Did Ann Eaton Take Blood Stained Clothes Home?

[Steve A]

Who started this rumour about Ann Eaton taking home dirty laundry?

The police did not treat it as a rumour Grahame.
There are documents pre trial in which discussion takes place over what the defence might claim in that the silencer and the knickers were taken to the Eatons home and that blood from the knickers could have been used to contaminate the silencer by the relatives.
Now that discussion would not have taken place unless the police had evidence to support it.

That's not true either, it's in the same statement. Taken in 1991 by the way.

look a little harder before claiming things are not true...as stating such things when you dont really know is naughty.

It is not true.

You said: "There are documents pre trial in which discussion takes place over what the defence might claim in that the silencer and the knickers were taken to the Eatons home and that blood from the knickers could have been used to contaminate the silencer by the relatives."

Which is not true.

This is the only statement from Ann in the public domain, so you could not possibly know that the discussion is documented in pre-trial statements. It does not state that it is mentioned in the statement which describes the location of the buckets.

The only mention of this issue in the public domain is the page I posted above.

So what you have done is made things up. "Try to look a little harder" may well be advice that you should invest in yourself.

[vidvic]

Pre trial documents........what tosh.

And as Steve has just posted the COLP statement, you can see quite clearly that Ann did not admit to lying in her COLP statement.

[Steve A]

what got put in the bin then "steve" according to Ann...and where did the bin get taken to...according to Ann
please tell.

Read her statement, why are you asking a newbie such difficult questions? 
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443

Remember your advice to me?

YOU OUGHT TO STOP POSTING until you have read up far more on the case as its starting to be a waste of other peoples time answering what you should already know.

at least I am honest and know what I am talking about "steve".

I don't know that you are honest Smiffy, and I think it would be wiser to allow other people the privilege of deciding whether you know what you are talking about or not.

[grahameb]

Who started this rumour about Ann Eaton taking home dirty laundry?

The police did not treat it as a rumour Grahame.
There are documents pre trial in which discussion takes place over what the defence might claim in that the silencer and the knickers were taken to the Eatons home and that blood from the knickers could have been used to contaminate the silencer by the relatives.
Now that discussion would not have taken place unless the police had evidence to support it.

That's not true either, it's in the same statement. Taken in 1991 by the way.

look a little harder before claiming things are not true...as stating such things when you dont really know is naughty.

It is not true.

You said: "There are documents pre trial in which discussion takes place over what the defence might claim in that the silencer and the knickers were taken to the Eatons home and that blood from the knickers could have been used to contaminate the silencer by the relatives."

Which is not true.

This is the only statement from Ann in the public domain, so you could not possibly know that the discussion is documented in pre-trial statements. It does not state that it is mentioned in the statement which describes the location of the buckets.

The only mention of this issue in the public domain is the page I posted above.

So what you have done is made things up. "Try to look a little harder" may well be advice that you should invest in yourself.

And so we see the miraculous conversion of steve. He suddenly realises that he is an anti bamber member. Why all this pretending to be weighing up all the evidence steve? Why didn't you declare your position when you first joined?

[Steve A]

Who started this rumour about Ann Eaton taking home dirty laundry?

The police did not treat it as a rumour Grahame.
There are documents pre trial in which discussion takes place over what the defence might claim in that the silencer and the knickers were taken to the Eatons home and that blood from the knickers could have been used to contaminate the silencer by the relatives.
Now that discussion would not have taken place unless the police had evidence to support it.

That's not true either, it's in the same statement. Taken in 1991 by the way.

look a little harder before claiming things are not true...as stating such things when you dont really know is naughty.

It is not true.

You said: "There are documents pre trial in which discussion takes place over what the defence might claim in that the silencer and the knickers were taken to the Eatons home and that blood from the knickers could have been used to contaminate the silencer by the relatives."

Which is not true.

This is the only statement from Ann in the public domain, so you could not possibly know that the discussion is documented in pre-trial statements. It does not state that it is mentioned in the statement which describes the location of the buckets.

The only mention of this issue in the public domain is the page I posted above.

So what you have done is made things up. "Try to look a little harder" may well be advice that you should invest in yourself.

And so we see the miraculous conversion of steve. He suddenly realises that he is an anti bamber member. Why all this pretending to be weighing up all the evidence steve? Why didn't you declare your position when you first joined?

No Grahame I am not anti-Bamber, nor am I pro-Bamber. I have simply pointed out that Smiffy is making things up.

If you look at the first post in this thread you will see that it is I who concluded that Ann may indeed have taken the items home with her.

[jon]

Steve , was you also known as Hartley ?

[clifford]

Steve , was you also known as Hartley ?

Yup

[grahameb]

Steve , was you also known as Hartley ?

Yup

If that is so then he will go of his own accord eventually

[Steve A]

Steve , was you also known as Hartley ?

No I am not. 

[nugnug]

asumeing she did this its a weird thing to do.

[smiffy]

what got put in the bin then "steve" according to Ann...and where did the bin get taken to...according to Ann
please tell.

Read her statement, why are you asking a newbie such difficult questions? 
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443

Remember your advice to me?

YOU OUGHT TO STOP POSTING until you have read up far more on the case as its starting to be a waste of other peoples time answering what you should already know.

at least I am honest and know what I am talking about "steve".

I don't know that you are honest Smiffy, and I think it would be wiser to allow other people the privilege of deciding whether you know what you are talking about or not.

I will deal with you in some posts 2 moro "steve" so be patient.
vidvic should try reading and taking in what he has read...I shall deal with that as well when I have time to sort it out...

bit busy tonight so can't squeeze it in so shall deal with it at mu leisure.

[smiffy]

No. Please copy and paste where Ann Eaton admits to lying in her COLP statement.

go read all of it vidvic...it may take you a while..as its long.
It may help if you knew what you were talking about before making claims which appear to be false.

I'll say the same to you, in fact I'll go one further and show you where she has actually said the complete opposite to your fictitious allegation.

Now now "steve" ..lets refer to pages 38 and 39 of Ann's COLP statement.
she makes reference to her 8th september 1985 statement.

THE WORDS ARE;
The colour of this paint immediately reminded me of the red paint work around the surround of the aga kitchen at White House Farm. This was not really the case. It was on the 14th August in talking to DS Jone, DI Miller and DI Cook that I realised that the paint on the silencer was similar to the surround.

This was not really the case. ...this is an admission that what she stated in the statement of the 8th september was not true and the claimed true account is what she claims in the COLP statement.  IE  she lied about when she realised about the similarity/connection in regards to the silencer and the aga surround.

 a minor lie or a major lie?  ....actually is has great significance on a number of issues so it is a major lie that is significant and changes things a fair bit.

so "steve" I provided proof.
so then having herself during the interview by COLP herself in which she admits to giving false evidence on that 8th september statement seems to have it slip her mind when she claims not to have given false evidence. She gave no disclaimer to cover that one issue or any reason to exclude it so in effect lies again.

so "steve" you accused me of making things up which I clearly did not do...and thus for making false accusations you are doing your credibility no good at all.

[smiffy]

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?

Lets expand and clarify a little.
The dishwasher was in what we accept as being the kitchen (where Ralph was found) and thus the bin in there was the kitchen bin that is relevant.
Ann makes mention of broken crockery being in the bin she took home. It is reasonable to assume the police put this broken crockery in the bin in the room it was found in...the kitchen.

so the knickers were in the kitchen bin she describes herself as taking home.