‘I just want to get on with life again’

The injuries Jayne-Ann Murray sustained at the hands of her former partner

The injuries Jayne-Ann Murray sustained at the hands of her former partner

First published in News
Last updated
by , Reporter

DOMESTIC violence victim Jayne-Ann Murray wants life to return to normal after her ex-partner was jailed for four years.

Mark Eatwell, 44, of Coronation Road, Wroughton, was convicted of actual bodily harm and false imprisonment at Swindon Crown Court on Wednesday.

The charges related to Eatwell, who had split from Jayne-Ann, in 2011, preventing her from leaving his home and beating her between April 6 and 7, last year.

Jayne-Ann, 45, who would regularly visit Eatwell’s home to see his son after they split up, said: “Before Mark was sent to prison I was scared to walk down the street alone and when I did I’d have panic attacks. I’m not so scared now and I can actually go out alone again.

“I just want to get on with my life as I’ve had this hanging over me for a year now, but at least there’s some light at the end of the tunnel.

“I had some good times with Mark but it started to go downhill with the odd slap, then worse things happened and I left in 2011 when he pinned me to the ground and beat me. But despite all that I remained his friend.”

Last week, Eatwell’s father Alan, 76, told the Adver that his son’s sentence was too harsh and he plans to appeal. These claims have left Jayne-Ann angry.

Jayne-Ann, who is in remission from breast cancer, said: “He beat me black and blue, head to toe, so for Alan to say Mark is not so bad is utter rubbish.

“I don’t want to slag Alan off as he’s a good man. Mark is Alan’s son and he will want to defend him but I’d really like him to see the police pictures of the damage Mark caused to me so he understands.

“I do take issue with him saying that Mark was not that way inclined as he must have been to be convicted by a court.

“I’m quite happy with the sentence and I know Alan was concerned about his grandson but just because Mark has a 16-year-old son doesn’t mean he shouldn’t go to prison for what he has done.”

Jayne-Ann hopes that her story will encourage other victims of domestic abuse to come forward and report incidents.

She said: “My message to men or women who are victims of domestic violence is to run and get out of that situation while you can. There are people who take this for years and that is just not right.

“I’m far from weak but it is a difficult thing coming forward and you need people around you who can help you get through it but coming forward is the best thing to do in the long run.

“I used to be quite a confident person but this whole thing has knocked the stuffing out of me physically and mentally. Thank-fully I’ve had some good people around me like my fiancé Nathan Formoy, sister Samantha Murray, brother Gary Murray, my parents and the police – in particularly DC Sonia Marsh.”

Anyone wishing to report domestic violence should call Wiltshire Police on 101 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111, where information can be left anonymously.

There is also the National Domestic Abuse Helpline on 0808 2000 247, Swindon 24 Hour Helpline on 01793 610610 or www.speakoutwiltshire.com.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:26am Tue 29 Apr 14

The Witch says...

I think you are one brave lady to have spoken out about this terrible thing that happened to you. I hope you can now get on with your life and find happiness with the new man in your life.
Like you I hope people who are suffering mental and physical abuse at the hands of their partners will take their chance to get out from the relationship, there is help out there for people and the courts and police are much more understanding of this type of offence then they were several years ago,
I think you are one brave lady to have spoken out about this terrible thing that happened to you. I hope you can now get on with your life and find happiness with the new man in your life. Like you I hope people who are suffering mental and physical abuse at the hands of their partners will take their chance to get out from the relationship, there is help out there for people and the courts and police are much more understanding of this type of offence then they were several years ago, The Witch
  • Score: 13

11:04am Tue 29 Apr 14

mrwoo says...

“I had some good times with Mark but it started to go downhill with the odd slap"
Surely the first time she got a slap, she should have left??
“I had some good times with Mark but it started to go downhill with the odd slap" Surely the first time she got a slap, she should have left?? mrwoo
  • Score: 3

11:04am Tue 29 Apr 14

ChannelX says...

While I agree with your sentiment above, it is not correct to say the courts have a worthwhile understanding of this issue - all too often they treat those convicted of domestic violence with appallingly undue leniency. Often, sadly, that leniency eventually leads to far worse harm and even murder.
While I agree with your sentiment above, it is not correct to say the courts have a worthwhile understanding of this issue - all too often they treat those convicted of domestic violence with appallingly undue leniency. Often, sadly, that leniency eventually leads to far worse harm and even murder. ChannelX
  • Score: 7

12:37pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tobybaby99 says...

