Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: grahameb on June 07, 2014, 05:03:PM
-
Did Pargeter break the law by taking either the rifle or even the bolt action component from WHF?
It must be stated that firearms certificates are serious and uncompromising documents; improper removal of Pargeter’s rifle from White House Farm without the necessary documentation was a criminal offence. Pargeter was fully aware of the firearm laws: ‘…any firearm that is licensed to be kept in accordance with conditions attached to a firearm’s certificate shall not be removed from the place nominated on the certificate unless notification is given to the relevant police authorities…’ To get any type of variation on a firearms certificate takes time. To believe – for reasons never explained – that Pargeter chose some weeks or months before the murders to suddenly change his firearms certificate and that the approval came through a matter of days before the killings occurred takes some digesting. If this was the case, Essex police would have been extremely interested in such a bizarre coincidence, but they didn’t ask Nevill Bamber’s nephew any such questions, because they knew Pargeter’s gun was at the Bamber farm when the murders took place. Added to the entire idiocy of Pargeter’s story is the fact that Nevill was a Justice of the Peace and sat on the bench at Witham Magistrates’ Court; Nevill would never have allowed Pargeter to unlawfully remove his .22 Bruno bolt action rifle from White House Farm where it was licensed to be stored.
Anthony Pargeter made a number of official witness statements to the Essex police in 1985/86 which were relied upon as part of the prosecution case against Jeremy. He made it clear that he had kept the .22 rifle at White House Farm since 1980, that he always kept it at the farm, and that on the penultimate weekend before the murders he had gone to White House Farm to fit a new telescopic sight to his rifle. Pargeter, in his own signed and cautioned witness statements, then said he had fired some rounds before returning to his Buckinghamshire home and that he had left his .22 rifle at White House Farm.
Pargeter retrospectively claimed that as a precaution he had removed the bolt from his gun! (It’s hard not to conclude that Pargeter’s claim he took the bolt home was simply an attempt to distance himself from any indirect responsibility for the murders. Not only was it an impractical thing to do, but both Anthony Pargeter and Nevill Bamber (and the police officers who took the statement) were aware that the bolt is a section 1 component part of a firearm and is governed by the conditions imposed upon a firearms certificate, and therefore it would have been illegal to removed the bolt from the Bamber farmhouse.
Ann Eaton’s handwritten notes also confirm that the gun case in which Pargeter always kept his .22 rifle was recovered from the farmhouse downstairs toilet shortly after the murders and handed back to Pargeter, making further nonsense of the claim Pargeter had changed his firearms certificate and removed the rifle itself. The witness statement of David Boutflour (dated October 31 1985) indicates that the weapon belonging to Anthony Pargeter was stored at White House Farm, supporting Jeremy’s statements, and supported by Pargeter’s own statements in 1985 and 1986.
Six years later, Pargeter made an official statement to City of London Police which utterly contradicted the evidence he gave to Essex CID
-
Yes he did break the law because it was registered at WHF,,and if it had been found that it had been used in a crime scene,he'd probably have had his ownership revoked.
-
yes he certanly did.
-
Firearms certificates are drawn up legally. Pargeter broke the law !
-
well you cant just remove things from a crime scene without permission.
-
It would appear so,nugs. :o
-
and before says it wasnt a crime scene then it most certanly was.
-
It was indeed.
-
4 murders and a suicide is still a crime scene.
-
Of course it is. Though judging by the performance of EP------------------------
-
I rather think it was at WHF the day of the murders. I further think that it was photographed at WHF on the day of the murders. I think also that Pargeter wanted to distance himself from the scene of the murders. Why on earth and for what reason would Pargeter have for removing the bolt from his rifle just the week before the murders.
Let me make it clear. I do not think that he had anything to do with the murders. But by giving the impression that there was only one gun at WHF on the night of the murders forces the police to falsify their statements in combining the guns into one gun.
For if two guns were used and not just one it would have been much easier for Sheila and indeed Jeremy to shoot all those people.
Notice also the way they were shot. Not in an orderly way as if it was carefully planned. But bullets hit the bodies (remember all at close range) everywhere as if in a panic.
-
Either a frenzy,,or to get it over quickly.
-
that would fit with the sighting of somthing that looked like a riffle by 3 police officers.
-
that would fit with the sighting of somthing that looked like a riffle by 3 police officers.
If the spent ammo was anything to go by there could have been two guns used, even if the same box of ammo was used?
-
the qustion is why did he remove it why dident he want to leave it around.
was he worried about being falsely acused if so why.
-
the qustion is why did he remove it why dident he want to leave it around.
was he worried about being falsely acused if so why.
It was probably something as simple as that. He had no connection with the killings and he wanted it to stay that way?
-
but why would he think that anybody would think that he had.
-
but why would he think that anybody would think that he had.
I don't know nugnug. But he did sue someone once who suggested that he had. Perhaps he has the forsight to see that coming?
-
but surely nobody would of thought it was him at the time.
-
A firearms certificate doesn't require you to store the weapon on particular property. It governs the right to purchase and own a weapon and specifies where and for what purpose any wepaons that are purchased under said certificate can be USED.
A weapon can be used for target shooting or for use killing animals on specific lands. The certificate will specify either use or both but must specify at least 1.
The claim Anthony would be in violation of the law by taking his own weapon home is nonsense. He would be in violation of the law if he tried to use a weapon for a purpose not authorized according to the terms of the certificate or on property where he was not authorized to do so.
It has to do with use not storage of the weapon.
-
that all depends on the terms of your licence not all licences are the same.
under normal circumstances your right but it would depend on the terms you were granted the licence.
-
and your still not supposed to take items of intrest from a crime scene without permission even if they do belong to you.
-
Back in 1985 the rules weren't anywhere near as tight as they are now, but I would have thought that the location of the firearm would have been a consideration. I suspect our laws are very different from yours.
( Info on current practices - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/262215/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_v6_Nov_2013.pdf)
-
I agree with both nugnug and Caroline
As far as I remember the shotgun should always be returned to the premises and the locked gun cupboard of the address the licence was granted - that was definitely the case in the 70s in the UK
I agree that the individuals were sometimes a bit lapse about putting them back in the cupboard especially on farms - but considering that NB was supposed to be nervous for his safety "allegedly" and had children in the house I would have been surprised if all guns had not been locked away at the end of the day. Remember that you also were in big trouble if you used them against an intruder . Dis-proprtionate defence and all that.
-
you were also in big trouble if you manged to lose one that could cost you your licence.
-
A firearms certificate doesn't require you to store the weapon on particular property. It governs the right to purchase and own a weapon and specifies where and for what purpose any wepaons that are purchased under said certificate can be USED.
A weapon can be used for target shooting or for use killing animals on specific lands. The certificate will specify either use or both but must specify at least 1.
The claim Anthony would be in violation of the law by taking his own weapon home is nonsense. He would be in violation of the law if he tried to use a weapon for a purpose not authorized according to the terms of the certificate or on property where he was not authorized to do so.
It has to do with use not storage of the weapon.
I'm afraid it does and his certificate specified exactly that and that was the very reason he left it at WHF. The licensing laws are very strict on that.
-
Yes Grahame is correct. And the guns should have been locked away as well. You were not allowed to use guns to defend yourself against burglars either. Dis-proportionste defence and all that. Considering my was supposed to be in fear of his life :Pypu had children in the house you would he would have locked all the guns away securely.
-
but here lies a problem if the guns were locked away securely how would ethere sheila or jeremy have got hold of one.
-
I'm afraid it does and his certificate specified exactly that and that was the very reason he left it at WHF. The licensing laws are very strict on that.
Not only that but his certificate ruled also that not even the bolt action component was allowed to be taken off the farm. Probablt because it was capable of being transferred to another gun of similar calibre and make?
-
Back in 1985 the rules weren't anywhere near as tight as they are now, but I would have thought that the location of the firearm would have been a consideration. I suspect our laws are very different from yours.
( Info on current practices - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/262215/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_v6_Nov_2013.pdf)
I was referring to UK rules.
US laws vary by state but the US is different in that our license is a license to own and use a gun for any lawful purpose. We don't specify it can only be used for hunting or target practice. It can be used for self-defense, (which is not allowed in the UK), hunting or target practice once owned. Each state has its own rules about transport (some require guns to be unloaded locked in a trunk for instance).
You can thus go to any range you want you don't have to go to a specific shooting club only and can hunt anywhere hunting is legal. Uusally you need to pay a fee for a hunting license but it is separate from gun licensing.
The UK is much more strict in what it can be used for and where- such is actually included in the conditions section.
-
I'm afraid it does and his certificate specified exactly that and that was the very reason he left it at WHF. The licensing laws are very strict on that.
I'd like to see a copy because I have not heard of such a thing and I have friends who moved from England who owned weapons there and here and talked to me about how much better things are here because they could use any range they like and just collect weapons without even needing to want them for target shooting or hunting. The law as they explained it to me matches what I have read regardling legal information. I can't find anything that mentions a firearms license limiting possession to a specific place.
Storage laws have to do with what they must be locked in but that's it not where.
-
of course if someone else got hold of your gun and killed someone with it you would also be in danger of losing you licence.
i wonder if that's what he suspected.
-
A firearms certificate doesn't require you to store the weapon on particular property. It governs the right to purchase and own a weapon and specifies where and for what purpose any wepaons that are purchased under said certificate can be USED.
A weapon can be used for target shooting or for use killing animals on specific lands. The certificate will specify either use or both but must specify at least 1.
The claim Anthony would be in violation of the law by taking his own weapon home is nonsense. He would be in violation of the law if he tried to use a weapon for a purpose not authorized according to the terms of the certificate or on property where he was not authorized to do so.
It has to do with use not storage of the weapon.
NO, but it DOES require that it's kept in a locked gun cupboard so if the gun owner's own residence doesn't have one, a named residence must be found. Pargeter may well have been in violation of the gun laws had he taken his weapon to a place without provision for its' safe keeping.
