Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Alias on August 15, 2014, 04:30:PM
-
I know nothing about firearms, but had this thought: would you be able to see on a bullet whether it had been fired from a gun with a moderator attached or no moderator?
Would there be any marks, indentations on the bullets perhaps, that would not be there if the gun had no moderator attached?
-
This is what I wanted to know,Alias.
-
i don't theirs any difference.
as far as i know a silencer does not in anyway change the bullets.
-
Are you sure about that,nugs ?
-
the silence doesn't interact with the gun that much all it does is muffle the noise it dosent change anything about the gun.
if it was possble to prove a silencer was used that would of been the first thing the prosecution tried to do.
-
Yes,of course they'd look for marks/signs,,if they'd thought to do so.
-
the silence doesn't interact with the gun that much all it does is muffle the noise it dosent change anything about the gun.
if it was possble to prove a silencer was used that would of been the first thing the prosecution tried to do.
It could have been overlooked.
There could be a difference on the bullets. You can identify a weapon by firing bullets through it and comare them with bullets you have found at a crime scene - so bullets are affected differently from gun to gun.
Then why wouldn´t there be a difference discernible on a bullet fired from the same weapon with or without silenecer?
Or - there could be. It would be worth testing in my opinion.
-
I'm going to look it up.
-
So far,I'm reading about bullets being fired out of a gun which match the gun they're fired from,,by means of using a macroscope,not microscope,to examine the striations on the outside of the bullet to match the same striations within the cylinder of the gun.
I wonder if they bothered to even do this ?
-
Cartridge cases too are identifiable as to which firearm was used.They form the same striated marks as do the bullets,in connection to the firearm.
-
The two bullets that cause sheilas death were different weights and had different LAN marks
I also believe that some of the bullets were not even confirmed as being fired through the rifle let alone the silencer
but I try and avoid this area because enough experts have argued about it already ::) and I don't know enough .
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3225.msg203008.html#msg203008
I think there are posts about the bullets going through silencer but I don't think there is any way to establish that.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,710.msg19188.html#msg19188
-
There's quite a lot involved during the firing of a gun. How it was fired ( velocity ) can be told by the cartridge being highly magnified. Recoil,given the speed of the shooting.Ejector marks showing striations or impressions which are used to identify the firearm.
Using a moderator reduces the velocity,which should have been another marker as to whether one was used or not.
Something else I've read,and that's that a coolant is used after a few firings.Was this ever picked up on ?
-
When a bullet hasn't travelled fast enough,it will still hit its target,but will break up inside its target. Mmmm.
Which brings me to the first shot that Sheila received ( not-self delivered ) but by someone else,when the silencer could well have been left on at that point,before being put to one side.
Sheila didn't to my mind,administer that first shot to herself. The second is questionable too.
-
I honestly think that her poor father was the last one to die,before Sheila.
-
It depends on the style of sound suppressor. In a wipe style sound suppressor the bullet rubs against things. While they rub against soft material some have steel wool, metal mesh or something else as a filler that can potentially scratch the bullet.
The moderator in question was a baffle style not a "wipe" style. The bullet doesn't touch anything inside the suppressor so it will not leave any marks on the bullet. Thus there is no way to prove or disprove whether a sound suppressor was used to fire a particular bullet by examining the bullet. You have to look to other evidence to try to establish whether such was the case or not.
-
I've just read that----------the same as you have !
-
It depends on the style of sound suppressor. In a wipe style sound suppressor the bullet rubs against things. While they rub against soft material some have steel wool, metal mesh or something else as a filler that can potentially scratch the bullet.
The moderator in question was a baffle style not a "wipe" style. The bullet doesn't touch anything inside the suppressor so it will not leave any marks on the bullet. Thus there is no way to prove or disprove whether a sound suppressor was used to fire a particular bullet by examining the bullet. You have to look to other evidence to try to establish whether such was the case or not.
I think there might be a slim chance though.
-
I think there might be a slim chance though.
Slim chance of what? The only way marks are left on a bullet is from the bullet being touched by something. Rifling in a barrel touches a bullet hence why is leaves impressions. When no shots are heard and thus a sound suppressor is suspected of being used they try to find out if a sound suppressor was available and if so whether the gun could accomodate such suppressor and assess based on such types of things.