Its not as easy to leave someone in these situations. I was a victim of domestic abuse and like Jayne Ann we had lots of good times but then my ex husband started giving me the odd slap. He would say he was really sorry and you believe them. It then progressed intonearly a daily routine. I became so use to it it became normal. I finally left when he nearly killed me. So please don't say its easy to get out of the relationship because believe me its not. I'm now happily married but still have flash backs. I wish you all the best in the future Jayne Ann
Its not as easy to leave someone in these situations. I was a victim of domestic abuse and like Jayne Ann we had lots of good times but then my ex husband started giving me the odd slap. He would say he was really sorry and you believe them. It then progressed intonearly a daily routine. I became so use to it it became normal. I finally left when he nearly killed me. So please don't say its easy to get out of the relationship because believe me its not. I'm now happily married but still have flash backs. I wish you all the best in the future Jayne Ann tobybaby99
  • Score: 10

12:55pm Tue 29 Apr 14

ChannelX says...

Anyone who hits you does not love you, or even like you.

It really is that simple.
Anyone who hits you does not love you, or even like you. It really is that simple. ChannelX
  • Score: 7

1:28pm Tue 29 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

ChannelX wrote:
Anyone who hits you does not love you, or even like you.

It really is that simple.
Have to agree completely. As someone who wouldn't raise their hands to a man let alone a woman, anyone who "assaults" anyone else is a spineless scum and the sentence for a ruined life is pathetic. It is not something you ever forget.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Anyone who hits you does not love you, or even like you. It really is that simple.[/p][/quote]Have to agree completely. As someone who wouldn't raise their hands to a man let alone a woman, anyone who "assaults" anyone else is a spineless scum and the sentence for a ruined life is pathetic. It is not something you ever forget. house on the hill
  • Score: 5

1:55pm Tue 29 Apr 14

dukeofM4 says...

It's regrettable that their row resulted in the above picture.

However, the facts of what transpired the minute she entered his house have yet to surface. If these issues are going to be battled in the press let's have the Advert post online all the court documents, and police statements so the bloggers can read through to come to their own verdict.

Some bloggers have commented the 'jurors' have made their decision. However after sitting on over three juries in the past, jurors are faced with technical legal decisions to make that does not necessarily reflect what the 'man on the street,' would regard as mainstream opinion.

These comments are not defending Mark Eatwell's actions, but let's see the full case laid out before us and put the bloggers in the juror's chair.

If Mark Eatwell is guilty fine, but under there is a continuing effort in our legal system discriminate the evidence presented in our courts thereby strengthen the prosecutor's case, limit the scope of the defendant to weaken his/here's case, and indeed there is an experiment going on as we speak to eliminate the 'victim' from the court room all together by making only a video statement admissible as evidence. This is designed to make it easier for the 'victim' not to face the 'evil' defendant in court.

So there you have future justice, the defendant v the flat screen. This is not science fiction, it's current being tested in a number of courts as we speak.

Be careful what you wish for.
It's regrettable that their row resulted in the above picture. However, the facts of what transpired the minute she entered his house have yet to surface. If these issues are going to be battled in the press let's have the Advert post online all the court documents, and police statements so the bloggers can read through to come to their own verdict. Some bloggers have commented the 'jurors' have made their decision. However after sitting on over three juries in the past, jurors are faced with technical legal decisions to make that does not necessarily reflect what the 'man on the street,' would regard as mainstream opinion. These comments are not defending Mark Eatwell's actions, but let's see the full case laid out before us and put the bloggers in the juror's chair. If Mark Eatwell is guilty fine, but under there is a continuing effort in our legal system discriminate the evidence presented in our courts thereby strengthen the prosecutor's case, limit the scope of the defendant to weaken his/here's case, and indeed there is an experiment going on as we speak to eliminate the 'victim' from the court room all together by making only a video statement admissible as evidence. This is designed to make it easier for the 'victim' not to face the 'evil' defendant in court. So there you have future justice, the defendant v the flat screen. This is not science fiction, it's current being tested in a number of courts as we speak. Be careful what you wish for. dukeofM4
  • Score: -9

2:19pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Chrisg46 says...

dukeofM4 wrote:
It's regrettable that their row resulted in the above picture.

