The Pargeter rifle

[Alias]

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?

It´s a lot of money!

[nugnug]

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?

rather funny he only rembers that he removed the gun from the farm a week before the shooting

when someone alledges the gun was used.

[scipio_usmc]

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.

My "interpretation" is the correct one.

He discussed that he left 2 shotguns and rifle there PRIOR to his last visit BUT that he took the bolt from the rifle so no one could use it.  He then explained where he found them when he visitied the week before the murders.  Does the statement specify whether he left the guns or took them after this visit?  No such question was not asked and it is just ASSUMED he left them and again took the bolt because the statement doesn't state he took any of them.

In 1991 they asked him point blank whether he left the guns after leaving.  He responded with a written statement indicating he left the shotguns but took the rifle home.

This is not my interpretaiton this is what the statements say.   

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.

The implication of his gun being used is that he might have done it.  That is why the compensation was what it was.

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

No, the gun had been wiped down before being used for the murders. Presumably to make it easier to plan Sheila's prints on it.  Only Jeremy's print and a print from Sheila's ring finger were present.  So Jeremy missed one of his own prints while wiping it down but only managed to transfer 1 print from Sheila.  He probably tried getting more on it but to no avail.  When someone is dead the oils stop cleaning your skin, it is that oil that leaves your fingerprint impression.  It can also be left in things like blood though.  The gun had blood on it and yet no prints at all in the blood and no bloody fingerprints found anywhere else.  That is a strong indication that gloves were worn. 

[Caroline]

My "interpretation" is the correct one.

He discussed that he left 2 shotguns and rifle there PRIOR to his last visit BUT that he took the bolt from the rifle so no one could use it.  He then explained where he found them when he visitied the week before the murders.  Does the statement specify whether he left the guns or took them after this visit?  No such question was not asked and it is just ASSUMED he left them and again took the bolt because the statement doesn't state he took any of them.

In 1991 they asked him point blank whether he left the guns after leaving.  He responded with a written statement indicating he left the shotguns but took the rifle home.

This is not my interpretaiton this is what the statements say.   

The implication of his gun being used is that he might have done it.  That is why the compensation was what it was.

No, the gun had been wiped down before being used for the murders. Presumably to make it easier to plan Sheila's prints on it.  Only Jeremy's print and a print from Sheila's ring finger were present.  So Jeremy missed one of his own prints while wiping it down but only managed to transfer 1 print from Sheila.  He probably tried getting more on it but to no avail.  When someone is dead the oils stop cleaning your skin, it is that oil that leaves your fingerprint impression.  It can also be left in things like blood though.  The gun had blood on it and yet no prints at all in the blood and no bloody fingerprints found anywhere else.  That is a strong indication that gloves were worn.

You have no idea whether that is true or not. There were other prints but none that could be lifted. 

[nugnug]

im surprised he bothered to sue a joke paper like thwe sport i mean its not really a paper anyone takes seriosly.

[scipio_usmc]

im surprised he bothered to sue a joke paper like thwe sport i mean its not really a paper anyone takes seriosly.

He got the last laugh quite obviously. Suing rags for money like the US tabloids (Enquirer etc) is actually fairly commonplace. 

[nugnug]

most people of standing wouldn't want to to sue th sunday sport because they wouldn't want to admit to reading it.

[scipio_usmc]

You have no idea whether that is true or not. There were other prints but none that could be lifted.

There were 3 partials of insufficient ridge detail to get good impressions.  That means 2 prints found and 3 worthless partials.  So his prints were not found on it.

[gringo]

My "interpretation" is the correct one.

He discussed that he left 2 shotguns and rifle there PRIOR to his last visit BUT that he took the bolt from the rifle so no one could use it.  He then explained where he found them when he visitied the week before the murders.  Does the statement specify whether he left the guns or took them after this visit?  No such question was not asked and it is just ASSUMED he left them and again took the bolt because the statement doesn't state he took any of them.

In 1991 they asked him point blank whether he left the guns after leaving.  He responded with a written statement indicating he left the shotguns but took the rifle home.

This is not my interpretaiton this is what the statements say.   

