Statement of Ann Eaton 8th - 13th September 1985

[susan]

Hi lookout  steve is so consumed with steve he does not know the forum exists and if nobody replied to his posts he would do it himself and get the answers he is looking for.

[ngb1066]

Thank you to all members who have made kind comments about my posts on this thread.  I do my best to give answers on aspects of the case when asked or where I feel I may be able to add something of value and I try to present an objective assessment.  I suspect my assessment of Julie Mugford's position may even find some resonance with members who believe Jeremy to be guilty.  I would be interested to hear from Vidvic on this.

     

[lookout]

Hi lookout  steve is so consumed with steve he does not know the forum exists and if nobody replied to his posts he would do it himself and get the answers he is looking for.

That made me laugh,Susan.

[lookout]

Only in exceptional circumstances and I cannot currently think of any such circumstances in this case.  Obviously if she confessed to having told a pack of lies she could be prosecuted for perjury and perverting the course of justice, but that is clearly unlikely to happen.  She might be proecuted for perverting the course of justice in relation to the lies she told during the trial about her News of the World deal, but again I think that is unlikely to happen.

   

Thankyou for your answer on that,ngb. I hope JM can live with the possibilities that could well have been realised.

[Jane]

Steve_UK - I am not sure what I have done to deserve such a damning condemnation not only of my analysis of the legal position but also of my integrity.  I have, in response to Bridget's original request, provided a thumbnail sketch of the relevant criminal law and applied that to Julie Mugford in the context of her own witness statements and evidence.  I am at a loss to understand why you should condemn me as dishonourable simply for expressing my honest opinion.  I appreciate that you feel very defensive towards Julie Mugford (whether because you are related to her or otherwise is I accept none of my business).  I am happy to enter into a debate about the legal implications of her actions, but using phrases such as "flights of fancy" and claiming that I "make a mockery" of my whole argument does not I suggest further debate on this.

I believe you are straining credulity in your attempts to whitewash Julie's conduct.  The following are examples:

i) You have put an innocent spin on the episode of the sleeping tablets, but according to her own account Julie knew what Jeremy wanted them for and permitted him to use them.

ii) By her own admission Julie was involved in a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins to import the cannabis from Amsterdam, most of which was to be supplied to others by Julie directly as well as by Jeremy. This was of course following the murders at a time when Julie was perfectly happy to accompany Jeremy on an expensive jaunt, on her account with full knowledge that he had wiped out his family.  If she was telling the truth it is crystal clear that she had effectively condoned the murders and was looking forward to spending the rest of her life with the murderer.

iii) You claim an intimate knowledge of Julie's mental processes the day before the murders, during the night  and immediately following.  You even suggest that because she attended all girls' grammar school she was unable to understand the meaning of the words she claims were spoken by Jeremy.  Are you serious?

iv) I do not misrepresent the chronology.  I accept that Julie spoke to friends, including Liz Rimington, after splitting up with Jeremy, dropping increasingly powerful hints that Jeremy was responsible for the murders.  However, she did not approach the police.  Liz Rimington called the police suggesting that Julie had information.  Julie was then arrested and held in custody.  The way this was presented at trial, essentially that tormented by guilt she decided to come forward and tell the truth, was grossly misleading.  She also lied to the prosecution, and therefore misled the judge, the defence and the jury, about her arrangements with the News of the World.

v)  I do not accept that Julie's evidence was "not paramount".  I also doubt whether the case would have proceeded to trial without Julie's evidence, but even if it had done so I have little doubt that Jeremy would have been acquitted.

I have no problem with being robustly challenged on any arguments I present but I do feel both the tone and content of your post was unfortunate.

Neil, such an excellent and dignified post, and how gracious of you not to sink to the level of the post which addressed you, "who ever you are." I can only view such a post as ignorant arrogance. I may in the future come to see it through NaNu's eyes but until then I have to agree with what Susan says, that Steve appears to be so consumed with Steve (and pushing his overriding obsession with Julie) that his own answers would seem to be the only ones of any importance to him. I hope he can muster the humility and grace to offer you an apology.

