There is no doubt that they had motive to frame Jeremy.
The land deal with Neville discussed at length on this forum as well as CT videos explaining those deals.
Jeremy was unaware of these deals which would have been a huge quandary for the relatives were Jeremy to inherit.
In international law, there is the concept of
intérêts vitaux, meaning 'vital interests' that a sovereign state seeks to exclude from normal legal assessments of its actions. An example might be a state entering into a treaty to abide by certain widely-recognised human rights standards, but to exclude from any ensuing requirements an obligation to adhere to these standards where, for instance, national security is at stake.
If we take that concept as analogy and try to apply it to this situation, it could be that people who are otherwise normally honest and decent by community standards may - I only say may - be tempted to depart from those standards when they reason that there is an
intérêts vitaux at stake: a vital interest. In doing so, you might say they are acting as their own sovereign - as if they are above or outside the law and normal community standards.
That mentality is often what leads otherwise honest and respectable people into criminal behaviour. An accountant who steals money to justify paying school fees, for instance. A vital interest.
I am not suggesting that the Boutflours and Eatons were/are as honest as the day is long - they may be, for all know, but I haven't made their acquaintance - but the point is that we can assume them to be honest in the sense that normal, ordinary and average people are, and we can
still say that they could, under the right exigencies, act dishonestly.
The same applies to practically anybody.
Practically anybody could fall into dishonesty under the right pressures. I would theorise - and this is only my thoughts on the subject - that in the case of otherwise honest people, those pressures will tend to be vital interests.
Were there vital interests at stake here for the Boutflours and Eatons?
Possibly. Maybe. We need to be careful not to fall into the same traps that the 'pro-guilt' people do in reverse and make sweeping assumptions.
The matter requires further investigation and careful thought, not glib generalisations based on half-the-truth.
Is there specific proof that had Jeremy Bamber inherited the Boutflours and Eatons would have been significantly financially compromised?
Can we verify what Jeremy's intentions were at the time, assuming the original police investigation under Taff Jones had taken its course?
Surely Jeremy could and would have just worked something out with his relatives, under the advice of his solicitor?