-
he would need permission to move it to a different address so theirs no doubt he was in breach of his terms.
-
NO, but it DOES require that it's kept in a locked gun cupboard so if the gun owner's own residence doesn't have one, a named residence must be found. Pargeter may well have been in violation of the gun laws had he taken his weapon to a place without provision for its' safe keeping.
Today it does but such law was passed well after the murders. It went into force in 1989 (Firearms Rules 1989 Section (4)(iv)(A))
-
theirs also the matter of removing things from a crime scene without permission.
weather its your property or not your still not supposed to do it.
-
Today it does but such law was passed well after the murders. It went into force in 1989 (Firearms Rules 1989 Section (4)(iv)(A))
Which suggests the possibility that Pargeter kept it there because it was the only shoot he participated in. One wonders why, if he regularly kept it there, he felt the need to remove it.
-
Which suggests the possibility that Pargeter kept it there because it was the only shoot he participated in. One wonders why, if he regularly kept it there, he felt the need to remove it.
If he removed it after the murders it is obvious, he would no longer be visiting and scared Jeremy would steal it.
My mom's cousin left his tools at the house his mother shared with her brothers (all were elderly so he fixed up things for them). After she died he still kept the tools there to take care of his uncles. Another cousin did some illicit things and sold the house to keep the money for himself and either stole the tools or threw them away claiming they were not found by him.
If he did so before the murders there are still logical reasons f or it but it is less easy to know for sure why
-
A week before the murders too,April. ?
Apparently,,he used to remove the bolt so it couldn't be used.
-
sorry im a bit confused now did he do it before the murders or after.
-
Nugs,,do a search on the forum------" the three dodgy prosecution witnesses cook,jones and boutflour " that'll also tell you about pargeters rifle.
-
If he removed it after the murders it is obvious, he would no longer be visiting and scared Jeremy would steal it.
My mom's cousin left his tools at the house his mother shared with her brothers (all were elderly so he fixed up things for them). After she died he still kept the tools there to take care of his uncles. Another cousin did some illicit things and sold the house to keep the money for himself and either stole the tools or threw them away claiming they were not found by him.
If he did so before the murders there are still logical reasons f or it but it is less easy to know for sure why
I'm sure it's perfectly obvious to you, as a prosecutor, that if he removed it after the murders, he just walked in, removed said fire arm and walked out again ,without informing anyone of what he'd done, without it looking in the least bit suspicious. I, on the other hand feel such an action is rather odd, not to say, unfeeling, given that his relatives had died so horribly.
-
Plus the fact that there were 15 bullets in one rifle and 10 in the other !
-
I'm sure it's perfectly obvious to you, as a prosecutor, that if he removed it after the murders, he just walked in, removed said fire arm and walked out again ,without informing anyone of what he'd done, without it looking in the least bit suspicious. I, on the other hand feel such an action is rather odd, not to say, unfeeling, given that his relatives had died so horribly.
There is nothing wrong at all with doing so after police already take what they want. Had Inspector Jones have actually done his job instead of deciding it was a murder suicide just based on Jeremy's say so and the fact the gun was found on her body and handled it as a traditional homicide investigation then police would have taken all firearms in the house. They didn't which is the fault of police.
There is nothing that prevents removing property after police process a scene. If it is your property you can take it.
The lack of proper crime scene handling mostly stems from Taff Jones deciding he was chalking it up to murder suicide and that's it, not even bothering to call a firearms expert to the scene. This explains in part why he lost command of the case since under his direction it was so poorly handled.
-
Plus the fact that there were 15 bullets in one rifle and 10 in the other !
The shell casings were all fired from the murder weapon per the firing pin impressions/extraction marks/ breech marks.
This means not only were the 15 bullets that had striae to indicate they were fired from the murder weapon fired from it but also the remaining 10.
-
It wasn't on Jeremys' say-so that " Taff " Jones had said it was 4 murders and a suicide at all. I've never heard such a lie in all my life--------------well I have actually,,many on here !
It was purely on the decision of " Taff " Jones who'd said it,,,and rightly,too,,as that's what it was.
Prosecutors can say anything though,can't they ? They're a law unto themselves !
-
It wasn't on Jeremys' say-so that " Taff " Jones had said it was 4 murders and a suicide at all. I've never heard such a lie in all my life--------------well I have actually,,many on here !
It was purely on the decision of " Taff " Jones who'd said it,,,and rightly,too,,as that's what it was.
Prosecutors can say anything though,can't they ? They're a law unto themselves !
The only lies are from you.
Taff Jones decided within 2 hours that it was 4 murders and a suicide. What evidence did he have at the time? jeremy's claims and the position of the rifle nothing more.
No ballistics evidence to prove whether any were killed by the weapon on Sheila, no forensic evidence to establish Sheila had done a thing. The position of the body with the rifle on it and Jeremy's claims were all he had at the time and that is what he based his decision on.
-
taff came to this conclusion he had at hand nothing to do with Jeremy at the time 4 murders and suicide was the obvious conclusion.
i imagene he based the this on the raid team had told him
-
The only lies are from you.
Taff Jones decided within 2 hours that it was 4 murders and a suicide. What evidence did he have at the time? jeremy's claims and the position of the rifle nothing more.
No ballistics evidence to prove whether any were killed by the weapon on Sheila, no forensic evidence to establish Sheila had done a thing. The position of the body with the rifle on it and Jeremy's claims were all he had at the time and that is what he based his decision on.
I'm not in the habit of telling lies. How dare you !
Jeremy claimed NOTHING ! He was in no position to know how the deceased were found.That was all left to Jones,,who I said,,made the final decision NOT Jeremy.
Not very knowledgeable are you for an ARMCHAIR " lawyer ?".
You're like Adam.You don't look any further. Which a lawyer would do,,and what's more,,a lawyer wouldn't spend as many hours on a forum either,,so don't try and pull the wool here,,it doesn't work with me.
-
the police decided it at first based on what they had seen with there own eyes they had no need for anyone to tell them
if you see someone with a gun wound to the neck and a gun right beside them and theres 4 other dead people in the house what else are you going to think but 4 murder and a suicide.
-
There may well have been other indications,nugs,,because every time I see that pic of Sheila with the rifle on her body,,I can't help getting the distinct impression that it was just " placed " there.
-
If he removed it after the murders it is obvious, he would no longer be visiting and scared Jeremy would steal it.
My mom's cousin left his tools at the house his mother shared with her brothers (all were elderly so he fixed up things for them). After she died he still kept the tools there to take care of his uncles. Another cousin did some illicit things and sold the house to keep the money for himself and either stole the tools or threw them away claiming they were not found by him.
If he did so before the murders there are still logical reasons f or it but it is less easy to know for sure why
He said he removed the rifle around about a week before the murders, not after.
-
Also,the two shots to her neck,,I believe weren't delivered by her own hand. These are just my own personal opinions,,and not the way that everyone else sees it.
-
The shell casings were all fired from the murder weapon per the firing pin impressions/extraction marks/ breech marks.
This means not only were the 15 bullets that had striae to indicate they were fired from the murder weapon fired from it but also the remaining 10.
You neglect to mention the test firing of the rifle which would not only produce the same marks, but also produced whole bullets with not human material on them. The police conveniently forgot to mention those.
-
I'd like to see a copy because I have not heard of such a thing and I have friends who moved from England who owned weapons there and here and talked to me about how much better things are here because they could use any range they like and just collect weapons without even needing to want them for target shooting or hunting. The law as they explained it to me matches what I have read regardling legal information. I can't find anything that mentions a firearms license limiting possession to a specific place.
Storage laws have to do with what they must be locked in but that's it not where.
I'm afraid that it refers to WHERE the guns and their components are kept as well.
-
Today it does but such law was passed well after the murders. It went into force in 1989 (Firearms Rules 1989 Section (4)(iv)(A))
Sorry wrong again. My stepfather kept firearms. The police came to inspect the place where they were kept. WHF was in breach of those laws at the time of the murders. My stepfather had to get a special metal cabinet made. This was built into the lintel over the door and the access was in another room which was to be kept locked at all times. At no time were those guns to be taken off the premises.
-
If he removed it after the murders it is obvious, he would no longer be visiting and scared Jeremy would steal it.
My mom's cousin left his tools at the house his mother shared with her brothers (all were elderly so he fixed up things for them). After she died he still kept the tools there to take care of his uncles. Another cousin did some illicit things and sold the house to keep the money for himself and either stole the tools or threw them away claiming they were not found by him.
If he did so before the murders there are still logical reasons f or it but it is less easy to know for sure why
So you can read Pargeters mind could you? Also I'm afraid it was the other way round. It was not Jeremy who first removed things from WHF it was the relatives. Who knows what went missing when they went into the house on the 9th of August?
By the way the invantory of the weapons was exactly the same as the relatives invantory.
-
There is nothing wrong at all with doing so after police already take what they want. Had Inspector Jones have actually done his job instead of deciding it was a murder suicide just based on Jeremy's say so and the fact the gun was found on her body and handled it as a traditional homicide investigation then police would have taken all firearms in the house. They didn't which is the fault of police.
There is nothing that prevents removing property after police process a scene. If it is your property you can take it.
The lack of proper crime scene handling mostly stems from Taff Jones deciding he was chalking it up to murder suicide and that's it, not even bothering to call a firearms expert to the scene. This explains in part why he lost command of the case since under his direction it was so poorly handled.
That's just it the it was not the relative's property but they still took things. Then everybody makes a fuss because Jeremy took some stuff. Suddenly it is he who is referred to as the thief.
-
The only lies are from you.
Taff Jones decided within 2 hours that it was 4 murders and a suicide. What evidence did he have at the time? jeremy's claims and the position of the rifle nothing more.
