Link to a thread on here with the Firearms Certificate and the statement of PC Dryland of Essex Police:
https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=242.0
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nevill's culpability in the shootings is a comparably minor issue but it's important.
We already know Nevill was lax with his firearms and was culpable in the tragedy. If, in addition, he has misled the authorities, then it lends further plausibility to a Sheila scenario. If Essex Police also have a skeleton in the closet, then at the very least that's interesting.
I also wonder if there was nervousness at Chelmsford HQ about how a schizophrenic got hold of a certified firearm, and how this would look, and I wonder whether this might have been a factor (maybe only a minor factor) in driving them towards Jeremy as an alternative suspect? Of course, Jeremy admitted that he left the rifle and magazine out, but shouldn't journalists and people like the deputy coroner have been asking whether the guns and ammunition were secure, and if it turned out they were not, wouldn't they then ask how come, and how it is that Nevill has been given a firearms certificate in the first place?
If Sheila did this, she's managed to fire at least 25 times, meaning she's re-loaded. Shouldn't the ammunition have been locked away? Why didn't Nevill account for the firearms at the end of that day and secure them? If, as was the case in reality, it turns out that he couldn't secure them because there is no padlock on the gun cupboard, and moreover, there are guns all over the place, were the police aware of this and what happened when he was inspected?
It's just rather surprising more wasn't made of this at the time.
I say this is a minor issue, but one could attach major significance to this because two six year old boys died and Nevill was responsible for those firearms.
I also believe it is significant in that it lends plausibility to a scenario of Sheila as the killer.
I assume the issue was not explored by Essex Police at the time because:
(i). Nevill is dead (Jeremy is not the responsible party in this regard);
(ii). it's not a priority issue;
(iii). at that point, they were probably investigating the issue internally, hence P.C. Dryland's statement, as he was probably asked for an explanation.
Certainly, Nevill, had he survived an attack by Sheila, could have faced criminal liability under the relevant Firearms Act, as well as suspension and/or loss of his firearms certificate. I rather suspect there would have been some awkward questions asked of P.C. Dryland, as well.
The complication in Jeremy's case is that it appears he was using the firearms under a lawful dispensation, having no firearms certificate of his own. Apparently, Jeremy was able to use the firearms on land controlled by Nevill.
However one question I have about the whole thing is what, if any, conditions would have attached to this dispensation? I have not looked at the Act myself. I will have to at some stage, but I would have thought there must be a requirement that Jeremy is under Nevill's supervision. If so, what does 'supervision' mean? Does it mean Nevill has to be present? Is there also a requirement for Jeremy to seek Nevill's express authority, and if so, must a record be kept, or is tacit authority or implied usage enough?
All of this is a roundabout way of saying: possibly there may have been consequences in criminal law for Jeremy in those circumstances, but one would have to check the relevant legislation as it pertained at that time.
Jeremy did not leave the rifle in Nevill's sight. It was left in the back hallway (sometimes inaccurately referred to as the back kitchen or even kitchen).
That said, I think we are all aware of Nevill's habit of leaving the key in the back door, and access to that door is via the hallway, so Nevill could have seen the rifle had he been observant.
I don't recall seeing a lock on the gun cupboard door in the photographs by D.C. Bird - and bear in mind, that gun cupboard was in Nevill's private den (the downstairs office). (For context: During the Bamber Inquiry, D.C. Bird got himself confused about its whereabouts - though in fairness, this is only understandable, really, given the passage of time).
I have to say, without wishing to be unduly disrespectful of the dead, Nevill Bamber was culpable in this tragedy. It is quite apparent that his safety awareness was zero, precautions were completely absent, and I don't consider it any excuse to say that it was the norm for the time or typical of rural people or farmers. If he was nervous of Jeremy, then Nevill should have barred him from the firearms under his care and kept his firearms and ammunition secure. He failed in this duty, unequivocally.
In his own statement, P.C. Dryland clearly and unambiguously states that he visited the farm before the murders to conduct his inspection. It was 12 months before (which also raises the interesting question of whether Essex Police were due to re-inspect the firearms around the time of the murders).
