The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer

[gringo]

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?

    The quite apparent animosity towards Jeremy from the relatives would have made any negotiations difficult. The disdain towards him is obvious and they would not have been happy at all about Jeremy being able to dictate their future.
   There is a lot of information available regarding the land deal and other financial matters and it is self evident that the relatives were aware and acting on this knowledge to protect their vital interests, as you say.
   It would perhaps inform your thinking to look into the various financial matters,if you haven't already done so, and you can judge whether the Eatons and Boutflours would be significantly financially compromised and whether this is proven to a satisfactory standard.
   I believe so, but only you can judge for yourself.

[JackieD]

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?

Ann Eaton had a very personal interest in Jeremy as well as financial

[guest29835]

    The quite apparent animosity towards Jeremy from the relatives would have made any negotiations difficult. The disdain towards him is obvious and they would not have been happy at all about Jeremy being able to dictate their future.
   There is a lot of information available regarding the land deal and other financial matters and it is self evident that the relatives were aware and acting on this knowledge to protect their vital interests, as you say.
   It would perhaps inform your thinking to look into the various financial matters,if you haven't already done so, and you can judge whether the Eatons and Boutflours would be significantly financially compromised and whether this is proven to a satisfactory standard.
   I believe so, but only you can judge for yourself.

A starting-point for researchers should be the wills and probate documents and information from the Land Registry and Companies House - all of which are public documents and disclose objective factual information. 

The Bamber and Speakman wills were probated, so are available for public viewing.  Some knowledge of company law, land law, charity law and agricultural tenancies and how they work would be required (which I have).

Then you have to consider the flow of information.

The intentions of June and Nevill were probably communicated to Pam Boutflour, who would have leaked the information to the other relatives through gossip and private discussions and what not.

Additionally, Barbara Wilson was indiscreet - a sort of petty slanderer and gossip-mongerer.

Mabel Speakman's intentions were known.

Immediately following the deaths, the relatives must have known that Jeremy would likely inherit the estate, including the fief, freeholds and tenancies of other lands and farms, shares in two limited companies and property, various valuable chattels, and so forth.

Why specifically would that harm them?  And if they knew this was coming anyway, because Jeremy was the son, then why weren't they steeled for it?

What specific allegations did the relatives make about Jeremy's intentions for the estate?  How did Jeremy communicate these intentions to them?

The point about vital interests is that there is a distinction to make.

It's one thing to say Jeremy would have caused them heartache, trouble and aggravation: he was acting insensitively and giving away family heirlooms, or he was going to sell his shares in the caravan park to a mysterious Russian with a clipped Hampshire brogue, or he was a bit of a woofter and prancing around in women's clothes, or he was saying how he was going to give up the family farming tradition and sell out for a smallholding on the South Island of New Zealand, or whatever. 

None of these things could drive the family to malevolence on the level you posit. 

But it's another thing entirely to say that Jeremy threatened them vitally, i.e. in some way fundamentally. 

Here's what I consider examples of intérêts vitaux under threat that may lead to a slide into corruption and dishonesty on the part of the relatives:

Jeremy's inheritance threatened them with bankruptcy/insolvency and effective homelessness.

Jeremy was going to throw them off their land and had clearly expressed his intention to do so.

Nevill's estate was owed a substantial amount of money - a life-changing amount - by the relatives and Jeremy had indicated he would enforce the debt and wanted repayment of the principal, and he had a loan agreement and security/lien to support this threat.

Before I leave you with this, let's go back to things that might have annoyed or troubled the relatives.  I've said that such a thing would not lead them to intentionally frame Jeremy for murder without regard for his guilt or innocence, but it might however lead them down a road to find evidence that backs up their suspicions that he is the murderer.  For instance, let's say Ann is heartbroken that Jeremy intends to sell Vaulty Manor and he goads her about it.  Ann would not on this basis intentionally frame Jeremy for murder, but it might make her more determined to find evidence that he is a murderer - if you see the distinction - and it might also make her blind to countervailing facts, views and opinions that point to Jeremy's innocence. 

[guest29835]

Ann Eaton had a very personal interest in Jeremy as well as financial

Do tell us more.

My popcorn is at the ready and I've got my home-brewed ginger beer.

Even the dog has stopped barking and is now looking at the screen in anticipation.

[Steve_uk]

Joint enterprise, with Crispy as the linchpin.  He was a bossy, devious little bugger, that barking mutt.

I was enjoying this thread up until now, even though it was wacky at times. But this comment has shown you for what you are deep down: common, insecure, no breeding.

[guest29835]

I was enjoying this thread up until now, even though it was wacky at times. But this comment has shown you for what you are deep down: common, insecure, no breeding.

