Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[lookout]

Another fair and very well executed post by this clever man by whom we should at times take note of how his debating technique comes across. I tend to be the proverbial bull in a china shop.

[ngb1066]

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?

Despite what was said at the appeal, my understanding is that immunity was granted.  Further information has been discovered since the appeal in documents formerly held under PII and from other sources.

 

[Caroline R]

I'm sure Steve will see the error of his ways,,,as he isn't afraid to apologise. I have my own reasons for " treading carefully " with issues involving Steve. It's a sixth sense that I have. I could well be wrong,,but I don't think so.
I don't mean to be patronising/condescending towards Steve,BTW. I either like a person,or I don't,,,and I don't get any bad vibes from him.

Hi Lookout - I have no thoughts about him either way but he had neither right nor cause to speak to Lugg that way and there was no excuse. I hope your faith in him is justified - I guess we shall see.

[susan]

Hi ngb  steve uk is certainly showing his true colours now.  He is behaving like a man who has lost the argument so has to revert to this type of nasty unprovoked attack on Lugg who has always be very civil to him.  I am quite shocked to be honest at his behaviour.

[ngb1066]

I'm not too bothered what is written about me here and we really should get back to the Jeremy Bamber case. I have apologized to ngb1066 whom it appears on this site is held up as some kind of eminence grise but I'm afraid I reserve the right to criticize him whatever his status in life may be:this is what democracy is all about.Specifically two points I would object to whoever they came from but coming from a barrister it adds more credence to them. The most damning allegation which he dresses up in legal jargon as a fact but cannot possibly know for sure is that Julie gave Jeremy sleeping tablets to test out on his parents and connived in this procedure. This is fundamental to the case so you'll have to excuse the repetition but I will argue until I'm blue in the face(or blush) that Julie left these tablets lying around and there is no proof whatsoever that she was involved in any harm caused by them,which as it turned out there was none. Secondly dressed up as fact is that Julie conspired to import cannabis from Amsterdam as if this was some kind of joint mission between her and Jeremy and therefore she is culpable in law. Julie could not possibly take the blame for tubes of toothpaste stuffed with drugs in Jeremy's suitcase carried by Jeremy and smuggled by Jeremy through customs at Dover. Several times I have accompanied schoolchildren on trips to France and if they did this kind of thing when my back was turned as has happened with smoke alarms,knives and so on it's regrettable but no way am I responsible in law for the actions of others in this regard.As for the site in general I wouldn't like us to fall out,I count you all as friends and believe that we have far more in common than what divides us. We all want justice done and this will mean different things to different members. Some of the posts in recent days have raised eyebrows and I'd like to think that we can stick to the advertising code of legal,decent,honest and truthful as a guide so as to keep this site as a record where outside parties can look in and feel that we do have a sensible contribution to make.

Steve_UK -  Thank you for your (limited) apology.  I agree entirely that you, like all forum members, are free to challenge me on anything I say.  I claim no status in life or on this forum.  My views are no more valid than any other member.  We all bring our own experiences of life to the case and form our own judgements.  We all have our own particular areas of expertise, for example those members who are able to help us in relation to mental health issues and treatment.  I have learned a lot from other members here.  My own main area of expertise is the law (I also have some knowledge of firearms) and when I post on legal matters I try to be accurate, clear and objective. 


We will just have to disagree on the question of Julie's role in supplying sleeping tablets to Jeremy and in relation to the Amsterdam drugs run.  I have formed my view not upon conjecture but upon a consideration of Julie's own statements.  Whether you like it or not Julie was guilty of importing and supplying drugs upon the basis of a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins.  If charged she would have been advised to plead guilty, in order to receive a reduced prison sentence.  Your analogy with you as a teacher in charge of a party of schoolchildren is not apposite.  In that example you presumably had no knowledge of the contraband carried.   Julie was present when the drugs were purchased, when they were concealed in toothpaste tubes and when they were smuggled into the country.  She was also then undoubtedly involved in using and supplying part of the consignment.

