Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline R on October 09, 2012, 10:06:PM
-
Why would Peter Eaton "put a gun back" on 9th Aug 1985 when the very next day his wife (Ann Eaton) and brother in-law (David Boutflour) were going to the farm to take the guns out of the property?
-
How can you try to convince yourself what it true. How on earth did they know it to have been true at such an early stage?
I'd like to know what gun he was returning and why? I thought AE met police at the farm when she was given the keys and asked them to go in with her...was not this on the 10th? I might be wrong. ... :) :)
-
that statement sounds odd to me
-
that statement sounds odd to me
Mertol :) :) :) :) It does to me! I think he was mistaken to be fair in a lot of things, bless. ;)
-
Hi Patti, message in your inbox, so soon after the tragic events searching ? finding, why ?
-
Hi Patti, message in your inbox, so soon after the tragic events searching ? finding, why ?
Iv'e sent a message back to you Mertol. I'm quicker than the eye...lol :) :) :)
-
How can you try to convince yourself what it true. How on earth did they know it to have been true at such an early stage?
I'd like to know what gun he was returning and why? I thought AE met police at the farm when she was given the keys and asked them to go in with her...was not this on the 10th? I might be wrong. ... :) :)
The keys were returned on the afternoon of the 9th
-
Mertol :) :) :) :) It does to me! I think he was mistaken to be fair in a lot of things, bless. ;)
Who was mistaken?
-
Who was mistaken?
RB I think he got a lot wrong :-\ :-\ :-\
-
RB I think he got a lot wrong :-\ :-\ :-\
It's not Robert Boutflour's statement, it'd David Boutflour's
-
It's not Robert Boutflour's statement, it'd David Boutflour's
OMG.....I'm tired is that a good excuse? No.... :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
OMG.....I'm tired is that a good excuse? No.... :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
Very odd though don't you think? Why return a gun to a house that's about to be 'cleared of guns' the following day? And why take a gun back at all? And which gun did he return
-
Very odd though don't you think? Why return a gun to a house that's about to be 'cleared of guns' the following day? And why take a gun back at all? And which gun did he return
Well that is what I would like to know. Why return a gun at all? Very odd!! :) :) :)
-
Very odd statement indeed....
Who had the keys - Ann, Peter or David?
So, DB knew that HE could gain entry through toilet window....hmm....
-
Very odd statement indeed....
Who had the keys - Ann, Peter or David?
So, DB knew that HE could gain entry through toilet window....hmm....
He doesn't mention when exactly the keys were handed back but I presume it was when Ann, David and Anthony Pargeter went to the police on Friday 9th August to tell them of their suspicions i.e. they didn't believe that Sheila had committed suicide. He also (interestingly) states that they mentioned to DS (Taff) Jones about a 'silencer' - this is BEFORE finding the silencer the following day with Ann - curiouser and curiouser!!
-
Keys were given to Basil Cock on the morning of the 10th August.
The visit to the police station at Witham took place on the 16th, not the 9th. The silencer and sight were found six days before, hence the discussion about them.
-
Keys were given to Basil Cock on the morning of the 10th August.
The visit to the police station at Witham took place on the 16th, not the 9th. The silencer and sight were found six days before, hence the discussion about them.
That's not what DB says in this statement!
-
That's not what DB says in this statement!
You are quite right. :-[
-
You are quite right. :-[
Tried to post the whole statement but it didn't work. Of course I'm right :) - why the glum face? Aren't you intrigued?
I have read in a RB statement that he was told of the visit to the police on 9th. I will have to search for it though!!
-
Tried to post the whole statement but it didn't work. Of course I'm right :) - why the glum face? Aren't you intrigued?
See pages 22 to 26 of Anns COLP statement: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497
-
See pages 22 to 26 of Anns COLP statement: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497
Told ya! ;). So they did mention a silencer before finding one the following day (as mentioned by DB) and there is still the question of the gun returned by Peter Eaton. I find it totally weird how they accused JB so quickly - no forensics could have been returned at that that point. The police would have still been arranging evidence.
-
Mike made reference to this a couple of years back:
Peter Eaton, returns gun to whf, on evening Essex police, hand keys over
Why did Peter Eaton take a gun back to whf, on the same evening that Essex police, handed the keys over to his wife, Ann Eaton?
