Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: buddy on August 11, 2015, 04:49:PM
-
There are many new people on this site, and I would welcome their views on Anthony Pargeter.
I last posted on this a few years ago now. His statements are available on the forum which are there for members to access.
To kick things off Anthony said he always kept his .22 rifle at whf, but took the bolt home with him.
Why would he do this?
He also said that Jeremy was a crackshot
In another statement he said he did not always leave his .22 rifle at whf, a straight contradiction.
He also received a large chunk of the Bamber estate. Why?
More to follow.
-
Thank you for your post . Nice to see a thread started by someone new.
I think it is quite clear what he said at the trial and it seemed to say his rifle was at the farm as per usual . However Scipio will be along to deny that is what he meant and of course he won money from a certain newspaper who said his rifle was at WHF and used in the murders.
Or did he win because it was not used - not because it was not there?
-
Thank you for your post . Nice to see a thread started by someone new.
I think it is quite clear what he said at the trial and it seemed to say his rifle was at the farm as per usual . However Scipio will be along to deny that is what he meant and of course he won money from a certain newspaper who said his rifle was at WHF and used in the murders.
Or did he win because it was not used - not because it was not there?
At trial he didn't claim his rifle was there at the time of the murders. It was obvious it wasn't so no one asked him about it. If they wanted to establish it there at the time of the murders they would have asked him to have him go on record testifying to such. You live in your own fantasy world.
-
Not saying what he said at trial, but what he wrote in his first statement.
-
Thank you for your post . Nice to see a thread started by someone new.
I think it is quite clear what he said at the trial and it seemed to say his rifle was at the farm as per usual . However Scipio will be along to deny that is what he meant and of course he won money from a certain newspaper who said his rifle was at WHF and used in the murders.
Or did he win because it was not used - not because it was not there?
Not as new as you think Jan.
-
AP was betwixt and between as to the whereabouts of his rifle because he'd have felt " implicated " if he'd first said that it was at WHF,even though by law it's where it should have been as it was licensed at that address. If he'd said he'd taken it home that would have been wrong too as explained above.
All in all it remains a mystery as to where the rifle ended up-----------complete with silencer. Truthfully ?
-
Not as new as you think Jan.
oh ok :) :)
-
I've often wondered why the sudden visit a week before the tragedy,when AP stayed at WHF the weekend before. I've never felt altogether comfortable with that at all.
-
So in his statement he says he usually leaves his rifle at the farm .He describes the weekend and does not say he took his rifle away.
During the trial allegedly he does not say he took his rifle away because he was not asked?
So does not reveal that fact until 1991 ? Is that correct Scipio?
Because I just want to get my fantasy world clear.
-
There are many new people on this site, and I would welcome their views on Anthony Pargeter.
I last posted on this a few years ago now. His statements are available on the forum which are there for members to access.
To kick things off Anthony said he always kept his .22 rifle at whf, but took the bolt home with him.
Why would he do this?
He also said that Jeremy was a crackshot
In another statement he said he did not always leave his .22 rifle at whf, a straight contradiction.
He also received a large chunk of the Bamber estate. Why?
More to follow.
1) There were 3 estates. June's, Nevil's and Sheila's. It is not entirely clear what happened with all of Sheila's property. The London flat had a mortgage but there was still equity which would be obtained at the time the property was sold. Whether it was dumped into one of the other estates is unclear. Failing to pay the mortgage and allowing it to be taken by the bank would have been pretty foolish.
June's estate went to her sister (Pam) but her sister decided to allow her children (Ann and David) to receive it.
Nevill had no living siblings so his estate was divided between his niece (Jackie) and nephew (Anthony).
2) Anthony said that at times he had left his gun there he didn't mean he kept it there and only there. When he did leave it there he took the bolt hole with him so no one could use it. After his last visit he took it home with him. It was not there at the time of the murders. That is why police never saw his rifle nor did the Boutflours or others who cleaned up the house after police gave the house back to the family ever saw it there. If his rifle had been at WHF then the Boutflours would have taken it along with all the other weapons to Oak Farm.
When Anthony testified there had already been testimony regarding:
A) Which items the police found at WHF
B) Which items the Boutflours/Eatons found
Anthony's rifle was not listed among them.
He was asked: "Did you have your gun with you some times?" His response was, "Very often I left my rifle." A follow up question was: "when you leave your firearms at the house, do you do anything with the bolts?" Notice the when which means on those occasions when you do leave it what do you do with the bolts.
He didn't testify that he always left it there. Nor as I pointed out was there any testimony to suggest his gun was found there by anyone after the murders. Thus there was nothing presented at trial to suggest his gun was there at the time of the murders.
