Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[Caroline R]

That doesn't follow at all. Julie might be an accessory if she knowlingly allowed Jeremy to kill his family without lifting a finger to stop it,in which case Jeremy would have been foolish to telephone Julie in the middle of the night with witnesses to hand on Julie's side. The telephone calls are a continuum in any case from the earlier call in the evening in which Jeremy said "tonight's the night..it's now or never",to which Julie prayed that it was "never". You have no evidence that Julie actively encouraged Jeremy to kill his parents,sister and nephews,no evidence that she gave him an alibi for the murders and no evidence that she knew he himself was the perpetrator,which is why he told her that Matthew McDonald had been the hitman.

You said it!! Not me!! But she did knowingly allow him to kill his family!! She said she knew for over a year!! AND did nothing to stop him!! LOL She even gave him some sleeping pills  As for the 'no evidence' it never seems to stop you!!

[Lugg]

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?

By perverting the course of justice for two or 3 weeks makes her an accessory after the fact. What I asked you was, is it true what you said she knew? Yes or no?
Also if she knew the family to be dead does than not make her even more guilty when she said to Jeremy go back to sleep instead of phoning the police with her suspicions?

[Lugg]

I have a remidy against the Julie-Pulie-praise. Here it is!

That picture in the NOTW proves that she was only interested in fame and money. Otherwise why on earch should she pose in that manner seductively showing one leg like that on such a solemn subject? It's a bit like me witnessing a road accident where someone died and whilst being photographed by the press I say, "How do you want me to pose? Shall I show my hairy leg?"

[Caroline R]

The first time I saw this picture last Saturday I was as shocked as anybody:the pictures are in thoroughly bad taste and Julie should not have proceeded with them. However the striking impact of the picture(and it's true that a picture can paint a thousand words)was somewhat mitigated by the unbelievably vulgar comments posted by several female members alongside on that occasion. I also think there would have been a similar photograph emanating from Anji Greaves had Jeremy been released,along with loose tongue pub talk emanating from Jeremy some weeks down the line which would have made a mockery of the whole not guilty verdict.

You only saw it for the first time last Saturday??  . The article always reminds me of a song - I think by Cindi Lauper - True Colours!! 

[Steve_uk]

You said it!! Not me!! But she did knowingly allow him to kill his family!! She said she knew for over a year!! AND did nothing to stop him!! LOL She even gave him some sleeping pills  As for the 'no evidence' it never seems to stop you!!

You really don't get it. The plan emanated from Jeremy and Jeremy alone,and if I thought otherwise I would not support Julie for one moment. Like any woman would she said she did not want to hear about it whenever Jeremy broached the subject and an almost two-year relationship was condensed into a fourteen page statement of Julie's,which is why you may be confused.

[susan]

Hello Caroline another song for your comments I like it I like it

[Steve_uk]

By perverting the course of justice for two or 3 weeks makes her an accessory after the fact. What I asked you was, is it true what you said she knew? Yes or no?
Also if she knew the family to be dead does than not make her even more guilty when she said to Jeremy go back to sleep instead of phoning the police with her suspicions?

Julie received an ambiguous telephone call in the middle of the night when she was feeling groggy and upon returning to bed realized the import of the telephone call. The last thing Julie wanted was the involvement of the Police:she didn't want to see Jeremy go to jail,she was still unsure as to who actually had murdered them,and the Osea Road and cheque book incidents meant that she might end up with a criminal record.The way the investigation was proceeding was four murders and a suicide decided no less by the Chief of Essex Police DCI Taff Jones. Of course Julie must have had regrets,but it was too late as the victims were already dead.

[maggie]

You really don't get it. The plan emanated from Jeremy and Jeremy alone,and if I thought otherwise I would not support Julie for one moment. Like any woman would she said she did not want to hear about it whenever Jeremy broached the subject and an almost two-year relationship was condensed into a fourteen page statement of Julie's,which is why you may be confused.

No Steve, you don't get it.  Like any normal young woman would have, she didn't ever mention these conversations to her friends never mind her mother. 
She told him she didn't want to hear it but continued a relationship with someone planning to kill their family. 
That is not the way young women behave in real life Steve.  They would normally run a mile from such a weirdo....that's what any normal young woman would call him..... a weirdo who frightened them.

[Caroline R]

You really don't get it. The plan emanated from Jeremy and Jeremy alone,and if I thought otherwise I would not support Julie for one moment. Like any woman would she said she did not want to hear about it whenever Jeremy broached the subject and an almost two-year relationship was condensed into a fourteen page statement of Julie's,which is why you may be confused.

Like any woman would?? Any OTHER woman would NOT have gone a full year listening to a plan that involed the murder of 5 people!! Then when they end up dead, she still goes along with it and has to be forced into going to the police by friends. It's you that doesn't get it Steve!! 

