Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[Steve_uk]

Read the statement! And I'm not surprised it only took you a short while to write, it's the same stuff you always write.

I read through it 10 minutes ago whilst Lugg and yourself were tattling on. Now where did Julie lie..http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1165.0.html

[Lugg]

After having just written one of my best posts #703 off the cuff in less than two minutescould you please explain the Dovey statement which I took to signify that the girls were going to pay money back that they had fraudulently obtained. As for your point tyler I'm afraid that the murders were indeed done in a very short space of time as DCI Wilkinson cycled the route to White House Farm from Goldhanger in 6(six)minutes.

I can well believe it. It's rubbish.

[Steve_uk]

Steve, do you honestly believe that Julie couldn't have stopped the murders?

Vidvic as I say I believe Julie was sidetracked with an incredibly stressful moment of her career and knowing how she has advanced in that career she probably was a perfectionist all the way through it in a way I never was. I think she saw Jeremy as the practical joker that he was and humoured him in some of the party antics one can read about in the books on the case and took the murder plot in the same vein. Do you think Robert Boutflour is to be admonished for not acting upon Jeremy's "I could easily kill my parents" or is it because Julie wrote an account of her life of nearly two years spent in Jeremy's company condensed into 14 pages which makes it appear all the more dramatic,or maybe because she was a pretty young woman that she was picked on whereas the old man was not.

[vidvic]

Vidvic as I say I believe Julie was sidetracked with an incredibly stressful moment of her career and knowing how she has advanced in that career she probably was a perfectionist all the way through it in a way I never was. I think she saw Jeremy as the practical joker that he was an humoured him in some of the party antics one can read about in the books on the case and took the murder plot in the same vein. Do you think Robert Boutflour is to be admonished for not acting upon Jeremy's "I could easily kill my parents" or is it because Julie wrote an account of her life of nearly two years spent in Jeremy's company condensed into 14 pages which makes it appear all the more dramatic,or maybe because she was a pretty young woman that she was picked on whereas the old man was not.

I meant you no malice in asking, I believe most of her story, But the person she was then and the person she is now are two very different things, in my honest opinion.

[Bridget]

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.

Sorry to drag this back up, but what do you make of this from the appeal?

The first limb of ground 5 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were given immunity.

As Mr Temple points out, in answer to that aspect of the matter, Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were not granted immunity as such but a decision was taken by the DPP not to prosecute. We therefore read this ground as being a complaint that the documentation relating to the decision not to prosecute each of the witnesses was not disclosed to the defence.


Has further evidence turned up on that issue? If so, was it included in the last CCRC application?

[vidvic]

Can I ask you another Steve?

why do you think Bamber sent her a note whilst they were both being interviewed?

[Caroline R]

I read through it 10 minutes ago whilst Lugg and yourself were tattling on. Now where did Julie lie..http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1165.0.html

Julie said she and SB went to the bank alone and of their own volition - she goes into detail about how they were afraid to go in, how they tentatively approached a cashier to ask to see the manager. How she did all the talking because Susan was scared!! Turns out it was all BS because they didn't go alone at all, they met SJ on his day off and HE did all of the talking and made sure the bank wouldn't prosecute the cases 'star witnesses'. I seriously can't believe that you needed me to point this out, it's been mentioned so many times but Dovey's statement is clear enough without my explanation - 'he' had no reason to lie!!

[vidvic]

Julie said she and SB went to the bank alone and of their own volition - she goes into detail about how they were afraid to go in, how they tentatively approached a cashier to ask to see the manager. How she did all the talking because Susan was scared!! Turns out it was all BS because they didn't go alone at all, they met SJ on his day off and HE did all of the talking and made sure the bank wouldn't prosecute the cases 'star witnesses'. I seriously can't believe that you needed me to point this out, it's been mentioned so many times but Dovey's statement is clear enough without my explanation - 'he' had no reason to lie!!

Trouble is Caroline, as you'll see when the appeal notes get to that point, he said at the appeal that he couldn't stand by that.

[Caroline R]

Trouble is Caroline, as you'll see when the appeal notes get to that point, he said at the appeal that he couldn't stand by that.

What? That he totally imagined a man being with them and that the meeting was prior arranged? I have read his statement and it is from the 2002 appeal and he is quite clear about what happened and who was present.

What makes it worse is that he was never even called as a witness at the trial!!

[Bridget]

What? That he totally imagined a man being with them and that the meeting was prior arranged? I have read his statement and it is from the 2002 appeal and he is quite clear about what happened and who was present.

What makes it worse is that he was never even called as a witness at the trial!!

No, he was certain that there was a police officer present but couldn't identify that officer as Stan Jones. He also stated that the officer had not put him under any pressure at all to drop any prosecution. So what we have is a difference as to whether or not a police officer attended, and I don't really see how you can decide who is right. Personally I go with Dovey being a reliable witness with no axe to grind and so I believe a police officer was present. But since he says the officer did not put him under any pressure I can't see why anyone would need to lie about it.

[vidvic]

What? That he totally imagined a man being with them and that the meeting was prior arranged? I have read his statement and it is from the 2002 appeal and he is quite clear about what happened and who was present.

What makes it worse is that he was never even called as a witness at the trial!!

But he was a witness in 2002 and there were inconsistencies between his statement and his testimony.

[Caroline R]

No, he was certain that there was a police officer present but couldn't identify that officer as Stan Jones. He also stated that the officer had not put him under any pressure at all to drop any prosecution. So what we have is a difference as to whether or not a police officer attended, and I don't really see how you can decide who is right. Personally I go with Dovey being a reliable witness with no axe to grind and so I believe a police officer was present. But since he says the officer did not put him under any pressure I can't see why anyone would need to lie about it.

And yet, Julie Mugford lied about it! Why would he need to be put under pressure? His statement gives the impression that he was told from 'his' own superior's what would be happening and as the meeting had been prior arranged the details were quite obviously discussed before Dovey was involved - he was after all, only a stand in manager.

[Caroline R]

But he was a witness in 2002.

Vic, there is a CLEAR discrepancy between Dovey's and Mugfords statements and no one will convince me that it wasn't on purpose. If Mugford was 'seen' to have gone to the bank of her own volition, it would obviously make her a better witness in the eyes of the prosecution.

[Bridget]

And yet, Julie Mugford lied about it! Why would he need to be put under pressure? His statement gives the impression that he was told from 'his' own superior's what would be happening and as the meeting had been prior arranged the details were quite obviously discussed before Dovey was involved - he was after all, only a stand in manager.

I don't see how you can say that she lied about it with any certainty. There are 3 separate accounts, hers, Susan's and Dovey's and his conflicts with theirs. I prefer his because I see him as neutral, but at the same time, since I can't see any reason for them to lie (especially since they couldn't have got away with the lie because of him) I think they were just mistaken.

He specifically states that he made the decision not to prosecute himself.

[Caroline R]

I don't see how you can say that she lied about it with any certainty. There are 3 separate accounts, hers, Susan's and Dovey's and his conflicts with theirs. I prefer his because I see him as neutral, but at the same time, since I can't see any reason for them to lie (especially since they couldn't have got away with the lie because of him) I think they were just mistaken.

He specifically states that he made the decision not to prosecute himself.

Seriously?? They forgot that they didn't actually ask the cashier to see the manager? That they were accompanied by a police office? That JM didn't do most of the talking (in fact Dovey states that she didn't say anything). The reason for them to lie is that as I have just stated, if they were seen to go to the bank of their own volition, it makes them a better witness than if cohered. Sorry Bridget but I certainly don't buy for one moment that they just forgot or were (like a lot of people in this case) simply 'mistaken'