However, the facts of what transpired the minute she entered his house have yet to surface. If these issues are going to be battled in the press let's have the Advert post online all the court documents, and police statements so the bloggers can read through to come to their own verdict.

Some bloggers have commented the 'jurors' have made their decision. However after sitting on over three juries in the past, jurors are faced with technical legal decisions to make that does not necessarily reflect what the 'man on the street,' would regard as mainstream opinion.

These comments are not defending Mark Eatwell's actions, but let's see the full case laid out before us and put the bloggers in the juror's chair.

If Mark Eatwell is guilty fine, but under there is a continuing effort in our legal system discriminate the evidence presented in our courts thereby strengthen the prosecutor's case, limit the scope of the defendant to weaken his/here's case, and indeed there is an experiment going on as we speak to eliminate the 'victim' from the court room all together by making only a video statement admissible as evidence. This is designed to make it easier for the 'victim' not to face the 'evil' defendant in court.

So there you have future justice, the defendant v the flat screen. This is not science fiction, it's current being tested in a number of courts as we speak.

Be careful what you wish for.
There is no "IF Mark Eatwell is guilty" - he IS guilty, unless he is somehow allowed a succesful appeal.
[quote][p][bold]dukeofM4[/bold] wrote: It's regrettable that their row resulted in the above picture. However, the facts of what transpired the minute she entered his house have yet to surface. If these issues are going to be battled in the press let's have the Advert post online all the court documents, and police statements so the bloggers can read through to come to their own verdict. Some bloggers have commented the 'jurors' have made their decision. However after sitting on over three juries in the past, jurors are faced with technical legal decisions to make that does not necessarily reflect what the 'man on the street,' would regard as mainstream opinion. These comments are not defending Mark Eatwell's actions, but let's see the full case laid out before us and put the bloggers in the juror's chair. If Mark Eatwell is guilty fine, but under there is a continuing effort in our legal system discriminate the evidence presented in our courts thereby strengthen the prosecutor's case, limit the scope of the defendant to weaken his/here's case, and indeed there is an experiment going on as we speak to eliminate the 'victim' from the court room all together by making only a video statement admissible as evidence. This is designed to make it easier for the 'victim' not to face the 'evil' defendant in court. So there you have future justice, the defendant v the flat screen. This is not science fiction, it's current being tested in a number of courts as we speak. Be careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]There is no "IF Mark Eatwell is guilty" - he IS guilty, unless he is somehow allowed a succesful appeal. Chrisg46
  • Score: 9

2:36pm Tue 29 Apr 14

ChannelX says...


It's regrettable that their row resulted in the above picture.


'Regrettable'? Do you really not have any idea how your posts on this subject come across?

The man has been found guilty and has been handed a four-year sentence, an achievement that is quite incredible in this day and age.

And do you seriously not understand why people who have been terrorised, controlled, beaten and often raped by others would rather not have to sit opposite them in court?

Stop defending those who commit domestic violence - as you ALWAYS do on this pages. It's actually quite stomach churning.
[quote] It's regrettable that their row resulted in the above picture. [/quote] 'Regrettable'? Do you really not have any idea how your posts on this subject come across? The man has been found guilty and has been handed a four-year sentence, an achievement that is quite incredible in this day and age. And do you seriously not understand why people who have been terrorised, controlled, beaten and often raped by others would rather not have to sit opposite them in court? Stop defending those who commit domestic violence - as you ALWAYS do on this pages. It's actually quite stomach churning. ChannelX
  • Score: 10

4:17pm Tue 29 Apr 14

twasadawf says...

Cannot believe 25% of swindon people think hitting a women is ok (ranger poll on the adver)
Cannot believe 25% of swindon people think hitting a women is ok (ranger poll on the adver) twasadawf
  • Score: 2

8:33pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Davey Gravey says...

twasadawf wrote:
Cannot believe 25% of swindon people think hitting a women is ok (ranger poll on the adver)
Talk about 2+2=5.
That isn't what the poll says at all.
[quote][p][bold]twasadawf[/bold] wrote: Cannot believe 25% of swindon people think hitting a women is ok (ranger poll on the adver)[/p][/quote]Talk about 2+2=5. That isn't what the poll says at all. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

10:02pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Wildwestener says...

dukeofM4 wrote:
It's regrettable that their row resulted in the above picture.

