Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[lookout]

" relentless tease ". " infantile male ". Not the qualities of a murderer really. More like the over-grown schoolboy that was Jeremy.

[Jane]

I think she mulled it over in bed and realized that Jeremy had finally gone ahead with his scheme and was no longer crying wolf. You have to remember the incessant practical joker which was Jeremy Bamber which led his Headmaster Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart,92, to describe him as "a relentless tease". An unsophisticated Julie,the product of one of the best all girl grammar schools in the North of England was unaccustomed to such deviant and infantile male behaviour. The crimes were a combination of circumstances;double adoptees,some parental failings and the avaricious Zeitgeist of the times which meant any unproductive members of society faced the axe,and the temptation harboured in Jeremy's mind finally became too much as he saw a way out from the perceived serfdom which circumstances had engendered,justifying the deaths to himself as people unworthy of life,and the possibility of Colin making a new start no longer having the millstone of children to look after. An imprisoned Jeremy can no longer confess to such wicked crimes without the ultimate retribution which oh so nearly killed him several years ago and which is completely unacceptable,a possible way out through turning to Christianity is closed to him as he reminisces on the perceived damage that religion inflicted on sister and mother,and Jeremy is now stuck as a pathetic figure with a handful of correspondents for succour as he becomes older and greyer,with not even an apology to Colin which might be a start as he contemplates the rest of his life behind bars.

And never, for one moment, would the unsophisticated product of an all girls school have any thoughts of a life of ease cushioned by old money when she got her talons into the son and heir. She more than demonstrated her own desire for the material in a way that Jeremy had no need to.

[Lugg]

The dilemma the Jeremy supporters have is if Julie is to be charged as an accessory then Jeremy is as guilty as hell,and the number of days of innocent incarceration of your main culprit quoted vividly on the frontispiece of this site which acts subliminally and insidiously is a complete charade..

You didn't answer my question Steve. Is it true what you said or is it a lie? The dilemma you face now is that if you admit it to be true then JM will face charges. If it is not true then Jeremy must be innocent.

[mertol22]

Of course she did,because she was a frightened young woman of 20 years whose physical side had been awakened by a charming cad who saw the possibility of using Julie as a cover for his wicked crimes. He had already roped Julie into the role of lookout during the Osea Road robbery which showed his avarice as well as his real attitude towards his family,whilst today professing to have loved them all as he paces up and down his prison cell.

Julie was a confused young woman at this stage who might well have been intimidated by the Chief of Essex Police DCI Taff Jones as many more hardened male colleagues were at the outset,and who was she but a student teacher to be taken seriously with such a momentous tale that she had to tell. Fortunately stalwart Julie worked out the correct course of action with her friends who to this day have not deserted her,unlike many of Jeremy's fly-by-night acquaintances,particularly the women who have used him for their own ends whilst professing to love him the same unconditional way Julie did until such heinous occurrences unfolded that a relationship no longer became possible.

A frightened young woman of 20 ??  clearly not frightened to accept £25,000 a small fortune back then  what would she not do for money steve .

[campion]

Apart from the Summertime alterations to the digital clock /radio, it might have been re-adjusted on account of some electrical failing at the premises. Was the said clock in the vicinity of the communal telephone, being in the hallway, and initially answered by Duggie?    This piece of  evidence will surely go down in legal history, as being the barminess of any in deciding the fate of a man's life! BTW  I thought the feather may have been from a Wyandotte chicken (from Henley), or young turkey if indeed they were being reared on the farm. We will just have to wait for Mike to post the hitherto, withheld docs.

[tyler]

On the day Jeremy and AE went to the caravan show,Jeremy said to Ann "I shouldn't really be telling you this,but...." He goes on to talk about his plans for Vaulty. I have read many times,that Jeremy was supposed to have said "This time next year Ann,this will all be ours"(regarding caravan park) and Ann responds by telling him that her mother isn't about to retire yet. It doesn't say that in the statement.Where did it come from?

[Patti]

Apart from the Summertime alterations to the digital clock /radio, it might have been re-adjusted on account of some electrical failing at the premises. Was the said clock in the vicinity of the communal telephone, being in the hallway, and initially answered by Duggie?    This piece of  evidence will surely go down in legal history, as being the barminess of any in deciding the fate of a man's life! BTW  I thought the feather may have been from a Wyandotte chicken (from Henley), or young turkey if indeed they were being reared on the farm. We will just have to wait for Mike to post the hitherto, withheld docs.

Hi Campion

I shall only say this once more because this was done to death yesterday. 

Julie stated in her first statement on the 8th August 1985 that she thought the time was 3:30 in her second statement after talking wit Susan.B she says it was 3:15.  Then later in another statement she claims she did not check the time and never consulted a watch.  Well, if she never consulted her watch, then where did she get the time 3:30 from....How on earth did she know it was that time on the 8th August....she had to have got that time from somewhere. When Julie was cross examined in court this was brought up and she agreed that she had said 3:30.

