The Pargeter rifle

[nugnug]

so hes bascialy saying he moved becouse he suspected someone else had been using it.

but then he saying he always took the bolt so it couldn't be used.

[lookout]

 Pretty contradictory,,much the same as quite a few of the statements. Nothing new there.

[nugnug]

just likes saying my riffle wasn't at the murder scene but i took the bolt out so it couldn't of been fired if it was.

[Jan]

so hes bascialy saying he moved becouse he suspected someone else had been using it.

but then he saying he always took the bolt so it couldn't be used.

I think there is another statement in between - I will have a look to see if he gives a third version of where he "normally" kept his rifle.

[nugnug]

if he really had taken the bolt out then really he no reason to worry about leaving it there.

[Jan]

I can not see in any of his statements before the trial that he mentions  taking his rifle away from the farm the weekend before. has anyone actually seen his trial evidence?

that's why I could not understand why he won that libel case - according to his statements before the trial - he never mentioned taking the rifle away - he confirmed he normally kept it at WHF - so I don't see why the newspaper were so far out ? I agree they can not prove it was used in the shooting  - but say it was why would that matter to AP?

the worse that could have happened that he could have broken the law under the terms of his licence about where the gun was kept. So WHY was it so important to show that his gun was not there?

[nugnug]

he seems desprate to prove it wasn't there that hes contradicting himself all the time.

and the sunday sport was hardly a serious newspaper anyway so why did he feel the need to sue them.

[Jan]

he seems to prove it wasn't there that hes contradicting himself all the time.

and the sunday sport was hardly a serious newspaper anyway so why did he feel the need to sue them.

link to testimony - still can not see anything saying he had removed it

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4062.msg167671.html#msg167671

[lookout]

I can not see in any of his statements before the trial that he mentions  taking his rifle away from the farm the weekend before. has anyone actually seen his trial evidence?

that's why I could not understand why he won that libel case - according to his statements before the trial - he never mentioned taking the rifle away - he confirmed he normally kept it at WHF - so I don't see why the newspaper were so far out ? I agree they can not prove it was used in the shooting  - but say it was why would that matter to AP?

the worse that could have happened that he could have broken the law under the terms of his licence about where the gun was kept. So WHY was it so important to show that his gun was not there?

So he wouldn't be implicated ?

[Jan]

So he wouldn't be implicated ?

why would he be implicated when he lived in bourne end which is miles away? - and he was not at the farm.

I can not see why it would matter to him whether two guns were used ?

like I said the only consequence to him would be about the licence conditions.

Another point is though he did say he handled Jeremys rifle so his prints should have been on there.


this is from JB website

Anthony becomes more explicit in his later 12th of December statement by saying that that he did own a BRNO .22 bolt action rifle and says that it was at White House Farm the weekend before the tragedies. He does not state that he took the rifle away from the farm when he left and as he did not attend the farm again until after the incident we can assume that the rifle was at the White House Farm during the tragedies. He also makes no mention that he owned a sound moderator, or that the rifle had one to use with it at the farm.

At trial he then details verbally again that the rifle was at the farm the weekend before the tragedies, and he also told the court that he left his rifle at the farm, and I quote “I take the bolt with me. I leave the rifle at White House”. [5]  Anthony makes no mention of his sound moderator at this point.

In 1991 after complaints by Jeremy Bamber, the City of London Police seized Pargeter’s rifle and moderator. There are three points at issue here:

Annthony Pargeter’s gun was licensed in 1980 for three years, and renewed in 1983, it was to be used at White House Farm, but the license stipulated that it was to be kept at his home in Bourne End, Bucks, he was also issued with a sound moderator for use with the rifle at White House Farm.  [6]

So, we have established that Anthony did keep his rifle at the farm which was in breach of his license. Secondly that he owned a sound moderator which was also under the same license terms as the rifle.

Anthony Pargeter sued the Sport Newspaper in 1991 after they had misled readers by suggesting that his rifle had been at White Hosue Farm and possibly used during the tragedies.  The Sport lost the libel case and Pargeter was awarded compensation of £40,000 plus costs of £60,000. [7]

[nugnug]

so lets me get this right he said nothing about removing the rifell from the scene a week before the shootings untill he decided to sue the sport.

[scipio_usmc]

why would he be implicated when he lived in bourne end which is miles away? - and he was not at the farm.

I can not see why it would matter to him whether two guns were used ?

like I said the only consequence to him would be about the licence conditions.

Another point is though he did say he handled Jeremys rifle so his prints should have been on there.


this is from JB website

Anthony becomes more explicit in his later 12th of December statement by saying that that he did own a BRNO .22 bolt action rifle and says that it was at White House Farm the weekend before the tragedies. He does not state that he took the rifle away from the farm when he left and as he did not attend the farm again until after the incident we can assume that the rifle was at the White House Farm during the tragedies. He also makes no mention that he owned a sound moderator, or that the rifle had one to use with it at the farm.

At trial he then details verbally again that the rifle was at the farm the weekend before the tragedies, and he also told the court that he left his rifle at the farm, and I quote “I take the bolt with me. I leave the rifle at White House”. [5]  Anthony makes no mention of his sound moderator at this point.

In 1991 after complaints by Jeremy Bamber, the City of London Police seized Pargeter’s rifle and moderator. There are three points at issue here:

Annthony Pargeter’s gun was licensed in 1980 for three years, and renewed in 1983, it was to be used at White House Farm, but the license stipulated that it was to be kept at his home in Bourne End, Bucks, he was also issued with a sound moderator for use with the rifle at White House Farm.  [6]

So, we have established that Anthony did keep his rifle at the farm which was in breach of his license. Secondly that he owned a sound moderator which was also under the same license terms as the rifle.