However, the facts of what transpired the minute she entered his house have yet to surface. If these issues are going to be battled in the press let's have the Advert post online all the court documents, and police statements so the bloggers can read through to come to their own verdict.

Some bloggers have commented the 'jurors' have made their decision. However after sitting on over three juries in the past, jurors are faced with technical legal decisions to make that does not necessarily reflect what the 'man on the street,' would regard as mainstream opinion.

These comments are not defending Mark Eatwell's actions, but let's see the full case laid out before us and put the bloggers in the juror's chair.

If Mark Eatwell is guilty fine, but under there is a continuing effort in our legal system discriminate the evidence presented in our courts thereby strengthen the prosecutor's case, limit the scope of the defendant to weaken his/here's case, and indeed there is an experiment going on as we speak to eliminate the 'victim' from the court room all together by making only a video statement admissible as evidence. This is designed to make it easier for the 'victim' not to face the 'evil' defendant in court.

So there you have future justice, the defendant v the flat screen. This is not science fiction, it's current being tested in a number of courts as we speak.

Be careful what you wish for.
Utter nonsense. Who are these "bloggers"? The jury convicted this guy fair and square and who cares what she was doing in the house, nothing excuses a man hitting a woman.
[quote][p][bold]dukeofM4[/bold] wrote: It's regrettable that their row resulted in the above picture. However, the facts of what transpired the minute she entered his house have yet to surface. If these issues are going to be battled in the press let's have the Advert post online all the court documents, and police statements so the bloggers can read through to come to their own verdict. Some bloggers have commented the 'jurors' have made their decision. However after sitting on over three juries in the past, jurors are faced with technical legal decisions to make that does not necessarily reflect what the 'man on the street,' would regard as mainstream opinion. These comments are not defending Mark Eatwell's actions, but let's see the full case laid out before us and put the bloggers in the juror's chair. If Mark Eatwell is guilty fine, but under there is a continuing effort in our legal system discriminate the evidence presented in our courts thereby strengthen the prosecutor's case, limit the scope of the defendant to weaken his/here's case, and indeed there is an experiment going on as we speak to eliminate the 'victim' from the court room all together by making only a video statement admissible as evidence. This is designed to make it easier for the 'victim' not to face the 'evil' defendant in court. So there you have future justice, the defendant v the flat screen. This is not science fiction, it's current being tested in a number of courts as we speak. Be careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense. Who are these "bloggers"? The jury convicted this guy fair and square and who cares what she was doing in the house, nothing excuses a man hitting a woman. Wildwestener
  • Score: 5

10:28pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Oik1 says...

"If Mark Eatwell is guilty fine,"

Being sentenced to 4 years imprisonment by a court of law is a bit of a giveaway to whether he was guilty or not, what we or anyone else thinks matters not a jot, what mattered was, what the jury thought and they have given their verdict.
Lets hope he gets a dose of the same treatment inside, it'll be well deserved.
"If Mark Eatwell is guilty fine," Being sentenced to 4 years imprisonment by a court of law is a bit of a giveaway to whether he was guilty or not, what we or anyone else thinks matters not a jot, what mattered was, what the jury thought and they have given their verdict. Lets hope he gets a dose of the same treatment inside, it'll be well deserved. Oik1
  • Score: 3

11:15pm Tue 29 Apr 14

dukeofM4 says...

To decide guilt in the eyes of the bloggers with all the evidence presented to this blog, not what the court decided. It would be interesting what other fellow bloggers would think of the legal technical arguments and how they relate to mainstream life. For example, to be guilty of common assault does not even involve physical contact.

English courts are increasingly becoming one for the rich hiring high profile solicitors to go against the poorly paid CPS along with underwhelming police witnesses. Whilst legal aide does the best they can, often they're handing so many cases the preparation time can be somewhat limited to do a pristine job for the defendant.

But my question of what actually happened when she arrived at the house still remains unknown. Was she drunk, abusive or just a saint that happened to get involved with a bully? The Advert is not allowed to print the summary thus unbalanced reporting. What is to hide? Allow the blog to have a full summary of the facts and decide for themselves.

What happens in this blog is we take the court's decide at face value, demonise the convicted, muzzle the press with any facts regarding the 'victim,' being left with a another case of convicted-bashing.

It's easy to do an article of the victim with a photo obviously taken by the police and put a few lines to press to position the case from a politically correct media point of view.