No ballistics evidence to prove whether any were killed by the weapon on Sheila, no forensic evidence to establish Sheila had done a thing. The position of the body with the rifle on it and Jeremy's claims were all he had at the time and that is what he based his decision on.
How do you know how Jones made up his mind? It was the scene of the crime that caused him and every other officer who went in that place to believe that it was murder and suicide not just because Jeremy said so. Wake up man. Since when have coppers listened to members of the public?
It took weeks of nagging by the relatives and their playing on the weak mind of one of the younger coppers that Taff Jones reluctantly questioned Jeremy in interigation conditions. But Taff Jones never changed his mind up until he died. I believe that if he was alive to take the stand the outcome would have been quite different? You aren't interested in the truth at all.
You just want the blood of Jeremy so you can rub his nose in all the shit others have made up about him. If you were truly interested in justice you would be very much interested in all the inconsistences and altered notebooks and statements of the police and their continued bullish resistence in releasing various documents pertaining to the case. But you are not the least bit interested if there was police corruption or not are you?
-
taff came to this conclusion he had at hand nothing to do with Jeremy at the time 4 murders and suicide was the obvious conclusion.
i imagene he based the this on the raid team had told him
Yes that is right nugnug. He was not present at the scene and never even conversed with Jeremy. Som how could he have been "influenced" by him? Honestly, some of the silly suggestions made by some. Sometomes I must stuff my fist into my mouth in order to stop myself laughing at some of these plainly idiotic suggestions. And what's more they are supposedly intelligent people who made these suggestions. Taff Jones was a cop of 30 years experience and some rooky youngster was persuaded by a Miss Marple from, guess where? The relatives, who obviously gained no benefit at all from the gaoling of Jeremy.
Some family. With a family like that who from the very first day were "persuaded" ::) that Jeremy had done this dastardly deed, who needs enemies? And to think that Jeremy was never aware of the silken trap that they were all setting for him.
-
The only lies are from you.
Taff Jones decided within 2 hours that it was 4 murders and a suicide. What evidence did he have at the time? jeremy's claims and the position of the rifle nothing more.
No ballistics evidence to prove whether any were killed by the weapon on Sheila, no forensic evidence to establish Sheila had done a thing. The position of the body with the rifle on it and Jeremy's claims were all he had at the time and that is what he based his decision on.
So you conclude that Taff Jones decided it was 4 murders and a suicide based on Jeremy's claims and the position of the rifle. His presence at the scene and contemporaneous knowledge of the unfolding series of events played no part in his conclusions according to your somewhat flawed reasoning. I suspect that in truth Taff Jones conclusions were based on rather more than what Jeremy told him and the rifle position,yet you can confidently claim otherwise.
Can you let us all know what everybody else involved was thinking with your remarkable mind reading skills, or are you just guessing really and then passing off your guesses and assumptions as established facts as long as it suits your agenda.
Taff Jones was there and would be aware of many different pieces of the jigsaw and his conclusions were obviously based on rather more than your simplistic analysis suggests.
-
I'm not in the habit of telling lies. How dare you !
Jeremy claimed NOTHING ! He was in no position to know how the deceased were found.That was all left to Jones,,who I said,,made the final decision NOT Jeremy.
Not very knowledgeable are you for an ARMCHAIR " lawyer ?".
You're like Adam.You don't look any further. Which a lawyer would do,,and what's more,,a lawyer wouldn't spend as many hours on a forum either,,so don't try and pull the wool here,,it doesn't work with me.
Don't worry lookout. He's just judging you by what he is himself. ;) Some people do that. All it does is to reveal the dark nature that infests their own minds. I ask you, wouldn't only a psychopath take up the position to condemn a person who is already condemned? And argue a point that has already been won and the public satisfied with the punishment dealt out? Except of course unless there is a doubt in the minds of much of the public that justice has not yet been done. But there are others who must answer for their part in a corruption of probably the worst case of miscarriage of justice of the 20th century? What else but a psychopath would argue in such a way?
-
How do you know how Jones made up his mind? It was the scene of the crime that caused him and every other officer who went in that place to believe that it was murder and suicide not just because Jeremy said so. Wake up man. Since when have coppers listened to members of the public?
It took weeks of nagging by the relatives and their playing on the weak mind of one of the younger coppers that Taff Jones reluctantly questioned Jeremy in interigation conditions. But Taff Jones never changed his mind up until he died. I believe that if he was alive to take the stand the outcome would have been quite different? You aren't interested in the truth at all.
You just want the blood of Jeremy so you can rub his nose in all the shit others have made up about him. If you were truly interested in justice you would be very much interested in all the inconsistences and altered notebooks and statements of the police and their continued bullish resistence in releasing various documents pertaining to the case. But you are not the least bit interested if there was police corruption or not are you?
Missed your post Grahame otherwise I wouldn't have made the points that you had already made. Scipio isn't interested in the truth, as you say.
He is operating under the misguided notion that he is some master debater defeating all with what he believes are his superior reasoning skills and knowledge when in truth he cannot even tell the difference between opinion and fact.
-
Grahame,,I can see right through him and his phoney lawyer spiel. It would have been more to the point if he'd have said he was a brain surgeon,,then I'd have known that he'd studied woodwork !
I have to agree about the psychopath bit.
-
Grahame,,I can see right through him and his phoney lawyer spiel. It would have been more to the point if he'd have said he was a brain surgeon,,then I'd have known that he'd studied woodwork !
I have to agree about the psychopath bit.
I think he's a rocket scientist myself. ;D
-
im a bit confused about this riffle if he took after the murders how come he wasnt challenged about it.
if he took it before the murders why did he take it.
-
Nugs,,that's something we'll never get to know.
-
if he took it before the murders was he worried about what someone in the house might do with it.
-
Why would he be worried about that,nugs ?
-
well you wouldent want someone getting shot with your gun would you.
-
It wasn't so much that,nugs,,as it was licensed at the address of WHF,,so there it stayed. I certainly don't know why it was never licenced at AP's own home address ?
-
He said he removed the rifle around about a week before the murders, not after.
And people here suggest he lied and removed it after.
I presented both sides.
If he did remove it before the most likely reason would be the intention to use it elsewhere. But only he would be able to answer precisely why.
-
So you conclude that Taff Jones decided it was 4 murders and a suicide based on Jeremy's claims and the position of the rifle. His presence at the scene and contemporaneous knowledge of the unfolding series of events played no part in his conclusions according to your somewhat flawed reasoning. I suspect that in truth Taff Jones conclusions were based on rather more than what Jeremy told him and the rifle position,yet you can confidently claim otherwise.
Can you let us all know what everybody else involved was thinking with your remarkable mind reading skills, or are you just guessing really and then passing off your guesses and assumptions as established facts as long as it suits your agenda.
Taff Jones was there and would be aware of many different pieces of the jigsaw and his conclusions were obviously based on rather more than your simplistic analysis suggests.
What other evidence existed as of around 11 AM when Jones made his assessment?
There were Jeremy's claims and the gun being found on Sheila nothing more.
No matter how much you wish there was more evidence there wasn't. He jumped the gun tremendously and botched the investigation in the process.
-
i imagene he based his conclusion on what the raid team and they based it on what they saw with there own eyes.
-
i imagene he based his conclusion on what the raid team and they based it on what they saw with there own eyes.
The raid team saw the same thing he did. The location of th ebodies, nothing on SHeila to indicate she had been anywhere near the kitchen and simply a gun lying on her.
Instead of processing the scene like a homicide he assumed the weapon on her was used to kill everyone and that she killed them then herself.
Thus the other weapons and ammunition were not taken, no gun accessories taken and he even destoryed evidence like the bloody sheets etc at Jeremy's request.
He was a first class buffoon and no one can claim any of this was done by him to prejudice Jeremy.
-
well that would be the nautrul assumption on entering the scene.
they wouldn't of required jeremy to tell them that happened.
-
It wasn't so much that,nugs,,as it was licensed at the address of WHF,,so there it stayed. I certainly don't know why it was never licenced at AP's own home address ?
probely because they wouldn't give him a licence to keep it there.
-
Why ?
-
Why ?
If WHF was his main shoot, it made sense to keep the gun there. I don't think he could hold a licence for the same weapon in different places.
-
If WHF was his main shoot, it made sense to keep the gun there. I don't think he could hold a licence for the same weapon in different places.
Yes,,that makes sense,,but I'd like to know who else was in the household.
-
If WHF was his main shoot, it made sense to keep the gun there. I don't think he could hold a licence for the same weapon in different places.
There is a great deal of misreperesentation being bandied about in this thread.
A firearms certificate allows one to BUY firearms. You can own a certificate and yet end up never buying firearms. It entitles one to buy firearms and to use firearms for the purspose sepcified on the certificate.
The address that must be provided is your main residence. That is the address listed on the certificate. These claims that he listed his address as WHF are nonsense.
He could shoot for 2 purposes according to the certificate, target shooting or shooting on land. What land can you shoot on? Land where you have permisison from the owner (if it is your land obviously you make the decision yourself) AND that land must be land where shooting is allowed by the government.
The claims he had no right to store it at his home are patently false. He had an absolute right to do so.
The precise claims he made in his 1991 Statement are as follows:
1) He normally kept his shotguns at WHF but not his BRNO rifle.
2) He stated he left his rifle at WHF his previous visit but did not normally do so and took it home with him after this visit.
That's it with respect to his own weapons.
-
Anyway,,after the tragic events,,and the world and his wife had blamed Jeremy,,from day one,,,AE promptly hands over 2 rifles to the very man she accused of the killings. Their war-cry is the ever monotonous " we live in fear of him being released ",,yet at the beginning,,he could have had a field day with his rifles.. . Is there logic here,,or have I missed something ?
-
There is a great deal of misreperesentation being bandied about in this thread.
A firearms certificate allows one to BUY firearms. You can own a certificate and yet end up never buying firearms. It entitles one to buy firearms and to use firearms for the purspose sepcified on the certificate.