Nevill was negligent about firearms safety, to put it charitably. Anybody who denies this is just in denial about what is staring them in the face. I would go as far as to say that Nevill was culpable in the shootings.
P.C. Dryland and Essex Police clearly have a vested interest in providing misleading information. They clearly have an interest in pretending that when the official visit was conducted in August 1984, they found proper safety measures were taken. There is nobody around to gainsay them, except Jeremy himself. It is very likely that P.C. Dryland is lying, as explained in previous posts above. Either he is lying about turning a blind eye to things or he did not conduct a proper inspection in the first place.
I've discovered, or rather re-discovered, something else.
In Robert Boutflour's statements to COLP, he describes how the downstairs office was new (converted from the scullery) and he had not seen it before maybe July 1985. This means it could have been converted after the visit by P.C. Dryland. (Q. Was the work done by Dennis Wager?).
Robert Boutflour's statements still confirm that the guns were all over the house but the main storage was in the same location, so it does look like that cupboard was used for guns even when it was in the scullery. However, if the scullery was converted after P.C. Dryland's visit, then this does open up the possibility that, during the conversion works, the padlock mechanism was removed from the cupboard, and maybe a new door was fitted with a nylon ball catch - which, if so, would mean that P.C. Dryland was telling the truth.
It would assist to have a full copy of Robert Boutflour's police statement of 10th. September 1985, but maybe we should give the police and P.C. Dryland the benefit of the doubt and just say that the works were done after 4th. August 1984, and before that, Nevill was using a padlocked cupboard.
I think we need to remember that P.C. Dryland will be assumed to be basing his statement on his own records. It's not a matter of recollection.
As to why he is mistaken, it does seem unlikely to me that he could get it wrong, and the circumstances do point to both Nevill and P.C. Dryland basically making misrepresentations; but, as stated above, an additional factor is that Nevill had converted part of the scullery into an office, albeit that it's the same gun cupboard in the same place. It could be that the cupboard veneer only dates back to the conversion, which opens up the possibility that there was a padlock at the time of P.C. Dryland's visit.
The police issue firearms certificates. As part of that process, they keep records.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that P.C. Dryland was referring to records when making his statement some time later. The only reason the assumption is needed is because P.C. Dryland doesn't spell out that this is the basis of his own statement.
Furthermore, P.C. Dryland does not qualify his statement. He is very specific and certain about his impressions of Nevill's firearms management and what he found and saw.
It's not difficult. The only unknown we have here is the question of when the downstairs office conversion was completed. If it was completed prior to 4th. August 1984, then it is quite likely that P.C. Dryland has lied. If, on the other hand, it was completed after 4th. August 1984, then we may have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
In any event, Nevill Bamber's conduct in regard to his firearms was poor and he was culpable in the tragedy.
In summary:
1. The police issue firearms certificates and keep records.
2. The police refer to these records.
3. The statement of P.C. Dryland is worded without any form of qualification or caveat whatsoever.
4. If P.C. Dryland wasn't sure, he would either indicate this in his statement or not provide the statement at all. He is clearly relying on a mixture of memory and records, including his own pocketbook and official records. This is reasonable to assume because all police officers do this.
5. If the downstairs office conversion happened prior to 4th. August 1985, then P.C. Dryland is probably lying (for the reasons explained exhaustively earlier in the thread). If after 4th. August 1985, then he may still be lying, but I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
Culpability is not liability. The evidence for Nevill's culpability is conclusive, surely?
My understanding is that secure storage requirements were not made explicit at statutory level until the 1988 Act but were routinely imposed as a condition of firearms certificates by local police from the 1930s onwards. P.C. Dryland explicitly refers in his statement to Nevill having padlocked his gun cupboard.
