Nevill's Culpability In The Shootings

[Erik Narramore]

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.

[Erik Narramore]

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.

[Erik Narramore]

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.

[Erik Narramore]

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.

[Erik Narramore]

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.

[Erik Narramore]

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.

[Bill Robertson]

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.

[Erik Narramore]

Agree with you wholeheartedly, Bill.