Did Peter Eaton Return a Gun Back To WHF on 9th Aug 1985?

[lookout]

That poor Bamber family,including Jeremy, had been used by everyone they came into contact with,particularly the relatives,,whose squabbles amongst themselves prior to the murders,were obvious when one of them punched Neville,an old man then,,,and anyone who can physically abuse an elderly person,,,,,,,,,,can do anything.!

[mike tesko]

According to the contents of a witness statement made to Essex police by Anthony Pargeter, a farm worker borrowed a shotgun several years previously, but he could not say who the farm worker was...

Once shootings at whf took place, Peter Eaton returned one of the borrowed guns with a view of trying to cover up for the fact that relatives and farm workers had been borrowing guns from eachother illegally...

A friend of the relatives also handed two guns over to the police aftrr the shootings, but he refused to name the two people who had given them to him, but relatives are suspected of being those persons...

[Caroline R]

Oh I don't believe it's true, it's all based on a cryptic line of hand written text which probably means something completely different.

Cryptic? It's quite clearly stated! Had the 'cryptic' line involved JB doing something suspicious, I'm sure it wouldn't be dismissed so readily  .  I am sure I have read that the keys were given back on 9th not the 10th but I will have to look for the source later. Also Ann Eaton's statement regards 10th Aug is completely different to the account given by David Boutflour - in his statement there is absolutely no mention of Robert Boutflour being present when the silencer was found (nor at any point during the search of WHF on 10th) and given how RB gave quite a 'detailed' account of his presence on the day - I find it strange that David Boutflour doesn't even mention him only Ann and the solicitor??

[Caroline R]

I knew I'd read it somewhere!! The keys were handed back on the 9th, not the 10th!

[Patti]

Friday which was the 9th....Roch posted a calender in the archives.

Did they go back then after they had the keys to return the gun? 

[Caroline R]

Friday which was the 9th....Roch posted a calender in the archives.

Did they go back then after they had the keys to return the gun? 

Dunno but maybe they already had it with them - either way, wonder why if they planned to remove the guns the following day?

[Patti]

Dunno but maybe they already had it with them - either way, wonder why if they planned to remove the guns the following day?

I'm sure I have read that the keys were retuned on the 10th though......Strange! I went to bed thinking about this last night, this is why I had a quick look this morning before I went to work...I had remembered that Roch had put a calender in the archives....

[Caroline R]

I'm sure I have read that the keys were retuned on the 10th though......Strange! I went to bed thinking about this last night, this is why I had a quick look this morning before I went to work...I had remembered that Roch had put a calender in the archives....

Well, that's two statements that say 9th and that's what I have understood happened. However, there is very little continuity in the relatives statements so I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere it's also quoted as 10th. I believe it was 9th! 

[-Harters-]

Cryptic? It's quite clearly stated! Had the 'cryptic' line involved JB doing something suspicious, I'm sure it wouldn't be dismissed so readily  .

What is quite clearly stated?

Peter returned a gun to WHF? Or he returned a gun in WHF to it's proper place? Or he returned the plastic toy gun in the lounge back to the toy box? Or something else?

It couldn't be more cryptic if it tried. 

I think the tone of your posts is slipping back in to your old style. Maybe you need to consider who exactly is dismissing alternatives so readily? (Just an observation) 

[Caroline R]

What is quite clearly stated?

Peter returned a gun to WHF? Or he returned a gun in WHF to it's proper place? Or he returned the plastic toy gun in the lounge back to the toy box? Or something else?

It couldn't be more cryptic if it tried. 

I think the tone of your posts is slipping back in to your old style. Maybe you need to consider who exactly is dismissing alternatives so readily? (Just an observation) 

Old style? LOL I have only one style, I haven't changed it nor do I intend to - My advice is to 'don't shoot the messenger' AND I'm dismissing nothing - that was you!

"Oh I don't believe it's true, it's all based on a cryptic line of hand written text which probably means something completely different"

[Lugg]

Old style? LOL I have only one style, I haven't changed it nor do I intend to - My advice is to 'don't shoot the messenger' AND I'm dismissing nothing - that was you!

"Oh I don't believe it's true, it's all based on a cryptic line of hand written text which probably means something completely different"

I opt for the toy gun option myself.