[Alias]

The first time I saw this picture last Saturday I was as shocked as anybody:the pictures are in thoroughly bad taste and Julie should not have proceeded with them. However the striking impact of the picture(and it's true that a picture can paint a thousand words)was somewhat mitigated by the unbelievably vulgar comments posted by several female members alongside on that occasion. I also think there would have been a similar photograph emanating from Anji Greaves had Jeremy been released,along with loose tongue pub talk emanating from Jeremy some weeks down the line which would have made a mockery of the whole not guilty verdict.

Well, there isn´t much good to say about it, is there?

[Jane]

The first time I saw this picture last Saturday I was as shocked as anybody:the pictures are in thoroughly bad taste and Julie should not have proceeded with them. However the striking impact of the picture(and it's true that a picture can paint a thousand words)was somewhat mitigated by the unbelievably vulgar comments posted by several female members alongside on that occasion. I also think there would have been a similar photograph emanating from Anji Greaves had Jeremy been released,along with loose tongue pub talk emanating from Jeremy some weeks down the line which would have made a mockery of the whole not guilty verdict.

Steve, we don't know the innocent virginal girl you keep talking about. The "unbelievably vulgar comments" are directed at a woman who presents herself as being unbelievably vulgar. Had she presented herself differently there would be no comments made of that type. Much as you appear to worship her, if you're honest with yourself, there is NOTHING about any of her post trial behaviour that is praiseworthy of discreet. I imagine that for someone of your obviously high standards it must be difficult for you to make excuses for her. As for what Anji Greaves would have done, it's hypothetical.

[Caroline R]

Hello Caroline another song for your comments I like it I like it

I'm sure she did 'Like It' Susan, and she got 25K to 'Like it' even more!! 

That's the 'article' by the way!! 

[Alias]

Steve, we don't know the innocent virginal girl you keep talking about. The "unbelievably vulgar comments" are directed at a woman who presents herself as being unbelievably vulgar. Had she presented herself differently there would be no comments made of that type. Much as you appear to worship her, if you're honest with yourself, there is NOTHING about any of her post trial behaviour that is praiseworthy of discreet. I imagine that for someone of your obviously high standards it must be difficult for you to make excuses for her. As for what Anji Greaves would have done, it's hypothetical.

In fact it is very insulting towards Anji Greaves. Not all girls are willing to do what Julie did, far from it, 

[killingeve]

Must she though?? I'm not sure we actually have an offence of accessory after the fact anymore in this country and the nearest I can find (assisting an offender) requires a positive act rather than just a failure to say anything, as does perverting the course of justice. There is also an offence of concealing an offence, but that requires payment of some sort. I suppose the money he gave her for a holiday could amount to that, but it would be difficult to prove that that was the purpose. Was there anything in her early statements that was identified at trial or appeal as a deliberate lie?

Maybe NGB could help us out here, it'd be interesting to find out what the actual position would be.

Hello Miss Bridget

When the police left Goldhanger on 7th Aug JM claims in her wit stats dated 7th/8th Sept that she asked JB if he had done it and he said no he hadn't but that MM had or words to this effect.  On 8th Aug the police took a wit stat from JM and not a word is mentioned about MM and/or JB? 

I believe her 8th Aug stat to be the truth.  However if we run with the latter had she have fessed up on 8th Aug more evidence potentially would have been preserved eg carpets etc, etc.  The soc would have been treated differently from day 2. 

I find it hard to believe that the above is not a criminal offence.  Either she is lying period.  Or she witheld significant info at the early stages of a police investigation into the brutal murders of 5 people.

As you said I would be interested to know what NGB's view of this is.

[Bridget]

Hello Miss Bridget

When the police left Goldhanger on 7th Aug JM claims in her wit stats dated 7th/8th Sept that she asked JB if he had done it and he said no he hadn't but that MM had or words to this effect.  On 8th Aug the police took a wit stat from JM and not a word is mentioned about MM and/or JB? 

I believe her 8th Aug stat to be the truth.  However if we run with the latter had she have fessed up on 8th Aug more evidence potentially would have been preserved eg carpets etc, etc.  The soc would have been treated differently from day 2. 

I find it hard to believe that the above is not a criminal offence.  Either she is lying period.  Or she witheld significant info at the early stages of a police investigation into the brutal murders of 5 people.

As you said I would be interested to know what NGB's view of this is.

Thank you NN, yes that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. Those are omissions certainly, but it would seem that the offence assisting an offender cannot be committed by omission. I still can't find an offence of 'accessory after the fact' in current UK law, although there was one up until the commencement of the crim law act which appears to have replaced it with the assisting and offender offence. If that makes sense!