There was one gun cupboard only. The confusion is understandable because there were guns all over the house, but Robert Boutflour confirms there was only one cupboard. Also, bear in mind that P.C. Dryland when inspecting would not see the guns here, there and everywhere. It follows that he must have been shown the gun cupboard. The question in regard to his statement, to the extent it matters at all, is: Was the cupboard still in the scullery at that point, or had the conversion been completed?
Robert Boutflour's various statements to Essex Police and COLP refer to a cupboard under the backstairs, which is clearly the same cupboard as the one in the den in 1985, due to the way he describes it. If I recall this right, he doesn't actually say there is just one cupboard, but what he is saying implies this.
P.C. Dryland refers also to a cupboard, singular not plural, and says it was padlocked. Let's say I am wrong about the washroom and there's also a cupboard there, Pargeter wouldn't allow Nevill to padlock his guns away.
From this, I conclude that P.C. Dryland is referring to the same gun cupboard that we see in D.C. Bird's photographs. The only issue as far as his statement is concerned is whether, back in August 1984, this cupboard was still in the scullery or was by then in the converted den.
Robert Boutflour says he couldn't recall seeing the den prior to Nevill showing him it in July 1985, but admits it could have been there some time before then because whenever he visited the farmhouse, he didn't linger in the back hallway, so would have been oblivious to it anyway.
What sort of mistake could PC Dryland make? It's either padlocked or it's not.
The only way he could be telling the truth is if he inspected the cupboard prior to the den conversion and at that point there was a padlock mechanism on it.
If he inspected after the conversion, then unless something else was then done to the cupboard, it does look like he was lying.
Does anybody know when Nevill's downstairs conversion was completed? Was it Dennis Wager who completed it? I'm sure I have read about it somewhere, but I can't remember.
The inspection was almost four months before Nevill and Jeremy purchased the .22 rifle at K.D. Ratcliffe's.
But when P.C. Dryland refers to secure storage, he uses the word 'weapons' [plural].
Nevill wasn't reasonably careful with securing and storing firearms. There were guns and ammunition all over the house. The gun cupboard was not padlocked. That's common ground. Jeremy saying otherwise, whether he actually did or not, is not the final word. We have evidence to the contrary and we can think for ourselves.
And it was considered lax in 1984. I've covered that as well, above. The safe and secure storage of guns has been a common condition on firearms certificates since the 1930s. P.C. Dryland had recorded that the gun cupboard was padlocked in August 1984, which is the point at issue, and that would not be mentioned by P.C. Dryland unless it was important and expected. Quite apart from that, how can it not be lax to leave guns and ammunition around one's house, especially with two young children and a schizophrenic staying there, plus a son there daily who, according to Barbara Wilson, was plotting to kill him?
The gun cupboard was always locked, but as explained, it was a nylon ball catch lock, so the point is that it was not securely locked.
Things were more relaxed back then and an officer might have just taken Nevill's word for it. He was a magistrate.
P.C. Dryland refers to a cupboard and weapons [plural]. There was only one cupboard, under the backstairs. We can see from the photographs that the veneer door was not padlocked and did not have that mechanism. That means either somebody is lying or the inspection on 4th. August 1984 took place prior to the den conversion at a time when the cupboard was padlocked and somebody has swapped out the cupboard door.
PC Dryland had to turn up. What if Nevill then reassured him? What if then somebody at Essex Police asked why, on the morning of 7th. August, they found a gun cupboard not properly secure?
What PC Dryland is referring to is the converted den downstairs, photographed by D.C. Bird.
This is the cupboard I believed P.C. Dryland must be referring to. If you look at Robert Boutflour's statements about this to Essex Police and COLP, you will see that he describes the same cupboard when it was in the scullery.
The cupboard in the downstairs den did not and could not have had a padlock on it at the time of the incident, and this was also confirmed in David Boutflour's statement.
Thus, the issue - for me - in regard to P.C. Dryland is when the conversion of the scullery to the den took place.
In England, local police forces have routinely imposed secure storage requirements on firearms certificates since the 1930s.
If Essex had a "lax policy", then why does P.C. Dryland bother mentioning about a padlocked cupboard? Why bother giving a statement at all? What was the cause of concern, if nobody cared?