What gun?
Who did it belong to?
Who took it away from whf, and why?
-
Mike made reference to this a couple of years back:
And still no one knows why or what gun? I also find it really odd that there is mention of a silencer 'before' finding one the following day!!
-
Question......If PE returned a gun the previous day before they got the keys on the 10th How did he get in? :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Just looked at calender in archives for Aug.85 10th was a Saturday.... :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Question......If PE returned a gun the previous day before they got the keys on the 10th How did he get in? :-\ :-\ :-\
Oh I don't believe it's true, it's all based on a cryptic line of hand written text which probably means something completely different.
-
Question......If PE returned a gun the previous day before they got the keys on the 10th How did he get in? :-\ :-\ :-\
You are very astute Patti.
-
Oh I don't believe it's true, it's all based on a cryptic line of hand written text which probably means something completely different.
It speaks for itself in writing its also in readable english i sense a mode of urgency to raise an alternative sequence of events for that night, and yet we are asked to believe that by sheer chance a miracle silencer was found upon a internal search of the house, why search what is bothering you , clearly the police version is not accepted and that i find suspect.
-
Pretty suspicious.
-
According to the contents of a witness statement made to Essex police by Anthony Pargeter, a farm worker borrowed a shotgun several years previously, but he could not say who the farm worker was...
Once shootings at whf took place, Peter Eaton returned one of the borrowed guns with a view of trying to cover up for the fact that relatives and farm workers had been borrowing guns from eachother illegally...
-
That poor Bamber family,including Jeremy, had been used by everyone they came into contact with,particularly the relatives,,whose squabbles amongst themselves prior to the murders,were obvious when one of them punched Neville,an old man then,,,and anyone who can physically abuse an elderly person,,,,,,,,,,can do anything.!
-
According to the contents of a witness statement made to Essex police by Anthony Pargeter, a farm worker borrowed a shotgun several years previously, but he could not say who the farm worker was...
Once shootings at whf took place, Peter Eaton returned one of the borrowed guns with a view of trying to cover up for the fact that relatives and farm workers had been borrowing guns from eachother illegally...
A friend of the relatives also handed two guns over to the police aftrr the shootings, but he refused to name the two people who had given them to him, but relatives are suspected of being those persons...
-
Oh I don't believe it's true, it's all based on a cryptic line of hand written text which probably means something completely different.
Cryptic? It's quite clearly stated! Had the 'cryptic' line involved JB doing something suspicious, I'm sure it wouldn't be dismissed so readily ;). I am sure I have read that the keys were given back on 9th not the 10th but I will have to look for the source later. Also Ann Eaton's statement regards 10th Aug is completely different to the account given by David Boutflour - in his statement there is absolutely no mention of Robert Boutflour being present when the silencer was found (nor at any point during the search of WHF on 10th) and given how RB gave quite a 'detailed' account of his presence on the day - I find it strange that David Boutflour doesn't even mention him only Ann and the solicitor??
-
I knew I'd read it somewhere!! The keys were handed back on the 9th, not the 10th!
-
Friday which was the 9th....Roch posted a calender in the archives.
Did they go back then after they had the keys to return the gun? :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Friday which was the 9th....Roch posted a calender in the archives.
Did they go back then after they had the keys to return the gun? :-\ :-\ :-\
Dunno but maybe they already had it with them - either way, wonder why if they planned to remove the guns the following day?
-
Dunno but maybe they already had it with them - either way, wonder why if they planned to remove the guns the following day?
I'm sure I have read that the keys were retuned on the 10th though......Strange! I went to bed thinking about this last night, this is why I had a quick look this morning before I went to work...I had remembered that Roch had put a calender in the archives.... :-\ :-\ :-\
-
I'm sure I have read that the keys were retuned on the 10th though......Strange! I went to bed thinking about this last night, this is why I had a quick look this morning before I went to work...I had remembered that Roch had put a calender in the archives.... :-\ :-\ :-\
Well, that's two statements that say 9th and that's what I have understood happened. However, there is very little continuity in the relatives statements so I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere it's also quoted as 10th. I believe it was 9th! :)
-
Cryptic? It's quite clearly stated! Had the 'cryptic' line involved JB doing something suspicious, I'm sure it wouldn't be dismissed so readily ;).