Unbalanced reporting is just a sign of the times.
To decide guilt in the eyes of the bloggers with all the evidence presented to this blog, not what the court decided. It would be interesting what other fellow bloggers would think of the legal technical arguments and how they relate to mainstream life. For example, to be guilty of common assault does not even involve physical contact. English courts are increasingly becoming one for the rich hiring high profile solicitors to go against the poorly paid CPS along with underwhelming police witnesses. Whilst legal aide does the best they can, often they're handing so many cases the preparation time can be somewhat limited to do a pristine job for the defendant. But my question of what actually happened when she arrived at the house still remains unknown. Was she drunk, abusive or just a saint that happened to get involved with a bully? The Advert is not allowed to print the summary thus unbalanced reporting. What is to hide? Allow the blog to have a full summary of the facts and decide for themselves. What happens in this blog is we take the court's decide at face value, demonise the convicted, muzzle the press with any facts regarding the 'victim,' being left with a another case of convicted-bashing. It's easy to do an article of the victim with a photo obviously taken by the police and put a few lines to press to position the case from a politically correct media point of view. Unbalanced reporting is just a sign of the times. dukeofM4
  • Score: -5

5:04am Wed 30 Apr 14

The Witch says...

dukeofM4 wrote:
To decide guilt in the eyes of the bloggers with all the evidence presented to this blog, not what the court decided. It would be interesting what other fellow bloggers would think of the legal technical arguments and how they relate to mainstream life. For example, to be guilty of common assault does not even involve physical contact.

English courts are increasingly becoming one for the rich hiring high profile solicitors to go against the poorly paid CPS along with underwhelming police witnesses. Whilst legal aide does the best they can, often they're handing so many cases the preparation time can be somewhat limited to do a pristine job for the defendant.

But my question of what actually happened when she arrived at the house still remains unknown. Was she drunk, abusive or just a saint that happened to get involved with a bully? The Advert is not allowed to print the summary thus unbalanced reporting. What is to hide? Allow the blog to have a full summary of the facts and decide for themselves.

What happens in this blog is we take the court's decide at face value, demonise the convicted, muzzle the press with any facts regarding the 'victim,' being left with a another case of convicted-bashing.

It's easy to do an article of the victim with a photo obviously taken by the police and put a few lines to press to position the case from a politically correct media point of view.

Unbalanced reporting is just a sign of the times.
'Demonise the convicted'? I rather think the police photo speaks for itself in this case. Whatever condition Ms Murray arrived in at the house does not excuse what happened to her and to the fact that she was held against her will for several hours, I rather feel my friend, if anyone is unbalanced you should look closer to home!
[quote][p][bold]dukeofM4[/bold] wrote: To decide guilt in the eyes of the bloggers with all the evidence presented to this blog, not what the court decided. It would be interesting what other fellow bloggers would think of the legal technical arguments and how they relate to mainstream life. For example, to be guilty of common assault does not even involve physical contact. English courts are increasingly becoming one for the rich hiring high profile solicitors to go against the poorly paid CPS along with underwhelming police witnesses. Whilst legal aide does the best they can, often they're handing so many cases the preparation time can be somewhat limited to do a pristine job for the defendant. But my question of what actually happened when she arrived at the house still remains unknown. Was she drunk, abusive or just a saint that happened to get involved with a bully? The Advert is not allowed to print the summary thus unbalanced reporting. What is to hide? Allow the blog to have a full summary of the facts and decide for themselves. What happens in this blog is we take the court's decide at face value, demonise the convicted, muzzle the press with any facts regarding the 'victim,' being left with a another case of convicted-bashing. It's easy to do an article of the victim with a photo obviously taken by the police and put a few lines to press to position the case from a politically correct media point of view. Unbalanced reporting is just a sign of the times.[/p][/quote]'Demonise the convicted'? I rather think the police photo speaks for itself in this case. Whatever condition Ms Murray arrived in at the house does not excuse what happened to her and to the fact that she was held against her will for several hours, I rather feel my friend, if anyone is unbalanced you should look closer to home! The Witch
  • Score: 4

8:44am Wed 30 Apr 14

ChannelX says...

dukeofM4 wrote:
To decide guilt in the eyes of the bloggers with all the evidence presented to this blog, not what the court decided. It would be interesting what other fellow bloggers would think of the legal technical arguments and how they relate to mainstream life. For example, to be guilty of common assault does not even involve physical contact.