The general requirement was usually that the guns were stored securely in such a way that they could not be used by an unlicensed person. I am not satisfied that Nevill adhered to this requirement.
P.C. Dryland refers to a padlocked cupboard. I'm not prepared to just assume that P.C. Dryland did see a padlocked cupboard. That's because there wasn't a padlocked cupboard at the time of the incident, the inspection had only taken place a year before, and the gun cupboard is in the same place as mentioned by Robert Boutflour in his statements to Essex Police and COLP.
P.C. Dryland's statement clearly refers to a padlocked cupboard, not a door to a room.
It reminds me of Humpty-Dumpty. Words mean what you say they mean, so a cupboard is now an entire room. I know it's the same cupboard as the one in the den because it is referred to in Robert Boutflour's statements as under the backstairs, so if P.C. Dryland does get his own TV show and becomes a household name, the only question I will need to ask him as he's writing out his autograph for me will be: "Was the den there when you carried out that inspection?" If he answers 'Yes', then it's quite likely he has lied about the padlock and his statement was made under pressure from his superiors at Essex Police.
There was no padlock on the gun cupboard veneer door. There can't have been. I've covered that and explained why. The only way there could have been is if the door had been changed prior to the incident and a new lock system installed.
The den conversion is mentioned in Carol Ann Lee's book, on page 91 (2020 edition):
"At the end of February 1984, Jeremy bought a Vauxhall Astra for almost £6,350 on the N. & J. Bamber account. He sold his old Mini to a labourer helping builder Dennis Wager renovate White House Farm's scullery. Everyone used the back door as the main point of entry to the house and Nevill had decided to modernize [sic] the whole area. He got rid of the old fireplace and bread oven, installed a stairway to the first floor office where Barbara worked, and had a new office built for himself."
This seems to imply that the conversion was prior to P.C. Dryland's inspection in August 1984, but it's not made clear. The sale of the old Mini could have been long after Jeremy bought the new car, for instance.
Unfortunately, Carol Ann Lee doesn't provide sources for the information in this paragraph (I don't like the way she uses sources anyway, but it would help). I have a feeling that the relevant information is buried in one of the statements given by the relatives.
The gun cupboard was locked, but it was only a nylon ball catch lock, so the guns were not secured. Apparently, there were Bamber guns all over the house when David Boutflour went round a few days after the tragedy. Also, Anthony Pargeter's guns were routinely stored in the downstairs wash room. Robert Boutflour confirms the impression of lax firearms storage, and additionally mentions that Nevill kept a shotgun under the bed, not for safety reasons, but because it was valuable.
The gun cupboard was always in the same place: that part of the scullery that was then converted to the den. This is confirmed by Robert Boutflour's statements in 1985 and to COLP in 1991.
If Hammersley is confused, that will be because Anthony Pargeter's guns were kept in the downstairs washroom. I was given to understand that the Pargeter .22 rifle had been removed prior to the massacre.
Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., may also have referred to a gun cupboard in his cross-examination of Anthony Pargeter at the 1986 trial.
If it does say that then I can only assume that's an error on Rivlin's part - maybe an error of semantics. There was no cupboard there. I am led to believe that the Pargeter guns were just left out - albeit 'safed', with bolt and magazine removed, and ammunition stored elsewhere.
PC Dryland's statement refers to a cupboard and there's only one gun cupboard. If there were other gun cupboards, we would know. I understand that it could theoretically have been another suitable cupboard anywhere in the house, and he may also have rigged up a cupboard specially with a padlock for the purpose of the inspection (I think I covered this possibility earlier in the thread), but it's not a great leap to suppose that P.C. Dryland is referring to the same cupboard. That cupboard was there and used as a gun cupboard in August 1984.
If you look at the first two pages of Anthony Pargeter's statement of 12th. December 1985, you'll see what I'm on about. He's a bit ambiguous about this, but he's saying that the Pargeter guns were kept in cases, and he explicitly states that one of them was kept on a bench in the washroom. The only mention of a cupboard is the one in the den.
