Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[Jane]

Because her relatives had been slaughtered.

I don't know Ann, but I don't think it's possible to judge her character from police or witness statements. The contents of those statements tend to be limited to matters relevant to the crime and any suspects, and don't dwell on matters such as the witness's own emotions. For that reason such statements can of course seem cold.

It seems obvious to me that right from the off Ann was suspicious of Jeremy, mainly because his account of his relationship with his family (among other things) didn't tie in with what her perception of what it was. Of course to counter this argument supporters will say that the families weren't close, and cite the frequency of the caravan park meetings, the fact that it is said somewhere that Ann and Peter hadn't visited since Christmas, and the fact that Ann didn't see Sheila or Jeremy in their youth. Surely if they take the blinkers off supporters can see that this is not how families work? I see my sister a lot less often than the Eaton's and Boutflours saw the Bambers, but I defy any of you to tell me I don't know her. Relationships in families can be complex, and no amount of 27-years-after-the-fact analysis is ever going to get anywhere close.

Bridget, good morning. I'm not certain that a sisterly relationship can be used to demonstrate. In the normal course of events sisters are bought up together unless, of course, there is a difference in ages of 7 yrs or more, when they are deemed as being "onlies"

You say "Ann was suspicious of Jeremy, mainly because his account of his relationship with his family..........didn't tie in with her perception of what it was"!!!!!!!!! Her Perception!!!! I wonder when had been the last time she had witnessed an interaction between Jeremy and his family. Over how many occasions had Her Perception been formed. It seems to me that Her Perception went skin deep and no further mainly because Jeremy was not then/never had been considered to be one of "them".


You cite her reason for doing it as "her relatives had been slaughtered." Yet suddenly, there she is, acting with all the cool of a latter day Sherlock Holmes, and showing the same lack of understanding of human emotion. Jeremy's family had been slaughtered, too, but I've rarely seen his behaviour excused by the guilty side, because of it.

I really can't rid myself of the feeling that Ann had spent much of her life being jealous, from a far remove, of what she perceived the lives of Sheila and Jeremy to be. Perhaps she saw them as being feted and fawned over because they were adopted. Did she believe that they "got away" with things because of it? How jealous may she have been of Sheila going to boarding school, finishing school, modelling school whilst all she had was a co-ed followed by a secretarial course. How deep might her anger have been when Jeremy set off on his modern day version of the "Grand Tour"? When might it have crossed her mid that she, as a Family member, wasn't given these advantages, why should THEY have them............and she would have seen all of this from her life of almost permanent struggle. Was it the final straw when Jeremy revealed HIS plans for what she had come to believe was HER land and HER property?

There is, IMO, an important similarity between Ann Eaton and Julie Mugford, they were both disappointed women, both had their life plans thwarted courtesy of Jeremy.

[tyler]

Brilliant post April !

[Bridget]

But you both miss the point, you are basing your opinions on what you read in witness statements, have you ever given one? It's not like writing a book - the police will talk to you for hours and then condense it down to a couple of pages of what they consider to be relevant to the investigation. All you have are these statements and JBs opinions expressed in his letters and blogs. Ann, to her credit, has maintained a dignified silence.

[Jane]

But you both miss the point, you are basing your opinions on what you read in witness statements, have you ever given one? It's not like writing a book - the police will talk to you for hours and then condense it down to a couple of pages of what they consider to be relevant to the investigation. All you have are these statements and JBs opinions expressed in his letters and blogs. Ann, to her credit, has maintained a dignified silence.

In the light of which, Bridget, are you saying I have totally misread it and have it completely wrong regarding Ann?

[tyler]

Ann has not exactly maintained a dignified silence. She has allowed tv cameras into her home and allowed herself to be interviewed by journos. This is rather at odds with her claim that the family just want to "forget" and "move on with their lives".And if Jeremy is innocent,who can blame him for wanting to shout it from the rooftops? I know damn well that I would be making a lot of noise about it!

