Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[Caroline R]

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.

w

It's the reason why the cheque book fraud needed to come out at all that (to me) is important. When Mugford told her tale, she would have been asked if there was anything that the defense might know that could damage her as a witness. She knew that Jeremy knew about the scam and 'had' to come clean. EP them just made the best of it by staging a grand confession by a remorseful Mugford. There was really no danger of Dovey being asked as a witness because the defense were under the impression that they went to the bank of their own accord - I believe the day was chosen carefully because it was SJ's day off and so (although there in an official capacity) he didn't make a statement. Obviously and without question Dovey was influenced by his superiors and the presence of a police officer - just the fact that it was arranged and to have the officer present and his explanation about them being important witness's in a murder case would tell him that he needed to comply. It's ludicrous to argue that this was all above board.

[lookout]

What a scheming " whatsaname ".!

[maggie]

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?

Hi Bridget, I don't really think Dovey was particularly misleading in so far as he told it as it was on the day.  On rereading his statement it may very well be that Dovey was never involved in any cover up.  All decisions were made by a different department, he stated this categorically, all he had to do was listen to the story go through the required motions and then report back to what is now the fraud department.  Any decision was made in that department so he was very probably telling the truth about what happened that day. He was a small cog and may not have known much or anything about the arrangements anyway so was able to answer honestly about what occurred on the day.  So I agree after all, he may not have lied at all but that doesn't mean arrangements hadn't been made with the fraud department to accept their apology and not press charges. imo

[susan]

steve wow I sense you are somewhat supporting Jeremy in your post in that maybe if he had had a firm of lawyers say from the working class district of the North who called a spade a spade he may have been found innocent.  I had a sneaky feeling underneath all your talk you were being swayed towards Jeremy being innocent.

[maggie]

steve wow I sense you are somewhat supporting Jeremy in your post in that maybe if he had had a firm of lawyers say from the working class district of the North who called a spade a spade he may have been found innocent.  I had a sneaky feeling underneath all your talk you were being swayed towards Jeremy being innocent.

[maggie]

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.

Well said ngb.

[lookout]

Well said ngb.

My sentiments too,Maggie.

[Caroline R]

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

No he wasn't lying and Maggie didn't say he was but he was most certainly influenced by the fact that it was all arranged prior to his knowledge and he states that he had to consult with his superiors. It's blindingly obvious exactly what occurred, but if you chose to believe it was just all a bit of a misunderstanding, that's down to you. However, as with the panic button, nothing you or anyone else says will convince me that this wasn't a deliberate attempt to make Mugford seem like a credible witness and in doing so, they engineered the bank situation so the cheque book fraud could not be used by the defense to discredit Mugford!! Mugford adamantly refuses to admit that an appointment was arranged and that the meeting was conducted in the presence of a police officer and yet Dovey insists that is was prior arranged and that the officer was present. i believe Dovey and as such, would ask again why there is no statement from the attending police officer! Mugford made her statement in 2002 it seems like the passage of time has not affected her inability to tell the truth.

Just read that back and it sounds a bit snippy. It's not meant to but I am getting frustrated by this blackberry and it's predictive text. It keeps putting words in my mouth - a little like Dovey's superiors and the attending police officer - although a little less subtly.

[Caroline R]

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?

Of course not, the deceit was certainly not his!

[susan]

Hi ngb  steve was obviously brought up without being taught manners and respect and even lads from tough Northern backgrounds have manners he has lost his on his way.He is quite arrogant and pompous with little or no knowledge on the Jeremy Bamber case.  I would have to say he appears to have a large chip on his shoulder which is a shame really as I am sure he is quite an intelligent man underneath all his rudeness and nonsense.  His defense of Julie coming from such a basic working class background his words not mine he seems to use this as an excuse for her not knowing right from wrong.

[Lugg]

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.

Yes I know. That is what I am questioning. The fact that she WASN'T granted imminity and just that the police chose not to prosecute means surely that she can still be prosecuted for those crimes if found that they purgered themselves? If they were given immunity then they could never be prosecuted for those crimes. But if just "let off" then they could still be prosecuted if circumstances changed? That's all I'm saying.

[Jane]

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.

And if I may be permitted to add to your very eloquent post, Neil, I would like to point out that Steve is very quick off the mark to complain of perceived insults to spotless Julie about whom we all know something, but he doesn't hold back in delivering insults to those of us about who he knows precisely NOTHING couched as "Whoever you are", "What you all fail to realize", "Psychobabble". It seems he would convey to us all that he has more professional knowledge of the case than the rest of us put together when in truth, most of that knowledge MAY have come from nothing more academic than the books written after the case and cannot be said to be entirely accurate.

[Jane]

Hi ngb  steve was obviously brought up without being taught manners and respect and even lads from tough Northern backgrounds have manners he has lost his on his way.He is quite arrogant and pompous with little or no knowledge on the Jeremy Bamber case.  I would have to say he appears to have a large chip on his shoulder which is a shame really as I am sure he is quite an intelligent man underneath all his rudeness and nonsense.  His defense of Julie coming from such a basic working class background his words not mine he seems to use this as an excuse for her not knowing right from wrong.

Beautifully put, Susan

[Caroline R]

Hi ngb  steve was obviously brought up without being taught manners and respect and even lads from tough Northern backgrounds have manners he has lost his on his way.He is quite arrogant and pompous with little or no knowledge on the Jeremy Bamber case.  I would have to say he appears to have a large chip on his shoulder which is a shame really as I am sure he is quite an intelligent man underneath all his rudeness and nonsense.  His defense of Julie coming from such a basic working class background his words not mine he seems to use this as an excuse for her not knowing right from wrong.

Hi Susan, I think most of us here are from a working class back ground and proud to be so. You're right, he does seem to have a massive chip on his shoulder and his arrogance seems to have no bounds. This does however seem to be a recent side to his character - perhaps Steve now sees himself as an expert on the Bamber case and the rest of us merely plebs. My advice to him would be to hold off on the Mastermind application forms just yet!

[susan]

Hello Caroline  steve has changed recently and getting bolder by the minute I have not yet decided if this is due to him thinking he is now an expert on the case or he is on the defensive as he is now totally out of his depth especially with ngb.