-
Slim chance of what? The only way marks are left on a bullet is from the bullet being touched by something. Rifling in a barrel touches a bullet hence why is leaves impressions. When no shots are heard and thus a sound suppressor is suspected of being used they try to find out if a sound suppressor was available and if so whether the gun could accomodate such suppressor and assess based on such types of things.
There is a slim chance the moderator wasn´t aligned a 100% correctly, so there might have been a tiny skewness. The bullets might have touched the baffle plates slightly.
Try not talking to me as if I am an idiot!
-
There is a slim chance the moderator wasn´t aligned a 100% correctly, so there might have been a tiny skewness. The bullets might have touched the baffle plates slightly.
Try not talking to me as if I am an idiot!
There is such a thing as a 'baffle strike' but it damages the moderator quite severely.
-
With Sheila using the rifle,it would have been skewed alright--------and it was. The moderator was damaged as was the butt of the rifle through mishandling,as a rifle is a cumbersome firearm to use inside a property especially in the hands of a novice,one who is sick as well. It would have been pointing every which way with Sheila on the end of it screaming like a banshee.
-
With Sheila using the rifle,it would have been skewed alright--------and it was. The moderator was damaged as was the butt of the rifle through mishandling,as a rifle is a cumbersome firearm to use inside a property especially in the hands of a novice,one who is sick as well. It would have been pointing every which way with Sheila on the end of it screaming like a banshee.
Where does it indicate that the moderator was damaged?
-
Where does it indicate that the moderator was damaged?
I read some time ago that it was scratched. I would think Mike could bear me out on that one,though I'll see if I can find the article.
-
Yes it's there from Mike------December last year,Ron Cooks' letter regarding the damaged silencer.
-
I read some time ago that it was scratched. I would think Mike could bear me out on that one,though I'll see if I can find the article.
Oh OK, Yes, I know it was scratched but a baffle strike would damage the inside - a bit like this ......
-
There is a slim chance the moderator wasn´t aligned a 100% correctly, so there might have been a tiny skewness. The bullets might have touched the baffle plates slightly.
Try not talking to me as if I am an idiot!
The bullet is deflected instead of firing straight and will damage the baffle. It could damage the entire channel or worse come out the side. The damage to the sound suppressor will reveal that such occurred.
-
Oh OK, Yes, I know it was scratched but a baffle strike would damage the inside - a bit like this ......
There are times it will deflect out the side of the tube as well.
-
If you search damaged silencer,it will explain more in the letter which I gather was reluctantly submitted.
-
There are times it will deflect out the side of the tube as well.
Yep, and the moderator 'can' shoot off the end of the rifle. Either way a baffle strike would have been obvious.
-
Lookout, a search here didn´t lead me directly to any letter - but there was this:
Silencer, SBJ/1 was damaged and was shattering control bullets fired through it
(1) Prosecution Ballistic Expert, Malcolm Fletcher, made a statement saying that he could not tell if any of the 25 bullets had been fired through the silencer - this was because he knew that any bullets which had been fired through it during test firing with control bullets was shattering them, and there was only one bullet which had those characteristics before it was substituted and replaced, and that was bullet PV/20...
(2) Confirmation that silencer was used was only possible by relying upon blood found inside it that was attributable to Sheila...
Guess I have to chew my way through Malcolm Fletcher´s stament.c :-\
Oh, well, there isn´t much in the archives, just this.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=734.0;attach=18770;image)
-
Yep, and the moderator 'can' shoot off the end of the rifle. Either way a baffle strike would have been obvious.
I am hypothesizing about minor misalignment.
-
That'll do me,as it proves anyway that it was neither cleaned nor a coolant used during the rapid firings.
It was Mike who'd put Cooks' letter on the forum last December,regarding damage to the silencer.
-
PV 20 could possibly have been fired with the silencer fitted ( in the kitchen ) hence why the bullet shattered as velocity would have been reduced.PV19 was the killer bullet,without the silencer.
Or two different rifles.Only Ballistics experts/forensics would know that because of their microscopic equipment to match up bullet marks to rifles used.
-
PV 20 could possibly have been fired with the silencer fitted ( in the kitchen ) hence why the bullet shattered as velocity would have been reduced.PV19 was the killer bullet,without the silencer.
Or two different rifles.Only Ballistics experts/forensics would know that because of their microscopic equipment to match up bullet marks to rifles used.