Susan B. confirmed to Julie that it was 3:15 and knowing that she normally puts her clock fast by 10 minutes could have deducted that time already in her mind and it is possible that the clock at the time was 12 minutes fast therefore her clock would have said 3:27 Then she changed her story after Jones had visited her in the November 85 he timed her clock and it was 12 minuted fast, but no one had accounted for the clock being changed by one hour in the October.  Jones visited her again in September of 1986 and the clock was 9 minutes and 30 seconds fast. Though again, the clock had been put forward in the spring....

Various times had been reported and not one of the flat mates gave an exact time 3 out of the 5 gave 3:30 but later admitted to not consulting a clock and said they were probably told the time from other flat mates....well, if they had been told it was 3:30 then that surely must have come from those who had looked at the time and that was SB and another...

Yes SB might have set her clock fast, but this is not proof enough that Jeremy's call was closer to 3am and before the call from his father.  Its unbelieveable that SB could not remember things about her cheque book fraud and other things yet she claims to remember the most vital evidence of all...the timing of the phone call from Jeremy....poppycock! imo.....

[Bridget]

Morning Patti, did you murder a few brain cells last night?

Hi Campion

I shall only say this once more because this was done to death yesterday. 

Julie stated in her first statement on the 8th August 1985 that she thought the time was 3:30 in her second statement after talking wit Susan.B she says it was 3:15.  Then later in another statement she claims she did not check the time and never consulted a watch.  Well, if she never consulted her watch, then where did she get the time 3:30 from....How on earth did she know it was that time on the 8th August....she had to have got that time from somewhere. When Julie was cross examined in court this was brought up and she agreed that she had said 3:30.

She called Helen Eaton whilst making the statement and she told her the time, although Helen says she told her 3am.

Susan B. confirmed to Julie that it was 3:15 and knowing that she normally puts her clock fast by 10 minutes could have deducted that time already in her mind and it is possible that the clock at the time was 12 minutes fast therefore her clock would have said 3:27 Then she changed her story after Jones had visited her in the November 85 he timed her clock and it was 12 minuted fast, but no one had accounted for the clock being changed by one hour in the October.  Jones visited her again in September of 1986 and the clock was 9 minutes and 30 seconds fast. Though again, the clock had been put forward in the spring....

Wrong way around. SBs clock was 9 1/2 minutes fast in November 1985, 12 minutes fast in September 1986. He couldn't have called her at 3.27 because at that time he was on the phone to police, unless of course you believe that his call to police was 3.36, but then since the whole point if this exercise was to establish the fact that he called Julie before the police that hardly helps!

Various times had been reported and not one of the flat mates gave an exact time 3 out of the 5 gave 3:30 but later admitted to not consulting a clock and said they were probably told the time from other flat mates....well, if they had been told it was 3:30 then that surely must have come from those who had looked at the time and that was SB and another...

No, only two said 3.30, Julie and possibly Helen. Susan said about 3.15 and then 3.12 (subject to clock adjustments), Joanne said 2 something and Doug said about 3.

Yes SB might have set her clock fast, but this is not proof enough that Jeremy's call was closer to 3am and before the call from his father.  Its unbelieveable that SB could not remember things about her cheque book fraud and other things yet she claims to remember the most vital evidence of all...the timing of the phone call from Jeremy....poppycock! imo.....

Helen told Susan the very next day that Julie had called asking about the time so the memory would still have been fresh.

[Patti]

Morning Patti, did you murder a few brain cells last night?

NO....but you have been on bird seed this morning haven't you? You savage! lol


She called Helen Eaton whilst making the statement and she told her the time, although Helen says she told her 3am.

Her initial statement is documented at her giving 3:30 see COA.  This was indeed changed on the next statement after she had consulted a flatmate. My question is how did she arrive at the time of 3:30 before she had consulted on the time having not even looked at a clock. 


Wrong way around. SBs clock was 9 1/2 minutes fast in November 1985, 12 minutes fast in September 1986. He couldn't have called her at 3.27 because at that time he was on the phone to police, unless of course you believe that his call to police was 3.36, but then since the whole point if this exercise was to establish the fact that he called Julie before the police that hardly helps!

Wrong way round or not...there is no way it can proven what that clock actually said.

No, only two said 3.30, Julie and possibly Helen. Susan said about 3.15 and then 3.12 (subject to clock adjustments), Joanne said 2 something and Doug said about 3.

But, you have just stated that Helen said 3:00 now you say she said 3:30....me thinks it was Woad and that you might be getting confused lol

Helen told Susan the very next day that Julie had called asking about the time so the memory would still have been fresh.

Right off to have a shower...... :D :D

[Bridget]

Her initial statement is documented at her giving 3:30 see COA.  This was indeed changed on the next statement after she had consulted a flatmate. My question is how did she arrive at the time of 3:30 before she had consulted on the time having not even looked at a clock. 

For the third time, she consulted Helen Eaton on the phone whilst making her first statement. Julie says Helen told her 3.30.

Wrong way round or not...there is no way it can proven what that clock actually said.

No one claims there is.

