ANN Eaton Notes - CAE/1a (Sheila found on bed with Bible on chest)...

[Kaldin]

I'm not suggesting anything other than that this is not evidence which would stand up to scrutiny.

I understand what you are saying Hartley, but I accept that the photograph which Mike describes exists and therefore am willing to believe in the possibility that Ann Eaton's note of Sheila's location has some basis in reality.  It also agrees with Julie Mugford's account of Jeremy's 'confession'.

Your last sentence is interesting.

I wonder if there's a statement anywhere which shows what Julie said. It would be interesting to see if her account tallies with what Ann said rather than what the photographs actually show. I don't recall Julie saying that Sheila was on the bed, but according to the Appeal document she claimed Jeremy told her that Sheila was told to shoot herself and that the killer placed a Bible on her chest.  Ann also said the Bible was on Sheila's chest. Did Julie tell Ann that, or did Ann tell Julie that?

Julie said all that on 7th September, and I wonder what she actually knew by then - ie, that the Bible was not found on Sheila's chest.

It would also be interesting to know when Ann made those notes.

... Ann Eatons statement that she made to COLP, in 1991, is very interesting, since she is giving her account of how she came to know that Sheila's body was found on the bed. She discusses the possibility that Julie Mugford could have been present when the policeman told Ann that Sheila's body was found on top of the bed, with the bible on her chest, and the rifle next to the body, not on it. The note written up by Ann Eaton, was written up by her, with regard to this matter, on 7th August 1985...

If that's right, Ann wrote those notes before Jeremy allegedly told Julie how the murders had been done. That's interesting because it would indicate that it was Ann who told Julie about the Bible.

I suppose the first thing to establish is whether the Bible was actually on Sheila's chest or not. If it was not, then that would indicate that Jeremy did not tell Julie that.

[Hartley]

I suppose the first thing to establish is whether the Bible was actually on Sheila's chest or not. If it was not, then that would indicate that Jeremy did not tell Julie that.

Other than the possible existence of withheld photographs that Mike keeps referring to I'm not sure how that could be established. Particularly given that there are witness statements from police officers stating that the bible was not on Sheila's chest.

[mike tesko]

This is not evidence - it's the written equivalent of hearsay.

Neighbours to crime scenes are full of theories. Sometimes the press even print them. Are my diary entries of a crime suddenly evidence, contemporaneous or not?

JB's complaint was that the police kept him on hold for 11 minutes, asserted in other sources. Other aspects of these have been quoted as 'the truth'. Are these now lies?

Seriously doubt this would be admissable in court, particularly as any decent judge knows it would be savaged.

Today I was given to understand that there are now 5 million (yes million) documents/items of evidence concerning this case. Going on this, they'll eventually need a very big shredder.

... It is not hearsay that Ann Eaton was told by a police officer where Sheila's body was found, unless the policeman who told her this, cannot be traced, or in the event that he can be traced, that he denies telling Ann Eaton, what she says he told her, and there is no further evidence, or information available, to suggest that what Ann Eaton says is true. In addition to her note, she made witness statements saying precisely what is written, in her note, and since the content of such a witness statement, would be admissible evidence, a court that deals with a case like this, could allow the contents of the note in, on the basis that its contents are supported, by information and evidence, elsewhere, in my opinion...

[Hartley]

... It is not hearsay that Ann Eaton was told by a police officer where Sheila's body was found...

Well actually that's exactly what it is.

You can't trace any supporting corroborating evidence, in fact police officers witness statements contradict Ann's notes.

Your opinion that the body was found on the bed is indeed possible, but this is not the evidence which proves it. 

[mike tesko]

... It is not hearsay that Ann Eaton was told by a police officer where Sheila's body was found...

Well actually that's exactly what it is.

You can't trace any supporting corroborating evidence, in fact police officers witness statements contradict Ann's notes.

Your opinion that the body was found on the bed is indeed possible, but this is not the evidence which proves it.

... The witness statements made for the pokice officers, by the DPP, which gives detail about where Sheila's body was found, and the general circumstances of how she came to die inside the main bedroom, were not statements that were tended into evidence during the trial, and therefore, it was not evidence that the juries decision was acheived by a reliance upon. None of those police officers statements, were stamped with the Chelmsford Crown court stamp, or seal of approval, so, how anyone can say, that the police statements are stronger than photographs, is beyond comprehension...

[Hartley]

... It is not hearsay that Ann Eaton was told by a police officer where Sheila's body was found...

Well actually that's exactly what it is.

You can't trace any supporting corroborating evidence, in fact police officers witness statements contradict Ann's notes.

Your opinion that the body was found on the bed is indeed possible, but this is not the evidence which proves it.