The address that must be provided is your main residence. That is the address listed on the certificate. These claims that he listed his address as WHF are nonsense.
He could shoot for 2 purposes according to the certificate, target shooting or shooting on land. What land can you shoot on? Land where you have permisison from the owner (if it is your land obviously you make the decision yourself) AND that land must be land where shooting is allowed by the government.
The claims he had no right to store it at his home are patently false. He had an absolute right to do so.
The precise claims he made in his 1991 Statement are as follows:
1) He normally kept his shotguns at WHF but not his BRNO rifle.
2) He stated he left his rifle at WHF his previous visit but did not normally do so and took it home with him after this visit.
That's it with respect to his own weapons.
Then why did he alter his statement in 1991 from what he said in his 1985 statement. Where he said that the cupboard was the normal place that he kept his .22 as well as his shotguns?
-
Statements ?? I was reading one of AE's yesterday and it was full of " I can't remembers " and " I think it was so and so ". How on this earth they reached a courtroom,I'll never know.
-
Then why did he alter his statement in 1991 from what he said in his 1985 statement. Where he said that the cupboard was the normal place that he kept his .22 as well as his shotguns?
Post exact quotes of what you claim to be contradictory. You have a habit of not knowing what people actually stated.
-
Yes,,that makes sense,,but I'd like to know who else was in the household.
they might of thought he was not a fit person to have a licence but of course if he got nevile they would be bound to give him a licence as nevile was a magistrate.
-
If the spent ammo was anything to go by there could have been two guns used, even if the same box of ammo was used?
Grahame,,I'm of the belief that there were indeed two guns used----------------by two women !
-
Post exact quotes of what you claim to be contradictory. You have a habit of not knowing what people actually stated.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,768.msg20285.html#msg20285 page 1.
-
they might of thought he was a fit person to have a licence but of course if he got nevile they would be bound to give him a licence as nevile was a magistrate.
You get several peopel to vouch for your character to get a license, if Nevill was one of those who vouched for him that would be even better than a lay person but any respectable person will do.
They do this for firearms and other things assuming that if you have mental problems or the like that you won't be able to get someone to vouch for you.
In most instances this is not worth crap, even horrible people can find someone who will vouch for them. They sometimes will contact the people ask if they know them to have done anything unstable or violent or other things that the person would be unlikely they ever saw and the whole thing ends up being worthless.
-
no over here they wont take reference from just anybody
well most of the time.
but they can hardly ignore a reference from a man who approves licences himself.
-
no over here they wont take reference from just anybody
well most of the time.
but they can hardly ignore a reference from a man who approves licences himself.
If I makes you sleep better at night you can think that but unless a reference is a gangbanger or someone else viewed as being on the wrong side of the law they don't reject licenses becuase of the person vouching is not trustworthy.
Short of the bad of the bad this is really just a farce step.
Moreso it is the need aspect that they reject applications over.
The voucher step moreso is used as an excuse to delay consideration because they need to get in touch with such people sometimes. So it exists mainly to lengthen the process.
-
a gun licence isnt a right you have to justify wanting one.
-
Post exact quotes of what you claim to be contradictory. You have a habit of not knowing what people actually stated.
Scipio I stand corrected on Pargeter's rifle and the terms of the license. This is from The official website. I think there is a copy of his license on the forum somewhere? Or it may be a copy of the Bamber license?
Annthony Pargeter’s gun was licensed in 1980 for three years, and renewed in 1983, it was to be used at White House Farm, but the license stipulated that it was to be kept at his home in Bourne End, Bucks, he was also issued with a sound moderator for use with the rifle at White House Farm. [6]
So, we have established that Anthony did keep his rifle at the farm which was in breach of his license. Secondly that he owned a sound moderator which was also under the same license terms as the rifle.
Anthony Pargeter sued the Sport Newspaper in 1991 after they had misled readers by suggesting that his rifle had been at White Hosue Farm and possibly used during the tragedies. The Sport lost the libel case and Pargeter was awarded compensation of £40,000 plus costs of £60,000. [7]
-
wouldn't that mean hes defrauded the sunday sport out of a large some of money.
-
wouldn't that mean hes defrauded the sunday sport out of a large some of money.
I think all libel cases are fraud. who is worth £40,000 plus £60,000? Honestly. ::)
-
but hes sued them for saying something about him that was perfectly true and obtained damages i do belive that is obtaining money under false pretenses,.
-
Scipio I stand corrected on Pargeter's rifle and the terms of the license. This is from The official website. I think there is a copy of his license on the forum somewhere? Or it may be a copy of the Bamber license?
I would like to see a copy to see whether it actually stated he had to keep it a his home or not. It could simply be an assumption.
Now you have to because since 1989 you have to keep it out of the hands of others. You have a legal duty to store it in a manner that prevents it from being used by someone else and could potentially be jailed 6 months if you fail to take adequate measures.
One assumes this law was passed gun owners were too lax in where they left their guns through the eyes of the government. I don't know if some tragedy promted it but many times that is the case.
-
I would like to see a copy to see whether it actually stated he had to keep it a his home or not. It could simply be an assumption.
Now you have to because since 1989 you have to keep it out of the hands of others. You have a legal duty to store it in a manner that prevents it from being used by someone else and could potentially be jailed 6 months if you fail to take adequate measures.
One assumes this law was passed gun owners were too lax in where they left their guns through the eyes of the government. I don't know if some tragedy promted it but many times that is the case.
I think there are a lot of things based on assumption.
-
AP 1991 statement in the archives is interesting- especially where he "found " himself recreating the suicide using his gun with the police.
I did not realise he lived in Buckinghamshire . and funnily enough I know the family of the gun shop where he bought his gun.
small world.
-
but hes sued them for saying something about him that was perfectly true and obtained damages i do belive that is obtaining money under false pretenses,.
The newspaper lost because what they stated was not true and they failed to adequately research the matter.
There is no evidence at all that his gun was used, this statement was made with a reckless disregard for the truth.
There was no ballistic match and he stated he removed the bolt (so it could not be used) and that he took the whole gun it home with him after his last visit.
If it wasn't there at all or was there sans bolt in either event it could not be used.
It is funny though that he made so much money off it, especially since they didn't necessarily say he fired it just that his gun might have been used but the jury found the implication he did it was there.
-
I think all libel cases are fraud. who is worth £40,000 plus £60,000? Honestly. ::)
well he was after he had sued them.
-
By the way does anyone have the serial number of his gun so we can look up the exact make.
Nearly all of these had 6 lands and grooves but there were some made with microgrooved barrels with 12 lands and grooves.
No one would use a bolt action rifle instead of a semi-auto and the marks left on the casings would look markely different but we can go through the motions anyway.
The Anschutz 525 has 8 lands and grooves.
-
hang on this may sound like a stupid question it probably is but if he took it before the murders how did anybody know it was there in the first place.
-
hang on this may sound like a stupid question it probably is but if he took it before the murders how did anybody know it was there in the first place.
We only know it was there because he said it was in his statement. I suppose he thought he's better confess that it was there just in case someone else did and he was eager to keep out of it the best he could? Personally I think it would be a very remote possibility that his gun was used? I don't think it was myself.
-
hang on this may sound like a stupid question it probably is but if he took it before the murders how did anybody know it was there in the first place.
If by "in the first place" you mean "there ever" the answer is he told police such.
He said that towards the end of the year he removed the bolt and took it with him but left the remainder of the rifle there along with the case and magazines. He purchased a scope and suppressor which he installed on this visit prior to the murders then took the case home with him.
He also said that his shotguns remained there and were present during the murders.
-
if he took the bolt out when he wasnt using it he must of been rather concerned about someone else using it.
now was this concern paranoid or was it justified.
-
if he took the bolt out when he wasnt using it he must of been rather concerned about someone else using it.
now was this concern paranoid or was it justified.
Even before the 1989 law that created a statutory obligation to prevent others from using your weapon, there was still civil liability. If you didn't do enough to keep your weapon from being used by others you could have to pay monetary damages for injuries caused.
So the responsible thing to do if you do leave a weapon somewhere else is to do what he did in tkaing the bolt away or use a trigger lock. Of course he could have been lying about taking the bolt to try to conceal he was careless but if that were the case why mention it at all? He could simply have mentioned his shotguns staying and claimed he always took the rifle home no matter what.
A bolt action rifle would have been a crappy weapon to pick for the task of assassinating the family though. You have to have a lot of practice to be able to rapidly fire accurately. Especially if firing from a close distance it can be trouble. While working the bolt someone can charge you and grab the weapon A semi-auto is much better because it fires faster.
A bolt action is better for long range sniper use but not by that much, there are some fine long range semi-auto sniper rifles. A sniper doesn't care about speed of fire though accuracy matters.
BRNO's are inexpensive that is their main appeal. They operate ok for the pricepoint.
-
I would like to see a copy to see whether it actually stated he had to keep it a his home or not. It could simply be an assumption.
Now you have to because since 1989 you have to keep it out of the hands of others. You have a legal duty to store it in a manner that prevents it from being used by someone else and could potentially be jailed 6 months if you fail to take adequate measures.
One assumes this law was passed gun owners were too lax in where they left their guns through the eyes of the government. I don't know if some tragedy promted it but many times that is the case.
It was indeed prompted by a tragedy. Thomas Hamilton killed 16 children and a teacher at the local primary school (http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/mar/14/dunblane-massacre-scotland-killing). It led to hand guns being banned in the UK and more stringent rules on how rifles and shot guns were kept. There have been recent amendments after Michael Atherton (taxi driver from my home town - Peterlee), murdered his partner, her sister and her sisters daughter - he also tried to shoot his partner's daughter but she escaped. He then shot himself. He had previously threatened to kill himself with a shot gun. However, until recently no checks for mental health issues were considered. (http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/new-year-shootings-mp-praises-grieving-son-s-gun-law-campaign-two-years-on-1-6345227)
-
It was indeed prompted by a tragedy. Thomas Hamilton killed 16 children and a teacher at the local primary school
You might be right but wrong about the incident. The law was passed in 1989 so predated that attack.