When police interviewed Anthony he told them he took his rifle home before the murders. They asked to
see it and he showed it to them along with his moderator. They didn't bother to have him put in his statement that his gun was with him because there was no need to. If his gun had been at WHF at the time of the murders they would have made him include that and include how he got it back and might have wanted to take it as evidence.
The lawyers were aware he told police his gun was with him not at WHF and aware the police and family say they didn't find his weapon at WHF so none of them bothered to ask him if he had his gun at WHF at the time of the murders. Only if it had been there would they have bothered to ask him about it and would have done so in order to establish it was there. There is no need to question him to prove a negative.
In 1991 as a result of various allegations made by Jeremy COLP clarified with him where his rifle was at the time of the murders and he voluntarily let them take his moderator to have experts inspect it.
-
here is the statement I referred to
-
"Although I leave my firearm there "
oh so he does not even say sometimes or usually .
And he explains all about the weekend and does not say he took his gun away with him.
-
some trial evidence
-
So in his statement he says he usually leaves his rifle at the farm .He describes the weekend and does not say he took his rifle away.
During the trial allegedly he does not say he took his rifle away because he was not asked?
So does not reveal that fact until 1991 ? Is that correct Scipio?
Because I just want to get my fantasy world clear.
When Anthony was interviewed by the police he told them he took his rifle home before the murders. They asked to see it and he showed it to them along with his moderator. They didn't bother to force him to put in his statement that he took the gun home with him because there was no need to. If his gun had been at WHF at the time of the murders they would have made him expressly state it was there and expressly state how he got it back because they physically handled it thus saw it at his house and they had already spoken to everyone who searched WHF and none of them found his rifle so police would have wanted to know how he got it back. In fact they expressly stated they did not see his rifle when they were asked about it.
Police thus understood that he didn't mean it was still there at the time of the murders because he didn't state it was. Statements are for their benefit. You still can't get that through you head.
At trial he stated he sometimes left his gun at WHF. If he had done so during the murders he would have been asked. The lawyers would have needed to ask and have him affirmatively state he left it there in order to establish it was left there, Furthermore they would have asked how he got it back.
Because of allegations made to COLP, COLP asked Anthony if his rifle was at WHF during the murders and he said no. He told them he took it home with him and this is why neither police nor the family searching WHF after the murders saw his rifle there.
-
When Anthony was interviewed by the police he told them he took his rifle home before the murders. They asked to see it and he showed it to them along with his moderator. They didn't bother to force him to put in his statement that he took the gun home with him because there was no need to. If his gun had been at WHF at the time of the murders they would have made him expressly state it was there and expressly state how he got it back because they physically handled it thus saw it at his house and they had already spoken to everyone who searched WHF and none of them found his rifle so police would have wanted to know how he got it back. In fact they expressly stated they did not see his rifle when they were asked about it.
Police thus understood that he didn't mean it was still there at the time of the murders because he didn't state it was. Statements are for their benefit. You still can't get that through you head.
At trial he stated he sometimes left his gun at WHF. If he had done so during the murders he would have been asked. The lawyers would have needed to ask and have him affirmatively state he left it there in order to establish it was left there, Furthermore they would have asked how he got it back.
Because of allegations made to COLP, COLP asked Anthony if his rifle was at WHF during the murders and he said no. He told them he took it home with him and this is why neither police nor the family searching WHF after the murders saw his rifle there.
So you know of verbal communications between AP and the police that are not in a statement. ?
-
here is the statement I referred to
Which doesn't state his rifle was always there and was there at the time of the murder. Police wanted to know about his rifle being used by Jeremy to establish Jeremy could shoot that was why they mad ehim talk about his rifle.
He didn't say his rifle was there at the time of the murders and no one claimed they found his rifle when searching WHF after the murders.
-
"Although I leave my firearm there "
oh so he does not even say sometimes or usually .
And he explains all about the weekend and does not say he took his gun away with him.
You are crying because he was ambiguous and didn't specify sometimes or always. He did clarify at trial - SOMETIMES.
You choose to ignore that before he wrote his statement he spoke to police and not everything he told police is in his statement. Police who took his statement knew:
1) that his gun was not found at WHF by anyone
2) his gun was at his house and was physically looked over by them
3) that he told them he took his gun home prior to the murders.
So they knew he meant sometimes left it there and didn't care about hwo he worded it because they knew what he meant. he statements were for their benefit.
If they wanted to establish it was at WHF they would have asked him to include that he left it there. Then they would have needed to find out how he got it back and when. They didn't have to though because it wasn't there.