What is quite clearly stated?
Peter returned a gun to WHF? Or he returned a gun in WHF to it's proper place? Or he returned the plastic toy gun in the lounge back to the toy box? Or something else?
It couldn't be more cryptic if it tried. :-\
I think the tone of your posts is slipping back in to your old style. Maybe you need to consider who exactly is dismissing alternatives so readily? (Just an observation) ::)
-
What is quite clearly stated?
Peter returned a gun to WHF? Or he returned a gun in WHF to it's proper place? Or he returned the plastic toy gun in the lounge back to the toy box? Or something else?
It couldn't be more cryptic if it tried. :-\
I think the tone of your posts is slipping back in to your old style. Maybe you need to consider who exactly is dismissing alternatives so readily? (Just an observation) ::)
Old style? LOL I have only one style, I haven't changed it nor do I intend to - My advice is to 'don't shoot the messenger' AND I'm dismissing nothing - that was you!
"Oh I don't believe it's true, it's all based on a cryptic line of hand written text which probably means something completely different"
-
Old style? LOL I have only one style, I haven't changed it nor do I intend to - My advice is to 'don't shoot the messenger' AND I'm dismissing nothing - that was you!
"Oh I don't believe it's true, it's all based on a cryptic line of hand written text which probably means something completely different"
I opt for the toy gun option myself. ;D
-
I opt for the toy gun option myself. ;D
The fact that Mike hasn't rammed this down our throats and started accusing Peter of planting 'the' sound moderator, yet he has put forward far more absurd theories, leads me to believe that there is nothing untowards here, certainly there is no substance in that one line of 'cryptic' text alone.
-
What is quite clearly stated?
Peter returned a gun to WHF? Or he returned a gun in WHF to it's proper place? Or he returned the plastic toy gun in the lounge back to the toy box? Or something else?
It couldn't be more cryptic if it tried. :-\
I think the tone of your posts is slipping back in to your old style. Maybe you need to consider who exactly is dismissing alternatives so readily? (Just an observation) ::)
"......Peter had been back previously (the night before, put a gun back.......")
Given the alternatives of him remembering that "someone" had left "a" gun at position A when it should have been placed at position B, OR by psychic process he saw that a toy gun belonging to the boys had been left out of its box and made a special journey to rectify it, I really can't believe that he went to WHF "previously" for any other purpose than to return a gun.........and Caroline is perfectly correct when she points out that wherever written crypticity(!) is found regarding Jeremy, it wouldn't be dismissed in the way you seem to be trying to do here.
-
"......Peter had been back previously (the night before, put a gun back.......")
Given the alternatives of him remembering that "someone" had left "a" gun at position A when it should have been placed at position B, OR by psychic process he saw that a toy gun belonging to the boys had been left out of its box and made a special journey to rectify it, I really can't believe that he went to WHF "previously" for any other purpose than to return a gun.........and Caroline is perfectly correct when she points out that wherever written crypticity(!) is found regarding Jeremy, it wouldn't be dismissed in the way you seem to be trying to do here.
That's just the thing though April, I'm not trying to dismiss it, I'm simply saying it does not equate to what is being claimed. There is no indication the 'put gun back' refers to the purpose of visiting WHF, it does not say he went back to put a gun back.
I think Caroline is perfectly incorrect in suggesting that I wouldn't dismiss it if it reflected badly on Jeremy, there is nothing to indicate anything untowards, against anybody. If people want to gather like lemmings and swallow each and every claim made by the likes of Mike on this amount of information alone, then feel free, but at least see it for what it is.
-
That's just the thing though April, I'm not trying to dismiss it, I'm simply saying it does not equate to what is being claimed. There is no indication the 'put gun back' refers to the purpose of visiting WHF, it does not say he went back to put a gun back.
I think Caroline is perfectly incorrect in suggesting that I wouldn't dismiss it if it reflected badly on Jeremy, there is nothing to indicate anything untowards, against anybody. If people want to gather like lemmings and swallow each and every claim made by the likes of Mike on this amount of information alone, then feel free, but at least see it for what it is.
Jam, I do understand what the sentence means. The comma explains that rather than going to WHF to take a gun back, he PUT a gun back whilst he was there. But does that not strike you as being a curious aside, as in, why would it be necessary to say it at all. It might have been "straightened a rug" or "put away a cup" One has to ask why he went there the previous evening, if he didn't go there specifically to put a gun back.