This attack predated the law and involved someone using a gun owned by his father:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkseaton_shootings
-
You might be right but wrong about the incident. The law was passed in 1989 so predated that attack.
This attack predated the law and involved someone using a gun owned by his father:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkseaton_shootings
Hand guns were banned after Dunblane, there were MAJOR changes to gun laws here after that.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm
Not sure what law you are referring to? Which law was passed in 1989?
-
but if was worried about someone misusing his riffel why was he not worried about someone else using his shotguns and clearly wasn't because he left the shotguns there.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm
Not sure what law you are referring to? Which law was passed in 1989?
Caroline I think the law being referred to is the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 which was passed in response to the Hungerford massacre in 1987
-
Caroline I think the law being referred to is the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 which was passed in response to the Hungerford massacre in 1987
OK, haven't read all the thread but I was just talking about recent stuff. I don't live too far from Monkseaton but don't think that had a huge impact although I must admit, I don't even remember the incident.
-
OK, haven't read all the thread but I was just talking about recent stuff. I don't live too far from Monkseaton but don't think that had a huge impact although I must admit, I don't even remember the incident.
The Monkseaton shootings occurred after the legislation was passed so had no influence on the amendments but, like you, I have no memory of this event.
-
The Monkseaton shootings occurred after the legislation was passed so had no influence on the amendments but, like you, I have no memory of this event.
I can't see any significance to the Monkseaton shootings (I'll ask my rellies if they remember it) but Hungerford MUST have made some changes!!
-
did he ever explian why he took it.
-
here you are nug nug - compare the two statements
-
second statement 1991
-
interesting :)
-
so hes bascialy saying he moved becouse he suspected someone else had been using it.
but then he saying he always took the bolt so it couldn't be used.
-
Pretty contradictory,,much the same as quite a few of the statements. Nothing new there.
-
just likes saying my riffle wasn't at the murder scene but i took the bolt out so it couldn't of been fired if it was.
-
so hes bascialy saying he moved becouse he suspected someone else had been using it.
but then he saying he always took the bolt so it couldn't be used.
I think there is another statement in between - I will have a look to see if he gives a third version of where he "normally" kept his rifle.
-
if he really had taken the bolt out then really he no reason to worry about leaving it there.
-
I can not see in any of his statements before the trial that he mentions taking his rifle away from the farm the weekend before. has anyone actually seen his trial evidence?
that's why I could not understand why he won that libel case - according to his statements before the trial - he never mentioned taking the rifle away - he confirmed he normally kept it at WHF - so I don't see why the newspaper were so far out ? I agree they can not prove it was used in the shooting - but say it was why would that matter to AP?
the worse that could have happened that he could have broken the law under the terms of his licence about where the gun was kept. So WHY was it so important to show that his gun was not there?
-
he seems desprate to prove it wasn't there that hes contradicting himself all the time.
and the sunday sport was hardly a serious newspaper anyway so why did he feel the need to sue them.
-
he seems to prove it wasn't there that hes contradicting himself all the time.
and the sunday sport was hardly a serious newspaper anyway so why did he feel the need to sue them.
link to testimony - still can not see anything saying he had removed it
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4062.msg167671.html#msg167671
-
I can not see in any of his statements before the trial that he mentions taking his rifle away from the farm the weekend before. has anyone actually seen his trial evidence?
that's why I could not understand why he won that libel case - according to his statements before the trial - he never mentioned taking the rifle away - he confirmed he normally kept it at WHF - so I don't see why the newspaper were so far out ? I agree they can not prove it was used in the shooting - but say it was why would that matter to AP?
the worse that could have happened that he could have broken the law under the terms of his licence about where the gun was kept. So WHY was it so important to show that his gun was not there?
So he wouldn't be implicated ?
-
So he wouldn't be implicated ?
why would he be implicated when he lived in bourne end which is miles away? - and he was not at the farm.
I can not see why it would matter to him whether two guns were used ?
like I said the only consequence to him would be about the licence conditions.
Another point is though he did say he handled Jeremys rifle so his prints should have been on there.
this is from JB website
Anthony becomes more explicit in his later 12th of December statement by saying that that he did own a BRNO .22 bolt action rifle and says that it was at White House Farm the weekend before the tragedies. He does not state that he took the rifle away from the farm when he left and as he did not attend the farm again until after the incident we can assume that the rifle was at the White House Farm during the tragedies. He also makes no mention that he owned a sound moderator, or that the rifle had one to use with it at the farm.
At trial he then details verbally again that the rifle was at the farm the weekend before the tragedies, and he also told the court that he left his rifle at the farm, and I quote “I take the bolt with me. I leave the rifle at White House”. [5] Anthony makes no mention of his sound moderator at this point.
In 1991 after complaints by Jeremy Bamber, the City of London Police seized Pargeter’s rifle and moderator. There are three points at issue here:
Annthony Pargeter’s gun was licensed in 1980 for three years, and renewed in 1983, it was to be used at White House Farm, but the license stipulated that it was to be kept at his home in Bourne End, Bucks, he was also issued with a sound moderator for use with the rifle at White House Farm. [6]
So, we have established that Anthony did keep his rifle at the farm which was in breach of his license. Secondly that he owned a sound moderator which was also under the same license terms as the rifle.
Anthony Pargeter sued the Sport Newspaper in 1991 after they had misled readers by suggesting that his rifle had been at White Hosue Farm and possibly used during the tragedies. The Sport lost the libel case and Pargeter was awarded compensation of £40,000 plus costs of £60,000. [7]
-
so lets me get this right he said nothing about removing the rifell from the scene a week before the shootings untill he decided to sue the sport.
-
why would he be implicated when he lived in bourne end which is miles away? - and he was not at the farm.
I can not see why it would matter to him whether two guns were used ?
like I said the only consequence to him would be about the licence conditions.
Another point is though he did say he handled Jeremys rifle so his prints should have been on there.
this is from JB website
Anthony becomes more explicit in his later 12th of December statement by saying that that he did own a BRNO .22 bolt action rifle and says that it was at White House Farm the weekend before the tragedies. He does not state that he took the rifle away from the farm when he left and as he did not attend the farm again until after the incident we can assume that the rifle was at the White House Farm during the tragedies. He also makes no mention that he owned a sound moderator, or that the rifle had one to use with it at the farm.
At trial he then details verbally again that the rifle was at the farm the weekend before the tragedies, and he also told the court that he left his rifle at the farm, and I quote “I take the bolt with me. I leave the rifle at White House”. [5] Anthony makes no mention of his sound moderator at this point.
In 1991 after complaints by Jeremy Bamber, the City of London Police seized Pargeter’s rifle and moderator. There are three points at issue here:
Annthony Pargeter’s gun was licensed in 1980 for three years, and renewed in 1983, it was to be used at White House Farm, but the license stipulated that it was to be kept at his home in Bourne End, Bucks, he was also issued with a sound moderator for use with the rifle at White House Farm. [6]
So, we have established that Anthony did keep his rifle at the farm which was in breach of his license. Secondly that he owned a sound moderator which was also under the same license terms as the rifle.
Anthony Pargeter sued the Sport Newspaper in 1991 after they had misled readers by suggesting that his rifle had been at White Hosue Farm and possibly used during the tragedies. The Sport lost the libel case and Pargeter was awarded compensation of £40,000 plus costs of £60,000. [7]
This is wrong. AP clearly stated he visited WHF a week before the murders.
He stated he left his weapons there but removed the bolt. He didn't provide a detailed distiction between his weapons.
In 1991 he was asked to provide more detail and he explained how he always left his shotguns there but only left his rifle there for a period of 6 months. During this time he had the bolt with him. Be bought a scope and other accessories for the gun which he brought with him to WHF to fit them to his weapon and took it home with him when he left. He left his shotguns there still though.
The paper ignored that he stated during the 6 month period it was there that he took the bolt and also ignored that he stated he took the entire weapon and suggested the gun was there during the murders and used.
There is no evidence the gun was there and based on his claims he took the bolt home with him when it was there even if he had left the gun it still could not have been used. There was no evidence to contradict any of his claims the newspaper simply printed a story with a reckless diseregard for the truth.
If they quoted someone else claiming such then the person they quoted would be on the hook for defamation instead of the newspaper. But journalists invented the claim on their own so the paper was on the hook.
-
This is wrong. AP clearly stated he visited WHF a week before the murders.
He stated he left his weapons there but removed the bolt. He didn't provide a detailed distiction between his weapons.
In 1991 he was asked to provide more detail and he explained how he always left his shotguns there but only left his rifle there for a period of 6 months. During this time he had the bolt with him. Be bought a scope and other accessories for the gun which he brought with him to WHF to fit them to his weapon and took it home with him when he left. He left his shotguns there still though.
The paper ignored that he stated during the 6 month period it was there that he took the bolt and also ignored that he stated he took the entire weapon and suggested the gun was there during the murders and used.
There is no evidence the gun was there and based on his claims he took the bolt home with him when it was there even if he had left the gun it still could not have been used. There was no evidence to contradict any of his claims the newspaper simply printed a story with a reckless diseregard for the truth.
If they quoted someone else claiming such then the person they quoted would be on the hook for defamation instead of the newspaper. But journalists invented the claim on their own so the paper was on the hook.
I understand what you are saying but from his statements there is contradictory statements - I used to leave my gun at WHF and no mention of removing it - and then in 1991 I did not used to leave my gun at WHF - so how do we know he is telling the truth about removing the bolt? Also my question is why was it worth so much compensation ( trust me for the UK at that time ) it was a lot of money just to retract that the gun was in the house and possibly used.
Why did he not mention removing the rifle until 1991 ?- because we could quite fairly assume that his rifle was on the property. If it could not be used then what was the point of saying that in 1991?