But, you have just stated that Helen said 3:00 now you say she said 3:30....me thinks it was Woad and that you might be getting confused lol

I was being generous to you by allowing you to have Helen in amongst your 3.30 witnesses based on what Julie said she said. If Helen actually said 3am (as she claims) then that's 4 witnesses who give the time at around 3am and only one (Julie) who says 3.30.

Right off to have a shower.....

I hope that you return suitably refreshed

[Patti]

For the third time, she consulted Helen Eaton on the phone whilst making her first statement. Julie says Helen told her 3.30.

No one claims there is.

I was being generous to you by allowing you to have Helen in amongst your 3.30 witnesses based on what Julie said she said. If Helen actually said 3am (as she claims) then that's 4 witnesses who give the time at around 3am and only one (Julie) who says 3.30.

I hope that you return suitably refreshed

Right lady!  

Julie said in evidence that the call could have been anywhere between 3:00 to 3:30

Helen told Julie that she thought the time was 3:00 but later agreed under cross examination that it might have been as late as 3:30.

Susan B said she was positive when she looked at her clock that it was 3:12 after also saying she was positive the time was 3:15. She also pointed out that she is in the habit of setting her clock 10 minutes fast...my question to her is clear. Was she also in the habit of deducting 10 minutes from the time when giving someone a time....

Joanna W said her digital clock said 2 something, thus meant that it could have been any time between 2:00 to 2:59

Helen later revealed that when she spoke to Julie about the time, she was indeed uncertain about the time of the call, although for some reason she thought it was about 3:00, She later told the jury that she had not consulted her watch or looked at the time, therefore she could not be accurate with the time.

Dale said in evidence that the time was 3:00 He also told the jury that he had not consulted his watch and during cross examination he later declared that he went with that time because he had been told that time by others. 

So three of them never looked at their watch and yet gave evidence that the call was made at 3:00

So the only person that was close to the time Jones wanted was Susan B....Yet she failed to remember other things yet remembered the time is said on her clock....well I don't buy it...

Which leaves us with a time that the call had to have been made between 3:00 and 3:30 and not one scrap of concrete evidence tells us any different....

Yes I am refreshed, can you tell...lol 

[Bridget]

I see you have been reading the appeal decision, so you will have read this:

This evidence did not in any way reveal any defect in the evidence of the only two witnesses upon whom the jury would have had to have relied in reaching a conclusion adverse to the appellant. Neither Joanne Woad nor Susan Battersby was a party to the discussion on the telephone whilst Julie Mugford was making her statement. The evidence was clear on the point that each of them was out of the flat at that time. The most the evidence revealed was that Helen Eaton had thought the time was about 3.30 a.m. and that Julie Mugford having consulted her was prepared to adopt that time. However, crucially both Julie Mugford and Helen Eaton had said consistently that they themselves had never looked at the time when the telephone call was received during the night. Each accepted that the time could have been as late as 3.30 a.m. in evidence and the jury knew that. We fail to see how the jury could have attached any further weight to their estimate of the time made on the 8 August when it was not said to be based upon them actually looking at a clock. In any event the jury knew that Julie Mugford gave that estimate in her statement made on that very day.

Thus we are satisfied that even if the jury were able to know of the existence of this document [one of Ann's notes], it could not in any reasoned way have enabled them to have resolved the conflict between Joanne Woad and Susan Battersby on the one hand and the appellant on the other hand in a way different from any conclusion that they may have reached on the evidence which they heard. Accordingly this fresh evidence can form no basis for doubting the safeness of the conviction.


And this is what Susan actually said in her statement re the times:

"I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy's house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton."

Now you can of course call her liar, but it is evidence even if you don't accept it as "concrete". Of course we have no way of knowing whether or not the jury accepted it, or how much weight they gave to what was always a minor point anyway.

I have chickens to clean!

[Steve_uk]

You didn't answer my question Steve. Is it true what you said or is it a lie? The dilemma you face now is that if you admit it to be true then JM will face charges. If it is not true then Jeremy must be innocent.

I don't follow-Julie knew that Jeremy's family were all dead upon the occasion of the second telephone call:that was the import of the call and not the timing. If Jeremy wished to impart to Julie that he knew his family were dead before the alleged telephone call he received from his father then he's even dimmer than I made him out to be. Julie knowing that the family were all dead does not make her an accessory:why should it?

[Caroline R]

I don't follow-Julie knew that Jeremy's family were all dead upon the occasion of the second telephone call:that was the import of the call and not the timing. If Jeremy wished to impart to Julie that he knew his family were dead before the alleged telephone call he received from his father then he's even dimmer than I made him out to be. Julie knowing that the family were all dead does not make her an accessory:why should it?

That's not what he is talking about - Yesterday you said that the innocent side have a dilemma - if they think that Julie is an accessory, then they must believe JB guilty. By the same token, if you think JB is guilty, Julie must be an accessory!! They were your words and as you think he is indeed guilty - it's YOUR dilemma!

[lookout]

Because she knew prior to what happened,,,what WAS going to happen. Therefore why didn't she warn the police as soon as she heard the threat.? In all probability,it was her,,,and only her that could have prevented the massacre------------------------accessory,,and as good as helped it happen.