Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[Jane]

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."

NaNu Hi. I think the family's knowledge/lack of can be seen indifferent ways. The obvious being that they weren't told, followed by, they weren't told because they weren't close enough emotionally/supportive enough to be told. The second goes a little deeper. Ann has laboured the point about beans hitting any point but toast because of her lack of coordination. I suspect that whilst they never knew just HOW ill was Sheila, they would most certainly have had conversations about the fact that she WAS ill. It may have been that such an illness came under the heading of "social embarrassment" and best ignored.

I have indeed assessed Ann as being financially focused and possibly given to feelings of intense envy. Why? She tells me so by what she writes and I can't erase the feeling that she's saying it wasn't fair that they were given so much and she wasn't. Had she have written about her memories of wonderful times they shared when they were children and what close friends they had become as adults, my assessment would have been totally different.

[Bridget]

I have indeed assessed Ann as being financially focused and possibly given to feelings of intense envy. Why? She tells me so by what she writes and I can't erase the feeling that she's saying it wasn't fair that they were given so much and she wasn't. Had she have written about her memories of wonderful times they shared when they were children and what close friends they had become as adults, my assessment would have been totally different.

This is a witness statement, not her memoirs!!! Good grief...

[killingeve]

NaNu Hi. I think the family's knowledge/lack of can be seen indifferent ways. The obvious being that they weren't told, followed by, they weren't told because they weren't close enough emotionally/supportive enough to be told. The second goes a little deeper. Ann has laboured the point about beans hitting any point but toast because of her lack of coordination. I suspect that whilst they never knew just HOW ill was Sheila, they would most certainly have had conversations about the fact that she WAS ill. It may have been that such an illness came under the heading of "social embarrassment" and best ignored.

I have indeed assessed Ann as being financially focused and possibly given to feelings of intense envy. Why? She tells me so by what she writes and I can't erase the feeling that she's saying it wasn't fair that they were given so much and she wasn't. Had she have written about her memories of wonderful times they shared when they were children and what close friends they had become as adults, my assessment would have been totally different.

AE was no doubt a highly practical 'hands on' type and to her mind perhaps SC appeared impractical due to SC perhaps being more inclined towards the arts/intellectual pursuits.  After all AE and SC are both from a different gene pool!  There's no concrete evidence whatsoever to suggest Sheila was "uncoordinated" to the extent that she was diagnosed with dyspraxia.  In fact there's much evidence to suggest SC's levels of coordination were no worse or better than the average person.  Unless you want to base it in on AE's theory that SC missing the toast with the beans = uncoordinated = unable to load and use a firearm.

[Jane]

This is a witness statement, not her memoirs!!! Good grief...

Yes, and it's slanted to what she considers to be important.

[lookout]

I don't remember seeing how many times Jeremy visited the bathroom. Unless that was crossed out of course.

[Alias]

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.

I still find it strange she took notes on that very day.  Extremely so, and as I said, I wish I could ask her what prompted her to do that.

[mertol22]

I still find it strange she took notes on that very day.  Extremely so, and as I said, I wish I could ask her what prompted her to do that.

Very strange, the only people i would expect to do so would be the police, it may be to compare against what she would say later there is a lot more here as with many areas on this case not sounding right , right and fine for guilty members but not me.

[Jane]

Very strange, the only people i would expect to do so would be the police, it may be to compare against what she would say later there is a lot more here as with many areas on this case not sounding right , right and fine for guilty members but not me.

Yes Mertol, you're right. I could have understood it if she had just told the police that she was uncertain about what Jeremy had said but to go at it like a bull in a china shop and write down almost everything he'd done throughout his life as a means of showing him as guilty, tells me THAT, as opposed to showing that Sheila was innocent, was her objective.

[Steve_uk]

Why would June and Nevill retire to bed leaving guns around the house if they believed Sheila to be unstable,why did Sheila choose to write to Ann Eaton in hospital if they didn't get on,and why did Freddi Emani  state that Sheila needed two hands to pour liquid into a glass,an observation which tallies with Ann Eaton's "Sheila-couldn't-put beans on toast and if she poured tea into a cup she would miss" remark,making it unlikely that Sheila would win any struggle with her father that morning in the kitchen as they both wrestled for control of the gun?