PV 20 fragmented after striking bone but most of the core was still intact. The entire projectile did not break into tiny peices.
-
Lookout, a search here didn´t lead me directly to any letter - but there was this:
Silencer, SBJ/1 was damaged and was shattering control bullets fired through it
(1) Prosecution Ballistic Expert, Malcolm Fletcher, made a statement saying that he could not tell if any of the 25 bullets had been fired through the silencer - this was because he knew that any bullets which had been fired through it during test firing with control bullets was shattering them, and there was only one bullet which had those characteristics before it was substituted and replaced, and that was bullet PV/20...
(2) Confirmation that silencer was used was only possible by relying upon blood found inside it that was attributable to Sheila...
Guess I have to chew my way through Malcolm Fletcher´s stament.c :-\
Oh, well, there isn´t much in the archives, just this.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=734.0;attach=18770;image)
Kind of suggests it wasn't used - but there's no surprise there. Surely if it was coughing out fragmented bullets and most of those fired during the murders weren't - it kind of adds weight to it not having been used?
-
It does suggest it was not used!!
-
It does suggest it was not used!!
I sense a monologue looming ;D
-
I sense a monologue looming ;D
Me too... (http://royalchatter.com/Smileys/Smiley%20set1/scared.gif)
-
Me too... (http://royalchatter.com/Smileys/Smiley%20set1/scared.gif)
Perhaps it's time for bed :D :D :D
-
thank goodness for the ignore button ;D
-
Me too... (http://royalchatter.com/Smileys/Smiley%20set1/scared.gif)
Ahhhhh!!!!! It's on it's way!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Kind of suggests it wasn't used - but there's no surprise there. Surely if it was coughing out fragmented bullets and most of those fired during the murders weren't - it kind of adds weight to it not having been used?
The quoted statement doesn't say anything about spitting out fragmented bullets.
It says the bolt was not properly closing and the ejection port had problems sometimes thus causing either a cartridge to jam instead of feeding properly or the spent casing to get stuck.
If a cartridge doesn't feed prerly into the chamber the gun won't shoot. You have to get the stuck cartridge out and either feed a new cartridge in. If the spent shell casing is stuck it likewise prevents a new round from being prerly fed into the chamber. You again hadve to clear the jam and then load the gun again.
The gun periodically got jammed on Fletcher and would not shoot, he had to clear the jam before he could fire. There was nothing wrong with the bullets that came out of the gun the significance of this is that potentially the gun could have jammed on the killer. Sheila probably would not know how to clear it even if not in a deranged state let alone a deranged one.
The killer was probably lucky though. In all likelihood the damage occurred when Nevill was being beaten. Jamming when shooting at the parents in the bedroom would have been a serious problem because potentially it could have jammed before the killer immobilized either of them which woudl have left two people to disarm a killer with a jammed wepaon. But there is no evidence to suggest that happened.
After the kitchen episode the boys were shot 8 times and Sheila 2 so a misfire would not have been that big a deal like it would have in the master bedroom. Could there have been a jam and that explain why 1 boy got 5 rounds and the second only 3? Perhaps but Jeremy could have simply decided to save some bullets for Sheila isntead of having to go reload so the difference in shots is hardly proof of a misfire. The tight grouping of the shots suggests they were fired in rapid succession not a gap between the shots so no sign of a jam in that respect.
He spoke about dirt potentially causing the problem. The gun wasn't cleaned between the murders and testing. The dirt and grime from the shots fired during the murders had time to cause problems. So it is possible that the jamming problem developed subsequent to the murders.
So that is why the prosecution ultimately did not argue the gun would have jammed and Sheila would no have known how to clear it thus she wasn't the killer. There just wasn't enough to say it definitely would have jammed or claim there was evidence to prove it did.
-
I sense a monologue looming ;D
His statement is being significantly misinterpreted. Nothign was wrong with the bullets that actually fired from the gun, he was having a problem getting the bullets to feed and the spent casings to eject properly. On occasion the gun jammed which means it could not fire. The bullets would not fire period, they were not spitting out damaged.
-
(http://royalchatter.com/Smileys/Smiley%20set1/gaah.gif)
-
The quoted statement doesn't say anything about spitting out fragmented bullets.
