And, one more point, would anyone disagree (apart from Jackie and Mike) that on the strength of testimonies shown on this forum, JB's demeanour after the decimation of his entire family was brusque, even cavalier? Is it just me who has always remained unconvinced by his "sad" face at the funeral?
I'm not sure I agree, but definitely don't disagree... allow me to explain:
There doesn't seem to be much testimony (other than Ann Eaton's) that makes much of his demeanour.
There's some stuff about the actions he carried out though which fall in line with the 'not exactly distraught' view.
But there's a massive danger. He was good looking, reasonably privileged you might argue. Certainly above average for the UK. Perhaps you might describe it 'public school' type. Almost conditioned to have the permanent 'smugness' about him.
I think it would be fair to say that type of manner is generally not going to appeal to the masses (in this situation), as a Prime Minister, maybe, but not as a potential murderer. Although not quite a yuppie, he wasn't far off in most people's eyes. (And yuppies where very much of that era)
If I were advising him, I'd without question tell him that his appearance and manner would do nothing to help him, only hinder him, but that wouldn't make him arrogant, or brusque, he simply appeared to be.
Many of his actions also did him no favours at all, even though only one of them was 'wrong' (breaking back into the house).
I do agree that as the public impression went (by and large) people thought him smug and a little too 'full of himself'.
There are many reports of others who knew him saying this too, but this is hearsay, and it's easy to say that after he's been accused. I must note too that I didn't find many saying he was a monster (as sometimes they do)
Anybody trying to claim he was seen as 'normal happy go lucky young man' would be hard pressed.
If ever there was a young man who FITTED the image of 'spoilt brat kills to get hands on money" he was it.
I do believe that really counted against in the minds of the public, and the jury.
I feel though that I must defend some of his actions too...
BECAUSE he had good looks and a certain swagger, a bit of money and privilege... people judged his actions to git in with that image... "off to the south of france!".
If our families had all been killed, we might well have tried to get away for a short while... somewhere in the country maybe and people might say "aww, who blames them, cottage in Devon to avoid all the press", but because he could afford to go to Amsterdam or SoF, it looks like he's being flash with the cash and enjoying a 'holiday' !!!
It's said he spent reasonably lavishly after the deaths too... perhaps dining and drinking more than you might expect... but people grieve in many ways, Trying to put it behind you, going to a pub, and people buying you drinks, offering condolences etc... can quickly be reported as drinking in a bar with 10 'friends' living it up.
If I'm honest, I am one of those people who think he over egged the pudding at the funeral, and acted incredibly unwisely after the deaths, and I suspect it was simple manifestation of his arrogance. He could LITERALLY get away with murder. So cocky, he gave little consideration to keeping his head down to avoid being caught.
It's every bit as valid to think "that's how he was" and since he didn't do it, he didn't think like a killer. If he HAD been a killer, he was a total idiot, he'd have kept his head down.
So all in all - toss away his image and the hearsay about him (if you can) ... and look at what he did and said, rather that how he did something or said something.
(but if you see anybody like him, don't buy a car from them) ;-)
