1. Do you still regard Jeremy Bamber as a non-predator?
2. What were Jeremy's relationships with his family like?
1. Yes. This is mainly because I don't accept the inheritance motive theory, as I don't believe it stands up under close scrutiny. I think Jeremy had a bit more business nous than that and I also think his alleged actions in the aftermath of the incident are inconsistent with inheritance as a motive. He would not be disposing of everything and living it up, as is alleged, if he had killed to take over the estates himself. Rather, I see his actions as consistent with somebody in shock, either because he is an innocent victim too, or because he did it, but for other reasons or no reason and he cannot himself quite believe what he has done. In that latter scenario, Jeremy has brought disaster on himself because, though he may have some business ability, he would not be quite up to it at that point, being a 'young' 24 and inexperienced, and he is now surrounded by potentially antagonistic (if not hostile) relatives who are part of the same farming-business cluster. In either scenario, innocent or guilty, Jeremy is vulnerable.
I think the reason inheritance as a motive is promoted is because it's very easy for people to grasp, not necessarily because it's actually true or wholly true. I accept the obvious point that Jeremy would have inherited a substantial estate and I also accept that if Jeremy had killed his family just for gain, then that would point to him being a potential psychopath, and such actions would furthermore fit the definition of 'predator', but I cannot accept it was that simple, for several reasons, one being that it just seems highly improbable. He would have to sit down and plan to kill two little boys, for one thing. I can't see it, personally. I know it can happen, though it must be exceedingly rare.
I also don't believe the killing was planned at length or with any sophistication. The phone call idea, for instance, I think may have come up on the night after things went wrong with Nevill, and this would fit more with the timings and having to move on foot. It hardly makes sense for him to plan to shoot Nevill in bed and then pretend there was a phone call, but if things have gone wrong, it may make more sense for him to stage a call and move the phones around (though it could equally be that there was coincidentally a genuine problem with the domestic phones and he knew this).
2. Rough and smooth. I think Jeremy essentially told the truth about this to police in the interview. He must have got on with his father for them to work together, but I can also imagine his father being snappy and on edge with him. The photograph of Nevill I started a thread on, in which he looks to have been taken by surprise when out working, shooting or game keeping, or whatever, shows a man with concerns and worries etched on his face, which is sad when you consider how old he was.
The photographs I have seen of June show her as uncomfortable, and I do not believe she was terribly close to Jeremy, but I think the relationship would have been amicable. She probably channelled all her concerns about Jeremy through male figures in the family, including Nevill especially and also Robert Boutflour.
Sheila and Jeremy were not very close either. Jeremy may not have seen too much of the twins.
When initially Jeremy told the police the relationships were good, this was seen as suspicious but it could equally be viewed innocently. If we imagine an innocent man has just been told all his family are dead and it's murder-suicide by his sister, why does he need to go into careful nuances about his family relationships? Of course, if he is guilty, that puts a different complexion on the matter.