[vidvic]

Ann has not exactly maintained a dignified silence. She has allowed tv cameras into her home and allowed herself to be interviewed by journos. This is rather at odds with her claim that the family just want to "forget" and "move on with their lives".And if Jeremy is innocent,who can blame him for wanting to shout it from the rooftops? I know damn well that I would be making a lot of noise about it!

She's given one TV interview in last 20 years. She hasn't spoken at all about the case for 10.

[Bridget]

In the light of which, Bridget, are you saying I have totally misread it and have it completely wrong regarding Ann?

Not at all, I'm saying that you cannot possibly know her well enough to make the kind of judgments I see here from the information available to you.

[tyler]

She allowed herself to be interviewed for Wilkes' book. Has she been approached for interview for the book that is due out later in the year?

[vidvic]

Not at all, I'm saying that you cannot possibly know her well enough to make the kind of judgments I see here from the information available to you.

One of the most succesful aspects of bamber's campaign has been the vilification of Ann. I found Ann's statement quite powerful. The responses to it in some cases are simply reiteration of views, trying to make your preconceived views fit the statement. I do not recognise Ann in your answers.

[Bridget]

One of the most succesful aspects of bamber's campaign has been the vilification of Ann. I found Ann's statement quite powerful. The responses to it in some cases are simply reiteration of views, trying to make your preconceived views fit the statement. I do not recognise Ann in your answers.

In my answers or other people's answers?

[vidvic]

In my answers or other people's answers?

Sorry. Other people's. was like a pack of vultures picking at the statement.

[tyler]

With all due respect Vidvic,you did not know Ann 28 years ago. People can change.

[Jane]

One of the most succesful aspects of bamber's campaign has been the vilification of Ann. I found Ann's statement quite powerful. The responses to it in some cases are simply reiteration of views, trying to make your preconceived views fit the statement. I do not recognise Ann in your answers.

I'm certain that you don't know the person who was Ann back in the 80's Vic. I am also certain that there isn't a different psychology for her, than there is for the rest of us. All I have done is taken facts we KNOW to be facts and combined them with POSSIBLE facts to come up with some probabilities. I've done no more by way of vilification with Ann than I've done with Jeremy and Sheila. NO psych evaluation, IMO, can be 100% accurate but it can come close enough, indeed, close enough today for an assessment of all major players to be taken into consideration.

[killingeve]

It would be interesting to see how someone who has no prior knowledge/interest in the case would interpret them 

AE seems to make a point of highlighting how NB and June provided financial support to SC and JB which in any event is fairly common in middle class families: SC's modelling course, wedding, purchase ? of London flat, offer of buying antique shop in Tolleshunt.  Colin's driving lessons.  JB travelling.  I note AE and Jacky Wood appear to have had a chin wag about NB lending JB money for travelling and then making comments that it went unpaid.  The pair of them didn't do badly out of Uncle Nevill did they?  NB purchasing the land for AE and PE to buy back at a later date.  And NB gifting a larger share of his late mother's property to JW and AP than he legally had to, plus lending them 25k each for renovations.

Anyway as far as I'm concerned they're all really moot points.  The one thing that sticks out for me with the relatives is that according to Colin Caffell none of them had any idea about the severity of Sheila's mental illness:

Excerpt from Colin's book:

"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam.  Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden.  Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it?  I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence.  They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong.  These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".

"Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness -   which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn't have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."

[lookout]

The year--------------2013. My very close friend and myself have tried getting help from all directions from various services,GP's etc,,but to no avail. The help is for a paranoid schizophrenic,,,and we've both been told by different " professionals " that no help is available unless that person self harms,or harms others. ?
In the 1980's it was just as bad,,except that nursing staff,GP's etc,,were already aware that Sheila was capable of harming either herself or her children. For her it was too late.

The moral is-------------that when such a person either commits suicide,,or kills others,,then something will be done,,but until then,,you take pot luck.
The illness is not taken as seriously as it should be,,if only for the person suffering,regardless of the harm/damage they could do to others.

I've always been of the opinion that nobody but June and Neville knew of the severity of Sheilas' illness,,and they would certainly have known what the girl could have been capable of,,while nobody else would. How can outsiders know.? They're not living with it.!