Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[Caroline R]

Julie alleges that Bamber confessed to her that that he had hired Mathew Macdonald to carry out the killings


From pages 11 and 12
“About 8.30 pm the same day Ds JONES and Dc CLARKE left the house leaving
Jeremy and myself alone. We went and sat in the lounge and I think the
first thing Jeremy said was that he was glad the day was over. I than said
to Jeremy, "Did you do it?"
He said,"No, I couldn't have done it, Matthew did it," I knew to whom
he was referring.
He said that before he had phoned me that morning Matthew had phoned from
the house, which I took to be the farm, and said that everything had been
completed and proceeded to tell him about his father who he stated that for
his age he was very strong and had put up a fight. He said that Matthew
had said he was sorry because during the fight with his father he had had
a mental blank and had fired 7 shots into him. I asked Jerry if the twins
and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were still asleep and
didn't wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself.
under the orders of Matthew who then put a bible on her chest. He told me that he had told Matthew where the gun was going to be, how to get into
the house. He had found out what bedroom they had all been sleeping in as
Sheila and the twins frequently slept in different rooms when they visited
the farm. He also told Matthew 'how to leave the house so it appeared locked,
and the route back to Goldhanger. I asked him how much he paid Matthew and
he said "£2,000."


It’s worth comparing Julie Mugford’s dishonest account of the visit to the bank with her account of Jeremy’s confession, which has a chilling similarity to it from the point of view of style. The addition of incidental details, which seemingly give a ring of truth to the story, is present in both. References to the person's mental state add a sense of realism. For example, Matthew had experienced a "mental blank" and Susan was "a basket case".
 

“The date was not significant in the sense of appointments, it was a day we plucked up courage to go”

"I asked Jerry if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were still asleep and
didn't wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself.
under the orders of Matthew who then put a bible on her chest."

Yes, I know what you mean, she seems to embroider details in order to emphasise particular aspects of realism. Or as Steve would say, she over eggs the pudding!!

[Patti]

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.

Morning

Not only did JM lie but SB lied about it too....Makes you wonder if they lied about the time of the phone calls too....You can't lie in one respect and expect to believed in another.  If it was SJ that was present then that presence did have an influence in one way or another, he was there as a mean to support the girls...why else would a male copper be there?  Not stopping got loads to do...

Have a brill day... :D :D :D :D

[Caroline R]

It all depends on what is meant by "pressure" doesn't it? I wonder how many banks wouldn't prosecute fraud?

The appointment was pre-arranged above Dovey's head. It's clear that the out-come to let them off was also pre-arranged and there was never any doubt that they would be let off. The whole thing was a formality and an exercise to thwart any attempt by the defense to discredit the 'star' witness. It was important that they were 'seen' to have gone of their own accord which is why there is no statement from the accompanying officer (who I still believe was Jones) and why Dovey never ended up being at trial. The defense didn't know the full story behind the cheque book fraud saga and had they realised I believe they would most definitely have used it and I don't care what anyone says, it most certainly does highlight deceit imo!!

[Bridget]

So the whole truth wasn't heard and you don't think that's deceitful? As far as the cashier goes, read JM's statement again and then read Dovey's. That is all I am saying because we will never agree.

The problem I have with this is that given the circumstances of JM and SBs confessions to the cheque fraud I don't find it the least bit surprising that they, either of their own volition or encouraged by police, tried to limit the damage by visiting the bank. I still see them as a pair of dishonest thieves trying to save their own skins however the visit happened. The fact that they were 'let off' to me just translates as 'got away with it' and doesn't make them any less criminal to my mind than had they have been prosecuted.

I don't believe for one minute that it was their consciences that lead them to go to the bank, but Dovey apparently did, despite the fact that it would have been easier for him to believe that had they NOT been accompanied by a police officer.

So, given that the benefits of lying about the police officer's presence were so small when weighed against the risk that Dovey would blow their cover by saying something completely different, I just don't see the point of lying about it. The judge in his summing up pointed out that it was the dishonesty behind the fraud that the jury were being asked to weigh up against the truth of her evidence, and the presence of the police officer makes no difference to that. It might have made a difference if the girls were frogmarched there by the officer against their will, or if the officer had taken the visit as an opportunity to persuade the bank not to prosecute, but from Dovey's comments I don't believe that was the case either.

[lookout]

My giddy aunt,,there's some perjury abound. We'd all be behind bars if we committed the same.

[maggie]

The appointment was pre-arranged above Dovey's head. It's clear that the out-come to let them off was also pre-arranged and there was never any doubt that they would be let off. The whole thing was a formality and an exercise to thwart any attempt by the defense to discredit the 'star' witness. It was important that they were 'seen' to have gone of their own accord which is why there is no statement from the accompanying officer (who I still believe was Jones) and why Dovey never ended up being at trial. The defense didn't know the full story behind the cheque book fraud saga and had they realised I believe they would most definitely have used it and I don't care what anyone says, it most certainly does highlight deceit imo!!

And imo Caroline.  It's ludicrous that they were let off with a caution for stealing from a bank.  It just doesn't make any sense and as I said before, it was a crime which highlights how deceitful Julie and Susan Battersby were.  They planned this crime, as far as we are aware (unless we believe steve) Jeremy had nothing to do with it.  It was thought up and executed by those two girls, they were totally responsible for what they did, he wasn't involved. There can have been only one reason why they weren't charged Dovey would have been given orders from higher up the chain, as a loyal employee he was just following orders imo..  Police favours and all that 

[lookout]

Try and get away with the same thing today,Maggie.! 100 days community if you're lucky.