English courts are increasingly becoming one for the rich hiring high profile solicitors to go against the poorly paid CPS along with underwhelming police witnesses. Whilst legal aide does the best they can, often they're handing so many cases the preparation time can be somewhat limited to do a pristine job for the defendant.

But my question of what actually happened when she arrived at the house still remains unknown. Was she drunk, abusive or just a saint that happened to get involved with a bully? The Advert is not allowed to print the summary thus unbalanced reporting. What is to hide? Allow the blog to have a full summary of the facts and decide for themselves.

What happens in this blog is we take the court's decide at face value, demonise the convicted, muzzle the press with any facts regarding the 'victim,' being left with a another case of convicted-bashing.

It's easy to do an article of the victim with a photo obviously taken by the police and put a few lines to press to position the case from a politically correct media point of view.

Unbalanced reporting is just a sign of the times.
Or, maybe you're a bizarre conspiracy theorist and the convict in this case was simply a violent bully who decided to beat up somebody weaker than himself.

Being drunk is not an excuse to beat that person up.

Being abusive is not an excuse to beat that person up.

Being a bully is not an excuse to beat another person up.

Unless in self-defence, and there's no suggestion of that being the case here, nobody has any reason to beat anyone up.

Nobody in this case was 'rich' and nobody hired high-flying lawyers.

As for 'demonising' the convicted... yes, absolutely. Unlike you, who continually tries to excuse them and pretend that they're innocent. The injuries in the photograph above didn't happen by magic.

I can only assume you've previously been convicted of similar crimes and have a chip on your shoulder about it, there's surely no other explanation for your defence of those convicted of violent domestic abuse (a truly heinous crime on every level).
[quote][p][bold]dukeofM4[/bold] wrote: To decide guilt in the eyes of the bloggers with all the evidence presented to this blog, not what the court decided. It would be interesting what other fellow bloggers would think of the legal technical arguments and how they relate to mainstream life. For example, to be guilty of common assault does not even involve physical contact. English courts are increasingly becoming one for the rich hiring high profile solicitors to go against the poorly paid CPS along with underwhelming police witnesses. Whilst legal aide does the best they can, often they're handing so many cases the preparation time can be somewhat limited to do a pristine job for the defendant. But my question of what actually happened when she arrived at the house still remains unknown. Was she drunk, abusive or just a saint that happened to get involved with a bully? The Advert is not allowed to print the summary thus unbalanced reporting. What is to hide? Allow the blog to have a full summary of the facts and decide for themselves. What happens in this blog is we take the court's decide at face value, demonise the convicted, muzzle the press with any facts regarding the 'victim,' being left with a another case of convicted-bashing. It's easy to do an article of the victim with a photo obviously taken by the police and put a few lines to press to position the case from a politically correct media point of view. Unbalanced reporting is just a sign of the times.[/p][/quote]Or, maybe you're a bizarre conspiracy theorist and the convict in this case was simply a violent bully who decided to beat up somebody weaker than himself. Being drunk is not an excuse to beat that person up. Being abusive is not an excuse to beat that person up. Being a bully is not an excuse to beat another person up. Unless in self-defence, and there's no suggestion of that being the case here, nobody has any reason to beat anyone up. Nobody in this case was 'rich' and nobody hired high-flying lawyers. As for 'demonising' the convicted... yes, absolutely. Unlike you, who continually tries to excuse them and pretend that they're innocent. The injuries in the photograph above didn't happen by magic. I can only assume you've previously been convicted of similar crimes and have a chip on your shoulder about it, there's surely no other explanation for your defence of those convicted of violent domestic abuse (a truly heinous crime on every level). ChannelX
  • Score: 5

10:47am Wed 30 Apr 14

Chrisg46 says...

Agreed with ChannelX fully - i am worried for the safety of any partner of the Duke...
Agreed with ChannelX fully - i am worried for the safety of any partner of the Duke... Chrisg46
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Wed 30 Apr 14

ChannelX says...

Chrisg46 wrote:
Agreed with ChannelX fully - i am worried for the safety of any partner of the Duke...
His arguments do seem to run worrying close to the, 'She made me do it' drivel that domestic abusers usually come out with after committing their crimes.
[quote][p][bold]Chrisg46[/bold] wrote: Agreed with ChannelX fully - i am worried for the safety of any partner of the Duke...[/p][/quote]His arguments do seem to run worrying close to the, 'She made me do it' drivel that domestic abusers usually come out with after committing their crimes. ChannelX
  • Score: 2

2:49pm Wed 30 Apr 14

SSmith3 says...