On a final point, I avoid what you describe as "legal jargon".  When asked I try to explain the relevant law in terms which are understandable.
 

[maggie]

Formaldehyde is used in embalming,Maggie.

Also used for psychosis and I have given such injections but cannot remember how it helps with psychosis???

[lookout]

I've just been reading the psychopathy results from Jeremys' representatives who were responsible in reporting 27 different aspects of his " mental ability,or not,,,and have come to the conclusion that the man is more sane and balanced than some individuals outside of prison.
No anger,,no psychopathy,,no viciousness,,,no intentions to harm/hurt,,,no mental disorder,,,no thought of violence.
If I'm being honest,,I wouldn't pass that test,,,along with thousands of others. It's a state of mind,,and one that you can't hide from. It's impossible to disguise when you're wracked in anger.
I'm not by my nature to be an angry person. It's others who create that anger within,,through incompetence and lack of common sense,red-tape and bureaucracy. Trying to control anger is trying to do the impossible.
Jeremy had no problem at all,because he didn't fit any of the categories mentioned,,and afterall,it's in the mind whether a person could,or could not murder another. 28 years of unchanged behaviour of this man should tell those in the know that the man isn't a danger at all,nor a murderer,and has been used to advantage by others. I think it's sinful and cruel beyond compare. 

[Jane]

Hi ngb  steve uk is certainly showing his true colours now.  He is behaving like a man who has lost the argument so has to revert to this type of nasty unprovoked attack on Lugg who has always be very civil to him.  I am quite shocked to be honest at his behaviour.

Susan, hi. I think we can all accept that we can become carried away when we are talking about/defending those things we feel passionately. It maybe that later we find we have given offence and have to apologize for something we have inadvertantly said. I have, in the past, been bought to task by Steve, who has objected to something I've said. It isn't my habit to deliberately give offence so I apologized. However, when I read what he had said to Neil, and later, to Lugg, there is NO doubt in my mind that the words were INTENDED to give offence. I have yet to witness a LESS gracious and begrudging apology than that which he offered Neil. Quite how he goes about apologizing to Lugg with true sincerity and humility remains to be seen.

[Caroline R]

I've just been reading the psychopathy results from Jeremys' representatives who were responsible in reporting 27 different aspects of his " mental ability,or not,,,and have come to the conclusion that the man is more sane and balanced than some individuals outside of prison.
No anger,,no psychopathy,,no viciousness,,,no intentions to harm/hurt,,,no mental disorder,,,no thought of violence.
If I'm being honest,,I wouldn't pass that test,,,along with thousands of others. It's a state of mind,,and one that you can't hide from. It's impossible to disguise when you're wracked in anger.
I'm not by my nature to be an angry person. It's others who create that anger within,,through incompetence and lack of common sense,red-tape and bureaucracy. Trying to control anger is trying to do the impossible.
Jeremy had no problem at all,because he didn't fit any of the categories mentioned,,and afterall,it's in the mind whether a person could,or could not murder another. 28 years of unchanged behaviour of this man should tell those in the know that the man isn't a danger at all,nor a murderer,and has been used to advantage by others. I think it's sinful and cruel beyond compare.

Hi Lookout, I've not read that, is it held on the forum?

[lookout]

Hi Lookout, I've not read that, is it held on the forum?

Hi Caroline,,you'll find it on the Bambertweets site.