-
I understand what you are saying but from his statements there is contradictory statements - I used to leave my gun at WHF and no mention of removing it - and then in 1991 I did not used to leave my gun at WHF - so how do we know he is telling the truth about removing the bolt? Also my question is why was it worth so much compensation ( trust me for the UK at that time ) it was a lot of money just to retract that the gun was in the house and possibly used.
Why did he not mention removing the rifle until 1991 ?- because we could quite fairly assume that his rifle was on the property. If it could not be used then what was the point of saying that in 1991?
The article was written after his updated statement to police. So the paper knew he stated he took the whole rifle home with him before the murders.
The erroneous impression one might have gotten from his initial statements was that the gun was there without the bolt during the murders.
In order to claim the gun could have been used the paper needs evidence the gun including its bolt was there at the farm during the murders.
They had no source for such a claim though. They had a statement saying the gun was not there at all and another that implied it could have been there during the murders without the bolt. The later statement was to elaborate on the first and provide greater detail. Either way there is no basis to suggest the gun coudl have been used. You would need evidence or at minimum a claim by someone else that the gun including its bolt was there during the murders.
Then you have a basis for printing the claim. That is why you see papers attribute charges to specific people that way those people are the ones who get charged with defamation if the claims end up being BS. Plus then the readers can evalute the source of the claims.
Why it came up in 1991 is simple. There were charges made that there was wrongdoing done in the case so there was an investigation into the case and they wanted all witnesses to elaborate to the best extent possible to try to clarify everything so the investigaros could determine if there had in fact been wrongdoing.
One of those clarifications was that his shotguns were always stored there but his rifle typically wasn't. He left his rifle his second to last visit to WHF though he took the bolt with him but took the whole gun home after his last visit which was a week before the murders. Police wanted more detail so he provided it to them.
He coudl have provided the same information verbally to police in 1985. The problem with statements is that when writing things down people cut corners. That is one reason why statements should be taped. Taping statements also makes sense because then you can prove what they did or didn't say and can even understand context. You can see if someone is being lead or what.
That is why courts want witnesses, so that both sides can make sure the witness clarifies things to the extent desired by either side.
-
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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
im surprised he bothered to sue a joke paper like thwe sport i mean its not really a paper anyone takes seriosly.
-
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.
-
most people of standing wouldn't want to to sue th sunday sport because they wouldn't want to admit to reading it.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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"
-
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.
-
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? ;D
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
-
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. 8)
-
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 .
-
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.
-
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.
He said he took the bolt so that no one at WHF could use the rifle in his absence.
To prevail at trial the newspaper needed to be able to prove either that his rifle (including its bolt) was at WHF on the night of the murders OR that after conducting a reasonable inquiry the newspaper had a reasonable basis for believing the rifle (including its bolt) was at WHF on the night of the murders.
They had none though. At the time of the article they had in their possession statements from AP saying he generally kept his weapons there but not the bolt so that his rifle could not be used and then a more specific statement saying he took the entire rifle home with him after his visit a week prior and only left his shotguns.
So how did they have a basis to suggest it might have been used?
At minimum they would need someone claiming the gun including its bolt was there at the time and such person would need to be in a position to know for the paper to be able to reasonably rely on it.
There of course is another possibility, that someone took his gun to WHF to commit the murders and left with it. This is the possibility that most implicates AP as a potential killer. Does anyone have the article because if the article implies this possibility then even more it would be obvious why the damages resulted.
-
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. 8)
They are not worth even a half penny.
The magazine has to be loaded 1 by 1. You can't load multiples in magazines without using a stripper clip.
Moreover, Jeremy is the one who claims he dumped the bullets on the workstation. He stated such to police multiple times before the bodies were found as well as after they were found in his written statements.
Furthermore, loading a magazine without damaging long nails takes alot of practice and care. Someone in a supposed frenzy who has dexterity issues from medication she was taking would not be likely to very slowly and carefully load ammunition.
-
I'm not sure that Sheila would have been worrying about her nails or anything else. She was on a mission,,,or rather her mind was,so she'd certainly have been oblivious of her surrounds,her appearance and even her family.
-
I'm not sure that Sheila would have been worrying about her nails or anything else. She was on a mission,,,or rather her mind was,so she'd certainly have been oblivious of her surrounds,her appearance and even her family.
She wouldn't have been worried about her nails which is why she would not have loaded the bullets very slowly and carefully and instead would have broken a nail or 2, certainly her right index finger nail since that is the finger she would have used to push the bullets into the magazine.
The fact she didn't is simply further evidence she didn't load the magazine (the lack of elevated lead levels on her hands alreayd established she didn't handle the bullets)
She also would have broken some of her nails while beating Nevill with the rifle. Grip something tight and bash it against something hard. If you have long nails they are going to chip, particularly when the stock broke. Maybe she had magic nails to go along with the magic grits from My Cousin Vinny.
This thread though is supposed to be about AP's rifle.
-
There was running water at the farmhouse,so Sheila would have washed herself before eating,,later than the others. All that bull about handling kitchen utensils which left traces,was just that,,bull. It was the firearm residue.
-
There was running water at the farmhouse,so Sheila would have washed herself before eating,,later than the others. All that bull about handling kitchen utensils which left traces,was just that,,bull. It was the firearm residue.
There is no evidence she ate after anyone was murdered, she ate 2-6 hours before she was killed. There is no evidence she was killed 2 hours let alone that she ate after they were killed. Teh state of the kitchen indeed says that she didn't eat anything after they were dead. There is no evidence she died significantly later than any of them and in fact the evidence says otherwise, that she died around the same time as the rest.
Your claim gunshot residue was found on her is what is bull.
-
There is no evidence she ate after anyone was murdered, she ate 2-6 hours before she was killed. There is no evidence she was killed 2 hours let alone that she ate after they were killed. Teh state of the kitchen indeed says that she didn't eat anything after they were dead. There is no evidence she died significantly later than any of them and in fact the evidence says otherwise, that she died around the same time as the rest.
Your claim gunshot residue was found on her is what is bull.
Well if residue was not found on her then she could not have been shot. To have no residue on a person that has been shot at close range is almost unbelievable.
-
Nobody else was tested,I notice !
-
Nobody else was tested,I notice !
If the cops all accepted it as a suicide, which they did of course. Then why test for residue? I personally believe that it was an after thought?
-
Well if residue was not found on her then she could not have been shot. To have no residue on a person that has been shot at close range is almost unbelievable.
We went through this before.
For her to hug the rifle and shoot herself and not get any residue of any kind on her clothing and hands would be extremely hard to believe.
gunshot residue is expelled to the sides of the mechanism housing the firing pin. That is what sets off the primer and the primer is what forms the cloud of gunshot residue. The rifle, particulatly with the suppressor attached) is so long that even with the gun against the skin of a victim still could end up not depositing any gunshot residue. If the gun was not being held by someone else but instead held by the victim close to the body THEN in that case there should be gunshot residue all over the clothing of the victim, particularly the clothing near the firing meachanism of the gun but also the hand firing the gun. The other hand could potentially be far enough away to avoid it.
So the absense of gunshot residue is evidence she didn't shoot herself but rather someone held the gun horizontally at her. This explains why Nevill also didn't have gunshot residue. Even the close shot to his face featured the gun being held horizontally at him not vertically up and down against his body.
When hand guns are used at very close range they frequently deposit some gunshot residue on the victims because they are much closer to a victim than someone with a rifle. The longer the barrel of a weapon the further the shooter has to be and thus the greater the distance from where the primer is ignited.
She can't have changed an dwashed after being dead so this is a big problem.
Mike has come up with a rather elaborate scenario to get around all of this including the fact she didn't load any of the bullets.
He says June killed Nevill and the boys, she reloaded the gun, Sheila then killed June, she washed up and changed and police killed Sheila.
He has no evidence to establish it actually happened this way though. Saying it is possible doesn't mean it is probable.
-
If the cops all accepted it as a suicide, which they did of course. Then why test for residue? I personally believe that it was an after thought?
They tested Nevill and Sheila because they had not been shot in bed while the rest were. So of the victims these 2 were seen as the only ones who would have been likely to have done any shooting.
-
Really ?
-
it seems to me a remarkably lucky coincidence that he took the gun away a week before murders.
seeing as he couldn't of possibly predicted the murders were going to happen.
it also rather curious he does not remember doing this until 6 years after the event.
-
it seems to me a remarkably lucky coincidence that he took the gun away a week before murders.
seeing as he couldn't of possibly predicted the murders were going to happen.
it also rather he does not remember doing this until 6 years after the event.
Isn't it a "curious coincidence" that Adam doesn't have it on his "curious coincidence" list ;D
-
Something definitely doesn't sit right at all. This guy sued his family,,sued a newspaper and lives happily ever after in Ibiza.
-
Isn't it a "curious coincidence" that Adam doesn't have it on his "curious coincidence" list ;D
id say it was a very curious coincidence.
-
We went through this before.
For her to hug the rifle and shoot herself and not get any residue of any kind on her clothing and hands would be extremely hard to believe.
gunshot residue is expelled to the sides of the mechanism housing the firing pin. That is what sets off the primer and the primer is what forms the cloud of gunshot residue. The rifle, particulatly with the suppressor attached) is so long that even with the gun against the skin of a victim still could end up not depositing any gunshot residue. If the gun was not being held by someone else but instead held by the victim close to the body THEN in that case there should be gunshot residue all over the clothing of the victim, particularly the clothing near the firing meachanism of the gun but also the hand firing the gun. The other hand could potentially be far enough away to avoid it.
So the absense of gunshot residue is evidence she didn't shoot herself but rather someone held the gun horizontally at her. This explains why Nevill also didn't have gunshot residue. Even the close shot to his face featured the gun being held horizontally at him not vertically up and down against his body.
