Missing part of Ann Eaton's trial testimony found.

[David1819]

I have managed to locate the part of Ann Eaton's trial testimony that has been cut out of the copy available to us.

PS: I would still like to know who has cut these out and why. There have been a total of 8 pieces of trial testimony cut out from David Boutflour, Ann Eaton and Peter Eatons testimony.

[Rob_]

David perhaps I am mistaken but in AE's notes she said the Police did a excellent job of cleaning up, and here she is saying she is clearing up the sugar?

[lookout]

Why would anyone want to touch anything  in that farmhouse after a massacre ?

[mike tesko]

In her COLP witness statement, 'Ann Eaton' refers to 'a visit she received prior to the trial commencing', from 'DCS Ainsley' at which time 'he' spoke to 'her' about the soiled panties belonging to 'Sheila' which she says 'she had found in a bucket of cold water [along with items of dirty childrens clothing] which 'she took possession of, along with the bucket of water and placed it in the boot of her car [10th August 1985] where the silencer that her brother says he had found in the gun cupboard at the scene [on the same day]. There was' as such' a significant 'risk of the blood soiled panties' , other items of 'childrens clothing' , and 'blood contaminated water' , coming into contact with the silencer in question [in the same bootspace, during the journey from the scene to her home] . Additionally, how come and why, would anyone take home to 'wash somebody else's soiled underwear', and then 'after washing them at her home', 'throw the item away in a rubbish bin'? Also, until 'DCS Ainsley' came to see her, why hadn't 'she', or 'any other member of the relatives' 2asked the police if it had been established that 'at the time of her death', 'Sheila' had 'been menstruating', or 'not'?   The presence of 'Sheila Caffells' blood soiled underwear', in the 'kitchen' serves to support the premis that 'Sheila had been downstairs in the kitchen,' before', or at  'the time the shootings', 'commenced' [ or 'as the case may be' , after `she had shot other members of her family']. The existence of 'Sheila Caffells' bloodstained underwear, in that 'bucket of water', lends suport to the possibility, that 'she was the body of a female' , seen 'through the kitchen window', by 'two members of the raid team' just prior 'to entry into the premises' [7.30am, approximately]. The fact that `as it turns out`,  the pathologist ['Peter Venezis'] who performed the 'autopsy' on 'her remains' [7th August 1985] 'confirmed', as 'a result of his examination', that 'she had a tampon inserted in her body'. Linked to this, was 'the fact' that 'police recovered an empty tampon packet' found on 'a settee in a downstairs living room' [next room to kitchen] which if I am not mistaken, confirms that prior to her death [and very recently] when this information is 'taken into account' along with the fact that 'her bloodstained underwear' was 'found in a bucket of cold water' , in 'the kitchen' [suggests that because 'Sheila' was photographed 'laying on top of the bed' /and, 'also' on 'the bedroom floor', 'not wearing any underwear', that 'a long drawn out period must have elapsed', between 'the removal of her bloodstained underwear' and 'the position where the police eventually' and or 'subsequently took photographs of her body' in 'different poses' , both  'when her body was laying on top of the bed' [without the gun], and sporting 'only one bullet entry wound to her neck' and followed by 'the police [in any guise] `moving her body onto the floor` when  `the gun was photographed  on top of her body' on 'the bedroom floor`.  What appears to have happened 'inbetween the police photographs taken of her whilst she was laid on top of the bed' and the last photographs of 'her body laid on the floor in possession of the gun' [by which time, 'Sheila' had 'received a second bullet entry wound' to 'her throat']

[mike tesko]

What appears to have happened 'inbetween the police photographs taken of her whilst she was laid on top of the bed' and the last photographs of 'her body laid on the floor in possession of the gun' [by which time, 'Sheila' had 'received a second bullet entry wound' to 'her throat']

'Sheila' was 'shot on the second occasion' during the 'above mentioned period'. Furthermore, 'her body was rolled into the recovery position' once 'police moved her body from the bed' onto 'the bedroom floor'. At this/that time, 'fresh bloodstains' [triangular in proposition] 'appeared on her nightdress in the region of her right armpit', and 'breast'. Also, 'a bloodied handprint' formed 'during the period being spoken about', 'which is not present in any (earlier Crime Scene Photographs) of the 'her body is laid on top of the bed' [in the main bedroom] 'photographs' [metamorphasised] as did `leaking blood` from the `two bullet entry wounds` [where 'no such flow(s) existed`, 'beforehand'] in 'earlier photographs' - a 'rather telling feature' which consisted of 'bloodied fingerprints' in /at 'the location of the second bullet wound', 'compounded by the fact' that 'fresh', 'leaking blood' which 'flowed from the' 'recently inflicted second bullet wound', 'superimposed itself', 'over the bloodied fingermarks', in question [ confirmation that `someone had attempted to stem blood flow` from the `recently inflicted second shot`]. A this juncture, ask yourselves, why if 'Jeremy Bamber' was responsible for shooting dead his sister, and 'stage managing her suicide', why would he have put her body in the recovery position, and given her 'CPR'?

[mike tesko]

A this juncture, ask yourselves, why if 'Jeremy Bamber' was responsible for shooting dead his sister, and 'stage managing her suicide', why would he have 'put her body in the recovery position' , and 'given' to her 'CPR'?

The fact is, 'Jeremy Bamber' had 'not', and 'did not' , put 'his sisters body', into 'the recovery position' after 'she had sustained the second shot to her throat', once her body' arrived 'upstairs in the main bedroom'

[mike tesko]

The fact is, 'Jeremy Bamber' had 'not', and 'did not' , put 'his sisters body', into 'the recovery position' after 'she had sustained the second shot to her throat', once her body' arrived 'upstairs in the main bedroom'

The finding of 'Sheila Caffells', 'bloodstained' and 'soiled underwear' in the kitchen, [downstairs at the scene] by 'Ann Eaton' and 'its destruction' is part and parcel of 'an overall scheme' to try and 'to prevent anyone from surmising' that 'Sheila' was 'still alive' , a 'long time after police entered the farmhouse'...

[Rob_]

The finding of 'Sheila Caffells', 'bloodstained' and 'soiled underwear' in the kitchen, [downstairs at the scene] by 'Ann Eaton' and 'its destruction' is part and parcel of 'an overall scheme' to try and 'to prevent anyone from surmising' that 'Sheila' was 'still alive' , a 'long time after police entered the farmhouse'...

If the bloodstained underwear was due to SC being caught out having a period, then at some point that night there is a good chance she would have washed? if this was before or after the crime taking place is anyone's guess? Also the bathroom light was on.

[mike tesko]

If the bloodstained underwear was due to SC being caught out having a period, then at some point that night there is a good chance she would have washed? if this was before or after the crime taking place is anyone's guess? Also the bathroom light was on.

Yes, hence why the soiled underwear was of helpful significance - however, in the same way the police destroyed vital evidence at the scene, and that which was taken away and destroyed later on, by themselves, here we have 'Ann Eaton', in the first instance not only taking the bloodstained item home, to wash it, but then taking it upon herself to get rid of it, so that 'Jeremy' and his legal team, in 'the circumstances of its find' , and its 'relevance' could not rely upon it, to support their cause. As a matter of interest, when 'DCS Ainsley'. spoke to `Ann Eaton' [according to her COLP witness statement] the topic of conversation revolved around and upon, any difference between ordinary blood and menstrual blood? In response, 'Ann Eaton' said to 'Ainsley' that the only difference that she knew of, was that there was a difference in the smell, between one and the other type of blood!  'DCS Ainsley' told her, to remember that, when she testifies at the trial, if and when she is asked about it by defense council to reply likewise..