Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[Caroline R]

Hi Steve, Iwouldn't dream of trying to answer your post for ngb.  I'm sure he will do a great job on it when back on the forum.
However, I really must speak up for Angie Greaves.  What has she ever done to deserve your accusations of gold digger and skirt hitcher.  Particularly as she isn't on the forum to defend herself, I do feel she deserves an apology from you.

Who got 25 grand from the NOTW whilst hitching her skirt for the camera!! That wasn't Angie Greaves was it? No, that was Julie Mugford!!

[Jane]

Who got 25 grand from the NOTW whilst hitching her skirt for the camera!! That wasn't Angie Greaves was it? No, that was Julie Mugford!!

Yes Caroline, WE know that, but Steve assures us with something uncannily close to clairvoyance, that Anji WOULD have done it.

[Caroline R]

i) Every one of us has left medication of some kind lying around the house in our lives whether it was the useless placebo sleeping tablets which Julie's London doctor prescribed for her or just a pack of Nurofen we've opened and tossed to one side. You cannot possibly know that Julie connived in their use for the purposes of drugging somebody else and I'm surprised that you open with what is one of your weakest arguments.

ii)Again you cannot possibly know that Julie was aware that Jeremy stuffed toothpaste tubes full of cannabis unless you were actually there and saw her pack them in what I assume what was his suitcase. Julie could easily as well have discovered this back at home or not known at all until Jeremy told her.

iii)What does "tonight's the night..it's now or never" mean? Do you know? The Headmaster of Gresham's public school described Jeremy Bamber as "a relentless tease" and Julie would have looked pretty stupid telephoning the Police if had been a false alarm,assuming that she knew the import of those words,which she did not,only realizing by the time of the second telephone call that the family were all dead.

iv)Why would Julie drop powerful hints as you call them to friends about Jeremy's involvement in the murders if she wanted to become Mrs. Bamber? Of course Julie did not want the involvement of the Police as she still held a candle for the man and didn't want him to go to jail,let alone her previous criminal activities induced by Jeremy. Cheque book journalism was a real problem in the 1980s and it was my understanding nothing was signed until the verdict. The point is irrelevant anyway as had it not been Julie flashing her thighs it would have been Anji Greaves.

v) I'm surprised as a lawyer that you give such weight to Julie's evidence,but again you were not the trial judge Mr. Justice Drake,who said "I advise you to treat Miss Mugford's evidence with a great deal of caution". It was quite evidently to my mind the silencer evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber,evidence which Mike to his credit has done much to cast the shadow of doubt upon,though Julie did bring a human touch to the proceedings which made the trial more dramatic.

In your original submission you give the game away in the opening of your final paragraph by attempting to wash your hands of the whole of Julie's evidence and to stand above the fray. Well let me tell you: firstly it's the public school types like you who have done so much harm to Jeremy's cause in the first place by not having a clear grasp of the case as most of you have never experienced real life,your lackadaisical attitude was typical of that firm of so-called top notch lawyers who relied far too much on appearance and its intimidation effect and not enough on the bread and butter issues of character which Suzette Ford(rejected because she was French),Brett Collins(rejected because he was gay) or Freddi Immani(rejected because he was an ethnic minority immigrant) could have brought,whilst the white middle-class middle aged men had it all under their control and in their charge,didn't they?

One last thing about Julie's evidence. Of course you have to dissociate yourself from it,because any serious probing of her story would lose any last vestige of sympathy for Jeremy Bamber as his thought processes developed and in retrospect became clear. This was Jeremy's scheme not Julie's and to attempt to endow her with the same attributes will not work with me,or any other serious studier of the White House Murder crimes.

Unbelievable!!  But wholly predictable!!

[mertol22]

Im not as stupid as jeremy i for the life of me would have anything to do with mugford , i would just be as happy waxing a racer cycle frame, unless i have it wrong steve seems to think the money was just for mugford well earned so to speak.

[Steve_uk]

Im not as stupid as jeremy i for the life of me would have anything to do with mugford , i would just be as happy waxing a racer cycle frame, unless i have it wrong steve seems to think the money was just for mugford well earned so to speak.

I've said many times that the photographs were in thoroughly bad taste and a mistake on Julie's part. She has since tried to make amends with her charity work in Canada and I think it would have been mean to say the least not to have given her a second chance. I can understand how frustrated the Jeremy supporters must feel at what they perceive as an innocent man's wrongful incarceration,though it also angers me at the same time that he gains support from them when the victims can't speak for themselves and therefore need a mouthpiece which is what I am offering.

[maggie]

I've said many times that the photographs were in thoroughly bad taste and a mistake on Julie's part. She has since tried to make amends with her charity work in Canada and I think it would have been mean to say the least not to have given her a second chance. I can understand how frustrated the Jeremy supporters must feel at what they perceive as an innocent man's wrongful incarceration,though it also angers me at the same time that he gains support from them when the victims can't speak for themselves and therefore need a mouthpiece which is what I am offering.

Steve with respect you are more a mouthpiece for Julie than for the victim's imo.

[Steve_uk]

Steve with respect you are more a mouthpiece for Julie than for the victim's imo.

