Peter Eaton - was a Gun Dealor

[mike tesko]

Peter Eaton - was a Gun Dealor

This is confirmed in a witness statement made by Ann Eaton to COLP in 1991...

[Elizabeth]

So this has been confirmed! Another highly interesting piece of information, in my opinion. The plot thickens...

[mike tesko]

So this has been confirmed! Another highly interesting piece of information, in my opinion. The plot thickens...

... It gives an insight into why the relatives may have been so keen to introduce the silencer evidence, since they would have known the significance of blood found in the silencer, and how the presentation of such evidence, could help to convict Jeremy...

[TheBrilliantMistake]

So this has been confirmed! Another highly interesting piece of information, in my opinion. The plot thickens...

... It gives an insight into why the relatives may have been so keen to introduce the silencer evidence, since they would have known the significance of blood found in the silencer, and how the presentation of such evidence, could help to convict Jeremy...

It's one hell of a gamble that the police wouldn't be able to match a bullet to the silencer to prove/disprove it was used.
But, if you were going to take that gamble, the knowledge of guns would help, that's for sure.
As for him being a dealer? I'm not sure it would make much difference, but having a very good knowledge of guns from whatever source would be beneficial.

I'm no expert in guns, but I am sure I'd be worried about how much the Police MIGHT be able to tell about the gun used and if they could show the bullets came from the Anschütz, and through the silencer/moderator. One heck of a gamble for Jeremy too, even if he'd destroyed the silencer, he'd have to KNOW the police couldn't tell or he didn't even consider that factor, or he chose to risk it anyway.

[bob]

So this has been confirmed! Another highly interesting piece of information, in my opinion. The plot thickens...

Confirmed in what sense? This thread doesn't contain any evidence at all.

[Elizabeth]

You are correct when you say this thread doesn't contain any evidence, but Mike says that it has been confirmed and i see no reason why he would say this, if he wasn't in possession of that information. I also assume that he will be be posting the witness statement that he talks about in due course.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

You are correct when you say this thread doesn't contain any evidence, but Mike says that it has been confirmed and i see no reason why he would say this, if he wasn't in possession of that information. I also assume that he will be be posting the witness statement that he talks about in due course.

In all fairness, and with zero intentional disrespect to Mike. Mike has a habit of labeling many things as 'proof' when it's not (in my eyes and many others). In some cases, I don't think it's meant to sound like 'Proof absolute' just his turn of phrase, but still, it often sounds like some startling revelation that turns out to be just an alternative point of view (usually valid, if at the less likely end of the probability spectrum).

I truly don't want to sound anti Mike (but Mike's a huge a source of the information here, and so is bound to be the brunt of it)... just because Mike says so does not make it so. Just because I so, doesn't make it so etc etc. We just can't operate this way. I think in my heart of hearts Mike would subscribe to that too.

This is the hardest part of the forum, HAVING to question Mike's say so without it being a dig at Mike. It's the same system for us all though. If I were Mike, and I could see additional evidence that the rest of us can't I'd be very frustrated, since I'd "know" what I've seen, but I'd also know "I can't prove it".

Talk about torture!!! :-)

[Kaldin]

You are correct when you say this thread doesn't contain any evidence, but Mike says that it has been confirmed and i see no reason why he would say this, if he wasn't in possession of that information. I also assume that he will be be posting the witness statement that he talks about in due course.

In all fairness, and with zero intentional disrespect to Mike. Mike has a habit of labeling many things as 'proof' when it's not (in my eyes and many others). In some cases, I don't think it's meant to sound like 'Proof absolute' just his turn of phrase, but still, it often sounds like some startling revelation that turns out to be just an alternative point of view (usually valid, if at the less likely end of the probability spectrum).

I truly don't want to sound anti Mike (but Mike's a huge a source of the information here, and so is bound to be the brunt of it)... just because Mike says so does not make it so. Just because I so, doesn't make it so etc etc. We just can't operate this way. I think in my heart of hearts Mike would subscribe to that too.

This is the hardest part of the forum, HAVING to question Mike's say so without it being a dig at Mike. It's the same system for us all though. If I were Mike, and I could see additional evidence that the rest of us can't I'd be very frustrated, since I'd "know" what I've seen, but I'd also know "I can't prove it".

Talk about torture!!! :-)

I totally agree with you. I do question Mike a lot and I challenge his claims a lot because I see that he has a habit of stating something as a fact when it's not. I think he does get irritated with me about that but it has to be done. 

[mike tesko]

"There may be many variations of the truth, each one capable of belief"...

In a perfect world, your truth, would be my truth, and my truth would be your truth, and his truth would be her truth, and her truth would be his truth, but in the real world, proof, and truth, and what is or can be termed as evidence, may mean different things to each and everyone of us...

"There may be many variations of the truth, each one capable of belief"...

[lebaleb]

Ann Eaton states catagorically that PE was a gun dealer. She should know.