Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on November 15, 2014, 03:02:PM
-
Anthony Pargeter and his rifle and sound moderator
Anthony Pargeter is Jeremy’s cousin on his father’s side. He married Regine Hausser, daughter of famous photographer Robert Hausser. Anthony had a sister, Jacqueline, who married Richard Wood.
Anthony and Jacqueline also had half brothers, as their mother, Audrey, had died and Reginald married again having two other sons called Clive and Roland. It is in Roland’s statement where rumours of a plane flying over to drop drugs at the farm in the middle of the night must have started. He confesses his own involvement in drugs and details a convoluted account of visiting a psychic and her telling him a tale of three hit men who killed the family. [1]
Anthony Pargeter had been shooting with Jeremy and was a frequent visitor to the farm from his home at the time in Bourne End, Buckinghamshire. He told the police that Jeremy became interested in guns in 1980 and then details that he himself had a .410 shotgun. He then graduated to a 12 bore shotgun, and gave his .410 to Jeremy which Jeremy never used. [2]This gun was kept at the farm and had to be licensed to Nevill Bamber as Jeremy Bamber did not own a gun, only an air rifle. In his 8th of August Statement he describes Jeremy as “a likeable young man” and that Nevill Bamber had told him that he had spoken of the acquisitions of farmland to give Jeremy an opportunity to try farming on his own if he ever wished to do so. Nevill had told Anthony that he would be around for a few years yet to guide Jeremy. [3] This is contrary to media reports that Nevill Bamber had a strange premonition that he was going to die.
In his later statement of September Anthony’s feelings about Jeremy appear to have shifted and he becomes suspicious of Jeremy’s interest in guns. He also details a conversation with David Boutflour about their discussion on the red paint found the moderator which matched the paint on the Aga surround. He says he went to the farm and noticed the scoring in the paint work and believed this is where the moderator had come into contact with the mantle. [4]
Where were Anthony Pargeter’s rifle and moderator on the night of the tragedy?
Anthony Pargeter made many statements to the police about the tragedy. In his statement of 8thAugust and the 10th of September he makes no mention of his rifle being at the farm. He discusses the rifle owned by Nevill and its whereabouts, but he does not clarify he came across it whilst looking for his own gun until statements made later.
So on the 17th of September he goes on to detail that he kept two 12 bore shotguns and an air rifle at the farm house but after the tragedy picked them up from David Boutflour and took them back to his home in Bourne End.
Then on t he 17th of November he told police that he only used “.22 rifles in Africa but in England I only had an air rifle”. He is not explicit about where this rifle was kept.
Anthony becomes more explicit in his later 12th of December statement by saying that that he didown 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 House 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]
The third point that I would like to make is about the moderator is that In 1991 when the police seized the moderator and rifle from Anthony for testing, they detail that it’s the same type and make as the one allegedly used during the tragedies. [8] I quote “Sound Moderator the same make and type as DRB/1” The witness reference exhibit number for the moderator supposedly used the kill the family was DRB/1 (It was given this reference because it was David Robert Boutflour who found the exhibit).
It has been repeatedly denied by police that there were two identical moderators. Jeremy Bamber maintains that there were two sound moderators at the farm with DS Stan Jones (initials SBJ) probably finding Anthony’s moderator at the scene on the 7th of August. It can be shown that DS Davidson fingerprinted a sound moderator on the 9th of August 1985,[9] which is impossible if David Boutflour did not find the sound moderator in the gun cupboard until the 10th of August 1985.
It is likely then, that these were switched over as the case progressed, there are many evidential papers and photographs to support this argument including the moderator label’s having the wrong case reference number on it and further tampering of the exhibit witness reference number which evolved from being SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1 with no supporting explanatory paperwork. There are two forensic scientists, Brian Elliott and Glynnis Howard who both made detailed statements to the City of London police stating that the reference numbers for the sound moderators in their original statements had been altered without their knowledge. [10] Considering how important the moderator was to the conviction of Jeremy Bamber it has had a surprisingly colourful life, evolving from nothing, to have many different names and guises.