You can probably guess that I don't all into your lemming catagory. I have infinite respect for what Mike is doing, he throws some interesting theories into the mix but it doesn't mean I agree with everything he, or anybody else says, without consideration. The greatest difference I can find between the two factions is that those of us who are pro Jeremy don't see him as any kind of saint. He frequently presents himself as somebody that I would choose to have nothing to do with, but the way we present ourselves to others isn't necessarily who we are and which of us at times, has not tried to impress others, stretching the truth and letting our mouths run away with us in order to do so. However, those who are pro family would have us believe that the entire group of the wider family are the personification of all that is pure and good. That none of them has ever had a devious or underhand thought. That they have never once thought about what they would gain from Jeremy's conviction, or lose if he found innocent. This simply isn't true. We humans are bound by the same psychology whether we're toddlers trying to take a coveted toy from another toddler, a schoolchild swapping tatty trainers for somone elses better ones, an adult defaming the character of a fellow job applicant................or relatives for whom it becomes possible to increase their wealth, but for one family member.
-
Jam, I do understand what the sentence means. The comma explains that rather than going to WHF to take a gun back, he PUT a gun back whilst he was there. But does that not strike you as being a curious aside, as in, why would it be necessary to say it at all. It might have been "straightened a rug" or "put away a cup" One has to ask why he went there the previous evening, if he didn't go there specifically to put a gun back.
You can probably guess that I don't all into your lemming catagory. I have infinite respect for what Mike is doing, he throws some interesting theories into the mix but it doesn't mean I agree with everything he, or anybody else says, without consideration. The greatest difference I can find between the two factions is that those of us who are pro Jeremy don't see him as any kind of saint. He frequently presents himself as somebody that I would choose to have nothing to do with, but the way we present ourselves to others isn't necessarily who we are and which of us at times, has not tried to impress others, stretching the truth and letting our mouths run away with us in order to do so. However, those who are pro family would have us believe that the entire group of the wider family are the personification of all that is pure and good. That none of them has ever had a devious or underhand thought. That they have never once thought about what they would gain from Jeremy's conviction, or lose if he found innocent. This simply isn't true. We humans are bound by the same psychology whether we're toddlers trying to take a coveted toy from another toddler, a schoolchild swapping tatty trainers for somone elses better ones, an adult defaming the character of a fellow job applicant................or relatives for whom it becomes possible to increase their wealth, but for one family member.
Excellent post April. ;D ;D
-
Jam, I do understand what the sentence means. The comma explains that rather than going to WHF to take a gun back, he PUT a gun back whilst he was there. But does that not strike you as being a curious aside, as in, why would it be necessary to say it at all. It might have been "straightened a rug" or "put away a cup" One has to ask why he went there the previous evening, if he didn't go there specifically to put a gun back.
You can probably guess that I don't all into your lemming catagory. I have infinite respect for what Mike is doing, he throws some interesting theories into the mix but it doesn't mean I agree with everything he, or anybody else says, without consideration. The greatest difference I can find between the two factions is that those of us who are pro Jeremy don't see him as any kind of saint. He frequently presents himself as somebody that I would choose to have nothing to do with, but the way we present ourselves to others isn't necessarily who we are and which of us at times, has not tried to impress others, stretching the truth and letting our mouths run away with us in order to do so. However, those who are pro family would have us believe that the entire group of the wider family are the personification of all that is pure and good. That none of them has ever had a devious or underhand thought. That they have never once thought about what they would gain from Jeremy's conviction, or lose if he found innocent. This simply isn't true. We humans are bound by the same psychology whether we're toddlers trying to take a coveted toy from another toddler, a schoolchild swapping tatty trainers for somone elses better ones, an adult defaming the character of a fellow job applicant................or relatives for whom it becomes possible to increase their wealth, but for one family member.
I think your description of Pros versus anti's (for want of a better description), is ridiculous, it's an attempt to stereotype, the truth of the matter is that there are fanaticals amongst both groups, and there are genuine reasonable people amongst both groups, to suggest otherwise is in essence one of my pet grumbles and it simply shows a tendancy to catagorise.