It says the bolt was not properly closing and the ejection port had problems sometimes thus causing either a cartridge to jam instead of feeding properly or the spent casing to get stuck.
If a cartridge doesn't feed prerly into the chamber the gun won't shoot. You have to get the stuck cartridge out and either feed a new cartridge in. If the spent shell casing is stuck it likewise prevents a new round from being prerly fed into the chamber. You again hadve to clear the jam and then load the gun again.
The gun periodically got jammed on Fletcher and would not shoot, he had to clear the jam before he could fire. There was nothing wrong with the bullets that came out of the gun the significance of this is that potentially the gun could have jammed on the killer. Sheila probably would not know how to clear it even if not in a deranged state let alone a deranged one.
The killer was probably lucky though. In all likelihood the damage occurred when Nevill was being beaten. Jamming when shooting at the parents in the bedroom would have been a serious problem because potentially it could have jammed before the killer immobilized either of them which woudl have left two people to disarm a killer with a jammed wepaon. But there is no evidence to suggest that happened.
After the kitchen episode the boys were shot 8 times and Sheila 2 so a misfire would not have been that big a deal like it would have in the master bedroom. Could there have been a jam and that explain why 1 boy got 5 rounds and the second only 3? Perhaps but Jeremy could have simply decided to save some bullets for Sheila isntead of having to go reload so the difference in shots is hardly proof of a misfire. The tight grouping of the shots suggests they were fired in rapid succession not a gap between the shots so no sign of a jam in that respect.
He spoke about dirt potentially causing the problem. The gun wasn't cleaned between the murders and testing. The dirt and grime from the shots fired during the murders had time to cause problems. So it is possible that the jamming problem developed subsequent to the murders.
So that is why the prosecution ultimately did not argue the gun would have jammed and Sheila would no have known how to clear it thus she wasn't the killer. There just wasn't enough to say it definitely would have jammed or claim there was evidence to prove it did.
That's what the letter say BUT I think Alias was quoting something when she posted "Silencer, SBJ/1 was damaged and was shattering control bullets fired through it"
Do you have a link for the quote Alias?
-
(http://royalchatter.com/Smileys/Smiley%20set1/gaah.gif)
Ha, ha!! I feel his pain!!
-
That's what the letter say BUT I think Alias was quoting something when she posted "Silencer, SBJ/1 was damaged and was shattering control bullets fired through it"
Do you have a link for the quote Alias?
That quote was from Mike there is no need to look for it. I already argued with him in the past over the claim. Par for the course there is nothing from Fletcher that actually asserts such.
Test firing the moderator would not demonstrate the conditions necessarily present at the time of the murders. The 2 main causes of baffles being hit are:
1) the moderator not being screwed on properly (if you screw it on crooked it will cause problems)
2) the baffles were put in crooked.
You need to have the weapon as is with the moderator still attached and test it at that point to see whethe rit is hitting the baffles or not. If the killer took it off then you have no way to know if it was properly screwed on or not. At best you can test whether the baffles were proerly installed.
Not only did the killer remove the moderator, the moderator was taken apart to get the blood out before any test firing took place. That leaves only 1 option to trying to find out if the moderator was potentially installed wrong- looking for damage to the moderator. If there is none that means the moderator was properly assembled and installed anytime the weapon was used previously. If there is damage then that means at some point previously it had been improperly assembled or installed. It still would not necessarily mean that such damage occurred during the murders.
A baffle hit during testing would merely prove that someone in the lab put the moderator back together wrong or it was improperly installed to the rifle it woudl not mean anything with respect to the conditions at the murder. The exception to that woudl be if some issue were found which prevented the moderator from ever fitting right such as the threading being messed up by the person who threaded it. The murder wepaon was factory threaded and had no issues but some people get it done aftermarket and that can be done sloppily.
His main report is this one which perhaps should be added to the statement index so peopel can find it easier:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4019.0
-
That quote was from Mike there is no need to look for it. I already argued with him in the past over the claim. Par for the course there is nothing from Fletcher that actually asserts such.
Test firing the moderator would not demonstrate the conditions necessarily present at the time of the murders. The 2 main causes of baffles being hit are:
1) the moderator not being screwed on properly (if you screw it on crooked it will cause problems)
2) the baffles were put in crooked.
