Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[Bridget]

Miss Bridget

I'm unsure how reliable this is but I struggle to comprehend that 'withholding' is not a criminal offence especially in a wit stat: 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_be_arrested_for_Withholding_information_from_police

I think that applies to US law which is different. It also contradicts itself if you read far enough through!

[killingeve]

I think that applies to US law which is different. It also contradicts itself if you read far enough through!

Can't move thru' it on pc  Did so on phone and seemed logical and pertinent to uk 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2012-part-27.doc

See 27.2 (b) (i) and (ii) still a bit ambiguous about 'withholding'    But it was not true to the best of her knowledge and belief because according to JM's wit stat of 8th/9th Sep JM states that JB told her on 7th Aug that MM carried out the murders 

[lookout]

Only because Jeremy,,being without blame,,was trying to blame someone. He'd already blamed the relatives and indeed the police,,simply because he couldn't fathom out who would do such a thing.
It's human nature to start the blaming game when you know that it wasn't yourself.

[killingeve]

Only because Jeremy,,being without blame,,was trying to blame someone. He'd already blamed the relatives and indeed the police,,simply because he couldn't fathom out who would do such a thing.
It's human nature to start the blaming game when you know that it wasn't yourself.

Hi Lookout

I don't personally believe JB ever introduced MM into the scenario.  I think this was all JM's doing and a complete pack of lies.

I believe JM's wit stat of 8th Aug was the full truth period.  However JB's prosecution was partly based on JM's wit stat of 8th/9th Sep where she states on 7th Aug JB told her MM was responsible    Therefore she must have lied in her wit stat of 8th Aug  and as such I believe that in itself is a criminal offence.  So if we run with the prosecution as it stands why wasn't JM prosecuted as per the rules:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2012-part-27.doc

See 27.2 (b) (i) and (ii)

[lookout]

Hi NN,,she should have been,,it goes without saying,,according to to the rules and procedures as per the justice.

[killingeve]

Hi NN,,she should have been,,it goes without saying,,according to to the rules and procedures as per the justice.

Are you able to convince Miss Bridget  ?

[lookout]

Are you able to convince Miss Bridget  ?

I doubt it,NN. I wouldn't even try.

[Jane]

Are you able to convince Miss Bridget  ?

Is the pope Hindu

[Bridget]

Can't move thru' it on pc  Did so on phone and seemed logical and pertinent to uk 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2012-part-27.doc

See 27.2 (b) (i) and (ii) still a bit ambiguous about 'withholding'    But it was not true to the best of her knowledge and belief because according to JM's wit stat of 8th/9th Sep JM states that JB told her on 7th Aug that MM carried out the murders 

Well that is what he told her (according to her).

The procedure rules apply to the party wishing to introduce the evidence, not to the witness themself. The declaration the witness makes doesn't appear to cover withholding either.

[Bridget]

Hi Lookout

I don't personally believe JB ever introduced MM into the scenario.  I think this was all JM's doing and a complete pack of lies.

I believe JM's wit stat of 8th Aug was the full truth period.  However JB's prosecution was partly based on JM's wit stat of 8th/9th Sep where she states on 7th Aug JB told her MM was responsible    Therefore she must have lied in her wit stat of 8th Aug  and as such I believe that in itself is a criminal offence.  So if we run with the prosecution as it stands why wasn't JM prosecuted as per the rules:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2012-part-27.doc

See 27.2 (b) (i) and (ii)

Nothing she said in her statement dated 8th August has been shown to be untrue. Of course to you and I there is such a thing as a lie by omission, but this doesn't appear to be an offence.

[Patti]

Are you able to convince Miss Bridget  ?

Bridget is not the one that needs to be convinced. If ever there was a re trial, it would be the jury that ultimately decides what they believe and may the defence win....and given the fact JM did not come clean or made stories up because she was a scorned woman would not go down well...imo.  :D :D :D :D

[killingeve]

Well that is what he told her (according to her).

The procedure rules apply to the party wishing to introduce the evidence, not to the witness themself. The declaration the witness makes doesn't appear to cover withholding either.

Miss Bridget

I disagree with your interpretation of the rules insofar as I believe the procedure rules do apply to the witness if the witness statement is introduced as evidence.

[Bridget]

Miss Bridget

I disagree with your interpretation of the rules insofar as I believe the procedure rules do apply to the witness if the witness statement is introduced as evidence.

Even if you are right, it still only requires certain information and a declaration to be included, it says nothing as to what must be included in the main body of the statement.

[killingeve]

Nothing she said in her statement dated 8th August has been shown to be untrue. Of course to you and I there is such a thing as a lie by omission, but this doesn't appear to be an offence.

Miss Bridget

I disagree.

Wit stat 8th Aug

He told me he had supper with his parents during the conversation that evening and that he had a "pleasant as could be expected day due to harvesting".  He did not make any more mention of the family.

Wit stat 8th/9th Sep

Jeremy did not mention to me about killing his family until Tuesday 6th August 1985...

...I said to him "You sound pissed off".  He said, "I have been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never".

Look on the bright side you might end up having humble pie for supper instead of worms 

I asked NGB for his input but he said he likes to see women fight it out    He said he finds their illogical approach to legal matters endearing 

[Steve_uk]

Hi Lookout

I don't personally believe JB ever introduced MM into the scenario.  I think this was all JM's doing and a complete pack of lies.

I believe JM's wit stat of 8th Aug was the full truth period.  However JB's prosecution was partly based on JM's wit stat of 8th/9th Sep where she states on 7th Aug JB told her MM was responsible    Therefore she must have lied in her wit stat of 8th Aug  and as such I believe that in itself is a criminal offence.  So if we run with the prosecution as it stands why wasn't JM prosecuted as per the rules:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2012-part-27.doc

See 27.2 (b) (i) and (ii)

Julie didn't need to complicate matters by introducing Matthew McDonald into the equation and mentioning a ludicrous sum of £2000. Either she is telling the truth as spoken to her by Jeremy or she is risking making herself a laughing stock with Police when they examine her story.Your case against Julie anyway is that she garnered information from the Press and relatives and served it up second hand for the Police's benefit. Unfortunately Jeremy told Julie "a glove came off in the fight with Nevill..he put up a good fight for a man his age..",thus again gainsaying what you would like to be true.