Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[Steve_uk]

The vulgar comments were dispersed in all directions,not just Julie. But if you believe Jeremy to be 100% innocent then you have to believe that none of this happened,no conversations ever took place about Jeremy wanting to kill his family,that his remarks to Charles Marsden about the Farm burning down at Christmas 1984 when Jeremy thought the family would all be sleeping together were just chance casual remarks and remarkably rotten luck for him,as would have to be the case with the telephone call from his father in the middle of the night. You would have to believe that he didn't harbour any ill will towards his family despite Goldsmiths student James Richards coming into court and swearing on oath Jeremy told him on more than one occasion "I f*cking hate my parents". You would have to believe that Jeremy didn't bear a grudge against Sheila despite him telling Doris Foakes "I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila". Lastly why would Jeremy make a beeline for Julie after the murders and want to be alone with her if he knows she has got nothing against him. If Jeremy is innocent then Sheila has done the job for him,he is rid of them and is the sole benefactor and does not need Julie any more.

[killingeve]

The first time I saw this picture last Saturday I was as shocked as anybody:the pictures are in thoroughly bad taste and Julie should not have proceeded with them. However the striking impact of the picture(and it's true that a picture can paint a thousand words)was somewhat mitigated by the unbelievably vulgar comments posted by several female members alongside on that occasion. I also think there would have been a similar photograph emanating from Anji Greaves had Jeremy been released,along with loose tongue pub talk emanating from Jeremy some weeks down the line which would have made a mockery of the whole not guilty verdict.

I doubt it she appears more classy for example wearing a jacket to court as indeed did Suzette.  Only JM was without a jacket: 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6043

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6930

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6051

Steve most middle classish young women in the 1980's did not:

- commit cheque book fraud
- deal pot for financial gain
- act as a watch for a burglary
- lie to the police over the brutal murders of 5 innocent people

In any event why are you attempting to blacken the name of Anji Greaves?  She may look at the forum from time-to-time and find your comments upsetting.

[killingeve]

Thank you NN, yes that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. Those are omissions certainly, but it would seem that the offence assisting an offender cannot be committed by omission. I still can't find an offence of 'accessory after the fact' in current UK law, although there was one up until the commencement of the crim law act which appears to have replaced it with the assisting and offender offence. If that makes sense!

(Hand up to ask a Q)

Miss Bridget

May I ask for the clarification on 'obstructing the course of justice'?

[Steve_uk]

I doubt it she appears more classy for example wearing a jacket to court as indeed did Suzette.  Only JM was without a jacket: 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6043

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6930

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6051

Steve most middle classish young women in the 1980's did not:

- commit cheque book fraud
- deal pot for financial gain
- act as a watch for a burglary
- lie to the police over the brutal murders of 5 innocent people

In any event why are you attempting to blacken the name of Anji Greaves?  She may look at the forum from time-to-time and find your comments upsetting.

Your fashion photographs are irrelevant to the case. I don't defend everything Julie did and she would be the first to admit she has made mistakes,but from my point of view the crimes above which she perpetrated either to please Jeremy or because she was under his spell are as sickening as the mainly female contingent Jeremy has amassed in his continuing charismatic web of deceit spun to trap the very individuals in it now as it did with Julie almost 28 years ago.

[Bridget]

(Hand up to ask a Q)

Miss Bridget

May I ask for the clarification on 'obstructing the course of justice'?

Isn't that just another name for perverting the course of justice? If so, then again, I think it requires a positive act as opposed to an omission.

[Alias]

Your fashion photographs are irrelevant to the case. I don't defend everything Julie did and she would be the first to admit she has made mistakes,but from my point of view the crimes above which she perpetrated either to please Jeremy or because she was under his spell are as sickening as the mainly female contingent Jeremy has amassed in his continuing charismatic web of deceit spun to trap the very individuals in it now as it did with Julie almost 28 years ago.

That is just plain wrong to accuse Jeremy of being culpable of crimes COMMITTED BY JULIE HERSELF. And oh, so typical.

[killingeve]

Your fashion photographs are irrelevant to the case. I don't defend everything Julie did and she would be the first to admit she has made mistakes,but from my point of view the crimes above which she perpetrated either to please Jeremy or because she was under his spell are as sickening as the mainly female contingent Jeremy has amassed in his continuing charismatic web of deceit spun to trap the very individuals in it now as it did with Julie almost 28 years ago.