[maggie]

I've just been reading the psychopathy results from Jeremys' representatives who were responsible in reporting 27 different aspects of his " mental ability,or not,,,and have come to the conclusion that the man is more sane and balanced than some individuals outside of prison.
No anger,,no psychopathy,,no viciousness,,,no intentions to harm/hurt,,,no mental disorder,,,no thought of violence.
If I'm being honest,,I wouldn't pass that test,,,along with thousands of others. It's a state of mind,,and one that you can't hide from. It's impossible to disguise when you're wracked in anger.
I'm not by my nature to be an angry person. It's others who create that anger within,,through incompetence and lack of common sense,red-tape and bureaucracy. Trying to control anger is trying to do the impossible.
Jeremy had no problem at all,because he didn't fit any of the categories mentioned,,and afterall,it's in the mind whether a person could,or could not murder another. 28 years of unchanged behaviour of this man should tell those in the know that the man isn't a danger at all,nor a murderer,and has been used to advantage by others. I think it's sinful and cruel beyond compare.

lookout, I fail to understand how any person who has read the psychiatric reports on Jeremy Bamber can claim he is a psychopath.
You don't have to be a psychopath to kill but a person surely has various violent instincts and anger and  would be more likely to commit a spare of the moment emotional response rather than a cold and cunningly executed plan with the ability to turn up shortly after as cool as the proverbial cucumber??   In 28 years I think there is one incident of Jeremy Bamber threatening someone with a bottle, no doubt an immediate and emotional response many years ago, hardly surprising in the circumstances. I believe he meditates which keeps him grounded and able to cope.  He is part of the tragedy not the cause of it imo. 

[susan]

Hello april  I myself on occasions found it necessaey to apologise for maybe causing offence and it was done with sincerity and good grace.  I have never seen you post anything that required an apology.  steve's apology to ngb was worth nothing as it was not sincere.  He owes Alias an apology and Lugg but I would be very surprised if they got one.  I am very very disappointed in steve's behaviour and if he was my son I would be totally ashamed of him. We can debate issues without being aggressive and rude and arrogant.  I have always thought that posters who revert to this type of behaviour are unsure of their own ground so become very defensive or they are trying to paint another in a very bad light on the forum.

[ngb1066]

I have apologized to ngb1066 for one allegation I made and that's it. There is no justification for making Julie complicit in drugging Nevill or for her smuggling drugs. It was the cheque fraud which was dropped.

It was not just the cheque fraud.  It was also burglary, importing drugs, supplying drugs (not a single instance but a course of conduct over an extended period), and the various offences she could have been charged with arising out of the murders.  At the very least this would have been attempting to pervert the course of justice or assisting an offender, at worst it could have been murder itself upon the basis of aiding and abetting Jeremy (both before and after).  This was a major decision for the DPP and Julie was very lucky.  She was in very serious trouble indeed, on any view. The decision was taken because it was felt to be essential to secure Julie's full cooperation and to be in a position to present her in the best possible light to the jury.  This was an unusual course as the normal practice where someone agrees to "turn Queen's evidence" (as it is colloquially termed) is for the witness to be prosecuted but receive a substantial reduction in sentence as a reward for assisting the prosecution.  Julie was not only given immunity but she did not receive a police caution, thus avoiding any criminal record and enabling her to pursue her chosen career.

[lookout]

Hello april  I myself on occasions found it necessaey to apologise for maybe causing offence and it was done with sincerity and good grace.  I have never seen you post anything that required an apology.  steve's apology to ngb was worth nothing as it was not sincere.  He owes Alias an apology and Lugg but I would be very surprised if they got one.  I am very very disappointed in steve's behaviour and if he was my son I would be totally ashamed of him. We can debate issues without being aggressive and rude and arrogant.  I have always thought that posters who revert to this type of behaviour are unsure of their own ground so become very defensive or they are trying to paint another in a very bad light on the forum.

Sad to say,Susan,,,he isn't the only one,,but I won't start anything. Or else----------------

[Jane]

......... We can debate issues without being aggressive and rude and arrogant.  I have always thought that posters who revert to this type of behaviour are unsure of their own ground so become very defensive or they are trying to paint another in a very bad light on the forum.

Susan, we can indeed debate on a level which is interesting, stimulating and informative. Posters who feel the need to revert to rude and arrogantly aggressive behaviours mayhave very little ground on which to stand if their only source of knowledge is taken, and treated as absolute truth, from books in which truth can't be verified.