The final report from the City of London Police which was officially disclosed pre 2002 has a paragraph missing which addresses whether or not Anthony’s gun was at the farm. One disclosed later in 2004 was obtaned by the Defence has a missing passage in it. Curiously, someone did not want the Defence to know all there is to know about the rifle, it would then follow by analogy that Anthony’s rifle was present at the farm then the moderator would have been too.Is it suitable that a report of a police review should have whole paragraphs missing from it, and in some cases a number of whole pages are absent? In contrary to the report prepared and given to the Home Secretary and PCA, Anthony Pargeter did not state that he removed his rifle or moderator from White House Farm at any time.
I now return to Anthony Pargeter who met up with Metropolitan police officers in 2002 near his residence in Ibiza. He went to a restaurant for lunch with two of the officers investigating the case during which he said that “If it hadn’t [sic] been for Taff Jones directions we probably wouldn’t be here today.” The reader can draw their own conclusions about what is meant by this statement. [11]
Anthony Pargeter was another key prosecution witness who gave evidence at trial. He and his sister the late Jacqueline Wood also benefitted financially from the Bamber estate upon the conviction of Jeremy Bamber but only after a legal battle with the relatives.
-
well as hes gun was left at whf he could easily become a suspect himself had the investigation taken a different direction.
-
It would be very interesting to read the details of the libel case . I still can not understand the award of £40000 after all they never said he fired the gun during the murders did they ?
And how did he prove he took the bolt away?
-
did he say he took the bolt away at the time or did he suddenly remember this at the libel trial.
-
It would be very interesting to read the details of the libel case . I still can not understand the award of £40000 after all they never said he fired the gun during the murders did they ?
And how did he prove he took the bolt away?
Now of course I don't profess to be an expert on law. Heaven forbid. But for the life of me I cannot see a case for libel here? Perhaps someone can explain it to me?
-
did he say he took the bolt away at the time or did he suddenly remember this at the libel trial.
No he did say in his testimony that he did leave the rifle there - but took the bolt home - There are a couple of interesting things though . It was inferred that his guns were found under or behind some furniture nit in the cupboard and also they offered to show him the photos of Sheila at the shoot that h could not remember. He also had a good look at Jeremys rifle the weekend before the murders - so his prints should have been on there as well.
-
The trouble is that EP had to work it around the whole phoney scenario of JM's " known " lies and the fraud that was going on as reported by BW. Everyone was busy getting " hush " money ".
-
So in his statements and testimony he never said his rifle was not there at the time of the murders - he said he usually left it there but removed the bolt. It was not until 1991 that he said he had taken it home the weekend before.
-
Why after 6 months or so would he suddenly decide to go to WHF and stay the weekend anyway ? What was the purpose in that ?
-
but did he stay the weekend can anyone confirm this.
-
I guess BW would have known and Jeremy.
Patti posted this some time ago - I wonder where these photos are?
Hi Buddy this might be of interest to you...:
This is further proven in photograph img – 3522. CR2, which shows Anthony Pargeter’s .22 rifle on top of Nevill Bamber’s 12 bore shotgun case, on the floor of the office gun cupboard. This photograph was taken on the 7th August 1985. In addition photographs img – 3514. CR2 and img 3513. CR2, pictures Anthony Pargeter’s 12 bore shotgun case in the downstairs toilet/shower room on a bench behind a cabinet, (these were also taken on the 7th August 1985).
These photo's were taken by SBJ.....PC Jones. :) :)
-
I guess BW would have known and Jeremy.
Patti posted this some time ago - I wonder where these photos are?
Hi Buddy this might be of interest to you...:
This is further proven in photograph img – 3522. CR2, which shows Anthony Pargeter’s .22 rifle on top of Nevill Bamber’s 12 bore shotgun case, on the floor of the office gun cupboard. This photograph was taken on the 7th August 1985. In addition photographs img – 3514. CR2 and img 3513. CR2, pictures Anthony Pargeter’s 12 bore shotgun case in the downstairs toilet/shower room on a bench behind a cabinet, (these were also taken on the 7th August 1985).