[mertol22]

Yes Mertol, you're right. I could have understood it if she had just told the police that she was uncertain about what Jeremy had said but to go at it like a bull in a china shop and write down almost everything he'd done throughout his life as a means of showing him as guilty, tells me THAT, as opposed to showing that Sheila was innocent, was her objective.

Yes and again it was for the police , courts and a jury to find Sheila innocent not a family member, this has all the hallmarks of wanting to speed up the investication to put the odds more in your favour .

[lookout]

Why would June and Nevill retire to bed leaving guns around the house if they believed Sheila to be unstable,why did Sheila choose to write to Ann Eaton in hospital if they didn't get on,and why did Freddi Emani  state that Sheila needed two hands to pour liquid into a glass,an observation which tallies with Ann Eaton's "Sheila-couldn't-put beans on toast and if she poured tea into a cup she would miss" remark,making it unlikely that Sheila would win any struggle with her father that morning in the kitchen as they both wrestled for control of the gun?

As I've already stated on more than one occasion,Steve,,,that Neville would have walloped Jeremy,no problem,,and it would have been a man to man struggle,,,except that it wasn't Jeremy and neither did he show any signs of having been in any kind of a fracas.
Jeremy couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding,I'm afraid. Even now,I bet he hasn't got it in him to give anyone a fourpenny one.

[Steve_uk]

As I've already stated on more than one occasion,Steve,,,that Neville would have walloped Jeremy,no problem,,and it would have been a man to man struggle,,,except that it wasn't Jeremy and neither did he show any signs of having been in any kind of a fracas.
Jeremy couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding,I'm afraid. Even now,I bet he hasn't got it in him to give anyone a fourpenny one.

Not normally no,but he was heavily under the influence of cannabis and cocaine that last year which I blame for the killings. All crimes were non-contact in nature anyhow committed under the darkness of night,which is how Jeremy reasoned with himself he could proceed with the crimes yet refused in the cold light of day to identify the bodies.

[Caroline R]

Why would June and Nevill retire to bed leaving guns around the house if they believed Sheila to be unstable,why did Sheila choose to write to Ann Eaton in hospital if they didn't get on,and why did Freddi Emani  state that Sheila needed two hands to pour liquid into a glass,an observation which tallies with Ann Eaton's "Sheila-couldn't-put beans on toast and if she poured tea into a cup she would miss" remark,making it unlikely that Sheila would win any struggle with her father that morning in the kitchen as they both wrestled for control of the gun?

Because they obviously didn't expect her to shoot everyone. Ann Eaton's remarks point to Sheila as being clumsy and NOT the shaking wreck you try to portray. You conveniently neglect to take into account that she had only recently helped prepare the party food for the twins on the previous weekend before her death!! As for the letter - are you saying that Sheila was in full control of her thoughts when she wrote that letter to Ann? Finally, no one can say that there was a struggle for the rifle - that is a complete assumption!!

[Jane]

Not normally no,but he was heavily under the influence of cannabis and cocaine that last year which I blame for the killings. All crimes were non-contact in nature anyhow committed under the darkness of night,which is how Jeremy reasoned with himself he could proceed with the crimes yet refused in the cold light of day to identify the bodies.

Only according to you Steve dear. I do believe that you're the only one to suggest it. Oh! there was something else, what was it? I know!!! Good to see you back, Steve. Have missed you

[Patti]

Why would June and Nevill retire to bed leaving guns around the house if they believed Sheila to be unstable,why did Sheila choose to write to Ann Eaton in hospital if they didn't get on,and why did Freddi Emani  state that Sheila needed two hands to pour liquid into a glass,an observation which tallies with Ann Eaton's "Sheila-couldn't-put beans on toast and if she poured tea into a cup she would miss" remark,making it unlikely that Sheila would win any struggle with her father that morning in the kitchen as they both wrestled for control of the gun?

Hi Steve

Once you grasp the concept of what a psychotic delusion/episode is then maybe you will finally understand.