... The witness statements made for the pokice officers, by the DPP, which gives detail about where Sheila's body was found, and the general circumstances of how she came to die inside the main bedroom, were not statements that were tended into evidence during the trial, and therefore, it was not evidence that the juries decision was acheived by a reliance upon. None of those police officers statements, were stamped with the Chelmsford Crown court stamp, or seal of approval, so, how anyone can say, that the police statements are stronger than photographs, is beyond comprehension...

Beyond comprehension or not, that is the CCRC's interpretation and preliminary ruling.

[mike tesko]

... It is not hearsay that Ann Eaton was told by a police officer where Sheila's body was found...

Well actually that's exactly what it is.

You can't trace any supporting corroborating evidence, in fact police officers witness statements contradict Ann's notes.

Your opinion that the body was found on the bed is indeed possible, but this is not the evidence which proves it.

... CCRC have made a fundamental / elimentary mistake, by choosing to rely on the suggestion that these edited witness statements, are more reliable than the photographs - in view of the fact that the original unedited versions, may contain the very same evidence, to prove and establish, the exact opposite. It would be a traversty of justice, and bring the criminal justice system into disrepute, if the CCRC don't fully review this matter, in my opinion. A defendant, or appellant, is fully entitled to have sight of any original document, photograph, negative, and so my point would be this, how can it be lawful and legitimate, for the CCRC to rely on these police statements, without first of all having had sight of the original, or the originals to be handed over?

[Hartley]

... It is not hearsay that Ann Eaton was told by a police officer where Sheila's body was found...

Well actually that's exactly what it is.

You can't trace any supporting corroborating evidence, in fact police officers witness statements contradict Ann's notes.

Your opinion that the body was found on the bed is indeed possible, but this is not the evidence which proves it.

... CCRC have made a fundamental / elimentary mistake, by choosing to rely on the suggestion that these edited witness statements, are more reliable than the photographs - in view of the fact that the original unedited versions, may contain the very same evidence, to prove and establish, the exact opposite. It would be a traversty of justice, and bring the criminal justice system into disrepute, if the CCRC don't fully review this matter, in my opinion. A defendant, or appellant, is fully entitled to have sight of any original document, photograph, negative, and so my point would be this, how can it be lawful and legitimate, for the CCRC to rely on these police statements, without first of all having had sight of the original, or the original?

I don't think so Mike. I'm pretty sure the way it works is that you need to find some evidence to warrant being awarded leave to appeal. The absolute fact is that this evidence either hasn't been found, or doesn't exist, depending on which side of the fence you want to lean.

You have no idea what is contained within these so called withheld files, and it is therefore beyond comprehension that you can use them to infer guilt or innocence.

I've asked you a few times now but haven't had any response (probably got lost in amongst other posts), what efforts has JB's legal team gone to in order to obtain these files?

If so much weight is being given to them potentially containing the smoking gun which would lead to proving JB's innocence, then why on earth are his team messing around with all these little tidbits of speculative evidence which doesn't even stand up to the scrutiny of lay people on these boards. Surely they should be spending every waking second to attempting to obtain these files?

I'm trying to be as open minded as I can.

[mike tesko]

... It is not hearsay that Ann Eaton was told by a police officer where Sheila's body was found...

Well actually that's exactly what it is.

You can't trace any supporting corroborating evidence, in fact police officers witness statements contradict Ann's notes.

Your opinion that the body was found on the bed is indeed possible, but this is not the evidence which proves it.

... CCRC have made a fundamental / elimentary mistake, by choosing to rely on the suggestion that these edited witness statements, are more reliable than the photographs - in view of the fact that the original unedited versions, may contain the very same evidence, to prove and establish, the exact opposite. It would be a traversty of justice, and bring the criminal justice system into disrepute, if the CCRC don't fully review this matter, in my opinion. A defendant, or appellant, is fully entitled to have sight of any original document, photograph, negative, and so my point would be this, how can it be lawful and legitimate, for the CCRC to rely on these police statements, without first of all having had sight of the original, or the original?

I don't think so Mike. I'm pretty sure the way it works is that you need to find some evidence to warrant being awarded leave to appeal. The absolute fact is that this evidence either hasn't been found, or doesn't exist, depending on which side of the fence you want to lean.

You have no idea what is contained within these so called withheld files, and it is therefore beyond comprehension that you can use them to infer guilt or innocence.

I've asked you a few times now but haven't had any response (probably got lost in amongst other posts), what efforts has JB's legal team gone to in order to obtain these files?

If so much weight is being given to them potentially containing the smoking gun which would lead to proving JB's innocence, then why on earth are his team messing around with all these little tidbits of speculative evidence which doesn't even stand up to the scrutiny of lay people on these boards. Surely they should be spending every waking second to attempting to obtain these files?

I'm trying to be as open minded as I can.

... I have a copy of a DPP memo, which clearly states that 'everything' has to be disclosed, except for the witness statement of, Mrs Mary Mugford - which was deceptive and misleading, because Essex police, and the DPP, between them, went on to deliberately withhold thousands and thousands of documents, most of which had been gathered when police believed Sheilb had killed herself - most of this withheld material, could have gone a very long way, toward helping to convince the jury, but for the police and DPP, deception...

