72 page witness statement of Ann Eaton, made to COLP on 14 / 08/ 1991

[Steve_uk]

And leaving none of his bloodied footprints in doing so? Now that suggestion is bordering on the rediculous. He struggled in a life and death struggle and he leaves no forensic evidence whatsoever? Now can you see why Taff Jones held onto the true facts that Sheila did it even when the relatives came blundering into his office. An experienced policeman and a veteran being so wrong on such a vital thing? Can't you see how he was taken off the case and someone else who were in favour for some reason of the relatives version of events. And how convenient the forensic evidence of footprints of the perpetrator left out of the equation? Come on Steve most of the forensic evidence was left out of the trial and was not presented to the jury at all.

If Jeremy wore a wetsuit and gloves there would be very little forensic evidence: Jeremy shoots the twins in their beds then withdraws,he shoots June in bed whereby bullets penetrate the pillow,Sheila is led by the hand like a lamb to the slaughter,and an enfeebled Nevill with shots to his head manages to get a hand to the gun,his grip finally succumbing to the vigour of a younger man in a vain attempt to stay alive..

[Jane]

So the 14 forensic reasons which are not mine, are not stupid ?

Aha, so now you're admitting that they're not yours.

[Caroline]

The carpet that was removed ? Or the gun butt ? How else would the butt have fallen off.

Fallen off? Really? Where in any of the evidence does it say the butt had fallen off?

[Caroline]

So why have all his appeals dismally failed ?

Show me the alledged photographs.

The jury believed Julie.

the jury were NOT convinced by JM's evidence at all which is why they asked to hear the silencer evidence again. HOWEVER the information which was given to them was the judges notes and the notes were INCORRECT because there were aspects of the evidence that the judge didn't understand!!

[Caroline]

If Jeremy wore a wetsuit and gloves there would be very little forensic evidence: Jeremy shoots the twins in their beds then withdraws,he shoots June in bed whereby bullets penetrate the pillow,Sheila is led by the hand like a lamb to the slaughter,and an enfeebled Nevill with shots to his head manages to get a hand to the gun,his grip finally succumbing to the vigour of a younger man in a vain attempt to stay alive..

There would be blood on the wet suit but the idea that he wore it is ludicrous and was simply the ramblings of an old man determined to point the finger at his nephew!!

[Adam]

the jury were NOT convinced by JM's evidence at all which is why they asked to hear the silencer evidence again. HOWEVER the information which was given to them was the judges notes and the notes were INCORRECT because there were aspects of the evidence that the judge didn't understand!!

The defence said her WS had a ring of truth. They were unable to find holes in her WS.

They challenged her honesty in court. Mentioning the cheque book fraud & caravan break in. Julie maintained she was telling the truth regarding the massacre.

How do you know they were not convinced by Julies evidence ?

[Adam]

Aha, so now you're admitting that they're not yours.

Already said several days ago,  I saw it on Mumsnet.

[grahameb]

If Jeremy wore a wetsuit and gloves there would be very little forensic evidence: Jeremy shoots the twins in their beds then withdraws,he shoots June in bed whereby bullets penetrate the pillow,Sheila is led by the hand like a lamb to the slaughter,and an enfeebled Nevill with shots to his head manages to get a hand to the gun,his grip finally succumbing to the vigour of a younger man in a vain attempt to stay alive..

Unfortunately your whole argument rests entirely on the first word you wrote. IF

[grahameb]

There would be blood on the wet suit but the idea that he wore it is ludicrous and was simply the ramblings of an old man determined to point the finger at his nephew!!

I have said it before. I used to have a wetsuit and can say without fear of contradiction that they are absorbent and it would have been useless in protecting him from any blood in this rediculous scenario. In fact it would probably have held a complete record of his actions. I also point out yet again that there must have been forensic evidence at the scene itself if there had been a fight for life between Ralph and his assailant. WHERE IS IT?

[Caroline]

The defence said her WS had a ring of truth. They were unable to find holes in her WS.

They challenged her honesty in court. Mentioning the cheque book fraud & caravan break in. Julie maintained she was telling the truth regarding the massacre.

How do you know they were not convinced by Julies evidence ?

The jury weren't convinced by Julie's evidence which is WHY they asked to hear the silencer evidence AGAIN - two of them still weren't convinced!! The 'ring of truth' comment is taken out of context and we would need to know WHY and WHEN it was said - together with the rest of the conversation. It was simply a comment made in Wilkes's book which he didn't elaborate on!! Julie was HARDLY going to announce to the court that she had been lying - the fact that she ONLY cried and was often illegible when being questioned by the defense speaks volumes!! She composed herself well enough to be question by the prosecution!! Quite a ploy!!

[grahameb]

The defence said her WS had a ring of truth. They were unable to find holes in her WS.

They challenged her honesty in court. Mentioning the cheque book fraud & caravan break in. Julie maintained she was telling the truth regarding the massacre.

How do you know they were not convinced by Julies evidence ?

For fear of becoming boring by repeating the same thing, which others appear to be willingly blind to? They were ignorant of her deal with the NOTW. She effectively lied about this to the judge in his chambers.

[grahameb]

Already said several days ago,  I saw it on Mumsnet.

Did you get any good recipes?

[grahameb]

The jury weren't convinced by Julie's evidence which is WHY they asked to hear the silencer evidence AGAIN - two of them still weren't convinced!! The 'ring of truth' comment is taken out of context and we would need to know WHY and WHEN it was said - together with the rest of the conversation. It was simply a comment made in Wilkes's book which he didn't elaborate on!! Julie was HARDLY going to announce to the court that she had been lying - the fact that she ONLY cried and was often illegible when being questioned by the defense speaks volumes!! She composed herself well enough to be question by the prosecution!! Quite a ploy!!

If I had a defence team that said that kind of thing aqbout a prosecution witness I'd change my defence team. It sounds a very unusual thing for them to say.

[Caroline]

Fallen off? Really? Where in any of the evidence does it say the butt had fallen off?

Adam? You made a claim that the rifle butt had fallen off - where is your evidence for this? Which statement was this in and where is the picture for evidence? Before replying though, remember that there are pictures of the rifle laying on top of SC - butt unbroken!!

[Adam]

For fear of becoming boring by repeating the same thing, which others appear to be willingly blind to? They were ignorant of her deal with the NOTW. She effectively lied about this to the judge in his chambers.

Where does it say that ? Not in Wilkes's book. There is no record of the court transcripts.