Did Ann Eaton Take Blood Stained Clothes Home?

[Steve A]

First of all, I apologise in advance if this has already been done, I certainly don't want to waste anybodies time.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Having a look back over old threads on the forum, there seems to be a few conflicting views about whether Ann did or didn't take the clothes that she found soaking in buckets, home with her to Oak Farm.

Reading through her 72 page statement to COLP in 1991 it seems clear why there are conflicting views, but it would also be handy to see her 12 witness statements from 1985-1986 to see if there are any discrepancies regarding her account of events.

Anyway.

1. Ann mentions finding the clothes soaking in the buckets, which include blood stained underwear on page 34 of her statement, and she mentioned that she washed the clothes out in the sink.

2. On page 35 of her statement, Ann says that she put the washed out clothes in the bin next to the dishwasher.

3. On page 40 of her statement, Ann says that she decided the kitchen bin should not be thrown away, so she put it in her car and took it to Oak Farm.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
So from what I can ascertain, if the kitchen bin was the bin near the dishwasher and the bin hadn't previously been emptied, then Ann did indeed take the clothes home to Oak Farm with her. I can't find any further reference to them or what happened to them after that.

What do people think?

[nugnug]

if she did do that question is why.

[chochokeira]

First of all, I apologise in advance if this has already been done, I certainly don't want to waste anybodies time.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Having a look back over old threads on the forum, there seems to be a few conflicting views about whether Ann did or didn't take the clothes that she found soaking in buckets, home with her to Oak Farm.

Reading through her 72 page statement to COLP in 1991 it seems clear why there are conflicting views, but it would also be handy to see her 12 witness statements from 1985-1986 to see if there are any discrepancies regarding her account of events.

Anyway.

1. Ann mentions finding the clothes soaking in the buckets, which include blood stained underwear on page 34 of her statement, and she mentioned that she washed the clothes out in the sink.

2. On page 35 of her statement, Ann says that she put the washed out clothes in the bin next to the dishwasher.

3. On page 40 of her statement, Ann says that she decided the kitchen bin should not be thrown away, so she put it in her car and took it to Oak Farm.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
So from what I can ascertain, if the kitchen bin was the bin near the dishwasher and the bin hadn't previously been emptied, then Ann did indeed take the clothes home to Oak Farm with her. I can't find any further reference to them or what happened to them after that.

What do people think?

As I understand it:

AE was in complete control of this part of the clean up - with EP's approval
AE washed (I understand by this, rung out) the clothes and put them in the bin
AE decided the bin's contents should not be thrown away
AE took the bin and contents home
AE was sufficiently meticulous to record if she'd thrown away the clothes before taking the bin's contents
AE took the clothes home

[nugnug]

im really somone could clean up there dead in laws blood like that.

[chochokeira]

Sheila's blood stained clothes were key evidence. Why did AE not hand these in to EP as the family did with the silencer? This clothing should have been examined by the police. Instead, yet another piece of key evidence was destroyed.

Why did AE tell the officer present that she could smell that the blood was of a menstrual origin when, as these clothes were steeping in a bucket of water, it is highly unlikely that menstrual staining would have retained its hormonal smell? I am also sceptical that it is possible to distinguish between the smell of menstrual bloodstaining and ordinary bloodstaining, in particular in respect of small stains, such as expiated blood.

[nugnug]

to be able to do that she couldent have been very close to any of them.

[Steve A]

to be able to do that she couldent have been very close to any of them.

She couldn't identify the twins either could she, Julie had to do it. So maybe you're right that they weren't very close.

I don't think I could clean up after what happened.

[Alias]

In my view this is one of the strangest things in this mess of a case. I mean, who in their right mind would bring bloodied undies of a deceased person home??
WEIRD, is all I can say. I wish we could ask Ann Eaton directly about this, because it makes no sense - unless she wanted blood from Sheila to put in the silencer...

[nugnug]

that could well be the reason of the top of my head i cant think of any other.

[smiffy]

There were 2 pairs of knickers according to AE ....it does not make sense that both were more stained in the crutch area AS IF SHE WAS CAUGHT OUT BY HER PERIOD (think that was AE's explanation) but she didnt say too much in detail on this. One pair may have been , while the other pair may not have been.

The pathologist did not record Sheila as wearing knickers but in the photos of Sheila at the scene it does appear through her nightdress that she was wearing knickers...and if thats right who removed them and why? there was no photograph realeased displaying clearly whether she was or was not wearing knickers.

[smiffy]

I soak dirty clothes in buckets with a little washpowder in. My experience of this is that after 3 days soak the water becomes fairly stagnant and bad smelling. I find the alleged claim by Ann that she could tell by the smell that it was menstrual blood on the knickers to be somewhat unbelievable.

[nugnug]

a qustion for fourum members under what circumstances would you consider takeing one of you dead inlaws blood stained knickers home with you.

[Steve A]

a qustion for fourum members under what circumstances would you consider take one of you dead inlaws blood stained knickers home with you.

From what I can gather and on the basis that Ann's witness statement is truthful, if they were taken home it was subconsciously done, they had already been thrown in the bin, the fact that this same bin may or may not have been taken home with her, is, it seems, coincidental.

Otherwise, as you allude to, I can't think of any legitimate reason why such items would consciously be taken home.

[bob]

I soak dirty clothes in buckets with a little washpowder in. My experience of this is that after 3 days soak the water becomes fairly stagnant and bad smelling.

It's good to have a hobby.

[smiffy]

a qustion for fourum members under what circumstances would you consider takeing one of you dead inlaws blood stained knickers home with you.

A good hypothetical question that most of us have not faced the reality of.
As I am not a pervert I cannot think of any good reason other than if I thought foul play had gone on and they may be useful as evidence. But that is me as a law abiding honest citizen.
Other than that one reason I would not take them home.

When persons are known to be dishonest and not law abiding then the purposes of taking home blood soaked underwear may carry a sinister significance and be useful to frame someone or create some misleading evidence with.
If a person was perverted then they may get a thrill from such items.
If a person was a killer they may taken them as a trophy as some killers are known to do.