Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[mertol22]

Personally - nope!

The way its going with S Hall never say never there is always just that day.

[Bridget]

Also - at the time Simon was questioned by the police, he had been convicted on NO offence, so again you are wrong.... DO KEEP UP!!

Not doing very well are you!     

I'm sorry but your post makes absolutely no sense.

[Steve_uk]

What Neil has presented is a statement of facts of law. Your assertion that he drifts into flights of fancy is VERY much a case of pot calling kettle. Neil's professional objectivity is a far cry from your emotional outpouring of Julie's innocence.

In paragraph 4 he goes off into flights of fancy with his statements that Julie provided sleeping tablets for Jeremy to use as was asserted in her statement on Nevill's gin and tonic,but we don't know for a fact whether Julie gave them him in connivance or whether Jeremy took them from where they were lying around after Julie found the tablets ineffective for the purpose of giving her a good night's sleep. So Julie provided calm,soothing words did she when they were together behind closed doors at White House Farm. How on earth does ngb1066 know this for a fact? From what I read they never stopped rowing after the murders and how many times have the Jeremy supporters quoted numerous incidents and not allowed us to forget them?

[guest154]

The way its going with S Hall never say never there is always just that day.

I don't think you can compare the two cases to be honest Mertol. Simon Hall killed one person. Jeremy Bamber killed five, including two young children. Bambers crimes are believed to be pre-meditated too.

[Bridget]

Of course it doesn't Bridget - it doesn't suit your agenda that's why 

You accused my husband of the omittance of the burglary - when are you suggesting he 'omitted' this evidence?

Does it matter? This conversation was about omitting facts in order to assist an offender. I don't think it counts if you are the actual suspect, and especially if you are later convicted.

Why do you have to turn every thread into a Simon hall thread?

[Caroline R]

In paragraph 4 he goes off into flights of fancy with his statements that Julie provided sleeping tablets for Jeremy to use as was asserted in her statement on Nevill's gin and tonic,but we don't know for a fact whether Julie gave them him in connivance or whether Jeremy took them from where they were lying around after Julie found the tablets ineffective for the purpose of giving her a good night's sleep. So Julie provided calm,soothing words did she when they were together behind closed doors at White House Farm. How on earth does ngb1066 know this for a fact? From what I read they never stopped rowing after the murders and how many times have the Jeremy supporters quoted numerous incidents and not allowed us to forget them?

The fact is that she claims to have been party to the a discussion in which her talked of a plan to drug the family and she still brought sleeping tablets to his house. Whether they were used or not, is immaterial, she still provided them.

[Bridget]

JM was a prosecution witness - so how was her omitting facts going to help JB? 

Do you even know why prosecution witnesses do this?

And YES it maters because you are wrong AGAIN!!

I suggest you go back to about page 24 and read the discussion. That way you may actually understand the debate.

[Lugg]

I'm afraid you've got carried away with your statement whoever you are;whilst making sense in the initial stages you drifted off into flights of fancy which make a mockery of your whole argument. It starts to go awry from the second paragraph after you assert that to be guilty Julie must "provide some positive assistance" when there was absolutely none to the Jeremy supporters' chagrin:she neither provided Jeremy with an alibi nor the infamous sleeping tablets which were for Julie's sole use during one of the most stressful periods of a teacher's career,namely teaching practice,and it is dishonourable of you if you hold a position in law to suggest otherwise. It was Jeremy who imported cannabis stuffed in toothpaste tubes from Amsterdam and not Julie,and though she sold the drug on university premises at Jeremy's behest this does not necessarily bar any teacher from a career;indeed there are male teachers who have abused female pupils who have appealed to the Secretary of State and have been further allowed to teach in an all-male environment,which I know anecdotally from colleagues.

On the day of the murders Julie was not warned in advance as you suggest;after a hard day's work she attempted to decipher yet another of Jeremy's riddles with the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" clue which was symptomatic of Jeremy's infantile manner of speaking for the two years she had known him with his "let's get the ball rolling" idiom used ad nauseum,his "bye honey,love you lots",his sending her roses and booking the bridal suite at a top London hotel interspersed with remarks of the crudest calibre,reminding us of Gresham's head Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart's aphorism that Jeremy was "a relentless tease". If the head of a public school came to that conclusion then don't expect the product of an all girl's grammar school to be any the wiser in interpreting Jeremy's remarks.

Post-murders we have Julie realizing that Jeremy did have a hand in the murders,whether he was the sole perpetrator or proxy driver,which as Mike suggested the" trick of the light story" gave rise to,but it was Julie who carried the guilt for both of them as the murders for Jeremy were not much different than swatting flies. You misrepresent the chronology because Julie told several people including the Bishop's and Michael Deckers the manager of the Frog and Beans before she voluntarily agreed to visit the Police. Had she not done so of course the trial would have proceeded without Julie on the basis of the silencer and blood evidence pushed by the relatives and going on the summing up of the judge Julie's evidence anyway would not have been paramount.

Whoever you are? He was a barrister in criminal law and has worked on top notch cases, that's who he is. So I would trust his words more than I do a wannabe Mills and Boon fiction writer.

[Steve_uk]

Whoever you are? He was a barrister in criminal law and has worked on top notch cases, that's who he is. So I would trust his words more than I do a wannabe Mills and Boon fiction writer.

All the more to get his facts right in a brain which appears muddled,using a prosecution tactic which his colleagues in law rejected 28 years ago.

[Steve_uk]

She's hardly going to change her story after giving evidence in a Court of law now is she?

The part you quote was immediately post-murders,and in any case Julie told a story which was remarkably consistent.

[Caroline R]

The part you quote was immediately post-murders,and in any case Julie told a story which was remarkably consistent.

Consistently unbelievable!!

[Bridget]

Jesus H C! You really are up your own backside aren't you! 

You really don't understand humour, do you.

I am merely joining in the debate, the fact that I refer to my husbands case is because these facts are relevant to practically all MOJ cases.

There were prosecution witnesses in my husbands case too you know..       

Simon recently made some clarifications in relation to his evidence. You should also look this up to see where Simon stands 'in the eyes of the law.'

In law he is a convicted murderer who has now admitted to omitting the fact that he is also a burglar, and your point is?

[ngb1066]

Yes, thank you NGB, much appreciated.

So what you are saying basically is that whilst there is no requirement to volunteer the information at all, to volunteer incomplete (although in itself accurate) and thereby misleading information could be seen as a positive act and may well be an offence, am I understanding that correctly?

Did they actually grant her immunity, or was there a decision (however it was arrived at) that it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute?

Yes, volunteering incomplete information, provided that this misleads the police, could be seen as a positive act of assisting the offender.  Obviously each situation has to be assessed on its own facts.

My understanding is that Julie Mugford was granted immunity from prosecution in relation to all disclosed offences on the authority of the DPP and on that basis was inteviewed as a witness rather than under caution as a suspect. 

[ngb1066]

Hi NGB

OK, I don't know much about law, but its true she was not prosecuted 27 years ago, but what if new evidence came to light? What if the law changed? Could she be prosecuted for something she was given immunity for 27 years later on? Just askin! 

If Julie mugford was given immunity from prosecution she could never be prosecuted for the specific offences in respect of which the immunity was given.  However she could still be proecuted for other offences if new evidence came to light, for example perjury or perverting the course of justice.

[killingeve]

No humble pie for me thanks...

I said right from the start that I didn't know the answer, which is why I asked the question. All I have done since is humour you with debate.

Miss Bridget has an eager looking pussy that wants stroking...purr...meow...


Gee thanks Miss Bridget you're so kind.  You know that's not true you got very animated when discussing terrorism and POCA 2002