[Bridget]

That I believe was a carefully worded statement in order to get round the fact that she was granted immunity. If therefore she was not granted immunity then surely it means that the police can still prosecute, because such a situation leaves her wide open to prosecution if just one piece of "new" evidence is found. But to be honest I can see right through the judge's remarks and I think most people here can also.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you, the decision states quite categorically that she was not given immunity, nothing carefully worded about it. Either she was or she wasn't.

[Bridget]

And imo Caroline.  It's ludicrous that they were let off with a caution for stealing from a bank.  It just doesn't make any sense and as I said before, it was a crime which highlights how deceitful Julie and Susan Battersby were.  They planned this crime, as far as we are aware (unless we believe steve) Jeremy had nothing to do with it.  It was thought up and executed by those two girls, they were totally responsible for what they did, he wasn't involved. There can have been only one reason why they weren't charged Dovey would have been given orders from higher up the chain, as a loyal employee he was just following orders imo..  Police favours and all that 

They didn't even get cautions did they?

[Bridget]

And imo Caroline.  It's ludicrous that they were let off with a caution for stealing from a bank.  It just doesn't make any sense and as I said before, it was a crime which highlights how deceitful Julie and Susan Battersby were.  They planned this crime, as far as we are aware (unless we believe steve) Jeremy had nothing to do with it.  It was thought up and executed by those two girls, they were totally responsible for what they did, he wasn't involved. There can have been only one reason why they weren't charged Dovey would have been given orders from higher up the chain, as a loyal employee he was just following orders imo..  Police favours and all that 

So now Dovey is lying when he said he made the decision himself?

[maggie]

The problem I have with this is that given the circumstances of JM and SBs confessions to the cheque fraud I don't find it the least bit surprising that they, either of their own volition or encouraged by police, tried to limit the damage by visiting the bank. I still see them as a pair of dishonest thieves trying to save their own skins however the visit happened. The fact that they were 'let off' to me just translates as 'got away with it' and doesn't make them any less criminal to my mind than had they have been prosecuted.

I don't believe for one minute that it was their consciences that lead them to go to the bank, but Dovey apparently did, despite the fact that it would have been easier for him to believe that had they NOT been accompanied by a police officer.

So, given that the benefits of lying about the police officer's presence were so small when weighed against the risk that Dovey would blow their cover by saying something completely different, I just don't see the point of lying about it. The judge in his summing up pointed out that it was the dishonesty behind the fraud that the jury were being asked to weigh up against the truth of her evidence, and the presence of the police officer makes no difference to that. It might have made a difference if the girls were frogmarched there by the officer against their will, or if the officer had taken the visit as an opportunity to persuade the bank not to prosecute, but from Dovey's comments I don't believe that was the case either.

I don't believe it was the case either Bridget.  I do believe any discussions and bargaining would have happened at a higher level and behind closed doors.  We have no idea what Doveywas told or if any pressure was brought to bear.  A cousin of mine was a Bank Manager at this time.  The old type bank manager had a reputation of power but they weren't really all powerful, they had to behave themselves and take orders from higher up the chain or no doubt their promotion or even their job could be in jeopardy so we really don't know what went on behind the scenes imo.
The police wanted Julie Mugford to be a credible witness in a murder trial...I'm sure it's not the last time such 'arrangements' have been made.

[maggie]

So now Dovey is lying when he said he made the decision himself?

Very possibly Bridget, I don't believe anything is totally out in the open.  I do believe arrangements are made to assist police. I don't trust any of them and if the police want a job done they will find a way, I'll stroke your back ....does go on.    It's how the system works in my opinion.  They explain they have a murder trial where thay need to use JM as a witness but they need her as clean as possible.  They are sure he's done the murder but need her as star witness to nail him...so they can put him away for life.......

[lookout]

Well it certainly wouldn't have been in Doveys' interest to have attended court,,would it.?
What a fiasco that could have been.

[Bridget]

I don't believe it was the case either Bridget.  I do believe any discussions and bargaining would have happened at a higher level and behind closed doors.  We have no idea what Doveywas told or if any pressure was brought to bear.  A cousin of mine was a Bank Manager at this time.  The old type bank manager had a reputation of power but they weren't really all powerful, they had to behave themselves and take orders from higher up the chain or no doubt their promotion or even their job could be in jeopardy so we really don't know what went on behind the scenes imo.
The police wanted Julie Mugford to be a credible witness in a murder trial...I'm sure it's not the last time such 'arrangements' have been made.

Well as I've said, the lack of a prosecution doesn't to my mind bring her any more credibility, in fact the fact that she wasn't prosecuted turns me against her somewhat, but I accept that others may have different views.

If what you say about the bank's decision is true, do you not think that Dovey's statements and evidence are incredibly misleading, given that he will have been aware of what was being asked of him about pressure, wherever it was coming from?

[ngb1066]

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.

Steve_UK - I do not propose to respond in detail to your points because I would only be repeating myself and I see that other members have already challenged you on several points.  However I have to respond to the paragraph above highlighted in blue.  You are thoroughly insulting as well as inaccurate.  For the record I am not a "public school type", I attended the local comprehensive and for most of my childhood lived in a council house.  I have experience in different fields, including law, and I certainly never adopted a "lackadaisical attitude" to my cases.  I take particular offence to your implication that I am xenophobic, homophobic and racist.  I was for many years very politically active and opposition to such attitutes was fundamental to my beliefs and work. You know nothing about me but choose to denigrate me in effort to bolster your opposition to my arguments.  I did not attack you, I simply gave an honest and I believe objective assessment in response to a question from a forum member.  Your snide attack on me does you no credit, and certainly does not further your arguments.