Nevill's Culpability In The Shootings

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

Erik Narramore

#15
January 30, 2022, 01:11:17 AM
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].
"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

#16
January 30, 2022, 01:11:39 AM
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?
"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

#17
January 30, 2022, 01:12:03 AM
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.
"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

#18
January 30, 2022, 01:12:43 AM
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?
"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

#19
January 30, 2022, 01:13:25 AM
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.
"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

#20
January 30, 2022, 01:14:19 AM
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?
"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

#21
January 30, 2022, 01:15:16 AM
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.
"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

#22
January 30, 2022, 01:16:30 AM
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.
"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

#23
January 30, 2022, 01:17:00 AM
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.
"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

#24
January 30, 2022, 01:17:37 AM
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.
"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

#25
January 30, 2022, 01:18:20 AM
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.
"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

#26
January 30, 2022, 01:18:49 AM
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.
"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

#27
January 30, 2022, 01:19:48 AM
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.
"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

#28
January 30, 2022, 01:20:24 AM
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 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

#29
January 30, 2022, 01:21:01 AM
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.
"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 Pages 1 2 3
User actions