All the games in the world will not change this reality.
-
So you know of verbal communications between AP and the police that are not in a statement. ?
All the witnesses had verbal communication PRIOR to writing their statements. The statements only include the details deemed most significant to police so as to be shown to other police and prosecutors so as to be used.
-
There are many new people on this site, and I would welcome their views on Anthony Pargeter.
I last posted on this a few years ago now. His statements are available on the forum which are there for members to access.
To kick things off Anthony said he always kept his .22 rifle at whf, but took the bolt home with him.
Why would he do this?
He also said that Jeremy was a crackshot
In another statement he said he did not always leave his .22 rifle at whf, a straight contradiction.
He also received a large chunk of the Bamber estate. Why?
More to follow.
I have no idea why AP took the bolt home. And don't care.
Jeremy testified himself he knew how to fire the murder weapon.
He didn't always leave his rifle at WHF. And...
He received a chunk of the estate after Bamber was convicted.
-
some trial evidence
Note the first part question - we previously heard about some guns found at WHF. His rifle was not among these. The prior testimony was that shotguns belonging to him were found at WHF, his rifle was not.
That being the case the Court was already operating from the standpoint his rifle was not there at the time of the murders. The only way to challenge that standpoint would have been to ask him if he left his rifle there and then they would have to have tried to account for how no one found it there.
At trial facts are established by evidence. Saying he sometimes left his rifle there doesn't in any way establish it was there at the time of the murders. Someone would have to actively provide evidence to establish such. You seem to not understand how Courts operate.
-
Never a truer word " You seem to not understand how Courts operate ".
Kangaroo or Casey's ?
-
Never a truer word " You seem to not understand how Courts operate ".
Kangaroo or Casey's ?
Your efforts to prove Jeremy was convicted by a kangaroo court (and those of his other supporters for that matter) have all failed miserably.
-
Not saying what he said at trial, but what he wrote in his first statement.
i think you have been here longer than me! :)
-
No probs Caroline you are still important.to the debate.
I am still open not pro or anti. Just want justice either way.
-
No probs Caroline you are still important.to the debate.
I am still open not pro or anti. Just want justice either way.
I agree that it would be nice to have something that no one could argue against. I do feel that even a confession or an admission by someone else would still have people asking questions ;D
-
No probs Caroline you are still important.to the debate.
I am still open not pro or anti. Just want justice either way.
I answered what I saw as the questions you had. I summarized things related to him. You didn't seem to ask something clear in relation to certain points you made like the crackshot claim so I didn't address such things. You can clarify if you would like.
-
All the witnesses had verbal communication PRIOR to writing their statements. The statements only include the details deemed most significant to police so as to be shown to other police and prosecutors so as to be used.
That's not what I asked - how do you know he told the police his rifle was not there .
He still does not mention it in his third and fourth interviews
-
Tell me scipio why did you have to be rude and say I live in a fantasy world when three statements say he kept the rifle at WHF ?
Not sometimes - not usually ? So how am I supposed to be a mind reader and how do you know what was said privately between AP and the police?
-
i think you have been here longer than me! :)
Longer than me by a mile Caroline and I was here before you, think buddy can be traced right back to the beginning ;D
-
No probs Caroline you are still important.to the debate.
I am still open not pro or anti. Just want justice either way.
I agree buddy am with you there. ;)
-
That's not what I asked - how do you know he told the police his rifle was not there .
He still does not mention it in his third and fourth interviews
They are statements not interviews. No matter how many times it is pointed out that a record of the interviews was not kept you still choose to ignore it and pretend that the statements are a record of the interviews and are the only things said to police.
COLP details how police physically touched his rifle and moderator while they were interviewing him thus they knew it was in his possession not at WHF. Furthermore, they knew from those who searched WHF that it was not found there.
-
They are statements not interviews. No matter how many times it is pointed out that a record of the interviews was not kept you still choose to ignore it and pretend that the statements are a record of the interviews and are the only things said to police.
COLP details how police physically touched his rifle and moderator while they were interviewing him thus they knew it was in his possession not at WHF. Furthermore, they knew from those who searched WHF that it was not found there.
that's all you had to say its in the COLP interview . I was beginning to think you were psychic or something.
I will go and check.
-
well excuse me - in my fantasy land he is pretty contradictory.
-
I moved it because it was not in the place it was habitually kept .
I never habitually kept it at WHF?
Really ?
-
Also this totally contradicts what he said in his earlier statements.
-
I was beginning to think you were psychic or something.
All one has to do is understand that an interview is different from a statement to recognize they asked question about things not referenced explicitly in statements. It doesn't take any mind reading.