You need to have the weapon as is with the moderator still attached and test it at that point to see whethe rit is hitting the baffles or not. If the killer took it off then you have no way to know if it was properly screwed on or not. At best you can test whether the baffles were proerly installed.
Not only did the killer remove the moderator, the moderator was taken apart to get the blood out before any test firing took place. That leaves only 1 option to trying to find out if the moderator was potentially installed wrong- looking for damage to the moderator. If there is none that means the moderator was properly assembled and installed anytime the weapon was used previously. If there is damage then that means at some point previously it had been improperly assembled or installed. It still would not necessarily mean that such damage occurred during the murders.
A baffle hit during testing would merely prove that someone in the lab put the moderator back together wrong or it was improperly installed to the rifle it woudl not mean anything with respect to the conditions at the murder. The exception to that woudl be if some issue were found which prevented the moderator from ever fitting right such as the threading being messed up by the person who threaded it. The murder wepaon was factory threaded and had no issues but some people get it done aftermarket and that can be done sloppily.
His main report is this one which perhaps should be added to the statement index so peopel can find it easier:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4019.0
Fairy nuff!
-
The Silencer was a shaky piece of evidence, wasn´t it?
-
The Silencer was a shaky piece of evidence, wasn´t it?
So shaky that I'm surprised it didn't crumble under the vibration ;)
-
According to Ann Eatons hand written notes, her husband returned Gun or part of a gun to the farmhouse on 9th August 1985, which means that the said gun or component part was not present earlier when police searched for clues. Did Peter Eaton return one of the silencers, or the metal cap which fits onto the end of the gun barrel. Alternatively, did Peter Eaton return Anthony Pargeters .22 rifle?
-
It's AP's rifle that remains the bugbear in all this. Though in my own mind,it was used to fire at least one bullet,but should have been identified as having been used by the unique markers of rifle to bullet.
-
The Silencer was a shaky piece of evidence, wasn´t it?
Only to those who are ignorant. Such as people who suggest that Mike was correct when he claimed Flether stated it was shredding bullets during the testing.
The fact of the matter is that there is nothing at all that anyone who distrusts the moderator can legitimately raise to try to discredit it.
The lab would have to have orchestrated things and to have backdated various things on their end not merely police lying in statements and doing so. There f course is no evidence at all to suggest any such thing happened.
You constantly try making it about gender but your gender has nothing to do with your claims being unsound if you were a man making such claims they would be just as problemmatic. Maybe one day you will wake up and smell the coffee.
-
Only to those who are ignorant. Such as people who suggest that Mike was correct when he claimed Flether stated it was shredding bullets during the testing.
The fact of the matter is that there is nothing at all that anyone who distrusts the moderator can legitimately raise to try to discredit it.
The lab would have to have orchestrated things and to have backdated various things on their end not merely police lying in statements and doing so. There f course is no evidence at all to suggest any such thing happened.
You constantly try making it about gender but your gender has nothing to do with your claims being unsound if you were a man making such claims they would be just as problemmatic. Maybe one day you will wake up and smell the coffee.
No, you got that wrong - deliberately, as you always do. I have been talking about how Sheila is portryed, and to some extent, June too.
In your narratives (yours and Adam´s), you always presume that Nevill, the man, would have acted in a heroic manner.
You don´t know that.
I never, ever talk about my own gender, it is not relevant. You just like to be nasty at every turn and deliberately misinterpret what people actually say.
-
Only to those who are ignorant. Such as people who suggest that Mike was correct when he claimed Flether stated it was shredding bullets during the testing.
The fact of the matter is that there is nothing at all that anyone who distrusts the moderator can legitimately raise to try to discredit it.
The lab would have to have orchestrated things and to have backdated various things on their end not merely police lying in statements and doing so. There f course is no evidence at all to suggest any such thing happened.
You constantly try making it about gender but your gender has nothing to do with your claims being unsound if you were a man making such claims they would be just as problematic. Maybe one day you will wake up and smell the coffee.
How does not believing the silencer was used make people 'ignorant'? That's actually an 'ignorant' statement.
-
No, you got that wrong - deliberately, as you always do. I have been talking about how Sheila is portryed, and to some extent, June too.
In your narratives (yours and Adam´s), you always presume that Nevill, the man, would have acted in a heroic manner.
You don´t know that.