The implication of his gun being used is that he might have done it.  That is why the compensation was what it was.

No, the gun had been wiped down before being used for the murders. Presumably to make it easier to plan Sheila's prints on it.  Only Jeremy's print and a print from Sheila's ring finger were present.  So Jeremy missed one of his own prints while wiping it down but only managed to transfer 1 print from Sheila.  He probably tried getting more on it but to no avail.  When someone is dead the oils stop cleaning your skin, it is that oil that leaves your fingerprint impression.  It can also be left in things like blood though.  The gun had blood on it and yet no prints at all in the blood and no bloody fingerprints found anywhere else. That is a strong indication that gloves were worn.

  So if Jeremy wore gloves whose are the partial prints on the bullet cases ?

[scipio_usmc]

  So if Jeremy wore gloves whose are the partial prints on the bullet cases ?

He wore glove to commit the murders, loading bullets with gloves ins a pain which in part is why he made up the tale about loading them and dumping them out.  So that if his prints were feound on the ammo it would have an innocent explanation.

I am going by Mike's word partials were found I don't know if that is true. He claims that there was some glue that stuck to the cases. It only sticks if there is oil from fingerprints to adhere to.  But anyone who picked up the ammo at any point can leave oil on a casing.  Someone innocently handling bullets before they are ever loaded and used by someone else could leave their prints potentially.  Which is really what Jeremy was claiming.  Prints are not that easy to lift though off casings. The larger the casing the better the chance.

You need gloves when using a weapon, any weapon and being around blood.  If you leave a fingerprint or footprint or anything similar in a victim's blood you are screwed end of story.  It is worse than leaving your DNA (unless you claim to never have been at the murder scene ever).  If you leave a print in blood then that proves you were at said crime scene at the time of the murder.

The only way defense lawyers can try to deal with such is to claim the person found the body right after the murder and thus the defendant got blood on himself and then left the print.  Most of the time that argument is not going to help carry the day.  You need other evidence to get someone to buy that.

This is why criminal like rubber gloves and the booties doctors wear on their shoes to prevent making footprints.  Also to dispose of clothes that get spatter on them.  Spatter gets on you during the actual shooting/beating/stabbing/axing.  You can't say you happened across the body later if you are found with spatter on you.  It proves you either did the action or you stood right next to the victim as it occured.

So successful criminals use gloves, booties and dispose of the clothing they worse.

Jeremy went wrong in telling Julie before and after, using the suppressor, having to shoto her twice, opening and closing he bible to try to figure out how he wanted it and worst of all making up the story about Nevill phoning him so calling police instead of pretending he was in bed at the time of the murders and knew absolutely nothing when the bodies were found. A passive frame is one thing.  When you do an active frame then if the frame blows up you are holding the bag. That was Jeremy's greatest error.

You have to be like Sgt Schultz in Hogan's Heroes, "I know nuttzing"

 

       

[nugnug]

now if he really did take the bolt of his riffle then his couldent of been used while at whf and nobody would of tried to use it.

but hes storys indicates that hes worried someone else is using it.

[gringo]

He wore glove to commit the murders, loading bullets with gloves ins a pain which in part is why he made up the tale about loading them and dumping them out.  So that if his prints were feound on the ammo it would have an innocent explanation.

I am going by Mike's word partials were found I don't know if that is true. He claims that there was some glue that stuck to the cases. It only sticks if there is oil from fingerprints to adhere to.  But anyone who picked up the ammo at any point can leave oil on a casing.  Someone innocently handling bullets before they are ever loaded and used by someone else could leave their prints potentially.  Which is really what Jeremy was claiming.  Prints are not that easy to lift though off casings. The larger the casing the better the chance.

You need gloves when using a weapon, any weapon and being around blood.  If you leave a fingerprint or footprint or anything similar in a victim's blood you are screwed end of story.  It is worse than leaving your DNA (unless you claim to never have been at the murder scene ever).  If you leave a print in blood then that proves you were at said crime scene at the time of the murder.

The only way defense lawyers can try to deal with such is to claim the person found the body right after the murder and thus the defendant got blood on himself and then left the print.  Most of the time that argument is not going to help carry the day.  You need other evidence to get someone to buy that.

This is why criminal like rubber gloves and the booties doctors wear on their shoes to prevent making footprints.  Also to dispose of clothes that get spatter on them.  Spatter gets on you during the actual shooting/beating/stabbing/axing.  You can't say you happened across the body later if you are found with spatter on you.  It proves you either did the action or you stood right next to the victim as it occured.

So successful criminals use gloves, booties and dispose of the clothing they worse.

Jeremy went wrong in telling Julie before and after, using the suppressor, having to shoto her twice, opening and closing he bib
le to try to figure out how he wanted it and worst of all making up the story about Nevill phoning him so calling police instead of pretending he was in bed at the time of the murders and knew absolutely nothing when the bodies were found. A passive frame is one thing.  When you do an active frame then if the frame blows up you are holding the bag. That was Jeremy's greatest error.

You have to be like Sgt Schultz in Hogan's Heroes, "I know nuttzing"

 

     

   So nice of you to explain why criminals wear gloves and not at all patronising 
     As for the rest of your improbable scenario a few questions
     1) These bullets which he "loaded and then dumped out" in order to give an innocent explanation if his prints were found later because "loading bullets with gloves is a pain"( as a supposed lawyer I have to say your grammar and spelling is appalling. What does "loading bullets with gloves mean"? The bullets had gloves on did they? I think you meant "loading bullets whilst wearing gloves" )
      During the murders did he reload the bullets whilst wearing the gloves or  did he remove the gloves during the murders to reload, because we all know its a pain loading those glove wearing bullets don't we?
      2)Did he plan to use so many bullets ?
      3)If he didn't plan on using so many bullets why did he make sure his prints were on these extra bullets?
      4)If, alternatively, he did plan on using so many bullets then wouldn't it "be a pain" and time consuming to have to remove his gloves, reload, replace his gloves and then carry on his shooting spree. Did he expect to have time to do all of this in the midst of a shooting spree.What do you imagine he thought those who were alive at this point would be doing whilst he performed this ritual? This doesn't sound like a very good plan or a very plausible one for that matter.
      Your reasoning is on a par with your grammar and spelling
             

[lookout]

 If bullets were loaded separately,,it was a woman and not a man ! Anschutz rifles by their name,nature and years of use, were quite simple to load,,especially one by one.A child could do it no problem,,hence the scattered bullets on the table where the phone was.

Just thought I'd put my six-penn'orth in.

[Jan]

My "interpretation" is the correct one.

He discussed that he left 2 shotguns and rifle there PRIOR to his last visit BUT that he took the bolt from the rifle so no one could use it.  He then explained where he found them when he visitied the week before the murders.  Does the statement specify whether he left the guns or took them after this visit?  No such question was not asked and it is just ASSUMED he left them and again took the bolt because the statement doesn't state he took any of them.

In 1991 they asked him point blank whether he left the guns after leaving.  He responded with a written statement indicating he left the shotguns but took the rifle home.

This is not my interpretaiton this is what the statements say.   

The implication of his gun being used is that he might have done it.  That is why the compensation was what it was.

No, the gun had been wiped down before being used for the murders. Presumably to make it easier to plan Sheila's prints on it.  Only Jeremy's print and a print from Sheila's ring finger were present.  So Jeremy missed one of his own prints while wiping it down but only managed to transfer 1 print from Sheila.  He probably tried getting more on it but to no avail.  When someone is dead the oils stop cleaning your skin, it is that oil that leaves your fingerprint impression.  It can also be left in things like blood though.  The gun had blood on it and yet no prints at all in the blood and no bloody fingerprints found anywhere else.  That is a strong indication that gloves were worn.

No

He changed his whole story about where he normally kept his rifle that is quite clear.

Whos blood was it on the rifle. Because if they can get all the information claimed from one flake I am sure you can answer that for me .

[lookout]

The silencer which DB " found ",belonged to AP ! Police already found the one belonging to Neville,in fact it was SJ who found it. AP's silencer had been damaged,,probably when it was found too long to use,,and too cumbersome,indoors--------as was proved.