ANTHONY PARGETER

[scipio_usmc]

here is the statement I referred to

Which doesn't state his rifle was always there and was there at the time of the murder.  Police wanted to know about his rifle being used by Jeremy to establish Jeremy could shoot that was why they mad ehim talk about his rifle.

He didn't say his rifle was there at the time of the murders and no one claimed they found his rifle when searching WHF after the murders.

[scipio_usmc]

"Although I leave my firearm there "

oh so he does not even say sometimes or usually .

And he explains all about the weekend and does not say he took his gun  away with him.

You are crying because he was ambiguous and didn't specify sometimes or always.  He did clarify at trial - SOMETIMES.

You choose to ignore that before he wrote his statement he spoke to police and not everything he told police is in his statement.  Police who took his statement knew:

1) that his gun was not found at WHF by anyone

2) his gun was at his house and was physically looked over by them

3) that he told them he took his gun home prior to the murders.

So they knew he meant sometimes left it there and didn't care about hwo he worded it because they knew what he meant.  he statements were for their benefit.

If they wanted to establish it was at WHF they would have asked him to include that he left it there.  Then they would have needed to find out how he got it back and when.  They didn't have to though because it wasn't there.

All the games in the world will not change this reality.

[scipio_usmc]

So you know of verbal communications between AP and the police that are not in a statement. ?

All the witnesses had verbal communication PRIOR to writing their statements.  The statements only include the details deemed most significant to police so as to be shown to other police and prosecutors so as to be used.

[Adam]

There are many new people on this site, and I would welcome their views on Anthony Pargeter.
I last posted on this a few years ago now. His statements are available on the forum which are there for members to access.
To kick things off Anthony said he always kept his .22 rifle at whf, but took the bolt home with him.
Why would he do this?
He also said that Jeremy was a crackshot
In another statement he said he did not always leave his .22 rifle at whf, a straight contradiction.
He also received a large chunk of the Bamber estate. Why?
More to follow.

I have no idea why AP took the bolt home. And don't care.

Jeremy testified himself he knew how to fire the murder weapon.

He didn't always leave his rifle at WHF. And...

He received a chunk of the estate after Bamber was convicted.

[scipio_usmc]

some trial evidence

Note the first part question - we previously heard about some guns found at WHF.  His rifle was not among these.  The prior testimony was that shotguns belonging to him were found at WHF, his rifle was not.

That being the case the Court was already operating from the standpoint his rifle was not there at the time of the murders. The only way to challenge that standpoint would have been to ask him if he left his rifle there and then they would have to have tried to account for how no one found it there.

At trial facts are established by evidence.  Saying he sometimes left his rifle there doesn't in any way establish it was there at the time of the murders.  Someone would have to actively provide evidence to establish such.  You seem to not understand how Courts operate.

[lookout]

 Never a truer word " You seem to not understand how Courts operate ".

Kangaroo or Casey's ?

[scipio_usmc]

Never a truer word " You seem to not understand how Courts operate ".

Kangaroo or Casey's ?

Your efforts to prove Jeremy was convicted by a kangaroo court (and those of his other supporters for that matter) have all failed miserably.

[Caroline]

Not saying what he said at trial, but what he wrote in his first statement.

i think you have been here longer than me!

[buddy]

No probs Caroline you are still important.to the debate.
I am still open not pro or anti. Just want justice either way.

[Caroline]

No probs Caroline you are still important.to the debate.
I am still open not pro or anti. Just want justice either way.

I agree that it would be nice to have something that no one could argue against. I do feel that even a confession or an admission by someone else would still have people asking questions 

[scipio_usmc]

No probs Caroline you are still important.to the debate.
I am still open not pro or anti. Just want justice either way.

I answered what I saw as the questions you had. I summarized things related to him.  You didn't seem to ask something clear in relation to certain points you made like the crackshot claim so I didn't address such things.  You can clarify if you would like.

[Jan]

All the witnesses had verbal communication PRIOR to writing their statements.  The statements only include the details deemed most significant to police so as to be shown to other police and prosecutors so as to be used.

That's not what I asked - how do you know he told the police his rifle was not there .

He still does not mention it in his third and fourth interviews

[Jan]

Tell me scipio why did you have to be rude and say I live in a fantasy world when three statements say he kept the rifle at WHF ?

Not sometimes - not usually ? So how am I supposed to be a mind reader and how do you know what was said privately between AP and the police?

[maggie]

i think you have been here longer than me!

Longer than me by a mile Caroline and I was here before you, think buddy can be traced right back to the beginning 

[maggie]

No probs Caroline you are still important.to the debate.
I am still open not pro or anti. Just want justice either way.

I agree buddy am with you there.