Anthony Pargeter sued the Sport Newspaper in 1991 after they had misled readers by suggesting that his rifle had been at White Hosue Farm and possibly used during the tragedies.  The Sport lost the libel case and Pargeter was awarded compensation of £40,000 plus costs of £60,000. [7]

This is wrong. AP clearly stated he visited WHF a week before the murders.

He stated he left his weapons there but removed the bolt. He didn't provide a detailed distiction between his weapons.

In 1991 he was asked to provide more detail and he explained how he always left his shotguns there but only left his rifle there for a period of 6 months.  During this time he had the bolt with him.  Be bought a scope and other accessories for the gun which he brought with him to WHF to fit them to his weapon and took it home with him when he left. He left his shotguns there still though.

The paper ignored that he stated during the 6 month period it was there that he took the bolt and also ignored that he stated he took the entire weapon and suggested the gun was there during the murders and used. 

There is no evidence the gun was there and based on his claims he took the bolt home with him when it was there even if he had left the gun it still could not have been used.  There was no evidence to contradict any of his claims the newspaper simply printed a story with a reckless diseregard for the truth. 

If they quoted someone else claiming such then the person they quoted would be on the hook for defamation instead of the newspaper.  But journalists invented the claim on their own so the paper was on the hook.




 

[Jan]

This is wrong. AP clearly stated he visited WHF a week before the murders.

He stated he left his weapons there but removed the bolt. He didn't provide a detailed distiction between his weapons.

In 1991 he was asked to provide more detail and he explained how he always left his shotguns there but only left his rifle there for a period of 6 months.  During this time he had the bolt with him.  Be bought a scope and other accessories for the gun which he brought with him to WHF to fit them to his weapon and took it home with him when he left. He left his shotguns there still though.

The paper ignored that he stated during the 6 month period it was there that he took the bolt and also ignored that he stated he took the entire weapon and suggested the gun was there during the murders and used. 

There is no evidence the gun was there and based on his claims he took the bolt home with him when it was there even if he had left the gun it still could not have been used.  There was no evidence to contradict any of his claims the newspaper simply printed a story with a reckless diseregard for the truth. 

If they quoted someone else claiming such then the person they quoted would be on the hook for defamation instead of the newspaper.  But journalists invented the claim on their own so the paper was on the hook.

I understand what you are saying but from his statements there is contradictory statements - I used to leave my gun at WHF  and no mention of removing it - and then in 1991 I did not used to leave my gun at WHF - so how do we know he is telling the truth about removing the bolt? Also my question is why was it worth so much compensation  ( trust me for the UK at that time ) it was a lot of money just to retract that the gun was in the house and possibly used.

Why did he not mention removing the rifle until 1991 ?- because we could quite fairly assume that his rifle was on the property. If it could not be used then what was the point of saying that in 1991?

[scipio_usmc]

I understand what you are saying but from his statements there is contradictory statements - I used to leave my gun at WHF  and no mention of removing it - and then in 1991 I did not used to leave my gun at WHF - so how do we know he is telling the truth about removing the bolt? Also my question is why was it worth so much compensation  ( trust me for the UK at that time ) it was a lot of money just to retract that the gun was in the house and possibly used.

Why did he not mention removing the rifle until 1991 ?- because we could quite fairly assume that his rifle was on the property. If it could not be used then what was the point of saying that in 1991?

The article was written after his updated statement to police.  So the paper knew he stated he took the whole rifle home with him before the murders.

The erroneous impression one might have gotten from his initial statements was that the gun was there without the bolt during the murders.

In order to claim the gun could have been used the paper needs evidence the gun including its bolt was there at the farm during the murders.

They had no source for such a claim though.  They had a statement saying the gun was not there at all and another that implied it could have been there during the murders without the bolt.  The later statement was to elaborate on the first and provide greater detail.  Either way there is no basis to suggest the gun coudl have been used.  You would need evidence or at minimum a claim by someone else that the gun including its bolt was there during the murders.

Then you have a basis for printing the claim. That is why you see papers attribute charges to specific people that way those people are the ones who get charged with defamation if the claims end up being BS.  Plus then the readers can evalute the source of the claims.

Why it came up in 1991 is simple.  There were charges made that there was wrongdoing done in the case so there was an investigation into the case and they wanted all witnesses to elaborate to the best extent possible to try to clarify everything so the investigaros could determine if there had in fact been wrongdoing.

One of those clarifications was that his shotguns were always stored there but his rifle typically wasn't.  He left his rifle his second to last visit to WHF though he took the bolt with him but took the whole gun home after his last visit which was a week before the murders.  Police wanted more detail so he provided it to them.

He coudl have provided the same information verbally to police in 1985.  The problem with statements is that when writing things down people cut corners.  That is one reason why statements should be taped.   Taping statements also makes sense because then you can prove what they did or didn't say and can even understand context.  You can see if someone is being lead or what.

That is why courts want witnesses, so that both sides can make sure the witness clarifies things to the extent desired by either side.

[Jan]

sorry don't buy that - if I was making a statement for a murder trial I would make perfectly sure I got the facts right first time. Plus he changed his whole story about where the gun was "normally " kept.

you may believe your interpretation - I am afraid I do not.

Also I still do not understand the amount of compensation - even if the gun had been used it would not have affected his character/standing to justify that amount of compensation.

wonder if they found his prints on Jb gun as he handled it the week before?