Well I see Julie as a victim-sorry to rub salt into the wound. Many women would not recover from the rejection and guilt-trip she suffered,pick themselves up,dust themselves off and start again at the age of 21. I have said many times I don't know how Julie managed to juggle her career and family responsibilities and she thoroughly deserves her 6 figure salary she is paid currently in Canada.

[Caroline R]

I've said many times that the photographs were in thoroughly bad taste and a mistake on Julie's part. She has since tried to make amends with her charity work in Canada and I think it would have been mean to say the least not to have given her a second chance. I can understand how frustrated the Jeremy supporters must feel at what they perceive as an innocent man's wrongful incarceration,though it also angers me at the same time that he gains support from them when the victims can't speak for themselves and therefore need a mouthpiece which is what I am offering.

Fair enough but then you make an excuse for her by saying if it wasn't her flashing her thighs it would have been AG when you couldn't possibly know that. And Maggie is right, it does seen that you are here to defend Julie above and beyond anyone else!! And if Jeremy is innocent, he is also a victim. However, you won't find anyone here from either side who doesn't care about the victims.

[Patti]

I've said many times that the photographs were in thoroughly bad taste and a mistake on Julie's part. She has since tried to make amends with her charity work in Canada and I think it would have been mean to say the least not to have given her a second chance. I can understand how frustrated the Jeremy supporters must feel at what they perceive as an innocent man's wrongful incarceration,though it also angers me at the same time that he gains support from them when the victims can't speak for themselves and therefore need a mouthpiece which is what I am offering.

Hi Steve

Julie's evidence alone is not enough to say that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of any crime at all.  There is no forensic evidence she could ever point to that would convince anyone of Jeremy's guilt.  Its time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Lets put it another way: Scenario!

There are two people in court giving evidence to a crime.

One is a bank manager the other is a student.

The bank manager has 10 years of banking experience. He has never been arrested and is a law abiding citizen, married with two children.

The student is from a broken home. She has just been jilted by her boyfriend, she has had dealing with drugs, she has also been involved in two thefts.

They both give different variations on what happened in the park.

Answer me honestly who would you believe....the bank manager or student. 

[Caroline R]

Well I see Julie as a victim-sorry to rub salt into the wound. Many women would not recover from the rejection and guilt-trip she suffered,pick themselves up,dust themselves off and start again at the age of 21. I have said many times I don't know how Julie managed to juggle her career and family responsibilities and she thoroughly deserves her 6 figure salary she is paid currently in Canada.

And we see Jeremy as a victim of Julie! Sorry to rub salt in the wounds!! She did nothing special, there are thousands - make that MILLIONS of women who are rejected everyday and still manage to have successful career. Not sure she has everything she deserves yet - maybe one day she will!! 

[Steve_uk]

Fair enough but then you make an excuse for her by saying if it wasn't her flashing her thighs it would have been AG when you couldn't possibly know that. And Maggie is right, it does seen that you are here to defend Julie above and beyond anyone else!! And if Jeremy is innocent, he is also a victim. However, you won't find anyone here from either side who doesn't care about the victims.

Of course I know that. Anji Greaves had the champagne on ice with journalists from the Sun in a top London hotel boudoir with a banner reading "FAITH,TRUTH,JUSTICE..WELCOME HOME JEREMY" and would have pocketed the £50,000 cheque on offer had she not put it down her bra or put it inside her garter first.

[Steve_uk]

Hi Steve

Julie's evidence alone is not enough to say that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of any crime at all.  There is no forensic evidence she could ever point to that would convince anyone of Jeremy's guilt.  Its time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Lets put it another way: Scenario!

There are two people in court giving evidence to a crime.

One is a bank manager the other is a student.

The bank manager has 10 years of banking experience. He has never been arrested and is a law abiding citizen, married with two children.

The student is from a broken home. She has just been jilted by her boyfriend, she has had dealing with drugs, she has also been involved in two thefts.

They both give different variations on what happened in the park.

Answer me honestly who would you believe....the bank manager or student. 

In your case I would believe the bank manager but I don't really understand the analogy as Jeremy was hardly John the Baptist..

[Caroline R]

Of course I know that. Anji Greaves had the champagne on ice with journalists from the Sun in a top London hotel boudoir with a banner reading "FAITH,TRUTH,JUSTICE..WELCOME HOME JEREMY" and would have pocketed the £50,000 cheque on offer had she not put it down her bra or put it inside her garter first.

What an odd thing to say! And you know nothing of the sort! I would just like to know what century you think she belonged to? I know 1985 was a while ago but I'm sure 'garters' were just a tad before that? 

[Caroline R]

In your case I would believe the bank manager but I don't really understand the analogy as Jeremy was hardly John the Baptist..

No analogy, the point being that Julie lied about the visit to the bank!!

[Steve_uk]

What an odd thing to say! And you know nothing of the sort! I would just like to know what century you think she belonged to? I know 1985 was a while ago but I'm sure 'garters' were just a tad before that? 

Compared to some of the posts I have read this week mine are as pure as the driven snow. I know the Anji Greaves story because it's in the Claire Powell book,and Ms. Greaves should sue if it was inaccurate.