[-Harters-]

I opt for the toy gun option myself.

The fact that Mike hasn't rammed this down our throats and started accusing Peter of planting 'the' sound moderator, yet he has put forward far more absurd theories, leads me to believe that there is nothing untowards here, certainly there is no substance in that one line of 'cryptic' text alone.

[Jane]

What is quite clearly stated?

Peter returned a gun to WHF? Or he returned a gun in WHF to it's proper place? Or he returned the plastic toy gun in the lounge back to the toy box? Or something else?

It couldn't be more cryptic if it tried. 

I think the tone of your posts is slipping back in to your old style. Maybe you need to consider who exactly is dismissing alternatives so readily? (Just an observation) 

"......Peter had been back previously (the night before, put a gun back.......")

Given the alternatives of him remembering that "someone" had left "a" gun at position A  when it should have been placed at position B, OR by psychic process he saw that a toy gun belonging to the boys had been left out of its box and made a special journey to rectify it, I really can't believe that he went to WHF "previously" for any other purpose than to return a gun.........and Caroline is perfectly correct when she points out that wherever written crypticity(!) is found regarding Jeremy, it wouldn't be dismissed in the way you seem to be trying to do here.

[-Harters-]

"......Peter had been back previously (the night before, put a gun back.......")

Given the alternatives of him remembering that "someone" had left "a" gun at position A  when it should have been placed at position B, OR by psychic process he saw that a toy gun belonging to the boys had been left out of its box and made a special journey to rectify it, I really can't believe that he went to WHF "previously" for any other purpose than to return a gun.........and Caroline is perfectly correct when she points out that wherever written crypticity(!) is found regarding Jeremy, it wouldn't be dismissed in the way you seem to be trying to do here.

That's just the thing though April, I'm not trying to dismiss it, I'm simply saying it does not equate to what is being claimed. There is no indication the 'put gun back' refers to the purpose of visiting WHF, it does not say he went back to put a gun back.

I think Caroline is perfectly incorrect in suggesting that I wouldn't dismiss it if it reflected badly on Jeremy, there is nothing to indicate anything untowards, against anybody. If people want to gather like lemmings and swallow each and every claim made by the likes of Mike on this amount of information alone, then feel free, but at least see it for what it is.

[Jane]

That's just the thing though April, I'm not trying to dismiss it, I'm simply saying it does not equate to what is being claimed. There is no indication the 'put gun back' refers to the purpose of visiting WHF, it does not say he went back to put a gun back.

I think Caroline is perfectly incorrect in suggesting that I wouldn't dismiss it if it reflected badly on Jeremy, there is nothing to indicate anything untowards, against anybody. If people want to gather like lemmings and swallow each and every claim made by the likes of Mike on this amount of information alone, then feel free, but at least see it for what it is.

Jam, I do understand what the sentence means. The comma explains that rather than going to WHF to take a gun back, he PUT a gun back whilst he was there. But does that not strike you as being a curious aside, as in, why would it be necessary to say it at all. It might have been "straightened a rug" or "put away a cup" One has to ask why he went there the previous evening, if he didn't go there specifically to put a gun back.

You can probably guess that I don't all into your lemming catagory. I have infinite respect for what Mike is doing, he throws some interesting theories into the mix but it doesn't mean I agree with everything he, or anybody else says, without consideration. The greatest difference I can find between the two factions is that those of us who are pro Jeremy don't see him as any kind of saint. He frequently presents himself as somebody that I would choose to have nothing to do with, but the way we present ourselves to others isn't necessarily who we are and which of us at times, has not tried to impress others, stretching the truth and letting our mouths run away with us in order to do so. However, those who are pro family would have us believe that the entire group of the wider family are the personification of all that is pure and good. That none of them has ever had a devious or underhand thought. That they have never once thought about what they would gain from Jeremy's conviction, or lose if he found innocent. This simply isn't true. We humans are bound by the same psychology whether we're toddlers trying to take a coveted toy from another toddler, a schoolchild swapping tatty trainers for somone elses better ones, an adult defaming the character of a fellow job applicant................or relatives for whom it becomes possible to increase their wealth, but for one family member.