His dad thinks the sentence is too long? He could have killed her and faced life in prison instead.
His dad thinks the sentence is too long? He could have killed her and faced life in prison instead. SSmith3
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Wed 30 Apr 14

SSmith3 says...

His dad thinks he shouldn't go to jail because he has a 16 year old son? How is letting him off for severely assaulting a woman a good message to a son?
His dad thinks he shouldn't go to jail because he has a 16 year old son? How is letting him off for severely assaulting a woman a good message to a son? SSmith3
  • Score: 1

2:53pm Wed 30 Apr 14

SSmith3 says...

mrwoo wrote:
“I had some good times with Mark but it started to go downhill with the odd slap"
Surely the first time she got a slap, she should have left??
She did leave. It says that she left him, but went back to visit her step son, and that's when he beat her up.
[quote][p][bold]mrwoo[/bold] wrote: “I had some good times with Mark but it started to go downhill with the odd slap" Surely the first time she got a slap, she should have left??[/p][/quote]She did leave. It says that she left him, but went back to visit her step son, and that's when he beat her up. SSmith3
  • Score: 1

2:55pm Wed 30 Apr 14

SSmith3 says...

dukeofM4 wrote:
It's regrettable that their row resulted in the above picture.

However, the facts of what transpired the minute she entered his house have yet to surface. If these issues are going to be battled in the press let's have the Advert post online all the court documents, and police statements so the bloggers can read through to come to their own verdict.

Some bloggers have commented the 'jurors' have made their decision. However after sitting on over three juries in the past, jurors are faced with technical legal decisions to make that does not necessarily reflect what the 'man on the street,' would regard as mainstream opinion.

These comments are not defending Mark Eatwell's actions, but let's see the full case laid out before us and put the bloggers in the juror's chair.

If Mark Eatwell is guilty fine, but under there is a continuing effort in our legal system discriminate the evidence presented in our courts thereby strengthen the prosecutor's case, limit the scope of the defendant to weaken his/here's case, and indeed there is an experiment going on as we speak to eliminate the 'victim' from the court room all together by making only a video statement admissible as evidence. This is designed to make it easier for the 'victim' not to face the 'evil' defendant in court.

So there you have future justice, the defendant v the flat screen. This is not science fiction, it's current being tested in a number of courts as we speak.

Be careful what you wish for.
I used to think sexism was exaggerated and not much of an issue, until I used the internet and saw men with issues who would spend many hours going on about how all women are hos and drive men to do this and that. then I realised that they must be the ones who make tribute videos for serial killers on youtube.
[quote][p][bold]dukeofM4[/bold] wrote: It's regrettable that their row resulted in the above picture. However, the facts of what transpired the minute she entered his house have yet to surface. If these issues are going to be battled in the press let's have the Advert post online all the court documents, and police statements so the bloggers can read through to come to their own verdict. Some bloggers have commented the 'jurors' have made their decision. However after sitting on over three juries in the past, jurors are faced with technical legal decisions to make that does not necessarily reflect what the 'man on the street,' would regard as mainstream opinion. These comments are not defending Mark Eatwell's actions, but let's see the full case laid out before us and put the bloggers in the juror's chair. If Mark Eatwell is guilty fine, but under there is a continuing effort in our legal system discriminate the evidence presented in our courts thereby strengthen the prosecutor's case, limit the scope of the defendant to weaken his/here's case, and indeed there is an experiment going on as we speak to eliminate the 'victim' from the court room all together by making only a video statement admissible as evidence. This is designed to make it easier for the 'victim' not to face the 'evil' defendant in court. So there you have future justice, the defendant v the flat screen. This is not science fiction, it's current being tested in a number of courts as we speak. Be careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]I used to think sexism was exaggerated and not much of an issue, until I used the internet and saw men with issues who would spend many hours going on about how all women are hos and drive men to do this and that. then I realised that they must be the ones who make tribute videos for serial killers on youtube. SSmith3
  • Score: 1

5:47pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Wearenotamused says...