It has nothing to do with fashion its about respect ie respect for the court/proceedings, respect for those that lost their lives etc, etc.  Had JB have turned up without a jacket and in an open necked shirt you would have sang it from the roof tops. 

[Caroline R]

Isn't that just another name for perverting the course of justice? If so, then again, I think it requires a positive act as opposed to an omission.

 Surely 'keeping quiet' in such instances as this is 'conspiring' to pervert the course of justice!!

[Lugg]

Julie received an ambiguous telephone call in the middle of the night when she was feeling groggy and upon returning to bed realized the import of the telephone call. The last thing Julie wanted was the involvement of the Police:she didn't want to see Jeremy go to jail,she was still unsure as to who actually had murdered them,and the Osea Road and cheque book incidents meant that she might end up with a criminal record.The way the investigation was proceeding was four murders and a suicide decided no less by the Chief of Essex Police DCI Taff Jones. Of course Julie must have had regrets,but it was too late as the victims were already dead.

If that were to represent her defence I should think a guilty verdict against her would almost be a foregone conclusion? "I'm sorry that I didn't report this for a few weeks officer. But after all the victims were dead already". Anyway I didn't want Jeremy to go to gaol and I certainly didn't want to go there myself".

[Bridget]

Surely 'keeping quiet' in such instances as this is 'conspiring' to pervert the course of justice!!

It seems not, but I'm happy to be corrected. If she'd actually lied in an effort to protect him then maybe, but staying quiet doesn't seem to be enough.

[Lugg]

Must she though?? I'm not sure we actually have an offence of accessory after the fact anymore in this country and the nearest I can find (assisting an offender) requires a positive act rather than just a failure to say anything, as does perverting the course of justice. There is also an offence of concealing an offence, but that requires payment of some sort. I suppose the money he gave her for a holiday could amount to that, but it would be difficult to prove that that was the purpose. Was there anything in her early statements that was identified at trial or appeal as a deliberate lie?

Maybe NGB could help us out here, it'd be interesting to find out what the actual position would be.

I am not sure? But I believe the law says that you have a duty to report a crime and in failing to do that you may by that action be aiding and abetting that criminal?

[killingeve]

Surely 'keeping quiet' in such instances as this is 'conspiring' to pervert the course of justice!!

Hi Caroline

I find it difficult to believe that it's not illegal.  Also Rivlin said he went through JM's stats with a fine tooth combe for inconsistencies!!??  Was the jury denied yet another opportunity to weigh up all the evidence ie her change of heart from wit stat of 8th Aug to 8th/9th Sep along with the silencer potentially being contaminated either accidentally or deliberately!!??

[Jane]

Your fashion photographs are irrelevant to the case. I don't defend everything Julie did and she would be the first to admit she has made mistakes,but from my point of view the crimes above which she perpetrated either to please Jeremy or because she was under his spell are as sickening as the mainly female contingent Jeremy has amassed in his continuing charismatic web of deceit spun to trap the very individuals in it now as it did with Julie almost 28 years ago.

The other side of that coin is that she was much more streetwise and a much stronger character than Jeremy and was capable of encouraging him to do all kinds of things that his parents wouldn't have approved of. He probably got a kick out of pleasing her and possibly one of his chat up lines may have been that one day he's be wealthy. I imagine she encouraged him to do things that would benefit her. Despite your protestations to the contrary I think her raison d'etre was financial  and she was determined to take all that life with Jeremy could offer. Whether it was love or avarice is questionable but I feel  determination had much to do with it and it paid off in the end. She did become a wealthy young woman but not quite in the way she's planned.

[Lugg]

Your fashion photographs are irrelevant to the case. I don't defend everything Julie did and she would be the first to admit she has made mistakes,but from my point of view the crimes above which she perpetrated either to please Jeremy or because she was under his spell are as sickening as the mainly female contingent Jeremy has amassed in his continuing charismatic web of deceit spun to trap the very individuals in it now as it did with Julie almost 28 years ago.

Is this a true statement? Are you sure she would be the first to admit this?

[Patti]

I am not sure? But I believe the law says that you have a duty to report a crime and in failing to do that you may by that action be aiding and abetting that criminal?

We still bring crimes of war criminals to justice don't we? Is that not the same thing....after the fact...