[susan]

Hello april what an excellent post.  You have a wonderful way with words.  Well done

[Jane]

Hello april what an excellent post.  You have a wonderful way with words.  Well done

And your words, Susan dear, are very much appreciated

[lookout]

Hello april what an excellent post.  You have a wonderful way with words.  Well done

Yes,,indeed,another educated post. Well put,April.

[Lugg]

Steve_UK - I am not sure what I have done to deserve such a damning condemnation not only of my analysis of the legal position but also of my integrity.  I have, in response to Bridget's original request, provided a thumbnail sketch of the relevant criminal law and applied that to Julie Mugford in the context of her own witness statements and evidence.  I am at a loss to understand why you should condemn me as dishonourable simply for expressing my honest opinion.  I appreciate that you feel very defensive towards Julie Mugford (whether because you are related to her or otherwise is I accept none of my business).  I am happy to enter into a debate about the legal implications of her actions, but using phrases such as "flights of fancy" and claiming that I "make a mockery" of my whole argument does not I suggest further debate on this.

I believe you are straining credulity in your attempts to whitewash Julie's conduct.  The following are examples:

i) You have put an innocent spin on the episode of the sleeping tablets, but according to her own account Julie knew what Jeremy wanted them for and permitted him to use them.

ii) By her own admission Julie was involved in a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins to import the cannabis from Amsterdam, most of which was to be supplied to others by Julie directly as well as by Jeremy. This was of course following the murders at a time when Julie was perfectly happy to accompany Jeremy on an expensive jaunt, on her account with full knowledge that he had wiped out his family.  If she was telling the truth it is crystal clear that she had effectively condoned the murders and was looking forward to spending the rest of her life with the murderer.

iii) You claim an intimate knowledge of Julie's mental processes the day before the murders, during the night  and immediately following.  You even suggest that because she attended all girls' grammar school she was unable to understand the meaning of the words she claims were spoken by Jeremy.  Are you serious?

iv) I do not misrepresent the chronology.  I accept that Julie spoke to friends, including Liz Rimington, after splitting up with Jeremy, dropping increasingly powerful hints that Jeremy was responsible for the murders.  However, she did not approach the police.  Liz Rimington called the police suggesting that Julie had information.  Julie was then arrested and held in custody.  The way this was presented at trial, essentially that tormented by guilt she decided to come forward and tell the truth, was grossly misleading.  She also lied to the prosecution, and therefore misled the judge, the defence and the jury, about her arrangements with the News of the World.

v)  I do not accept that Julie's evidence was "not paramount".  I also doubt whether the case would have proceeded to trial without Julie's evidence, but even if it had done so I have little doubt that Jeremy would have been acquitted.

I have no problem with being robustly challenged on any arguments I present but I do feel both the tone and content of your post was unfortunate.

Took the words right out of my mouth. 

[lookout]

There isn't a face of Pinocchio Lugg.

[Jane]

Yes,,indeed,another educated post. Well put,April.

Awwww Lookout, THANKYOU

[Lugg]

There isn't a face of Pinocchio Lugg.

[Bridget]

Well,if Mugford ommitted things from her first statement,she has failed to be truthful. Does failing to be truthful equal as being a lie? Bridget believed this was so in the case of Simon Hall,but not in the case of Julie Mugford. A tad hypocrytical me thinks!

I do wish people would actually read my posts before commenting. Both Simon Hall and Julie Mugford lied by omission and I've said as much in this thread. The question was whether or not (in relation to a witness) this was an offence.

[Bridget]

Miss Bridget has an eager looking pussy that wants stroking...purr...meow...



Gee thanks Miss Bridget you're so kind.  You know that's not true you got very animated when discussing terrorism and POCA 2002 

Animated? Honest, was practically asleep.

[Bridget]

Bridget may wish to be careful whom she refers to in future as a liar. She may find herself up in court again one day needing to explain herself.

Thanks for that, best laugh I've had all day. Simon lied by omission, sue me.