This isn't the first time he's used his fists on a woman. He's a nasty, woman hating, little bully who has finally been caught, sentenced and seen for what he truly is.
This isn't the first time he's used his fists on a woman. He's a nasty, woman hating, little bully who has finally been caught, sentenced and seen for what he truly is. Wearenotamused
  • Score: 0

9:03pm Wed 30 Apr 14

dukeofM4 says...

Let's make one thing clear, I'm not advocating anyone beating anyone up.

However, the scrutiny of what happened when she walked in the door has still not been released. Was she asked not to come to the house again (if the rental agreement or mortgage is solely in his name, he has the right to tell her not to return). CharlieX and Chrisg46 haven't provided any answers.

Yes I agree if she was drunk it doesn't give Mark Eatwell the right to beat her up. However looking at the situation as a bystander and watching what goes on in the real world (not the court), if she went over to his house on a mission looking for trouble, I would be inclined to be less sympathetic.

We all are faced with these situations everyday. Do you walk up the dark street with a gang of youths at the end late at night or if something happens rely upon the judicial system? Personally I'd skip the street.

Do you pull the pit bull's tail? Do you approach the raving man in the street to ask for directions or find a normal person?

You can go on with example after example, but prevention is the best way.

She always had the front door and she didn't seem to lack the confidence to have her picture plastered on the front of the Advert and do an interview.

I'm afraid if the story was she was drunk, aggressive, etc etc, public sympathy would not be as high than St Jayne walking into the house and got bashed about. That's how many of the public would think about this case whether you want to believe it or not.

Once again publish the case details, yes within the law, he would be guilty if she was sober, drunk, aggressive or peaceful. However the court of public doesn't necessarily take the law into account and often differs from verdicts.

That's why we need the court documents. My fellow bloggers seem not to want put this case under further scrutiny and not see the wider picture. Only elevate her on a pedestal and bash him.

It's all part of the grievance culture we live in these days.
Let's make one thing clear, I'm not advocating anyone beating anyone up. However, the scrutiny of what happened when she walked in the door has still not been released. Was she asked not to come to the house again (if the rental agreement or mortgage is solely in his name, he has the right to tell her not to return). CharlieX and Chrisg46 haven't provided any answers. Yes I agree if she was drunk it doesn't give Mark Eatwell the right to beat her up. However looking at the situation as a bystander and watching what goes on in the real world (not the court), if she went over to his house on a mission looking for trouble, I would be inclined to be less sympathetic. We all are faced with these situations everyday. Do you walk up the dark street with a gang of youths at the end late at night or if something happens rely upon the judicial system? Personally I'd skip the street. Do you pull the pit bull's tail? Do you approach the raving man in the street to ask for directions or find a normal person? You can go on with example after example, but prevention is the best way. She always had the front door and she didn't seem to lack the confidence to have her picture plastered on the front of the Advert and do an interview. I'm afraid if the story was she was drunk, aggressive, etc etc, public sympathy would not be as high than St Jayne walking into the house and got bashed about. That's how many of the public would think about this case whether you want to believe it or not. Once again publish the case details, yes within the law, he would be guilty if she was sober, drunk, aggressive or peaceful. However the court of public doesn't necessarily take the law into account and often differs from verdicts. That's why we need the court documents. My fellow bloggers seem not to want put this case under further scrutiny and not see the wider picture. Only elevate her on a pedestal and bash him. It's all part of the grievance culture we live in these days. dukeofM4
  • Score: 0

8:27am Thu 1 May 14

Wearenotamused says...

dukeofM4, please read my comment posted yesterday. Mark Eatwell is a pathetic excuse of a man with previous history of this behaviour. Only difference this time is, he couldn't talk his way out of it and his "poor me" act didn't work in court.
dukeofM4, please read my comment posted yesterday. Mark Eatwell is a pathetic excuse of a man with previous history of this behaviour. Only difference this time is, he couldn't talk his way out of it and his "poor me" act didn't work in court. Wearenotamused
  • Score: 0

11:57am Thu 1 May 14

Chrisg46 says...

The jury would not have examined the documents, the judge would also have taken it into account before sentencing.
There is no need to publish all that within the newspaper as his trial is finished.
I have not given any answers as such, because none are necessary. As you said, no matter what, there is no justification for his actions.
The jury would not have examined the documents, the judge would also have taken it into account before sentencing. There is no need to publish all that within the newspaper as his trial is finished. I have not given any answers as such, because none are necessary. As you said, no matter what, there is no justification for his actions. Chrisg46
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree