Dodgy guns - handed to Bunting by two unidentified men

[chochokeira]

But its Nevill with the ring marks!! The guns been fired, people are lying dead or dying!!

We don't know at what stage Nevill sustained the ring mark burns. He could even have been having a look around the grounds after hearing noises before any killngs began when this gun was pressed against his neck.

If it was towards the end of the massacre and the killer/s was/ were threatening Sheila - probably the last to be killed? - I believe Nevill would have done what they wanted in an attempt to save her.

How do we know there weren't two killers, Paul?

Hi Chochokeira

Could you list your version of events - makes it easier to follow with reference to when you think it started, who was involved, when the other killer escaped?

Who on here has done that, Paul?  No one as far as I can see, though Mike T must be getting close to it. No one has posted a clear version of events because no one has one. We're all just exploring possiblities and I'm as entitled to do that as anyone.

[chochokeira]

But its Nevill with the ring marks!! The guns been fired, people are lying dead or dying!!

We don't know at what stage Nevill sustained the ring mark burns. He could even have been having a look around the grounds after hearing noises before any killngs began when this gun was pressed against his neck.

If it was towards the end of the massacre and the killer/s was/ were threatening Sheila - probably the last to be killed? - I believe Nevill would have done what they wanted in an attempt to save her.

How do we know there weren't two killers, Paul?

Hi Chochokeira

Could you list your version of events - makes it easier to follow with reference to when you think it started, who was involved, when the other killer escaped?

Also, read my post again and you'll see that  am not contending that there were two killers, I'm simply not excluding the possiblity.

[Paul]

But its Nevill with the ring marks!! The guns been fired, people are lying dead or dying!!

We don't know at what stage Nevill sustained the ring mark burns. He could even have been having a look around the grounds after hearing noises before any killngs began when this gun was pressed against his neck.

If it was towards the end of the massacre and the killer/s was/ were threatening Sheila - probably the last to be killed? - I believe Nevill would have done what they wanted in an attempt to save her.

How do we know there weren't two killers, Paul?

Hi Chochokeira

Could you list your version of events - makes it easier to follow with reference to when you think it started, who was involved, when the other killer escaped?

Who on here has done that, Paul?  No one as far as I can see, though Mike T must be getting close to it. No one has posted a clear version of events because no one has one. We're all just exploring possiblities and I'm as entitled to do that as anyone.

No worries. Was interested in your posts and wondered if you could do a bullet point list as it'd be easier to follow. That's all 

[paulg]

Not relevant, but the local bloody farmers are shooting the crap out rabbits, and its nearly 10pm. Where are the silencers now??!!

[Kaldin]

Confused about that document. It lists five guns, and then lists another two. Were there seven altogether or am I reading it wrong?

[chelmsey]

Confused about that document. It lists five guns, and then lists another two. Were there seven altogether or am I reading it wrong?

Kaldin.........I would say 7 altogether.The serial numbers of the two guns in question do not match any of the serial numbers of the first 5.

[Kaldin]

Confused about that document. It lists five guns, and then lists another two. Were there seven altogether or am I reading it wrong?

Kaldin.........I would say 7 altogether.The serial numbers of the two guns in question do not match any of the serial numbers of the first 5.

That's what I thought, and yet they seem to focus on two guns only.

[ngb1066]

Confused about that document. It lists five guns, and then lists another two. Were there seven altogether or am I reading it wrong?

Kaldin.........I would say 7 altogether.The serial numbers of the two guns in question do not match any of the serial numbers of the first 5.

That's what I thought, and yet they seem to focus on two guns only.

There were a total of seven.  The first five were classified as shotguns and therefore the owner or keeper of them needed a shotgun certificate to retain them legally.  The next two were legally classified as firearms, requiring the owner or keeper to have a firearm certificate, which is far more restrictive and harder to obtain than a shotgun certificate.  The reason for the last gun, the .410, to be classified as a firearm rather than as a shotgun is the length of the barrel.  It was shorter than the minimum length for a shotgun (I believe from memory 22 inches at that time).  The penalties for unlawful possession of a firearm are more severe than for unlawful possession of a shotgun.  I suspect that may be why the "unidentified men" explanation was given by Mr Bunting to the police explain his possession of the two firearms, whereas he was happy to admit to unlawful ownership of the five shotguns.

[Kaldin]

Confused about that document. It lists five guns, and then lists another two. Were there seven altogether or am I reading it wrong?

Kaldin.........I would say 7 altogether.The serial numbers of the two guns in question do not match any of the serial numbers of the first 5.

That's what I thought, and yet they seem to focus on two guns only.

There were a total of seven.  The first five were classified as shotguns and therefore the owner or keeper of them needed a shotgun certificate to retain them legally.  The next two were legally classified as firearms, requiring the owner or keeper to have a firearm certificate, which is far more restrictive and harder to obtain than a shotgun certificate.  The reason for the last gun, the .410, to be classified as a firearm rather than as a shotgun is the length of the barrel.  It was shorter than the minimum length for a shotgun (I believe from memory 22 inches at that time).  The penalties for unlawful possession of a firearm are more severe than for unlawful possession of a shotgun.  I suspect that may be why the "unidentified men" explanation was given by Mr Bunting to the police explain his possession of the two firearms, whereas he was happy to admit to unlawful ownership of the five shotguns.

OK, thanks.  :D

[Blodwynflower]

Good evening all

Mike, do you know the exact date the guns were handed in?

Thankyou.