where was it 'suggested' and how 'new' was it? Do we know if it had ever been fired?
Somewhere on the other thread.
I post below a relevant clip of the CM Transcript.
During that search the items that are detailed in the charges at Charges 1 and 2 were recovered. The search was recovered lawfully and the items at Charge 2 were found in a plastic box under the bed, an administration box which had pens and pencils and all the like in as well as the ammunition, and the item which is the subject of Charge 1, the Glock Pistol, was found in the wardrobe, in the top shelf area if you like of the wardrobe in a black case that it comes in. The black hand gun was accompanied with three magazines and it was examined, as is required in charges of this nature, by a forensic expert on firearms, and it was found to be an Austrian manufactured Glock Model 19 Self-Loading Pistol bearing serial number FZF745 designed to discharge 9mm bulleted cartridges loading from a spring-operated box type magazine, had a barrel length of approximately 9.8 cms and overall length of approximately 20.8 cms. In fair condition due to the level of wear on the black finish and was in working order and it was recovered in the hard plastic Pelican case along with three x 15 shot double-stat spring-operated box type magazines. Each of the magazines was suitable use with the pistol. The forensic expert confirmed that the Glock Pistol constituted a firearm for the purposes of section 57 of The Firearms Act and that it was a prohibited weapon for the purpose of section 5(1)(aba) of The Firearms Act 1968.
What I find interesting there is that the report of the examination gives no details of the manufacturing date. Also the comment
In fair condition due to the level of wear on the black finish and was in working order
would suggest it has seen some action.
Later in the trial...
JUDGE ADVOCATE: Well Mr Winter, it is a classic pistol carrying box is it not?
MR WINTER: No, it is not. They are designed for multi-use carrying. Indeed I checked them out on the internet. They are sold by a general supplier for multi-purpose carrying. They quite often use … it is built to use them to carry drill rounds. Inside plainly its foam has been designed to carry a gun, but outside that is not so and my instructions are, no doubt the members of the board will know this much better than I do, that they are frequently used in the army for carrying all manner of things.
I've read the court proceedings and it strikes me that they were happy to get this out of the way. A more determined prosecution team might have refused to accept the guilty plea as a reason for not exposing more facts to lay before the court. One of the great mysteries of our legal system is why we allow people to avoid having to give evidence, subject to cross examination, and yet still give weight to statements made on their behalf.
Perhaps we will know more in time, but what would be the benefit of the three clips, if the gun was to be mounted in the Mess as a trophy?
The ammunition, if indeed it is the subject of poor admin from time on the range, is a different issue. The clips can't really have come from the UK range along with the ammo since he'd have had to put them in the gun box, not in the clear plastic box with the ammo. At that point he'd have seen the gun and realised that it should be handed in.
All three (empty) clips would need to have been put in the box, with the Glock before the "memory loss" and indeed, in Iraq.
How easy is that to believe, that in 2007 he's presented with a gun and three empty clips as a trophy for the Regiment? If poor admin can make 300 rounds of ammo go astray, how hard can it be to make off with an empty magazine?
Again, pleading guilty, to avoid investigation, and questions, is a really smart move.