Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[Steve_uk]

She didn't have ECT t all - it was June who had it, it's in one of the statements! Jeremy was simply mixed up.

Yes June had it but you don't know what Jeremy knew about Sheila's medical history. He knew the difference between his mother and sister but since he despised them both and they both ended up dead I don't accept what you say.

[Lugg]

No you put motives and actions into Julie which you cannot possibly know about under the pretense of speaking on behalf of the legal profession whose opinion is buttressed by your former social standing your job affords you in the community and for this I cannot forgive you. I apologize if I categorized you personally as a public school toff and you are not,but most of the legal profession at the level Jeremy hired are and they did a thoroughly bad job of defending him.

Unfortunately Steve you have revealed something about yourself in those things that you accused ngb of which you could not possible know about and that is that your mind is completely and utterly prejudiced in favour of Julie Mugford, in that you cannot possible hold a reasoned and logical argument. Therefore there is no point in holding any reasoned conversation with you. Because prejudice rather than truth is the only thing that will be seen in your posts.

[Steve_uk]

Steve,,Sheila didn't have ECT at the hospital,or at all,,as it's given to patients with severe depression such as June had when she suffered a breakdown.

Yet it's in Jeremy's statement lookout. Of course if you want to pick and choose what you believe that's up to you.

[Steve_uk]

Unfortunately Steve you have revealed something about yourself in those things that you accused ngb of which you could not possible know about and that is that your mind is completely and utterly prejudiced in favour of Julie Mugford, in that you cannot possible hold a reasoned and logical argument. Therefore there is no point in holding any reasoned conversation with you. Because prejudice rather than truth is the only thing that will be seen in your posts.

I have tried to reconcile with members Lugg but I suggest that both of us just go our separate ways..

[maggie]

Known as the calm before the storm,Maggie.

Exactly lookout

[lookout]

But the burning down the house plan had been abandoned and I assume Julie put it all to the back of her mind and got on with her busy life again.

Julie romanced a lot and made an awful lot of things up that weren't altogether true,,,but I notice that Jeremy hasn't told tales,,,in fact I think he's been very loyal to Julie all things considered,,because I'm sure there are heaps of things that he could say about her " odd " behaviour.

[Caroline R]

Yet it's in Jeremy's statement lookout. Of course if you want to pick and choose what you believe that's up to you.

It's you who is picking and choosing for your own ends!! Jeremy made a mistake!! Not one of her doctors nor anyone else mentions that she had ECT and neither does Colin or any of the other people you are fond of mentioning to back up your 'theories' - so, obviously she didn't have it!!

[Caroline R]

But the burning down the house plan had been abandoned and I assume Julie put it all to the back of her mind and got on with her busy life again.

yeah, that must be what happened 

[maggie]

No it's a side-effect of the Electroconvulsive Therapy which facilities such as St. Andrews' may well have offered. Strangely enough Jeremy referred to it in his statement and although it was copied down wrongly by the civilian Police it was evident what was meant. So we have a situation where Sheila may well have been given ECT and Jeremy was aware of it.

Steve, I have cared for people who have had ECT, they are happy bright people after the treatment.  They then manage to cope with life for a reasonable amount of time before they succumb again to depression.  I would not think a paranoid schizophrenic would be treated with ECT in the 1980s, it was used for depression and not psychosis. imo

[Steve_uk]

Julie romanced a lot and made an awful lot of things up that weren't altogether true,,,but I notice that Jeremy hasn't told tales,,,in fact I think he's been very loyal to Julie all things considered,,because I'm sure there are heaps of things that he could say about her " odd " behaviour.

The whole point about Jeremy is that he can't start talking about their relationship without incriminating himself. Does Julie ever resort to "don't know" or "no comment" in her statement? There is no reason whatsoever for a murder suspect to answer any question "no comment" unless they are looking ahead to the trial and believe that such answers will go against you in the minds of the jurors. I read a post today about Julie's use of language:I didn't agree with it but Jeremy knows what language to use to suit his audience,describing Sheila as a "paranoid schizophrenic" in his formal statements yet describes her as "a nutter" to the Police upon arrival at White House Farm in order to delay entry until he is sure Sheila has bled to death.

[lookout]

Yet it's in Jeremy's statement lookout. Of course if you want to pick and choose what you believe that's up to you.

Steve,,I know for sure that ECT isn't used on schizophrenic patients.It's of no use for that type of mental illness. It's used for severe depressives.
Nothing to do with this case,,,knowledge of having assisted in the past with patients who underwent the treatment for their depression. It wouldn't work with schizophrenics.

[Lugg]

I'm not too bothered what is written about me here and we really should get back to the Jeremy Bamber case. I have apologized to ngb1066 whom it appears on this site is held up as some kind of eminence grise but I'm afraid I reserve the right to criticize him whatever his status in life may be:this is what democracy is all about.

Specifically two points I would object to whoever they came from but coming from a barrister it adds more credence to them. The most damning allegation which he dresses up in legal jargon as a fact but cannot possibly know for sure is that Julie gave Jeremy sleeping tablets to test out on his parents and connived in this procedure. This is fundamental to the case so you'll have to excuse the repetition but I will argue until I'm blue in the face(or blush) that Julie left these tablets lying around and there is no proof whatsoever that she was involved in any harm caused by them,which as it turned out there was none.

Secondly dressed up as fact is that Julie conspired to import cannabis from Amsterdam as if this was some kind of joint mission between her and Jeremy and therefore she is culpable in law. Julie could not possibly take the blame for tubes of toothpaste stuffed with drugs in Jeremy's suitcase carried by Jeremy and smuggled by Jeremy through customs at Dover. Several times I have accompanied schoolchildren on trips to France and if they did this kind of thing when my back was turned as has happened with smoke alarms,knives and so on it's regrettable but no way am I responsible in law for the actions of others in this regard.

As for the site in general I wouldn't like us to fall out,I count you all as friends and believe that we have far more in common than what divides us. We all want justice done and this will mean different things to different members. Some of the posts in recent days have raised eyebrows and I'd like to think that we can stick to the advertising code of legal,decent,honest and truthful as a guide so as to keep this site as a record where outside parties can look in and feel that we do have a sensible contribution to make.

Unfortunately Steve it appears that in your very first post to ngb was BECAUSE of his status and not WHATEVER his status. Your criticism was BECAUSE you thought he was a public school boy and not IN SPITE of his being a public school boy. That to my mind is not democracy. But PREJUDICE. And that is what guided your thoughts.

[maggie]

Unfortunately Steve it appears that in your very first post to ngb was BECAUSE of his status and not WHATEVER his status. Your criticism was BECAUSE you thought he was a public school boy and not IN SPITE of his being a public school boy. That to my mind is not democracy. But PREJUDICE. And that is what guided your thoughts.

Good post Lugg

[Steve_uk]

Steve, I have cared for people who have had ECT, they are happy bright people after the treatment.  They then manage to cope with life for a reasonable amount of time before they succumb again to depression.  I would not think a paranoid schizophrenic would be treated with ECT in the 1980s, it was used for depression and not psychosis. imo

Some patients experience the very symptoms of docility and vacant stare as Sheila.http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/ect/effects.htm

[Lugg]

I have tried to reconcile with members Lugg but I suggest that both of us just go our separate ways..

Unfortunately Steve you have done absolutely nothing to reconcile to other members. And quite frankly you say this because I can see right through you and you don't like what you see. I suggest you learn a bit of humility ande then perhaps your apologies will be sincere, which they ain't at the moment.