I never, ever talk about my own gender, it is not relevant. You just like to be nasty at every turn and deliberately misinterpret what people actually say.
Nevill had the instinct of self-preservation, he fought back even after he was shot and despite 1 arm being broken. Those trying to pretend he would cower like a child have no leg to stand on. The man was also experienced with guns and like me would relaize that Sheila knew nothing about semi-autos and if he did see her grab the gun and insert the magazine then he also would have seen she didn't charge the weapon. That means it wouldn't fire so could be safely taken away from her. If he didn't see her load it he still would have reason to know that she didn't know she had to charge it let alone how and that even if she loaded bullets in the magazine it would not fire.
The notion he would be too scared to try to disarm her so he wanted Jeremy to do it instead is stupid. People here, epsecially his defenders, conside rhim to chicken shit to have been involved in anything and yet these same people suggest Nevill would have turned to him. The notion he would turn to Jeremy when: he was bigge rand stronge rthan Jeremy, Jeremy didn't have a good relationship with Sheila, he thought Jeremy wanted to kill him, and it would take Jeremy a while to arrive if he even answered the phone is not credible at all.
If you get away from someone running around with a gun do you call another family member to come over and hope the family member can arrive in time and that the family member can successfully disarm the person or do you grab a gun and arm yourself with it or even a knife or something else you can use to disarm the person? Why would Jeremy be able to sneak up on her and disarm her but he would not be able to do so?
If you do call for help you hide your family, call for help and stay in hiding while waiting for the help. If you don't get a change to do that then you are stuck trying to defend against the threat because time is of the essence. Calling someone who woudl come in 20 minutes does no good if you are going to be shot before that.
You don't look at this issue or mnny others realistically at all. Nevill fought back he didn't sit cowering as his killer blasted him. We have no way to know whether he pursued his killer to the kitchen or his killer pursued him as he ran to arm himself but either way when both were in the kitchen he confronted his killer and tried to take the weapon away and there was a vicious struggle.
There is nothing at all realistic about the phone call including the fact that it doesn't fit into the known situation. The killer walked into the master bedroom and unloaded a full magazine into both parents. That is how the shooting started. Had the phone call have been real the shooting would have started in the kitchen upon finding him on the phone, her disconnecting the call by either grabbing the phone, hanging it up then taking it back off the hook so no one could call or pushing the buttons down to disconnect the call then marching Nevill upstairs is not credible. Aside the fact that she would not bother worrying about the phone remaining off the hook, getting that close to Nevill and having only 1 hand on the gun at the time would mean she coudl not aim it and fire well so it would be a golden opportunity to disarm her. instead we are supposed to believe he did not take advantage and then she decided to march him upstairs because she wante dot kill her parents in the same room for some reason. If she decided ot kill him she would have blown him away right there not rationalyl decide to march him upstairs to kill both parents together because if she killed him downstairs then June might hear and get up and cause problems. That is what a rational killer determined to off the whole family for some specific reasons would worry about.
Jeremy supporters claim Sheila killed everyone while having delusions but then try asserting she did all sorts of rational things that a killer trying to esecape liability for the crime would do as opposed to someone who intended to commit suicide after it was over. The call Jeremy made up from Nevill saddled the defense with the claim Sheila did it in a crazy rage but that doesn't fit what happened and it prevents the defense arguing someoen else did it they are stuck saying she did it and tha tit was because she went crazy.
Jeremy is sunk by this because there is no way she killed everyone else without getting evidence on her clothing and body, no way she killed herself without getting evidence on her clothign and body and in fact no way she could have killed herself then removed the moderator and put it away or moved her body flat or opened and closed the bible in the pool of her own blood.
Nor do any of his actions comport with someone who received a call. Nothing fits into palce with respect to Jeremy's claims. It is not one thing that is a problem it is everything. This is not a close case which is why the Appeal Court and CCRC have rejected all claism. The CCRC smacked down the defense so hard that the defense doesn't evne want to release the ruling, which is quite understandible.
-
You don´t know whether Nevill fought. Personally I find it unlikely - he was badly wounded and wouldn´t have been able to put up much of a fight. I think he sat down receiving those blows.
