The Menstrual Blood

[Erik Narramore]

Continuing with my post above, I have to say, the buckets look empty in those photographs!  It's not possible to tell for sure, though.

I also wonder why DS Jones would need to ask Ann Eaton how she could tell it was period blood.

What all this means, I cannot say.  One point I will need to double-check is the source for the conversation between Stan Jones and Ann Eaton.  I have a feeling it may be the Bamber Inquiry.

Well,AE says in her statement she found the buckets beside the sink and that the green one had the knickers,the other one a pair of the boy's track suit bottoms and a pair of socks.I cant tell if they are empty or not,that would be highly suspicious.I had a feeling that it was Ainsley who mentioned to AE about the different smell of period blood,but I may be wrong.

And yes,it is strange that there is an emphasis on the fact it is period blood in the bucket.Oh,and in one statement you will notice AE says there was two pairs of knickers in the bucket.

You have better eyes than mine.  I couldn't see it in the statements, though I was only scanning them as short of time.

[Leslie Aalders]

Continuing with my post above, I have to say, the buckets look empty in those photographs!  It's not possible to tell for sure, though.

I also wonder why DS Jones would need to ask Ann Eaton how she could tell it was period blood.

What all this means, I cannot say.  One point I will need to double-check is the source for the conversation between Stan Jones and Ann Eaton.  I have a feeling it may be the Bamber Inquiry.

Well,AE says in her statement she found the buckets beside the sink and that the green one had the knickers,the other one a pair of the boy's track suit bottoms and a pair of socks.I cant tell if they are empty or not,that would be highly suspicious.I had a feeling that it was Ainsley who mentioned to AE about the different smell of period blood,but I may be wrong.

And yes,it is strange that there is an emphasis on the fact it is period blood in the bucket.Oh,and in one statement you will notice AE says there was two pairs of knickers in the bucket.

You have better eyes than mine.  I couldn't see it in the statements, though I was only scanning them as short of time.

Do you mean the two pairs of knickers Erik? That may have been in her colp statement,I think it is also in CALS book.

[Leslie Aalders]

Yes,it was Ainsley who told AE that the Defence would claim she contaminated the silencer with blood from Sheilas knickers.He asks her how she knew it was menstrual blood,and she answers,it has a different smell,to which he responds,remember that if asked in court.

But again,could all this discussion about period blood simply be a red herring to hide the fact it may have been the victims blood? Another strange remark that AE makes is where she found the buckets.She didn't FIND the buckets,they were in plain sight,just as they were to the police on entry.I still say it is most unlikely the police did not empty out the buckets to look for evidence.Something just does not add up as you have said Erik.But what?

[Erik Narramore]

I believe the explanation the police/prosecution would try, if asked, is that the officers at the scene must have deduced it was period blood, and given that everybody assumed it was a murder-suicide, the contents of the buckets were not considered relevant and it was ignored.  In the alternative, it may also be that it was not obvious that the clothing was bloodied.

The problem with this explanation is that:

(i). as far as I can tell (this will need to be re-checked), none of the police statements mention the buckets or bloodied clothing in the buckets; 

(ii). you don't expect police officers to ignore bloodied clothing at a violent crime scene.  Even if we can accept that there was no obvious immediate connection to the crime, wouldn't it have been recorded anyway?

(iii). if it was not obvious that the clothing was bloodied, wouldn't an officer have checked the bucket as a matter of routine and discovered that the clothing was bloodied?

(iv). a more thorough examination and recording of the crime scene than DCI Jones had allowed was undertaken by the Scene of Crime officers, at the initiative of DI Cook.

Turning to the question of the source for the claim, I am referring to both the buckets and their contents.  I agree it's probably in a COLP (Bamber Inquiry) statement or interview by or of Ann Eaton.  The documents are on this Forum.  I know Carol Ann Lee mentions it in her book, but she can't be considered a reliable source for claims (regardless of whether the claims are true or not).

Finding the source is going to be very important to an evaluation of the whole claim.  A/DCI Ainsley must have been made aware of the bloodied clothing because he asked Ann Eaton how she would tell if it is period blood, but what was the context of that conversation?  Was it Ann Eaton who told him?  Or did he learn about it from an officer at the scene?  Bear in mind that A/DCI Ainsley did not attend the scene on the morning of 7th. August or in the days after.  Therefore, he was never at the scene while it was under police control.

