Nevill's Culpability In The Shootings

Started by Erik Narramore, January 30, 2022, 01:02:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3
User actions

Erik Narramore

January 30, 2022, 01:02:28 AM Last Edit: January 30, 2022, 01:46:38 AM by Erik Narramore
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#1
January 30, 2022, 01:03:36 AM
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. 
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#2
January 30, 2022, 01:04:25 AM
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#3
January 30, 2022, 01:05:14 AM
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#4
January 30, 2022, 01:06:01 AM
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#5
January 30, 2022, 01:06:25 AM
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#6
January 30, 2022, 01:07:24 AM
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#7
January 30, 2022, 01:07:43 AM
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#8
January 30, 2022, 01:08:18 AM
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#9
January 30, 2022, 01:08:39 AM
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#10
January 30, 2022, 01:09:14 AM
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#11
January 30, 2022, 01:09:29 AM
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#12
January 30, 2022, 01:09:55 AM
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?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#13
January 30, 2022, 01:10:18 AM
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#14
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.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3
User actions