When hand guns are used at very close range they frequently deposit some gunshot residue on the victims because they are much closer to a victim than someone with a rifle. The longer the barrel of a weapon the further the shooter has to be and thus the greater the distance from where the primer is ignited.
She can't have changed an dwashed after being dead so this is a big problem.
Mike has come up with a rather elaborate scenario to get around all of this including the fact she didn't load any of the bullets.
He says June killed Nevill and the boys, she reloaded the gun, Sheila then killed June, she washed up and changed and police killed Sheila.
He has no evidence to establish it actually happened this way though. Saying it is possible doesn't mean it is probable.
Suppose the firing mechanism was on the opposite side of her nightdress?
-
i wonder who the source for the sports story was.
i mean they wouldent of printed it on jeremys word.
-
i wonder who the source for the sports story was.
i mean they wouldent of printed it on jeremys word.
It was in 1991 I think so could it have been to do with the "stokenchurch" report?
-
im wondering if a policeman gave them that story.
im also wondering how a man can rember something better after 6 years have past.
-
Suppose the firing mechanism was on the opposite side of her nightdress?
It doesn't matter, the cloud of PGSR forms under, above and to both sides of the mechanism.
If you are firing a rifle standing with the rifle eye level and could see the cloud as it expands it would be approximately a half foot above your head, down to your stomach area, around a foot left of your left shoulder and 1.5-2 feet of your right shoulder. Also a foot from your chest and foot from your back.
That is just the initial cloud, the particles can and will travel beyond this but will not be as concentrated as they will in the cloud that forms. The high concentration matters in trying to assess who a shooter was as opposed to incidental particles.
Her gown would have had GSR if she had stuck the gun under her neck and hugged the weapon regardless of whether the trigger guard were facing her body or away from it. For none to get on her gown while doing so would be incredible. Even if there were not enough to say she were definitely the shoorter there would have to be some.
A majority of the time today they are able to actually figure out how a gun was being held by a shooter who commits suicide based on the gunshot residue pattern on the hand. This is because victims do not move after dead so we don't have the kinds of spoilage of evidence that happens when a shooter is alive. Today we know a gread deal more about patterns of blood, GSR and other things than ever known in the past.
Sometimes this helps the defense other times it helps the prosecution, it is a double edged sword. Obviously it helps an innocent defendant much more often than a guilty one.
-
It doesn't matter, the cloud of PGSR forms under, above and to both sides of the mechanism.
If you are firing a rifle standing with the rifle eye level and could see the cloud as it expands it would be approximately a half foot above your head, down to your stomach area, around a foot left of your left shoulder and 1.5-2 feet of your right shoulder. Also a foot from your chest and foot from your back.
That is just the initial cloud, the particles can and will travel beyond this but will not be as concentrated as they will in the cloud that forms. The high concentration matters in trying to assess who a shooter was as opposed to incidental particles.
Her gown would have had GSR if she had stuck the gun under her neck and hugged the weapon regardless of whether the trigger guard were facing her body or away from it. For none to get on her gown while doing so would be incredible. Even if there were not enough to say she were definitely the shoorter there would have to be some.
A majority of the time today they are able to actually figure out how a gun was being held by a shooter who commits suicide based on the gunshot residue pattern on the hand. This is because victims do not move after dead so we don't have the kinds of spoilage of evidence that happens when a shooter is alive. Today we know a gread deal more about patterns of blood, GSR and other things than ever known in the past.
Sometimes this helps the defense other times it helps the prosecution, it is a double edged sword. Obviously it helps an innocent defendant much more often than a guilty one.
So if she was shot by someone else she should still have residue on her then?
-
So if she was shot by someone else she should still have residue on her then?
If someone else shot her then the gun would not be hugging her body up and down but rather the mechanism would be away from her body. The suppressor and rifle barrel together would be more than long enough to keep the cloud from touching her body.
_______________
suppressor ----------------------- Mechanism/ stock
barrel
_______________ ----------------------
The cloud is near the back of the weapon picture a large circle going around most of the barrel (the circle covering the "rel" in barrel) and extending a similar disatnce beyond the stock. It would be a sphere so be round in all directions. This cloud would not touch the victim it the gun is level like above.
If you move the gun roughly vertical with the mechanism around your crotch or stomach so the shooter can shoot himself/herself then the cloud is going to be all around the middle of your body. The trigger hand is well within this. The other hand could potentially be too high to get hit it depends on where that hand would be. One would expect the second hand to be rather high up though so to be missed by the cloud.
Of course with the suppressor attached she couldn't shoot herself without standing up and stepping on the trigger with her toe but she was seated when shot and can't put the suppressor away after dying anyway.
-
If someone else shot her then the gun would not be hugging her body up and down but rather the mechanism would be away from her body. The suppressor and rifle barrel together would be more than long enough to keep the cloud from touching her body.
_______________
suppressor ----------------------- Mechanism/ stock
barrel
_______________ ----------------------
The cloud is near the back of the weapon picture a large circle going around most of the barrel (the circle covering the "rel" in barrel) and extending a similar disatnce beyond the stock. It would be a sphere so be round in all directions. This cloud would not touch the victim it the gun is level like above.
If you move the gun roughly vertical with the mechanism around your crotch or stomach so the shooter can shoot himself/herself then the cloud is going to be all around the middle of your body. The trigger hand is well within this. The other hand could potentially be too high to get hit it depends on where that hand would be. One would expect the second hand to be rather high up though so to be missed by the cloud.
Of course with the suppressor attached she couldn't shoot herself without standing up and stepping on the trigger with her toe but she was seated when shot and can't put the suppressor away after dying anyway.
How do you suggest the shooter stood/sat while shooting a sitting Sheila? Please describe what you see as the logical way this happened, step by step.
i would appreciate it - especially if you skip the insults.
-
How do you suggest the shooter stood/sat while shooting a sitting Sheila? Please describe what you see as the logical way this happened, step by step.
i would appreciate it - especially if you skip the insults.
She was seated and Jeremy either was standing with the gun at waist level (firing from the hip) maybe he had to crouch a little it depends on how high her head was otherwise he was seated/kneeling in front of her to get a good aim. These are the only possibilities. My bet would was standing with the gun at the hip because that is what most people in such situation would do. Sitting or kneeling would make it easier for her to try to fight back if she decided to do so.
-
She was seated and Jeremy either was standing with the gun at waist level (firing from the hip) maybe he had to crouch a little it depends on how high her head was otherwise he was seated/kneeling in front of her to get a good aim. These are the only possibilities. My bet would was standing with the gun at the hip because that is what most people in such situation would do. Sitting or kneeling would make it easier for her to try to fight back if she decided to do so.
Crouch a little!!! Seated!!! Kneeling in front of her!!!! What did he tell her her was doing? Taking her picture!!!!!! And YOU talk about US talking rubbish!!! What DO you think the above sounds like?
-
She was seated and Jeremy either was standing with the gun at waist level (firing from the hip) maybe he had to crouch a little it depends on how high her head was otherwise he was seated/kneeling in front of her to get a good aim. These are the only possibilities. My bet would was standing with the gun at the hip because that is what most people in such situation would do. Sitting or kneeling would make it easier for her to try to fight back if she decided to do so.
Thanks.
It does seem awkward to me - why would he choose a position so uncomfortable for him? Sheila sitting there.... She could easily have grabbed the muzzle and turned it away, she had both arms free. I have a hard time buying that she would just sit there taking it!
Implausible, I have to say, I have the hardest time picturing this!
But OK, please, if you would describe what you think happened after the first shot. Again, minus slurs. 8)
P.S. I agree that she probably sat on the bed for the first shot, but I think she shot herself. There seems to be an indentation in the duvet (to the right in the picture) where someone sat.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4543;image)
-
Shoot from the hip with Sheila sitting there with her head turned upwards to make it easier for him....
Jeremy? Nah, she could have just kicked him in the head - or the balls.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSi2q3I-lRDJh6LCz11-YhiKeB_O3BfDUJ0LHjTmlggHKEqwpb4Tg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6mNIwxVFOD9Xyt9ThzXImBIBrGaJoKmzVomNk33LzPlB0IdCd)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOQNmM2O5Zj9hlOFq7DhYLpdXFAiogIe9J5mQuYTiorahEbBZ9fA)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTFOHgViG8MnzBCOZIOtqach_OgcTgwo0sjqpGVs4jrJAe0ced1dw)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTX3vR316mfD6NBUVrLmvgK7H2kUgcKfKGsYM9B38zPRKCA9aBF)
-
Now be a good girl------just sit there on the floor,,tilt your head back slightly,while I shoot you.
-
Now be a good girl------just sit there on the floor,,tilt your head back slightly,while I shoot you.
And she thought he meant with a camera.
-
Well of course,April. ;D As long as Jeremy told her she was pretty,she'd be okay. ( apparently Sheila liked being reassured that she was pretty------honestly )
-
Such a shame that Sheila had a low opinion of herself,,and it was Junes' fault.!
-
Well of course,April. ;D As long as Jeremy told her she was pretty,she'd be okay. ( apparently Sheila liked being reassured that she was pretty------honestly )
She was insecure, Lookout. It comes with the territory.
-
She was insecure, Lookout. It comes with the territory.
Aww,yes,April. Ever since the " Devil child " business,all those years that Sheila suffered. God I felt sorry for her. When she found a friend,,Sheila clung to her like ivy. How really really sad.
-
i could belive the story about the riffle being removed a week before the murders if he hadent told the story about taking the bolt out.
i think the lady doth protest to much.
-
Aww,yes,April. Ever since the " Devil child " business,all those years that Sheila suffered. God I felt sorry for her. When she found a friend,,Sheila clung to her like ivy. How really really sad.
No, lookout. Waaaaaaay before then. The "Devil's child" thing wouldn't have touched her had she been sure of herself. I guess she felt she'd never met her mother's exacting standards.
-
No, lookout. Waaaaaaay before then. The "Devil's child" thing wouldn't have touched her had she been sure of herself. I guess she felt she'd never met her mother's exacting standards.
Yes,,unloved and unloveable is how Sheila had described her feelings after June told her she was adopted,,then abruptly left it at that without question.
That,to me,bordered on cruelty,,as both kids were left confused,,then unwanted when they were sent away to their schools.
-
i could belive the story about the riffle being removed a week before the murders if he hadent told the story about taking the bolt out.
i think the lady doth protest to much.
There is no reason to believe it was used in the murders so it makes no difference at all whether it was there or not.
-
Scipio, did you see my question about what happened after the first shot?
-
There is no reason to believe it was used in the murders so it makes no difference at all whether it was there or not.
it makes a very big difference if it was there then hes made a false statement in a libel trail.
that's perjury i believe.
-
Thanks.
It does seem awkward to me - why would he choose a position so uncomfortable for him? Sheila sitting there.... She could easily have grabbed the muzzle and turned it away, she had both arms free. I have a hard time buying that she would just sit there taking it!
Implausible, I have to say, I have the hardest time picturing this!
But OK, please, if you would describe what you think happened after the first shot. Again, minus slurs. 8)
P.S. I agree that she probably sat on the bed for the first shot, but I think she shot herself. There seems to be an indentation in the duvet (to the right in the picture) where someone sat.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4543;image)
First of all since he wanted it to appear suicide he could not fire from too far away or the whole plot would be spoiled. If a gun is fired too far away for a victim to have held it then it is not suicide. SO the gun had to be held at a distance which she coudl grab the gun if she wanted to try.
Second, shooting from the hip is not uncomfortable.
Shooting sitting would not necesarily be uncomfortable either but would have the disadvantage of Sheila potentially spoiling the shot.
The advantage of standing is that you can have very good control over the weapon so that even if she tries to push the barrel away you can prevent her from doing so because you have more leverage than she does since she is seated on the floor while you are standing. That is why you pick that position.
Seating her on the bed would be no good. Her neck would be too high for you to shoot from the hip you would have to hold the gun higher. If she falls backwards you miss. You want her against something so she can't move. She would have fallen backwards after he shot her if she had been on the bed so would not have bled down her arm and in her lap.
She was on the floor against something. She didn't blled much, that indicated the second shot was not fired very long after the first. If there were a long gap much more blood would have been on her arms/dress. But her heart stopped not too long after the first shot. The second shot is why.
So he shot her, he saw she was still breathing so he shot her again. Since he wanted to lay the gun on her body to make it appear she fell flat he pulled her body away form wherever she was propped.
This left the tell tale marks that she had at one point been sitting up though and spoiled the efforts of trying to make it appear she was in the middle of the floor when shot and fell flat.
This was a mistake, he over thought it and wanted to stick the gun on her instead of leaving it in front of her.
Then he made another mistake by trying to make it appear she had read the bible.
Of course shooting her with the suppressor attached was yet another mistake. Obviously it was after that he figured out it was too long for her to have shot herself with so he removed it. Instead of sticking in near her body he decided to pretend it wasn't used at all and made up the tale about the gun being left out in the kitchen sans suppressor.
The more you involve yourself and make up complicated tales though the more problems that can arise. That is why lawyers want clients to not speak at all. That prevents them from saying something that could bite them in the ass later. To try to hed off the proverbial tangled web.
"Sheila fired all guns in the house, she went shooting with me, I left the gun on the kitchen table."
"Sheila didn't fire any guns with me I never saw her fire a gun. She was next to me in the kitchen though as I loaded the magazine so she saw how to load the bullets in. I left the gun on the settle. No I had not used the gun a week prior to the murders"
Jeremy he last known user of the gun says it was in the closet with the scope and suppressor attached what do you have to say about that. "I used the gun multiple times during the week leading up to the murders and it sometimes had the scope and suppressor attached but other times didn't so he wasn't the last known user like you think"
When you make statements and then keep changing and contradicting them as more information comes in from others then you have problems. If you had just shut up then these problems would not exist.
-
There wouldn´t have been room for Jeremy to stand/crouch/kneel there with a rifle with Sheila sitting on the floor leaning against the bed. You need to re-think this, scipio.
All in all your scenario seems unlikely, even impossible. My scenario makes more sense - that she sat on the bed leaning forward with the rifle resting on the floor.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18696;image)
-
pargeters contradictory statements say one thing to me the riffle was there and it may not of been used but it certanly could of been.
-
There wouldn´t have been room for Jeremy to stand/crouch/kneel there with a rifle with Sheila sitting on the floor leaning against the bed. You need to re-think this, scipio.
All in all your scenario seems unlikely, even impossible. My scenario makes more sense - that she sat on the bed leaning forward with the rifle resting on the floor.
I didn't say aything about her being against the bed. I said against something. She could have been against the door, the nightstand, the corner, the chair (which is what experts think). She was on the floor against something because otherwise she would have fallen backwards upon being shot and would not have bled on her arm or her gown.
If she were on the bed with Jeremy shooting her then she would have fallen back and would not have bled down onto her arm or gown.
If she were on the bed leaning forward upon shooting herself she would have fell to the floor face down.
Both shots were delivered within a few seconds according to the ME. She was shot while seated, she was still seated as she bled after the first shot (so was propped up against something) after a few seconds of blooding onto her arm and gown she was shot again. Then she was dragged flat, while flat the blood went down the side of her neck onto the floor and pooled.
-
What about the small, apparently blood free rug under Sheila? What is the explanation for that? In both scenarios, Sheila did it or Jeremy did it, it makes little sense and is hard to explain.
-
What about the small, apparently blood free rug under Sheila? What is the explanation for that? In both scenarios, Sheila did it or Jeremy did it, it makes little sense and is hard to explain.
No one knows what those rugs were used for everyday let alone whether they were used for anything like dragging Sheila's butt. She was dragged flat not shot eactly where whe was left lying so the fact there was no blood on the rugs is not surprising. The only blood after she was dragged leaked near her head. I have no idea if they were used to drag her butt, wrap around her feet so no marks woudl be left on her as she was dragged or if they had no relation at all to the murders.
They certainly have no bearing at all on who committed the murders.
-
If you were to read about the miserable life that Sheila endured,,then maybe,,just maybe, you'd be able to make some headway,instead of spouting your potty theories about how Jeremy " killed his family ".
-
If you were to read about the miserable life that Sheila endured,,then maybe,,just maybe, you'd be able to make some headway,instead of spouting your potty theories about how Jeremy " killed his family ".
I read about her life and she had less a reaosn to kill anyone than Jeremy did.
More importantly the evidence proves she can't have killed herself, and obviously is not th eone who beat Nevill because she would have broken at least 1 nail and gotten his blood on her in the process. The notion she killed everyone without getting any evidence on her is absurd.
That is what a raitonal person looks at the evidence not trying to blame someone who has mental issues despite no evidence they did anything.
-
I read about her life and she had less a reaosn to kill anyone than Jeremy did.
More importantly the evidence proves she can't have killed herself, and obviously is not th eone who beat Nevill because she would have broken at least 1 nail and gotten his blood on her in the process. The notion she killed everyone without getting any evidence on her is absurd.
That is what a raitonal person looks at the evidence not trying to blame someone who has mental issues despite no evidence they did anything.
Sheila did NOT have " mental issues ",,her mother did !!
-
Sheila was driven by a manipulative and harsh woman who had no understanding of teens growing up.
Because of the control that June had over Sheila,,it created the paranoia that she developed,,and forced Sheila into the life that she had through Junes high expectations of her.
Sheila became a slave to her mothers' religious rantings,,and those poor children were drawn into Junes' psychotic blasts of religion each time they visited WHF. This is why they didn't like being there. The only highlight of their visit was when Uncle Jeremy took them on the tractor.
As I've already pointed out,,Sheilas' condition leading up to the tragedy,was critical,,meaning that her temper was at an all time high,,which gave her the strength to confront both her parents that night.
Anyone who has a temper would NOT find it difficult to kill someone on the spur of the moment,,as it has been done and most have shown remorse after realising what they'd done,,but Sheila had so many issues with her mother,,that her fury would have got the better of her and her mind snapped.
-
Sheila was a mixed-up girl growing up,,and because she had no guidance during her formative years,,had no idea who she was as a person. This is why she'd felt that she never " fitted in " when she first attended school. If June never went into any kind of discussion regarding the adoption,,then neither would she enter any other type of conversation concerning life in general.
I'm no professional when it comes to psychiatric illnesses,but Sheila to my mind was a normal girl of her years with no disturbances,mentally.
It was her mother who made her ill and drove her to do what she did.
June was sick. I don't ever remember her having friends,apart from acquaintances from the church,,but not a real friend as we know. Even the children never spoke about their " best friends " as children do.
This WASN'T a normal household at all with a lot of paper covering a lot of cracks. Jeremy had managed to shrug off his mothers' condition by hiding behind his arrogant outlook which stayed with him through growing up. That was his safety-valve,,whereas Sheila was more vulnerable because of being a nervy type girl,always trying to please her mother as best she could in case June threw a wobbly.
It wasn't to last with Sheila,,as bottled-up emotions started showing themselves in all sorts of ways,,and that's when the rot set in between mother and daughter,as Sheila rebelled against her stifled life with its stifled emotions. Sheila would have benefitted from going into the middle of the field and screaming,rather than to listen to her mothers' rants,which she bottled up inside her. To be brought up without emotion is dangerous,,and it's because Sheila couldn't let go of them is what made her ill.
She didn't need medicating------------just a complete change of scenery away from her mother and the life that she was forced into.
I will continue to say that the tragedy was brought on by mother and daughter and that Jeremy IS telling the truth.
How would the relatives know anything,,not seeing the family,or knowing about them ? How easy it was for them,EP and the thousands of others,to jump to conclusions !!