-
According to Ann Eatons hand written notes, her husband returned Gun or part of a gun to the farmhouse on 9th August 1985, which means that the said gun or component part was not present earlier when police searched for clues. Did Peter Eaton return one of the silencers, or the metal cap which fits onto the end of the gun barrel. Alternatively, did Peter Eaton return Anthony Pargeters .22 rifle?
mike there are two "gun cupboards" ? yes ?
Is there only a crime scene picture of the one in the office? And what is that behind the door in the picture?
were there any other pictures of the other cupboard ? which I guess was the one they found the moderator?
-
According to Ann Eatons hand written notes, her husband returned Gun or part of a gun to the farmhouse on 9th August 1985, which means that the said gun or component part was not present earlier when police searched for clues. Did Peter Eaton return one of the silencers, or the metal cap which fits onto the end of the gun barrel. Alternatively, did Peter Eaton return Anthony Pargeters .22 rifle?
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. It was Robert Boutflour who Peter Eaotn had been to White House Farm previous to the 8/9/85 to return a gun. Presumably that means the day before the murders because the Eatons did not go to WHF on 8/7/85 or 8/8/85. The first day they were allowed in the house was 8/9/85 when the keys were turned over. Whether Boutflour had no idea what he was talking about in 1991 when he wrote such or Peter did actually return a gun prior to the murders is unclear.
-
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. It was Robert Boutflour who Peter Eaotn had been to White House Farm previous to the 8/9/85 to return a gun. Presumably that means the day before the murders because the Eatons did not go to WHF on 8/7/85 or 8/8/85. The first day they were allowed in the house was 8/9/85 when the keys were turned over. Whether Boutflour had no idea what he was talking about in 1991 when he wrote such or Peter did actually return a gun prior to the murders is unclear.
Actually, you're wrong Scipio, Ann said that Peter Eaton 'Put a gun back' on 9th August when they went to WHF to collect the keys.
-
AS you can see, in the written statement, she states that she went to WHF on the Saturday BUT that Peter had gone there the previous evening to 'put a gun back'
-
Actually, you're wrong Scipio, Ann said that Peter Eaton 'Put a gun back' on 9th August when they went to WHF to collect the keys.
That is from Robert Boutflour, the fact it says Ann's house right at the top should clue people in that she didn't write it since she would have written "my house". Just by reading it I coudl tell it was written by someone else hwoever the reason why I know who wrote it is that Jeremy himself referenced the document and said it was from Boutflour. It is one of the first things I read when reaidng Jeremy's site many months ago.
-
That is from Robert Boutflour, the fact it says Ann's house right at the top should clue people in that she didn't write it since she would have written "my house". Just by reading it I coudl tell it was written by someone else hwoever the reason why I know who wrote it is that Jeremy himself referenced the document and said it was from Boutflour. It is one of the first things I read when reaidng Jeremy's site many months ago.
Yes, I see it can't be Ann's - just did a quick search and didn't read the whole thing. However, it does sound more like David Boutflour than Robert because he mentions seeing paint on the silencer back at Ann's house and Robert wasn't there when they scrutinised it later that evening.
-
It is David's statement, I remember reading it now.
-
It is David's statement, I remember reading it now.
I have never seen the whole thing so can't say who wrote it I just know Jeremy claimed this was part of Robert's statement, whether he mixed up Robert and David I don't know. I have not found the place I read it originally but did find a reference to it here where which basically says the same thing as the page I read:
http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/robert-boutflour.html
I don't know if Steel Magnolia is an alias of Mike or someone else.
-
I have never seen the whole thing so can't say who wrote it I just know Jeremy claimed this was part of Robert's statement, whether he mixed up Robert and David I don't know. I have not found the place I read it originally but did find a reference to it here where which basically says the same thing as the page I read:
http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/robert-boutflour.html
I don't know if Steel Magnolia is an alias of Mike or someone else.
The statement is on the forum somewhere. I'll try and find it and put it in the archives. I don't know who Steel Magnolia is, although I have heard the name mentioned.
-
is it strange that it mentions the hacksaw blade? As I understood it the blade was not at WHF when the police did search at time of murders? they only found it several weeks later?
-
is it strange that it mentions the hacksaw blade? As I understood it the blade was not at WHF when the police did search at time of murders? they only found it several weeks later?
He is suggesting that someone could get in using a hacksaw blade. No sure where it was found but I do find it odd how alost all of the relatives 'suggestions' later became a reality - it's uncanny!