Even so, I'd be interested to look again at the photograph Rivlin mentions. Maybe he thinks Pargeter stowed guns in a cupboard? One would need to review Anthony Pargeter's own evidence, as well, I suppose.
The plain fact is that in regard to storage, he is referring to weapons in the plural. I think when you consider everything together, the implication is clear. He is obviously recalling the visit and, yes, he only needed to check one firearm and ammunition for it, but he also needed to check that the gun was securely stored, and in the course of doing so, he has inspected a cupboard with other weapons in it - in other words, the usual storage place for Nevill's guns, which we know was under the backstairs.
In regard to P.C. Dryland, the whole question I am asking is: Was it padlocked? At the time he conducted the inspection, the den might not have even been there as the conversion might not have been completed at that stage, but even if that is so, the cupboard was still there, in the scullery.
If the cupboard was still in the scullery, then maybe it was padlocked and we should probably extend the benefit of the doubt, but if the conversion had already been done, then you can see from the crime scene photographs that the veneer door was not secured.
For me, what it boils down to is when the den conversion was completed. Was it completed prior to 4th. August 1984? Once I have that information, I can take a further view.
Anthony Pargeter does not mention storing his guns in a cupboard in the washroom. As explained above, he refers to leaving one shotgun on a bench in its case.
Anthony Pargeter storing guns in the washroom came up because it was assumed Pargeter stored his guns there, ergo Nevill also stored guns there. As explained, this is unlikely because Pargeter nevers mentions it and would not want his guns padlocked by Nevill, and Robert Boutflour never mentions it in his statements.
There is a standard wording that the police used on firearms certificates, which I assume is still in use in some form, and apparently, it goes back a long way - to the 1930s. It was a very controversial issue when the requirement was first brought in because there was no statutory law to underpin it, it was just the police acting on the basis that (since the 1920 Act) they issued the firearms certificates, thus in effect they held people to ransom.
I have to say, though, that the requirement was only that the firearms certificate-holder should keep the firearm(s) in a secure place to prevent unlicensed use. The generic wording does not specifically require a 'padlock'. However, I'm also aware that local police forces tended to interpret this requirement quite strictly, even back in the 1980s.
My view on it, to repeat, is that even if Nevill was not strictly in breach of his firearms certificate, the fact is five people were shot by a rifle under his control, so he has to be considered culpable. I don't see how any reasonable and honest person could view it any other way, and regardless of the specifics of Nevill's firearms certificate, I would expect that if Sheila was pointing one of his guns at him, one of the things flashing through his mind would be how it will look to the authorities that a schizophrenic has been able to pick up his rifle and loaded magazine in a house with two children in it.
I also don't accept this pat excuse that it was the 1980s and a rural area and things were more lax back then. There's some truth to it, of course, and Hungerford and Dunblane came after White House Farm, but the 1980s is not a foreign country, and if Nevill had survived, do you really think they would have allowed him to keep his firearms certificate? Questions would have been asked of him.
Quote from: Erik Narramore on January 30, 2022, 01:10:44 AM
What sort of mistake could PC Dryland make? It's either padlocked or it's not.
The only way he could be telling the truth is if he inspected the cupboard prior to the den conversion and at that point there was a padlock mechanism on it.
If he inspected after the conversion, then unless something else was then done to the cupboard, it does look like he was lying.
Does anybody know when Nevill's downstairs conversion was completed? Was it Dennis Wager who completed it? I'm sure I have read about it somewhere, but I can't remember.
After examining the photographs of the gun cupboard, I cannot see any sign of a padlock and hasp being ever fitted to the door or door surround. It is virtually impossible to remove a padlock hasp and not leave an indent in the wood where it was fitted. Therefore, I believe that PC Dryland lied when he said he saw a padlock on the cupboard. Apparently it did have a cheap nylon mechanism that stopped the door from swinging open, if it was engaged.
Agree with you wholeheartedly, Bill.