Take the title of this thread for example, it is leading, innaccurate and quite frankly the type of thing I have come to expect from certain posters (on both sides). If it was worded as a question, such as "hey look what I've found, what do you think this means?", then I have no problem, but that's not the case.
What is even worse, is that the original poster in this thread, spends a great deal of time and effort berrating other people for making assumptions and coming up with things that can not be substantiated or not based on anything of merit, but only if they don't conform to her views. Hypocrisy is king it seems. ::)
-
I think your description of Pros versus anti's (for want of a better description), is ridiculous, it's an attempt to stereotype, the truth of the matter is that there are fanaticals amongst both groups, and there are genuine reasonable people amongst both groups, to suggest otherwise is in essence one of my pet grumbles and it simply shows a tendancy to catagorise.
Take the title of this thread for example, it is leading, innaccurate and quite frankly the type of thing I have come to expect from cerain posters (on both sides). If it was worded as a question, such as "hey look what I've found, what do you think this means?", then I have no problem, but that's not the case.
What is even worse, is that the original poster in this threads, spends a great deal of time and effort berrating other people for making assumptions and coming with things that can not be substantiated or not based on anything of merit, but only if they don't conform to her views. Hypocrisy is king it seems. ::)
And evidently the biggest hypocrite is you! Can't be substantiated? It was said by David Boutflour! I didn't drag it out of the air or the pages of a book! You can take every word you have written and apply each and every one of them right back at yourself!
If you were so concerned about a 'comma' why didn't you mention it? I asked what people thought about it and I specifically asked YOU when I first posted it and was met with silence! However to then just dismiss it out of hand simply because you can't explain it is frankly 'childish'! I don't know about toy guns but you have certainly thrown yours well and truly out of the pram!
While you sit there taking the moral high ground let me remind you that when I have a criticism of any other poster, I answer their post, what I don't do is make a thread in the Off Topic section and call it - oh I don't know, something like 'Caroline vs Andi - No holds barred' where I can write childish comments without their knowledge and have a jolly good weez with my online chums!
By the way, what on earth has something David Boutflour said/wrote got to do with Mike? That's a rhetorical question by the way - I'm really not interested in your answer - all I need do with your previous comments is 'consider the source'!
-
And evidently the biggest hypocrite is you! Can't be substantiated? It was said by David Boutflour! I didn't drag it out of the air or the pages of a book! You can take every word you have written and apply each and every one of them right back at yourself!
If you were so concerned about a 'comma' why didn't you mention it? I asked what people thought about it and I specifically asked YOU when I first posted it and was met with silence! However to then just dismiss it out of hand simply because you can't explain it is frankly 'childish'! I don't know about toy guns but you have certainly thrown yours well and truly out of the pram!
While you sit there taking the moral high ground let me remind you that when I have a criticism of any other poster, I answer their post, what I don't do is make a thread in the Off Topic section and call it - oh I don't know, something like 'Caroline vs Andi - No holds barred' where I can write childish comments without their knowledge and have a jolly good weez with my online chums!
By the way, what on earth has something David Boutflour said/wrote got to do with Mike? That's a rhetorical question by the way - I'm really not interested in your answer - all I need do with your previous comments is 'consider the source'!
My above posts are quite clear in conveying my views.
-
My views on jb are at best private and no concern of the forum, what i can say if his attitude seems offputting to some , to me its a sign of being a survivour , before the events of 7th August 1985 and up to this very day, there does seem among some members a constructed effort to shoot down like a german biplane in WW1 any possibility of him being not guilty, even if i thought he was even i would not be totally sure humans make mistakes , in everything . Mike can post any new topic i read somewhere the forum is for debate.
-
My views on jb are at best private and no concern of the forum, what i can say if his attitude seems offputting to some , to me its a sign of being a survivour , before the events of 7th August 1985 and up to this very day, there does seem among some members a constructed effort to shoot down like a german biplane in WW1 any possibility of him being not guilty, even if i thought he was even i would not be totally sure humans make mistakes , in everything . Mike can post any new topic i read somewhere the forum is for debate.
Perhaps so, but would you agree that the flip side is that there are some members who are so set on there being a MOJ that they contrive and sneak a meaning out of anything in an attempt to pull the wool over peoples eyes like a klingon bird of prey with a cloaking device activated ( :P ).
Regardless of your view on the case, you want the truth right?
