Author Topic: 2003 lawsuit.  (Read 88 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7416
2003 lawsuit.
« on: October 16, 2019, 11:36:PM »
In 2003 Jeremy tried taking libel action against claims made in the 2003 ITV documentary. This would have been doomed from the start since he had no good public reputation to lose or damage in the first place.


"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE


CHANCERY DIVISION

ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE


LIBEL ACTION


BETWEEN

(1) JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER
Claimant

and
(2) CHRISTINE ANN EATON
Defendant

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM


1.    The Claimant JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER is serving life imprisonment for murder
x 5 which he was convicted of in 1986.

2.    The Claimant has consistently maintained his innocence from his arrest in 1985
to the present day.

3.    CHRISTINE ANN EATON (Defendant) is the Claimant’s first cousin and has
lived at White House Farm since 1990.

4.    CHRISTINE ANN EATON (Defendant) has only recently been contacted by the
Claimant with regard to on going legal action begun in 2003. Prior to this no contact
had been made of any sort with the Defendant or her family.

5.    In 1991 the Defendant and her family began a malicious campaign to interfere
with the Claimant’s prison security categorisation after he was down graded to
category ‘B’ status.

6.    Due to their actions the Claimant was upgraded to category ‘A’ status again and
has remained so ever since.

7.    The Claimant has never spoken, written or in anyway communicated either
publicly or privately that he wishes any harm of any sort to befall the Defendant or her
family. The Claimant has not acted in anyway whatsoever to suggest that he harbours any
ill feeling or grudges towards the Defendant or her family sufficient to cause them worry
over their personal safety.

8.    The Claimant has never expressed any negative views towards the Defendant or
her family or to any third party that could possibly be interpreted as a threat of
endangerment to the Claimant or any member of her family.

9.    The Claimant feels immense sympathy towards the Defendant and her family
over the tragic loss of their relatives in 1985.

10.    There are legal issues that are currently being pursued, but these have been
delayed for more than 18 years to allow time to pass from the awful tragedy
of 1985 and cause as little stress as possible to the Defendant and her family.

11.    These ongoing legal proceedings are legitimate and being pursued lawfully and
with the greatest respect for the feelings of the Defendant and her family.

12.    However, the Defendant has decided to make up this malicious statement that is
wholly without foundation stating that “He must remain in prison for the rest
of his life” and “If he is ever let out, heaven knows what would happen to the
rest of my family. We would just be picked off one by one – we know that, it’s
more than just a fear, we know it”.

13.    This unfounded statement is evil-minded and injurious to the Claimant. It is said
by the Defendant knowing that it will have profound consequences for both the security
categorisation and parole chances of the Claimant, for which he is currently eligible having
served such a large percentage of his sentence of 25
years recommendation.

14.    The Defendant’s statement that “we would just be picked off one by one” clearly
insinuates that she fears the Claimant would murder them and that she is in possession
of factual evidence to support this assertion.

15.    If the Defendant cannot produce evidence that the Claimant is planning to pick
off her family one by one then she must apologize unreservedly for such a wild and
malicious statement. The Defendant is accusing the Claimant of the most serious crime
of conspiracy to commit a large series of murders and states that she is in possession of
evidence to prove her allegation that “...it’s more than just a fear – we know it”.

16.    It is surprising that the Defendant chose to reveal her fears in the media and not
submit it to the police so that the Claimant could be properly investigated for conspiracy to
commit numerous acts of pre-meditated murder as she claims.

17.    The Claimant seeks damages from the Defendant as the court sees fit, along with
a full and unreserved apology from the Defendant for this malicious libel and an assurance
that she will never repeat such things again.
"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24783
Re: 2003 lawsuit.
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2019, 11:45:PM »
In 2003 Jeremy tried taking libel action against claims made in the 2003 ITV documentary. This would have been doomed from the start since he had no good public reputation to lose or damage in the first place.


"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE


CHANCERY DIVISION

ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE


LIBEL ACTION


BETWEEN

(1) JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER
Claimant

and
(2) CHRISTINE ANN EATON
Defendant

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM


1.    The Claimant JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER is serving life imprisonment for murder
x 5 which he was convicted of in 1986.

2.    The Claimant has consistently maintained his innocence from his arrest in 1985
to the present day.

3.    CHRISTINE ANN EATON (Defendant) is the Claimant’s first cousin and has
lived at White House Farm since 1990.

4.    CHRISTINE ANN EATON (Defendant) has only recently been contacted by the
Claimant with regard to on going legal action begun in 2003. Prior to this no contact
had been made of any sort with the Defendant or her family.

5.    In 1991 the Defendant and her family began a malicious campaign to interfere
with the Claimant’s prison security categorisation after he was down graded to
category ‘B’ status.

6.    Due to their actions the Claimant was upgraded to category ‘A’ status again and
has remained so ever since.

7.    The Claimant has never spoken, written or in anyway communicated either
publicly or privately that he wishes any harm of any sort to befall the Defendant or her
family. The Claimant has not acted in anyway whatsoever to suggest that he harbours any
ill feeling or grudges towards the Defendant or her family sufficient to cause them worry
over their personal safety.

8.    The Claimant has never expressed any negative views towards the Defendant or
her family or to any third party that could possibly be interpreted as a threat of
endangerment to the Claimant or any member of her family.

9.    The Claimant feels immense sympathy towards the Defendant and her family
over the tragic loss of their relatives in 1985.

10.    There are legal issues that are currently being pursued, but these have been
delayed for more than 18 years to allow time to pass from the awful tragedy
of 1985 and cause as little stress as possible to the Defendant and her family.

11.    These ongoing legal proceedings are legitimate and being pursued lawfully and
with the greatest respect for the feelings of the Defendant and her family.

12.    However, the Defendant has decided to make up this malicious statement that is
wholly without foundation stating that “He must remain in prison for the rest
of his life” and “If he is ever let out, heaven knows what would happen to the
rest of my family. We would just be picked off one by one – we know that, it’s
more than just a fear, we know it”.

13.    This unfounded statement is evil-minded and injurious to the Claimant. It is said
by the Defendant knowing that it will have profound consequences for both the security
categorisation and parole chances of the Claimant, for which he is currently eligible having
served such a large percentage of his sentence of 25
years recommendation.

14.    The Defendant’s statement that “we would just be picked off one by one” clearly
insinuates that she fears the Claimant would murder them and that she is in possession
of factual evidence to support this assertion.

15.    If the Defendant cannot produce evidence that the Claimant is planning to pick
off her family one by one then she must apologize unreservedly for such a wild and
malicious statement. The Defendant is accusing the Claimant of the most serious crime
of conspiracy to commit a large series of murders and states that she is in possession of
evidence to prove her allegation that “...it’s more than just a fear – we know it”.

16.    It is surprising that the Defendant chose to reveal her fears in the media and not
submit it to the police so that the Claimant could be properly investigated for conspiracy to
commit numerous acts of pre-meditated murder as she claims.

17.    The Claimant seeks damages from the Defendant as the court sees fit, along with
a full and unreserved apology from the Defendant for this malicious libel and an assurance
that she will never repeat such things again.
"

Clearly ill advised.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 41036
Re: 2003 lawsuit.
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2019, 11:15:AM »
What a ridiculous claim ! " picked off one by one ?