID in fact own such ammunition because he said he DID?

Why would Ann Eaton question whether low or high velocity bullets were used unless they were present and she had information that they were present. Pargetter should have been able to tell her that the Bambers only had low velocity hollow points but yes, that he had his rifle , silencer (old) and ammunition at whf and that included both low and high velocity types which the killer could have used...
hence her question about the matter which she wished to ask the police about.

I have been asked if my rifle has ever been examined by the police The answer is yes in that when Essex Police were at my home taking one of the earlier statements from me we somehow ended up using my rifle with the silencer asttached, ect, ect

[smiffy]

Pargeter. did not hold a firearms certificate, so could only legally use his .22 on WHF.
How ,or who bought his ammo? He could not purchase ammo for a firearm because you have to show a certificate to do this.
This being the case he must have had a dodgy supplier, or some other means to get ammo.
EP visited pargeter at his home to view his .22 rifle, yet took know action against him for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Depends on whether Pargetter had a firearm at his home...which is only in his later COLP interview that he claimed to take it home. EP would only cover Essex and would not cover where Pargetter lived to act on unlawful possesion of a fireman...that would fall to the local police where he lived.

Pargeter said the police visited him at his home . As regards EP only covering Essex I am sure that permission would have been requested from Bucks police to speak to Pargeter.
Whoever visited Pargeter I am certain that he would have been asked to produce a current certificate.

Why...if he had no rifle there...he had no need for a certificate?
permission to speak would not give authority to charge for an unrelated offence commited elsewhere.

why would Pargetter tell of nonsense about removing the bolt and always taking it with him so it could not be fired at whf if the relevant thing was that his rifle was not at whf anyway...why did he invent ficticious ammunition that has never been made when he spoke to the COLP in 1991. In fact his bolt story does not even add up if checked over.

Smiffy HE DID have a rifle at his home, because he stated that he got the impression the police were inspecting it for maks ect.

hold on NEWBIE.....
lets make it clear...nowhere in his evidence to EP did he claim to have taken his rifle home.
It was the COLP in 1991 that looked at "his" rifle at his home...so lets get that clear ..
He also claimed to have a type of ammunition that was never made. Do you accept that he DID in fact own such ammunition because he said he DID?

Why would Ann Eaton question whether low or high velocity bullets were used unless they were present and she had information that they were present. Pargetter should have been able to tell her that the Bambers only had low velocity hollow points but yes, that he had his rifle , silencer (old) and ammunition at whf and that included both low and high velocity types which the killer could have used...
hence her question about the matter which she wished to ask the police about.

I have been asked if my rifle has ever been examined by the police The answer is yes in that when Essex Police were at my home taking one of the earlier statements from me we somehow ended up using my rifle with the silencer asttached, ect, ect

So in using the COLP statements lets seen if what he said about his rifle makes sense....
He says one of his earlier statements...
well he made 6 statements altogther
as follows...8th august
..................10th september (that is the date given though it seems likely it may be false or content altered later)
..................17th october
..................17th november
..................12th december...cobbled together by prosecution editing (to remove conflicts etc)
..................18th december

Well we know he cant be talking of the 8th august as he was not at home then , being at the Eatons.

so really it only leaves the 10th september and 17th october statements... and remember he uses the word "they" and officers in plural...to take a statement...and his claims are ODD .

We need to look into whether 2 officers or more ever went to take statements and examine his rifle as he claims....a gun cupboard...really...but he had no licence for at home so no need for one...

So he didnt habitually keep his rifle at whf ...but yet he says conflictingly...he always removed the bolt when he left it at whf so no one could use it in his absence...and his previous visit to whf prior to late july 85 was in december 1984...tut tut.-

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

in his statements to EP he mentions seeing boxes of german ammunition..the Bamber ammunition...so thus he knew what it was to tell AE before she wrote the note written before the 9th august

also he states about the 10th august (date changed call from DB ) about so called find of silencer....that DB asks him if he (Pargetter) had ever seen the silencer before?  However as Pargetter, Ann and David all conversed to create the notes containing questions to ask the police on the 9th august then Pargetter had  already informed then  about the sight and the silencer and that he had seen them..
So what Pargetter says about the so called 10th august phone call has to be wrong as David had no need to ask Pargetter if he had ever seen the silencer as David would have already known he had.

liars screw things up well dont they...cant get their false stories straight.