These photo's were taken by SBJ.....PC Jones. :) :)
As seems to always be the case with Patti she was wrong.
I wonder whether Graham suffers from memory loss because no matter how many times an issue is explained to him he forgets and asks the same questions over again.
The libel was established because at the time the article was written the newspaper misrepresented that AP admitted his weapon was at WHF on the night of the murders and thus suggested it might ight have been used.
At the time the article was published the newspaper knew or should have known that AP stated his weapon was removed from WHF during his last visit that preceded the murders so was not at WHF and that he stated for the several months he had left it at WHF he had taken the bolt home with him so the gun was inoperable and could not be used by anyone.
The newspaper thus knew or should have known their claim that AP admitted his gun was at WHF at the time of the murders was false. The newspaper made a claim in print with a reckless disregard for the truth.
-
Mods, isn´t it enough wih skippy soon?
-
Mods, isn´t it enough wih skippy soon?
What i wrote is fully accurate- both about the the libel claims and the fact Graham asked the same thing 10 times since i have been here each time ignoring the answer.
-
What i wrote is fully accurate- both about the the libel claims and the fact Graham asked the same thing 10 times since i have been here each time ignoring the answer.
Scipio I am giving you a warning and if things do not improve I shall ask for a 24 hour ban.
-
What i wrote is fully accurate- both about the the libel claims and the fact Graham asked the same thing 10 times since i have been here each time ignoring the answer.
Accurate my eye.Who do you think you're kidding ? Sorry,but you can't pull the wool over OUR eyes here,so your " accuracy " doesn't count for anything so far as we're concerned.
-
Thanks, Patti.
-
Accurate my eye.Who do you think you're kidding ? Sorry,but you can't pull the wool over OUR eyes here,so your " accuracy " doesn't count for anything so far as we're concerned.
Try proving me wrong. You can't because I am full accurate. You do what you do best which is ignore the truth, ignore facts and just pretend things are as you wish they were.
-
As seems to always be the case with Patti she was wrong.
I wonder whether Graham suffers from memory loss because no matter how many times an issue is explained to him he forgets and asks the same questions over again.
The libel was established because at the time the article was written the newspaper misrepresented that AP admitted his weapon was at WHF on the night of the murders and thus suggested it might ight have been used.
At the time the article was published the newspaper knew or should have known that AP stated his weapon was removed from WHF during his last visit that preceded the murders so was not at WHF and that he stated for the several months he had left it at WHF he had taken the bolt home with him so the gun was inoperable and could not be used by anyone.
The newspaper thus knew or should have known their claim that AP admitted his gun was at WHF at the time of the murders was false. The newspaper made a claim in print with a reckless disregard for the truth.
Yes I remember that. But just cannot see that he was libelled? It doesn't suggest that he did the crime. It doesn't make sense for him to take them to court that's all?
-
What i wrote is fully accurate- both about the the libel claims and the fact Graham asked the same thing 10 times since i have been here each time ignoring the answer.
Accuracy ISN'T courtesy. If you don't like a posters tone when they respond you have the ignore option. Personally I think you prefer to make an argument and in your own words you think it's fun to watch people squirm.
-
What i wrote is fully accurate- both about the the libel claims and the fact Graham asked the same thing 10 times since i have been here each time ignoring the answer.
Come on, it was only 9 times. ;)
-
Accuracy ISN'T courtesy. If you don't like a posters tone when they respond you have the ignore option. Personally I think you prefer to make an argument and in your own words you think it's fun to watch people squirm.
Who's squirming,April ? Not me that's for sure.
-
Yes I remember that. But just cannot see that he was libelled? It doesn't suggest that he did the crime. It doesn't make sense for him to take them to court that's all?
They lied about what he said. It would be bad enough if he claimed the gun was there despite having no evidence to rely on for the suggestion but they falsely asserted he admitted his gun was there.