If A/DCI Ainsley learned about the bloodied clothing only from Ann Eaton, then the entire narrative rests on Ann Eaton.  We know that part of what she says is true, as buckets were photographed in the kitchen by the police.  Would she lie about the contents of the buckets, knowing that the police had already searched there and observed the buckets, and for all she knew, may even have accidentally left the buckets behind?

I agree that we don't know for sure that it ever was period blood and we should question this, but if we're questioning it at that level, then the whole thing circles back to the questions I ask above.  If we posit that it may not have been period blood, why didn't the officers at the scene also raise that suspicion and record it?

[Erik Narramore]

Extracts here from Ann Eaton's statement to the Bamber Inquiry: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=775.0

The good news is that I also do have the full statements she gave to the Inquiry - both typed and handwritten, and also a typed draft.  They are in a 'private' area of the forum, and I will upload them in due course.  I will update this thread again when that happens.

[Leslie Aalders]

Well,let us look at the official story Erik.Ok,we know that two buckets were in the kitchen,they are in the crime scene photos.Now Ann Eaton say's one bucket had blood stainsd knickers and the other track suit bottoms and socks.

Now the thing is,WHEN were the buckets filled and placed on the kitchen floor? Were they placed at the same time before everyone went to bed? Surely Sheila wouldn't bother putting the boy's clothes in to seep if she was up during the small hours,so can we take it that one bucket at least was in the kitchen prior to everyone retiring to bed?

So,was the bucket with Sheilas knickers also in the kitchen at that time,or did she place the second bucket and knickers sometime through the night after a menstrual accident? I dont suppose it really matters that much,but that takes us back to the question of why the buckets were apparently left undisturbed till AE emptied them out days later.

In fact it wasnt even the day she got the keys to the Whitehouse that they were emptied,in fact there was no mention of the buckets when she was shown through the house even when she was asked to point out anything different.I think it was the next day AE washed the kitchen floor and allegedly discovered the contents of the buckets.

Now,is it possible that the soco officers emptied out the buckets in the sink then replaced them to soak again? As you pointed out there seems to be no mention of this,and why would there need to be any kind of statement from Ann Eaton if this was the case?

There definately seems to be a need for AE to be the first to discover what was in the buckets,and have the ability to identify period blood without question.

So thats the official story,two buckets of dirty washing sit on the kitchen floor of a major crime scene.One probably with the water coloured by blood.The buckets sit undisturbed and ignored by the police even as they clean up the house.The buckets are finally emptied days later when Ann Eaton gets access to the house,she discovers track suit bottoms in one bucket and blood stained knickers in the other.

Ann Eaton is the only one to see the contents of the buckets,there dosen't seem to be any documentation of the police checking what was in them at all.

So,what are we think? Are we to suppose that the buckets were more evidence that the police should have checked but didn't? Again left to the relatives to report.But why did AE feel the need to report what was in the buckets for her statements? Did she know the police hadn't already rummaged through the buckets,did she ask?

The police had vacated the scene,why wasn't she happy to accept the police must have seen no evidential evidence in the buckets? Why didn't she just bin the knickers and forget about them?

Isn't the kitchen a srtange place to leave blood stained knickers soaking? Wouldn't you rather put them in a back scullery or toilet out of sight? If nothing else Crispy slept in the kitchen,you wouldnt want him going near a bucket of blood stained water.

Besides would you really advertise the fact you had a menstrual accident by leaving your knickers in the kitchen,a place where everyone sits down to eat? All very strange.I think we need to look deeper Erik.

[Leslie Aalders]

Extracts here from Ann Eaton's statement to the Bamber Inquiry: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=775.0

The good news is that I also do have the full statements she gave to the Inquiry - both typed and handwritten, and also a typed draft.  They are in a 'private' area of the forum, and I will upload them in due course.  I will update this thread again when that happens.

Very good Erik,hope you can shed some more light on the topic.

[Leslie Aalders]

I suppose personally,there is really only one question I am asking about the blood stained knickers.Why did Ann Eaton feel the need to make a statement about them? Was she told to? Well that's two!

[Leslie Aalders]

Two apparently inconsequential buckets of clothing that the soco team didn't think worthy of a mention,yet a year later Ann Eaton is giving evidence at Jeremy Bambers trial about them. Why?

[Erik Narramore]

The buckets in the SOC photographs look empty.  I think if they had tracksuit bottoms in them, for instance, it would be more obvious there was something.

