Why would Bamber say this in 2003?

[mike tesko]

I remember the last ‘discussion’ well and these were your ‘explanations’ last time. Where is the explanation about the shot gun being put back in the gun cupboard? These appear to your opinions and yet today your answer was quite specific??
“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)  ”

“Lol, no, I'm not sticking to any theory, it may well be the case that your suggestion is spot on, I really don't know but I think it's unlikely for all the reasons that I've already given. My argument wasn't about what happened, it was about using the document posted in this thread as proof that it happened, where as it is not proof at all. A discussion point, sure, but nothing more without further information to support the theory one way or the other.”

Identify the gun Peter Eaton put back at the scene of this multiple murder scene - I am not asking for much

[mike tesko]

Identify the gun Peter Eaton put back at the scene of this multiple murder scene - I am not asking for much

Rather than sneak the gun in question back to the scene after police scarpered,why not simply hand the gun in question back to the police directly?

[-Harters-]

I remember the last ‘discussion’ well and these were your ‘explanations’ last time. Where is the explanation about the shot gun being put back in the gun cupboard? These appear to your opinions and yet today your answer was quite specific??


“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)  ”

“Lol, no, I'm not sticking to any theory, it may well be the case that your suggestion is spot on, I really don't know but I think it's unlikely for all the reasons that I've already given. My argument wasn't about what happened, it was about using the document posted in this thread as proof that it happened, where as it is not proof at all. A discussion point, sure, but nothing more without further information to support the theory one way or the other.”

Yes very specific.

[Caroline R]

Yes very specific.

Is this your opinion or did you ask Peter Eaton?

[-Harters-]

Is anybody a bit miffed why Mike would lie about this, it seems he knew the truth all along, so why did he try to mislead people into thinking something else?

One can only imagine, I'm sure you will all forgive him and continue to hang on his every word. 

[-Harters-]

Silence in the trenches lol. 

[vidvic]

....too busy character assassinating Ann now on another thread....lol

[Lugg]

It may seem that Ann Eaton's statement about Peter putting a gun back is a bit ambiguous and can be taken both ways. If she meant that Peter went to WHF to put a gun back in the cupboard then why didn't she say this? But she doesn't. She states that Peter had gone back previously to put a gun back. This sounds at first glance as if he went back to WHF on the previous day to put a gun gun back there. But on the other hand she uses the word "put" and not the word "take". If she had meant that Peter went to WHF to take a gun back then she probably would have written that. But she doesn't. She specifically uses the word "put". And now that Hartley has clarified the matter I should think that because she uses the the words "put a gun back", Then it sounds logical that he went to WHF to put a gun back in its proper place ie the gun cupboard?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3335.0.html

[Caroline R]

Silence in the trenches lol. 

I asked you a question 2 days ago about whether you had asked PE or if it was your opinion - you chose not to answer. I accept Ann's testimony now that I have read it for myself however, regardless of what YOU think, I don't accept anything that anyone says (which includes Mike and you) unless there is something to back it up. If you knew there was evidence, why didn't you say so? Why should people take you at face value?

[Caroline R]

Is anybody a bit miffed why Mike would lie about this, it seems he knew the truth all along, so why did he try to mislead people into thinking something else?

One can only imagine, I'm sure you will all forgive him and continue to hang on his every word. 

Actually yes! I am a bit pissed off but you also had the ability to clear up the point by stating where the information could be found. I didn't come here for Mike's truth or yours but Mike runs a forum and has to try and keep debate going - he does that very well.

[-Harters-]

I asked you a question 2 days ago about whether you had asked PE or if it was your opinion - you chose not to answer. I accept Ann's testimony now that I have read it for myself however, regardless of what YOU think, I don't accept anything that anyone says (which includes Mike and you) unless there is something to back it up. If you knew there was evidence, why didn't you say so? Why should people take you at face value?

Are you not concerned that Mike said one thing, then after being caught out he changed his story?

As he doesn't have any evidence for any of his theories, but a long history of being less than honest and of being very deceptive, then I'd expect people to be extra cautious when considering his next story, right?

There are only so many times you can cry wolf.

My information came from my secret agent informer by the way. 

[Caroline R]

Are you not concerned that Mike said one thing, then after being caught out he changed his story?

As he doesn't have any evidence for any of his theories, but a long history of being less than honest and of being very deceptive, then I'd expect people to be extra cautious when considering his next story, right?

There are only so many times you can cry wolf.

My information came from my secret agent informer by the way. 

I have 'just' answered this point elsewhere.

[Reader]

I can't even READ what I said because the link won't work :D

The link wasn't specific, but this link should work and take you straight to your post if you allow enough time for the page to load fully.

[Jane]

The link wasn't specific, but this link should work and take you straight to your post if you allow enough time for the page to load fully.

Reader, how kind. Thank you SO much for the link. I was beginning to doubt my sanity until I saw that Yeltrah had only quoted my words, not the reason I said them. I now stand by what I said. I think it odd that those four words were thrown in. Was there a "need to know." Who needed to know. Was it for future reference. In the grand scheme of things, why was the putting back of a gun so important.

[mike tesko]

Reader, how kind. Thank you SO much for the link. I was beginning to doubt my sanity until I saw that Yeltrah had only quoted my words, not the reason I said them. I now stand by what I said. I think it odd that those four words were thrown in. Was there a "need to know." Who needed to know. Was it for future reference. In the grand scheme of things, why was the putting back of a gun so important.

I believe I Know the answer to this matter - I had sone information passed onto me awhile back by someone who wishes to remain anonymous...