-
My views on jb are at best private and no concern of the forum, what i can say if his attitude seems offputting to some , to me its a sign of being a survivour , before the events of 7th August 1985 and up to this very day, there does seem among some members a constructed effort to shoot down like a german biplane in WW1 any possibility of him being not guilty, even if i thought he was even i would not be totally sure humans make mistakes , in everything . Mike can post any new topic i read somewhere the forum is for debate.
Well said mertol, there should always be a modicum of doubt apart from anything else.
-
Perhaps so, but would you agree that the flip side is that there are some members who are so set on there being a MOJ that they contrive and sneak a meaning out of anything in an attempt to pull the wool over peoples eyes like a klingon bird of prey with a cloaking device activated ( :P ).
Regardless of your view on the case, you want the truth right?
You want 'your' truth! I asked a question and even posted the source which is more than a lot of people here do! You couldn't answer the question and were contradicted on the issue of when the keys were handed back and the visit to Witham - you didn't like being wrong!
I didn't contrive anything, I posted the source! However, the information was already in the public domain! Now, 'they' don't have the official source for their article but perhaps you can contact the author of the following web page and accuse them of trying to "Pulling the wool"? I'm sure they too will 'consider the source'
http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/robert-boutflour.html
-
You want 'your' truth! I asked a question and even posted the source which is more than a lot of people here do! You couldn't answer the question and were contradicted on the issue of when the keys were handed back and the visit to Witham - you didn't like being wrong!
I didn't contrive anything, I posted the source! However, the information was already in the public domain! Now, 'they' don't have the official source for their article but perhaps you can contact the author of the following web page and accuse them of trying to "Pulling the wool"? I'm sure they too will 'consider the source'
http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/robert-boutflour.html
No I'm quite happy with 'THE' truth, whatever that may be.
-
No I'm quite happy with 'THE' truth, whatever that may be.
Good! That makes two of us!
-
Good! That makes two of us!
So would you agree that your title of this thread, does not match the document relied upon to justify it?
Certainly it is an interpretation, and it may well be the case, but you have come to that assumption, either by yourself or by viewing comments made by others. The reality is that you cannot be certain what the 'cryptic' line of text refers to. No amount of personal attacks, jibes or goads alter that fact.
-
Let's face it,Hartley, " us lot " put across more " theories/evidence " in saying that JB didn't do it,as opposed to you and others with their meagre input who say that he did. So don't knock us.
Instead of pulling posts to shreds,why not be constructive in your thinking by not looking for the obvious within the case,,of what the JB " bashers " have written.
It's easier to prosecute than it is to defend.
-
Let's face it,Hartley, " us lot " put across more " theories/evidence " in saying that JB didn't do it,as opposed to you and others with their meagre input who say that he did. So don't knock us.
Instead of pulling posts to shreds,why not be constructive in your thinking by not looking for the obvious within the case,,of what the JB " bashers " have written.
It's easier to prosecute than it is to defend.
You're catagorising again, the level of my 'individual' input on this forum is entirely up to me (admins/mods excluded of course).
-
So would you agree that your title of this thread, does not match the document relied upon to justify it?
Certainly it is an interpretation, and it may well be the case, but you have come to that assumption, either by yourself or by viewing comments made by others. The reality is that you cannot be certain what the 'cryptic' line of text refers to. No amount of personal attacks, jibes or goads alter that fact.
To you, it's cryptic, to me it isn't - perhaps that's due to whatever biases we already hold. To me it's quite clear he (David Boutflour) was discussing going back to White House Farm on the Saturday when he states "Peter had been back 'there' previously on the night before, put a gun back" . They only got the keys on Friday, he's talking about going there on Saturday so the night 'previous' is Friday night. I see no reason why he would mention he put a gun away in a cupboard or where ever because in Ann's account of the following day she talks about how she couldn't believe the police had left guns around the place. Why would he put one gun 'away' and leave the others out.
What do other people think? (which was the question in the first place)
However, just for YOU I have amended the title!!
-
I tend to look at it as would it be enough to prove to somebody else, in a court of law for example, my opinion is that it's not even close.
I'm also suspicious that Mike hasn't made too much of it where as he has thrown his weight behind lesser anomolies.
Regardless of your views, I have made my point, kudos to you for changing the title.