I can see why it is possible the police overlooked bloodied clothing.  Remember they were working on the assumption that it was a murder-suicide, so bloodied clothing in buckets may not have seemed relevant evidence if it was thought or assumed to be period blood.  Yet as we know, they also made a point of conducting a search of the house and a thorough photograph album was compiled, and how could they be sure it was period blood?  As I explain, if it wasn't obvious on sight that the clothing was bloodied, they must have checked the contents of the bucket anyway, so would have known the clothing was bloodied.  The buckets are right there in the kitchen and were even photographed.  It must have been obvious, even if it meant they had to handle the clothing to find out. 

It does all seem quite awry, and like you, I have that nagging feeling that there is something wrong here.  The problem is, I can't make sense of all this as a malign conspiracy.  It only makes sense if she was indeed honest and it all happened as she says: i.e. she simply found bloodied clothing in buckets that the police overlooked for reasons I give above.  Otherwise, why bring bloodied clothing to anyone's attention at all?  Surely she could have just not mentioned it and nobody would have known.  If it was later brought to her attention by, say, a passing reference to bloodied clothes in a bucket in a police statement, note or report, she could have claimed ignorance or even said that she'd forgotten all about it.

I need to get Ann Eaton's statements up on the Forum.  I also have the transcript of her trial evidence, so will upload that too.

[Administrator]

All Bamber Inquiry documents are now uploaded and on the Forum.

[Erik Narramore]

Statements and interviews of Christine Ann Eaton to the Bamber Inquiry:
https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?board=552.0

Trial evidence of Christine Ann Eaton:
https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=2451.0

Link to the Operation Bamber/Bamber Inquiry board: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?board=5.0

[Leslie Aalders]

The buckets in the SOC photographs look empty.  I think if they had tracksuit bottoms in them, for instance, it would be more obvious there was something.

I can see why it is possible the police overlooked bloodied clothing.  Remember they were working on the assumption that it was a murder-suicide, so bloodied clothing in buckets may not have seemed relevant evidence if it was thought or assumed to be period blood.  Yet as we know, they also made a point of conducting a search of the house and a thorough photograph album was compiled, and how could they be sure it was period blood?  As I explain, if it wasn't obvious on sight that the clothing was bloodied, they must have checked the contents of the bucket anyway, so would have known the clothing was bloodied.  The buckets are right there in the kitchen and were even photographed.  It must have been obvious, even if it meant they had to handle the clothing to find out. 

It does all seem quite awry, and like you, I have that nagging feeling that there is something wrong here.  The problem is, I can't make sense of all this as a malign conspiracy.  It only makes sense if she was indeed honest and it all happened as she says: i.e. she simply found bloodied clothing in buckets that the police overlooked for reasons I give above.  Otherwise, why bring bloodied clothing to anyone's attention at all?  Surely she could have just not mentioned it and nobody would have known.  If it was later brought to her attention by, say, a passing reference to bloodied clothes in a bucket in a police statement, note or report, she could have claimed ignorance or even said that she'd forgotten all about it.

I need to get Ann Eaton's statements up on the Forum.  I also have the transcript of her trial evidence, so will upload that too.

Well,if you think about it,if the buckets were empty in the crime scene photos,that can only
mean two things.Either the soco officers or whoever cleaned up used the buckets and put the clothing
in them to soak,but made no note of this or,AE also found them empty but for some reason made up a
story about clothing soaking in them.

Either way,I still say it should have been the soco officers who should have been in the Dock giving
evidence about the buckets.And why mention them at all if they held no evidential importance?

Knickers stained with period blood would have proved nothing.Besides it was a prosecution witness
who brought the knickers to the attention of the police,why? There had to be a reason for putting
them in a witness statement.All that I can think of,is making it loud and clear it was period
blood and not that from any of the victims.

One thing is for sure,the prosecution wanted the buckets mentioned at Jeremy Bambers trial,or they
would have omitted them from AEs witness statement.Very strange.

[Leslie Aalders]

ater the autopsies the soco team knew how many times each victim had been shot.Nevill Bamber had been shot eight times,but only three bullets were found in the kitchen.The soco team returned to WHF a second time looking for the missing shell casings to account for all shots inflicted.

Surely the officers would have checked the buckets at this stage if they hadn't done so before.I think they even had a metal detector with them.They had no reason to think Nevill had been shot anywhere but the kitchen,and would have checked there upon entry you would think.

Yet we are supposed to believe they once again ignored the buckets and did not check them.I dont buy this.

[Leslie Aalders]

Unless the buckets were empty at this stage of course,as Erik suggests.