The easiest place to read about it is to go to AP's COLP statement and you will find where he mentions they wanted to see his gun, you will find the same in Boutflour's.
Police used the pretense of using their guns for demonstration purposes to inspect them.
-
I moved it because it was not in the place it was habitually kept .
I never habitually kept it at WHF?
Really ?
Not in the place it was kept at WHF WHEN it was actually kept at WHF.
-
Not in the place it was kept at WHF WHEN it was actually kept at WHF.
He says in plain English I took it way because it was not in the place it was usually kept.
then he says it was not usually kept at WHF .
That contradicts what he said in his first statements
He said he kept it there and took the bolt away.
So two things spring to mind
no areas were secure with locks anyway so what did it matter which cupboard it was in? And if he took the bolt away the gun was in effect secure anyway?
-
He says in plain English I took it way because it was not in the place it was usually kept.
then he says it was not usually kept at WHF .
That contradicts what he said in his first statements
He said he kept it there and took the bolt away.
So two things spring to mind
no areas were secure with locks anyway so what did it matter which cupboard it was in? And if he took the bolt away the gun was in effect secure anyway?
A gun can not be used to fire bullets with the bolt missing. You can damage the gun playing with it, can lose parts if you take it apart and there was ammunition, his moderator and scope as well inside if it. No one should have touched it at all. That someone did made him worry about leaving it there. Since there was now a gun that used 22 ammunition someone could use up all his ammo. That alone is a reason to not leave it.
He didn't leave it there from the beginning to time till the murders. He said he frequently left it there. When he kept it there it was kept in the bathroom but was not found there when he went last.
No one found his gun there after the murders that is the main evidence that would detail whether his gun was at WHF or not.
-
A gun can not be used to fire bullets with the bolt missing. You can damage the gun playing with it, can lose parts if you take it apart and there was ammunition, his moderator and scope as well inside if it. No one should have touched it at all. That someone did made him worry about leaving it there. Since there was now a gun that used 22 ammunition someone could use up all his ammo. That alone is a reason to not leave it.
He didn't leave it there from the beginning to time till the murders. He said he frequently left it there. When he kept it there it was kept in the bathroom but was not found there when he went last.
No one found his gun there after the murders that is the main evidence that would detail whether his gun was at WHF or not.
[/quiote]
so now you know what he was feeling as well as his private conversations with EP.
And Do you have a full list of the weapons and accessories that were found in WHF and "handed back" to the family?
-
A gun can not be used to fire bullets with the bolt missing. You can damage the gun playing with it, can lose parts if you take it apart and there was ammunition, his moderator and scope as well inside if it. No one should have touched it at all. That someone did made him worry about leaving it there. Since there was now a gun that used 22 ammunition someone could use up all his ammo. That alone is a reason to not leave it.
He didn't leave it there from the beginning to time till the murders. He said he frequently left it there. When he kept it there it was kept in the bathroom but was not found there when he went last.
No one found his gun there after the murders that is the main evidence that would detail whether his gun was at WHF or not.
[/quiote]
so now you know what he was feeling as well as his private conversations with EP.
And Do you have a full list of the weapons and accessories that were found in WHF and "handed back" to the family?
If by given back you mean those still at WHF when the police turned it over to the family the full list was established at trial and AP's rifle was not among them. The list consisted of shotguns and the air rifle.
-
So they did go through all the gun storage areas then to itemise and list all the guns. shame they missed the silencer .
-
So they did go through all the gun storage areas then to itemise and list all the guns. shame they missed the silencer .
I wonder why there were any guns kept in the downstairs shower room at all? Also I'm wondering if the reason for Jeremy replacing the sound moderator back in the gun cupboard was that Anthony had seen the new anschutz rifle with the silencer attached the week before the murders.
-
So they did go through all the gun storage areas then to itemise and list all the guns. shame they missed the silencer .
The silencer was listed among the items found by the family at WHF. They used testimony to establish which items the police found, which items the family found and to establish they were turned over to the police by the family. Are you new here?
-
The silencer was listed among the items found by the family at WHF. They used testimony to establish which items the police found, which items the family found and to establish they were turned over to the police by the family. Are you new here?
No I was being sarcastic. You reduce me to that sometimes.
A temporary lapse in my sense of humour.
-
So they did go through all the gun storage areas then to itemise and list all the guns. shame they missed the silencer .
The silencer was in a box at the back of the gun cupboard. Underneath other boxes, a dartboard and guns.
The police are not going to open every box in the first three days. Jeremy had told them it was murder/suicide.
I have already told you this several times. Keep up.