-
I tend to look at it as would it be enough to prove to somebody else, in a court of law for example, my opinion is that it's not even close.
I'm also suspicious that Mike hasn't made too much of it where as he has thrown his weight behind lesser anomolies.
Regardless of your views, I have made my point, kudos to you for changing the title.
This isn't a court of law - it's a forum for debate! I have never even hinted that returning a gun to WHF means that JB must be innocent. Merely that it is a strange thing to do given the plans to remove the guns etc. the following day! Kinda like decorating your house just before demolition!
-
This isn't a court of law - it's a forum for debate! I have never even hinted that returning a gun to WHF means that JB must be innocent. Merely that it is a strange thing to do given the plans to remove the guns etc. the following day! Kinda like decorating your house just before demolition!
I never suggested either of those things, I only used a 'court of law' as an example for my logic and conclusion. It is precisely that it sounds odd, that I am skeptical it occurred at all.
It doesn't make sense, it doesn't actually read as is being suggested (imo) and it doesn't appear to be referenced anywhere else.
-
I never suggested either of those things, I only used a 'court of law' as an example for my logic and conclusion. It is precisely that it sounds odd, that I am skeptical it occurred at all.
It doesn't make sense, it doesn't actually read as is being suggested (imo) and it doesn't appear to be referenced anywhere else.
Hi Hartley, I must say that reading that phrase in the context it is in, I would agree with Caroline and assume that he was returning a gun to WHF. Just an opinion but then that's all that it can be imo. ;D
-
Hi Hartley, I must say that reading that phrase in the context it is in, I would agree with Caroline and assume that he was returning a gun to WHF. Just an opinion but then that's all that it can be imo. ;D
I don't need to say that I disagree, do I? ;)
-
I don't need to say that I disagree, do I? ;)
Are you sticking with 'the toy gun' theory ;)
-
Hi Hartley, I must say that reading that phrase in the context it is in, I would agree with Caroline and assume that he was returning a gun to WHF. Just an opinion but then that's all that it can be imo. ;D
Thank you Maggie! :)
-
I think your description of Pros versus anti's (for want of a better description), is ridiculous, it's an attempt to stereotype, the truth of the matter is that there are fanaticals amongst both groups, and there are genuine reasonable people amongst both groups, to suggest otherwise is in essence one of my pet grumbles and it simply shows a tendancy to catagorise.
Take the title of this thread for example, it is leading, innaccurate and quite frankly the type of thing I have come to expect from certain posters (on both sides). If it was worded as a question, such as "hey look what I've found, what do you think this means?", then I have no problem, but that's not the case.
What is even worse, is that the original poster in this thread, spends a great deal of time and effort berrating other people for making assumptions and coming up with things that can not be substantiated or not based on anything of merit, but only if they don't conform to her views. Hypocrisy is king it seems. ::)
It sounds as if you were offended by what I said. Giving offence was not my intention. I was making observations, not pointing fingers. As to the title of the thread not being appropriate, I really couldn't tell you what the title was/is, as I pick threads by the last person to post because a witty, provacative, intelligent post will make any topic worth reading.
I re read my original post to find where I'd "stereotyped" anyone. I don't believe I did. I spoke of the "greatest difference," not the ONLY difference. I allow that there are reasonable and fanatical posters from both sides. I would never refer to you as fanatical, but neither do I feel that your response to my post was entirely reasonable given that my own was neither insult nor attack, but an observation of human behaviour.
-
Are you sticking with 'the toy gun' theory ;)
Lol, no, I'm not sticking to any theory, it may well be the case that your suggestion is spot on, I really don't know but I think it's unlikely for all the reasons that I've already given. My argument wasn't about what happened, it was about using the document posted in this thread as proof that it happened, where as it is not proof at all. A discussion point, sure, but nothing more without further information to support the theory one way or the other.
-
It sounds as if you were offended by what I said. Giving offence was not my intention. I was making observations, not pointing fingers. As to the title of the thread not being appropriate, I really couldn't tell you what the title was/is, as I pick threads by the last person to post because a witty, provacative, intelligent post will make any topic worth reading.