[Hartley]

... It is not hearsay that Ann Eaton was told by a police officer where Sheila's body was found...

Well actually that's exactly what it is.

You can't trace any supporting corroborating evidence, in fact police officers witness statements contradict Ann's notes.

Your opinion that the body was found on the bed is indeed possible, but this is not the evidence which proves it.

... CCRC have made a fundamental / elimentary mistake, by choosing to rely on the suggestion that these edited witness statements, are more reliable than the photographs - in view of the fact that the original unedited versions, may contain the very same evidence, to prove and establish, the exact opposite. It would be a traversty of justice, and bring the criminal justice system into disrepute, if the CCRC don't fully review this matter, in my opinion. A defendant, or appellant, is fully entitled to have sight of any original document, photograph, negative, and so my point would be this, how can it be lawful and legitimate, for the CCRC to rely on these police statements, without first of all having had sight of the original, or the original?

I don't think so Mike. I'm pretty sure the way it works is that you need to find some evidence to warrant being awarded leave to appeal. The absolute fact is that this evidence either hasn't been found, or doesn't exist, depending on which side of the fence you want to lean.

You have no idea what is contained within these so called withheld files, and it is therefore beyond comprehension that you can use them to infer guilt or innocence.

I've asked you a few times now but haven't had any response (probably got lost in amongst other posts), what efforts has JB's legal team gone to in order to obtain these files?

If so much weight is being given to them potentially containing the smoking gun which would lead to proving JB's innocence, then why on earth are his team messing around with all these little tidbits of speculative evidence which doesn't even stand up to the scrutiny of lay people on these boards. Surely they should be spending every waking second to attempting to obtain these files?

I'm trying to be as open minded as I can.

... I have a copy of a DPP memo, which clearly states that 'everything' has to be disclosed, except for the witness statement of, Mrs Mary Mugford - which was deceptive and misleading, because Essex police, and the DPP, between them, went on to deliberately withhold thousands and thousands of documents, most of which had been gathered when police believed Sheilb had killed herself - most of this withheld material, could have gone a very long way, toward helping to convince the jury, but for the police and DPP, deception...

Unless I'm being a bit thick (which is highly possible), you don't appear to have answered my question.

Okay, just for my benefit, lets take this one piece at a time.

1. You have a memo from the DPP stating the requirement for full disclosure of evidence. Who is the recipient of this memo, Essex Police I assume? When was this dated 1991?

2. Essex Police have given full disclosure of all evidence contained in the file relating to the charge of five murders, thus fulfilling the requirements of the memo from DPP.

3. What they have not disclosed (rightly or wrongly) is anything contained in the file relating to what they consider to be a different case of four murders and a suicide.

4. You have no idea what is contained in the file relating to the four murders and a suicide, yet you keep referring to it as potentially containing a smoking gun piece of evidence which would result in proving the innocence of JB.

5. What has been done by JB's team to release the files relating to the four murders and a suicide case?

6. Refer to my previous post above.

I'm pretty sure the way it works is that you need to find some evidence to warrant being awarded leave to appeal. The absolute fact is that this evidence either hasn't been found, or doesn't exist, depending on which side of the fence you want to lean.

[Kaldin]

I suppose the first thing to establish is whether the Bible was actually on Sheila's chest or not. If it was not, then that would indicate that Jeremy did not tell Julie that.

Other than the possible existence of withheld photographs that Mike keeps referring to I'm not sure how that could be established. Particularly given that there are witness statements from police officers stating that the bible was not on Sheila's chest.

Oh I don't know - perhaps we can establish that.

Take a look at this photo of the Bible.



There is a large amount of blood on the right hand page at the top and a couple of small blood stains further down that page. There is also blood on the left hand page, but that seems to have got there when the Bible was closed because the small stains at least mirror the stains on the right hand page. Bear in mind that the Bible was face down at the scene. Is it not possible that it was on her chest and that's how the blood got onto the right hand page?

[Hartley]

Is it not possible that it was on her chest and that's how the blood got onto the right hand page?

Yes it's possible.

[Kaldin]

Is it not possible that it was on her chest and that's how the blood got onto the right hand page?

Yes it's possible.

I can't understand those blood stains on the Bible at all otherwise. If the Bible was on the floor in the position depicted in the photos, I would expect most of the blood to be on the left hand page rather than the right hand page.

[Hartley]

The book has also been closed whilst the blood was still wet, whether that happened before or after it was found by the police is unclear.

[Kaldin]

The book has also been closed whilst the blood was still wet, whether that happened before or after it was found by the police is unclear.

Yes, and one question I have is - would the blood on the pages still be wet enough to transfer to the other page when the police found Sheila if she died at around 3 am? If not, then the killer must have closed the Bible.