But Jeremy wasn't killing for the same reasons at Sutcliffe. Sutcliffe got a thrill out of killing people, that was his MO. Jeremy was killing for financial gain - so why would he have killed before? He wiped out everyone that would was before him in the inheritence line.
Someone who kills for money isn't going to have killed before.
I have never heard of anything so absurd - Jeremy killed for financial gain?
And how do you work that out, how was all that /this money going to fall into his hands? There would be other beneficiaries depending upon who died first to last, surely? And exactly how was Jeremy going to achieve that, how was he going to prove who had died, and in what order? The money from his parents estate(s) was never just going to fall into his lap unproblematic. Robert Boutflour (now himself deceased) looked into this on behalf of the relatives within days / weeks of the killings. It transpired that because the police were unable to establish time of death, the matter might have to be treated as though everyone had been killed or died in a road traffic accident, where the eldest victim had died first, and the youngest last - Sheila would be taken out of the equation if she had committed suicide or taken her own life so to speak. The money from his parents estate(s) was never simply going to fall into Jeremy' hands, there was an administrator of the wills (Basil John Cock) who would be bound by law to make sure any monies and property subject of the estate went to its rightful, legal beneficiary - so, where is it set out in clear terms that everything would have automatically gone to Jeremy (but for his convictions)? I don't agree with anyone who says that everything from his parents estate would automatically have gone to him. I am sure the relatives and other beneficiaries would have contested such a move, if Jeremy had not been convicted of the murders...
Jeremy could not have orchestrated the murders with a view to him inheriting everything in his parents estate, without careful thought about the contents of his parents wills, entitlements of other beneficiaries, and proving the time of death in the case of all five victims. How could he have proved that victim (a) died first, followed by victims (b), (c), (d) and (e) in order so that everything would automatically fall into his hands and nobody else would have been entitled to anything? It is an impossible scenario to even contemplate, let alone to put forward and expect everyone to believe it. The only certainty that comes out of this affair is that once Jeremy was convicted of the murders, he himself was taken out of the equation, and he would not be entitled to anything at all from his parents estate(s)? Any financial gain from the deaths would be contested by the very same relatives who set out from the beginning to implicate Jeremy in the shootings as the murderer...
It would be much more simpler for the relatives to put Jeremy in the frame, than say for Jeremy to have carried out the murders with a 100% expectancy of receiving everything in his parents estate and for him to gain financially to the extent that nobody else, no other beneficiary would have got anything...