His gun being there and being involved potentially implicates him either helping to carry out the murders directly or potentially leaving it there so the murderer can use the gun so being an accomplice. That is what is going to go through the minds of readers and indeed people here have alleged such things.
Those complaining about AP suing seem to be demonstrating their bias. Anyone against Jeremy they attack for any reason imaginable.
The libel suit has nothing at all to do with the murders so why does it keep coming up? To attack AP.
-
Who's squirming,April ? Not me that's for sure.
Neither am I.
Funny how a lawyer has to invent in his head that some strangers on the intenet are sqirming. Takes all kinds!
-
They lied about what he said. It would be bad enough if he claimed the gun was there despite having no evidence to rely on for the suggestion but they falsely asserted he admitted his gun was there.
His gun being there and being involved potentially implicates him either helping to carry out the murders directly or potentially leaving it there so the murderer can use the gun so being an accomplice. That is what is going to go through the minds of readers and indeed people here have alleged such things.
Those complaining about AP suing seem to be demonstrating their bias. Anyone against Jeremy they attack for any reason imaginable.
The libel suit has nothing at all to do with the murders so why does it keep coming up? To attack AP.
I'm not attacking Pargeter at all. In my opinion to say the rifle was there in no way implicates him in the murders. If it were my rifle I certainly wouldn't bother to sue the paper. It's rather silly if you ask me. But having said that I do find it rather odd that the very week before the murders he decides to take the gun home after leaving it at the farm all year?
-
Neither am I.
Funny how a lawyer has to invent in his head that some strangers on the intenet are sqirming. Takes all kinds!
Clearly he takes pathetic pleasure in believing you to be.
-
Clearly he takes pathetic pleasure in believing you to be.
I hope he can find a way to fill his life with something a tad more meaningful. :P
-
Yes I remember that. But just cannot see that he was libelled? It doesn't suggest that he did the crime. It doesn't make sense for him to take them to court that's all?
maybe he just thought it was easy money.
-
They lied about what he said. It would be bad enough if he claimed the gun was there despite having no evidence to rely on for the suggestion but they falsely asserted he admitted his gun was there.
His gun being there and being involved potentially implicates him either helping to carry out the murders directly or potentially leaving it there so the murderer can use the gun so being an accomplice. That is what is going to go through the minds of readers and indeed people here have alleged such things.
Those complaining about AP suing seem to be demonstrating their bias. Anyone against Jeremy they attack for any reason imaginable.
The libel suit has nothing at all to do with the murders so why does it keep coming up? To attack AP.
Of course it is to do with the murders.
We were not complaining . £40000 is a lot of money in the 80s.,when during the trial he did not say his gun was there and he did not say it was not. The paper was not accusing him of murder or using the gun? We were just asking the question why it was such a lot of money .
can you show me a statement before the trial where he said he had taken his gun home and it was NOT at WHF?
So get your facts right about what we are querying.
-
I'm not attacking Pargeter at all. In my opinion to say the rifle was there in no way implicates him in the murders. If it were my rifle I certainly wouldn't bother to sue the paper. It's rather silly if you ask me. But having said that I do find it rather odd that the very week before the murders he decides to take the gun home after leaving it at the farm all year?
He left the gun there because it was winter and he would not be using it. He took it home in part because he got a new scope he wanted to attach to it and thus play with it. He might have taken it anyway since it was the only time he left the rifle there and had intended to use it regardless of the new scope. The more curious quesiton is why he bothered to leave it there at all since he never usually did so. Jus tleaivng it there because he didn't need it for winter is not a good enough reason. If you intend to use it there again in a few months or had no room for it when he was leaving in December 1984 then tha tis a reason. He didn't really bother to detail why though he decided to leave it for the first time.
Had he left it there the first time right before the murders and it had the bolt and might have been used int he murders then a hell of alot more questions would have been in order because the suspicion would be there that it was left for use in the murders.
-
Of course it is to do with the murders.
We were not complaining . £40000 is a lot of money in the 80s.,when during the trial he did not say his gun was there and he did not say it was not. The paper was not accusing him of murder or using the gun? We were just asking the question why it was such a lot of money .
can you show me a statement before the trial where he said he had taken his gun home and it was NOT at WHF?
