The extracted paragraph states "On the 15th May 1991, Mr Pargeter's rifle, together with the .22 semi automatic rifle found at the murder scene on the 7th August 1985, with spent cartridge cases and bullets from the murder scene were submitted to the Metropolitan Police Forensic Laboratory at Lambeth, with a request for tests to be carried out as set out in Laboratory Form No.1 as attached."
The above lists the items submitted, separating them with commas. The wording used is slightly imperfect - the word "together" is redundant. However, that seems to be because of poor sentence construction, rather than because the two rifles were found in the same place or on the same date. Unlike the semi-automatic rifle and the spent cartridge cases and bullets, the first item is given simply as "Mr Pargeter's rifle", and this is consistent with the writer assuming that this rifle wasn't found or seized at the scene. What seems to have been in the writer's mind is that these items are now (1991) being submitted together for specified testing, whereas this had not happened previously (i.e., in 1985).
The paragraph doesn't specifically exclude the possibility that Pargeter's rifle was at the murder scene on 7th August 1985, but it doesn't confirm it either.
On the morning of the incident, Jeremy was asked by the police to provide as much information as possible, listing all the different kinds of gun, and ammunitions, present inside the farmhouse, before the raid team went into the premises. It is clearly recorded that Anthony Pargeters bruno bolt action rifle was present at the time of the shootings, together with the .22 air rifle, and the .22 semi automatic rifle. If the AP .22 bolt action rifle was missing from the scene, and in view of the police not even bothering to do ballistic testing until over a month later once the nature of the investigation changed, from a Coroners file, into a criminal one, it beggars belief that if the bolt action rifle belonging to AP was missing from the scene of these multiple fatal shootings, that Essex police, special Branch, and in particular the firearms officers did not appear to show any interest whatsoever in the fact if true that AP's bolt action rifle was crucially missing from the scene, when at that stage it was licensed to be kept there. How utterly coincidental, that AP purchased that bolt action rifle in 1980, and that he had always steadfastly kept it at whf, normally in the downstairs toilet. Yet in 1991, he told the COLP investigators that he had taken it home with him to Bourne End in Buckinghamshire, on the penultimate week end before the night of the tragic shootings. This is despite him making a different witness statement to Essex police back in 1985, to the effect that although he always kept his bolt action rifle at the scene, he had the habit of removing the bolt from it and taking the bolt home with him to Bourne End, so that no-one could fire the gun in its absence...
Now the two different accounts given by AP are incinsistent, ambiguos and contradictory, because he either made a false witness statement to Essex police about his bolt action rifles whereabouts, to avoid prosecution for falling foul of firearm laws, with the strong possibility that his firearms license would be permanently revoked, or by the time it came around to AP giving a witness statement to the COLP investigators, he decided to tell the whole truth, that he had taken it away from the scene, bolt still fitted to the rifle. Now, if he did he was in breach of the conditions stipulated on his firearm certificate at the relevant time, and he should have faced prosecution, and had his firearm certificate revoked permanently. But he gets away with it because Essex police and the CPS, have a more useful role for AP to play in the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber..
If he took his bolt action rifle home on the penultimate week-end before the shoiting occurred, what reason did he have for doing so? He gives no explanation whatsoever for breaking the habit of a lifetime, and removing his rifle from the scene of these multiple murders on the penultimate week-end before Sheila went berserk and shot the other 4 victims. It doesn't add up, it doesn't make sense, its just a cover story that has been introduced to help the police get themselves out of the shit. AP's rifle was present at the scene at the time of the shootings, and I firmly believe that shots were fired by use of it, making the contents of his original witness statement that he made to Essex police, about always removing the bolt from ut, and taking only the bolt home, so that although his bolt action rifle was present at the scene, minus its bolt, no-obe could fire it in his absence. Well, according to discussions I had with Jeremy about AP's bokt action rifle, first of all, Jeremy is adament that AP's bolt action rifle was present at the scebe, located in its normal pkace inside the downstairs toilet. Furthermore, Jeremy has told me on countess occasions that his father (Raloh Neville Bamber) was a Magisteate on the Witham bench, and there is no way that Ralph would compromise the firearm laws by allowing AP to remove the bolt from his bruno rifle and take that home, whilst leaving the rifle itself, minus the bolt at the farmhouse, because the bolt itself was a component part of the firearm, and if Ralph had allowed AP to do that which he said he had done, then Ralph himself would have fallen foul of the firearm law. So, Jeremy assured me, that AP did not take his bolt out of his bruno rifle or take it home, whilst leaving the rifle at the scene, and he did not as he later contends take the full rifle home, on the penultimate week end before Sheila shot the other 4 victims, because his father who was a magistrate would not have allowed him to. Ap's bolt action rifle was there at the scene at the time of these fatal shootings. If it wasn't, the police would have made something more of its disappearance at such a significant moment. Well, I for one, believe Jeremys account, the .22 bruno bolt action rifle was there at the scene, and I believe Sheila used it...
AP did not remove the bolt from his bruno rifle and taken that home with him, so that no-one could fire it in his absence, he would gave simply take the whole rifle away with him, at peril of if caught his firearms certificate would be oermanently revoked, and he could face prosecution. In any event, on the 9th August 1985, Essex police submitted a rifle to the lab' to be examined. Police documentation describes this rifle as an ansholts, bolt action rifle...