I re read my original post to find where I'd "stereotyped" anyone. I don't believe I did. I spoke of the "greatest difference," not the ONLY difference. I allow that there are reasonable and fanatical posters from both sides. I would never refer to you as fanatical, but neither do I feel that your response to my post was entirely reasonable given that my own was neither insult nor attack, but an observation of human behaviour.
Yeah I kind of read it as a bit of a dig, I apologise if I took you the wrong way.
-
Yeah I kind of read it as a bit of a dig, I apologise if I took you the wrong way.
Thank you, Jam. I accept your apology :)
-
Hi april your response to Mr.Jam was not offensive in any shape or form it was a very well put together intelligent post without any malice. I am sure Mr.Jam did not really think you were having a "dig" just winding you up. He can be quite naughty that way at times :)
-
Lol, no, I'm not sticking to any theory, it may well be the case that your suggestion is spot on, I really don't know but I think it's unlikely for all the reasons that I've already given. My argument wasn't about what happened, it was about using the document posted in this thread as proof that it happened, where as it is not proof at all. A discussion point, sure, but nothing more without further information to support the theory one way or the other.
I don't believe I did do that. However, there are many 'outrageous' claims made here where no source is provided - I hope you will be as dogmatic in response to such claims in the future with other posters!
-
Hi april your response to Mr.Jam was not offensive in any shape or form it was a very well put together intelligent post without any malice. I am sure Mr.Jam did not really think you were having a "dig" just winding you up. He can be quite naughty that way at times :)
Thank you Susan :) :)
-
I suppose someone could ask Peter Eaton exactly what he did? At least it will stop the speculation.
-
I don't believe I did do that. However, there are many 'outrageous' claims made here where no source is provided - I hope you will be as dogmatic in response to such claims in the future with other posters!
I'm confused by this, it is precisely the outrageous claims made on here that I spend most of my time discrediting.
There are however certain posters (a couple from both sides) that are so full of xxxx that I don't bother with them at all.
-
I suppose someone could ask Peter Eaton exactly what he did? At least it will stop the speculation.
I'm sure they already have,
-
I'm sure they already have,
I wish they'd post it here then.
-
Was it ever established WHEN Peter Eaton went to WHF to return whatever it was? Was it before the key was returned to the family, or after? ie was the key returned on the 9th or on the 10th?
-
Was it ever established WHEN Peter Eaton went to WHF to return whatever it was? Was it before the key was returned to the family, or after? ie was the key returned on the 9th or on the 10th?
The key was returned on 9th - he and his wife Ann met the police at WHF who showed Ann around the property explaining basically what happened. But the only thing about the gun is mentioned in David's statement - he gives no times. However, apparently the event was also mentioned by Robert Boutflour. I will search for this statement and post it if I find it.
-
The key was returned on 9th - he and his wife Ann met the police at WHF who showed Ann around the property explaining basically what happened. But the only thing about the gun is mentioned in David's statement - he gives no times. However, apparently the event was also mentioned by Robert Boutflour. I will search for this statement and post it if I find it.
So no mystery then? He went there legally.
-
So no mystery then? He went there legally.
It wasn't suggested that he went there 'illegally' (not sure where you got that from). The question (NOW) is from what David Boutflour has said in his statement do you think that he is saying Peter Eaton 'returned a gun to WHF on 9th Aug' or that while he was at WHF, he simply put a gun away somewhere? If he 'returned a gun why would he? Given that members of the family (Ann and David) were going to WHF the following day (Saturday) to remove all of the guns.
-
It wasn't suggested that he went there 'illegally' (not sure where you got that from). The question (NOW) is from what David Boutflour has said in his statement do you think that he is saying Peter Eaton 'returned a gun to WHF on 9th Aug' or that while he was at WHF, he simply put a gun away somewhere? If he 'returned a gun why would he? Given that members of the family (Ann and David) were going to WHF the following day (Saturday) to remove all of the guns.
I got it from the beginning of the thread where it was questioned whether he went there before he got the key or after he got the key. For if he went there before he got the key it would have meant that he had to break in. Hence the word "elegally". But it has since been settled that he went there after he got the key.
-
I got it from the beginning of the thread where it was questioned whether he went there before he got the key or after he got the key. For if he went there before he got the key it would have meant that he had to break in. Hence the word "elegally". But it has since been settled that he went there after he got the key.
I see, but the point of the question was in reference to the gun rather than the key but I can see where it got confused.