This is actually true, Steve, except for the insecure part.  I think that bit is what psychologists call projection.  Your insecurity and sense of inadequacy is very obvious in that you come on this Forum to goad and needle people, you are emotionally-driven, you are inclined to narcissistic moral grandstanding (per the above post, being an example) and you have nothing of substance to say.

Nevertheless, you are two-thirds correct: I am common and I have no breeding.  I am, however, more intelligent than you - which is not insecurity, it's just an observance of fact.  I have more brains in my little finger.

Nevertheless, this is a first: you've actually said something that's true.

[guest29835]

Steve has an emotional need to lash out and bully other people.  He is a sad inadequate prancing around with affectations of moral superiority and he is using this Forum rather than contributing to it.

Can I ask how long this will be tolerated?

[Steve_uk]

I'm surprised people were unaware of Jeremy's intentions after killing his adoptive parents, his twin nephews and his schizophrenic sister: he wanted to sell every single farming-related asset to his name, live it up in the Maida Vale flat, buy a £38,000 Porsche and invite Anji Greaves into his bed.

[guest29835]

I'm surprised people were unaware of Jeremy's intentions after killing his adoptive parents, his twin nephews and his schizophrenic sister: he wanted to sell every single farming-related asset to his name, live it up in the Maida Vale flat, buy a £38,000 Porsche and invite Anji Greaves into his bed.

Are any of the things I have just emboldened illegal? 

We could interpret your post differently and say this:

I'm surprised people were unaware of Jeremy's intentions after Sheila tragically shot his adoptive parents, his twin nephews and herself: he wanted to sell every single farming-related asset to his name, live it up in the Maida Vale flat, buy a £38,000 Porsche and invite Anji Greaves into his bed.

If true, would that deserve 35 years in a close confinement prison (and counting)?

[Steve_uk]

Are any of the things I have just emboldened illegal? 

We could interpret your post differently and say this:

I'm surprised people were unaware of Jeremy's intentions after Sheila tragically shot his adoptive parents, his twin nephews and herself: he wanted to sell every single farming-related asset to his name, live it up in the Maida Vale flat, buy a £38,000 Porsche and invite Anji Greaves into his bed.

If true, would that deserve 35 years in a close confinement prison (and counting)?

If you were truly concerned about the welfare of your family during a siege situation you would not be discussing a £38,000 Porsche with PC Lay.

[guest29835]

If you were truly concerned about the welfare of your family during a siege situation you would not be discussing a £38,000 Porsche with PC Lay.

He wasn't.

I say that as somebody who leans towards 'guilty'.  Unlike you, I don't tell lies about him.

Apart from doubts about the evidence itself, one reason I am not willing to go all out and declare him guilty is because of people like you.  You actually harm your own cause.

I think you are a stranger to the truth.  I don't believe you have even the remotest sense of truth, justice or objectivity.  Your approach is emotional and judgemental.  Your idea of truth and justice is whatever suits your feelings about whatever matter is under discussion. 

Jeremy is evil, greedy, he wanted a Porsche, blah, blah, blah.....You got it all from that Michael Winner drama, or was it that risible book by Carol Ann Lee?

I say again: Your purpose here is to deter and divert inquiry into the case, disrupt threads and ruin the forum.  I see through people, you've shown your hand, and it's obvious.  I'm surprised you're still here.  I can only think that Jeremy's supporters have a very broad and generous idea of free speech.  Personally, I wouldn't allow somebody in my house who had declared his intention to burn it down.  I certainly wouldn't be inviting him in for a chat on the sofa.

[JackieD]

Do tell us more.

My popcorn is at the ready and I've got my home-brewed ginger beer.

Even the dog has stopped barking and is now looking at the screen in anticipation.

Sorry QC just got back from my friends watching the latest MM documentary. Jeremy told me himself that Anne really really liked him but he was never interested (they were obviously not real cousins) so as well as the friction over land I think Ann had a personal grudge over that. She seemed very obsessive from what he told me and made a fool of herself.

[JackieD]

I'm surprised people were unaware of Jeremy's intentions after killing his adoptive parents, his twin nephews and his schizophrenic sister: he wanted to sell every single farming-related asset to his name, live it up in the Maida Vale flat, buy a £38,000 Porsche and invite Anji Greaves into his bed.

Jokes

[JackieD]

If you were truly concerned about the welfare of your family during a siege situation you would not be discussing a £38,000 Porsche with PC Lay.

You idiot he didnt

[guest29835]

You idiot he didnt

'Idiot' is water off a duck's back for Steve; he gets called that all the time.

You need to be a bit more forceful Jackie.

Tell him that you appreciate his heterodoxical erudition, however you must politely and firmly disagree on account of his views being in conflict with the known facts.  Furthermore, on no account is he to take offence at this divergence of views, nevertheless you and he are at deadlock in the matter.

That'll start him off.