So get your facts right about what we are querying.
The article was written well after trial- after he provided a statement that he removed the bolt while the gun was left at WHF and that he took his gun home with him when he left WHF a week before the murders. The fact he didn't go into such details in writing prior to the murders makes no difference since he had detialed it in writing before the article was published and the article ignored such.
-
The article was written well after trial- after he provided a statement that he removed the bolt while the gun was left at WHF and that he took his gun home with him when he left WHF a week before the murders. The fact he didn't go into such details in writing prior to the murders makes no difference since he had detialed it in writing before the article was published and the article ignored such.
So before and during the trial he did not say he had taken his gun home - its a simple question. If that is not true what date did he say he had taken the gun home and not just removed the bolt?
-
So before and during the trial he did not say he had taken his gun home - its a simple question. If that is not true what date did he say he had taken the gun home and not just removed the bolt?
In writing he clarified the issue during the COLP investigation. What he verbally told police regarding the issue at the time of the investigation is obviously not documented. Police didn't record the interviews with the family they just had statements written up regarding points they wanted on the record for others to see as opposed to simply for the use of the lowly investigators in which verbal is ok.
The people at the higher levels want statements so they can show them to others and not have to just make claims themselves of what was told. In some instances those statements are made under oath others times not.
The newspaper knew he clarified the issue but didn't mention such and pretended he was claiming the gun was at the house at the time of the murders. he Eatons are the ones who took all the guns from WHF that police failed to take. They said AP's rifle was not among them. So the newspaper had reson to know the gun was not there thanks to the testimony of the Eatons as well as AP's COLP testimony. They ignored there was no evidence the gun was there and suggested it was by claiming AP admits it was there.
The paper had nothing on its side to defend their claim as true, that is why they lost.
-
You never back up your claims with any documentation.
Where is the list of what the Eatons removed from WHF ?
How do you know what they took?
What did the police pick up from them besides the silencer?
-
BTW - knowing the newspaper they probably made a full accusation of murder. After all they are the paper who found a WW2 plane on the moon - oh and Elvis was there as well.
-
You never back up your claims with any documentation.
Where is the list of what the Eatons removed from WHF ?
How do you know what they took?
What did the police pick up from them besides the silencer?
It is in the statements of police as well as the Eatons posted on this site if you actually bother to read them.
The scope, ammunition and various shotguns were turned over in September, in August police were only interested in the moderator.
-
BTW - knowing the newspaper they probably made a full accusation of murder. After all they are the paper who found a WW2 plane on the moon - oh and Elvis was there as well.
That is not what AP critics are claiming they printed though. If that is what was printed the critics are even more off base and the libel judgment a forgone conclusion.
-
It is in the statements of police as well as the Eatons posted on this site if you actually bother to read them.
The scope, ammunition and various shotguns were turned over in September, in August police were only interested in the moderator.
Just saying various "guns" I think it says rather than shotguns - is not a list - it does not even say how many they took from the house - I did read Annes statement . It just says they took guns and ammunition they found.
-
Just saying various "guns" I think it says rather than shotguns - is not a list - it does not even say how many they took from the house - I did read Annes statement . It just says they took guns and ammunition they found.
Why didn't you read David's statement? He's the one who found them and alerted everyone else to them.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1080.msg33195.html#msg33195
The police records show they took these guns from the Eatons in September along with the extra ammunition and telescopic sights.
Police took the murder weapon and 1 shotgun the day of the murders. They left these behind.
For our purposes it doesn't really matter when these items were taken because none of the wounds were caused by the shotguns or an air rifle pellet. So there is no need to bother detiling them beyond saying shotguns and air rifle.
But the answer was there if you actually read the materials at your disposal.
-
Just to throw a spanner in the works so to speak, I believe there are two inventories of the guns in the house at the time of the murders. One by the Eatons and the other from Jeremy. I think they both agree together? But I can't find the two inventories on the forum at he moment?