If recent Arizona tests true, Silencer evidence manufactured...

[susan]

Morning Mike I also think had Jeremy not been wrongfully convicted it would not have been an open and shut case that he would inherit the whole of the Estate.  It would have been contested by the family maybe including the next of kin of the dear little boys.  As I said in my previous post not many murders are committed for an inheritance.

[mike tesko]

Morning Mike I also think had Jeremy not been wrongfully convicted it would not have been an open and shut case that he would inherit the whole of the Estate.  It would have been contested by the family maybe including the next of kin of the dear little boys.  As I said in my previous post not many murders are committed for an inheritance.

I agree....

Nothing was clear cut as to who would inherit even if Jeremy had not been convicted of the murders - it would have been a long drawn out matter, which much falling out between all beneficiaries in the clamber to get as much as they could for themselves...

[lebaleb]

Half of the estate would have been Jeremy's anyway, all he had to do was wait. It was like money in the bank increasing in value. Was he so greedy and impatient that he would slaughter his whole family? It's clear from the wills that Ralph and June didn't want the relatives to get more than a pittance. The way the relatives behaved concerning Gran Speakman speaks volumes.

[susan]

morning lebaleb  Jeremy seemed to be having a good lifestyle and I think he seemed to get what he wanted out of his Dad.  He was provided with a house, car shares in the caravan park a decent salary from the farm why would he want to murder the whole family for money from what I have read his parents wanted Sheila and Jeremy to have the Estate between them with a mere pittance going to the extended family.

[Patti]

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.

Hi mat

I don't think you understand where I am coming from. I don't think for one minute Sheila or Jeremy killed before, in no way I am suggesting that.  I am on about the psychological profile of a killer.  For example, had either one of them had any mental disorders? Had either one of them threatened to take their own life? Had either one of them made any suggestions that they wanted to kill? Had either one of them shown any signs of psychopathy? I am on about the patten leading up to the crime.

In all fairness if one was to do a psychological profile Sheila would come out top, she fits the profile.

I know there is a great deal of doubt that Sheila could have killed her family, but look at they way they were killed. One two shots to the body....not a direct kill. Both NB and JB were able to move about when they had been shot....this tells us the killer was in control of the situation and enjoyed what they were doing. The killer wanted them to suffer, taunted them if you like; until the final shots to the head killed them outright. Who ever did this mat was insane and had severe mental health problems.

No someone who kills for money, may not have killed before, but they might have shown some signs of mental illness prior to the killings.

JB was not short of money mat. He had his own place, he owned 42 acres of land, had 8% share of the caravan sight, had all his bills paid for. had 2500 a year bonus, he earned 170 per week, had a new car. He was in a relationship, he had friends, he mixed socially, he was kind hearted, he hated killing animals. The only thing that JB was famous for was his arrogance and his inhability to except what had happened and of course that press photograph with the stare.....Oh and lets not forget the holidays and high life that the press portrayed him as having....Did you know when he went to Amsterdam, they all shared one room and it was not even a 3 star..

The evidence against him is very weak and it has weakened more so over the years...with what has come to light. If he had a retrial, he would be a free man. Unless someone can come up with something that is concrete.

I did not lie to over the windows mat....There is not one scrap of evidence to say he entered those windows or left via any windows at WHF.....They were extensively examined by forensics and they found nothing....

[Bridget]

Just read your brilliant post egap. Once again you have spoken with the evidence that has been presented regarding Sheila. 

Of course I must add that there is not one scrap of evidence that JB was violent or ever having any mental disorders.  

You say that as if the two automatically go hand in hand. They don't.

[Jane]

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...

Mike, I think you may be overlooking that Jeremy stood to inherit much more than the rellies thought he should have and I have no doubt, that how ever June and Neville died, the rellies would have gone to court in order to maintain their lifestyle. I believe the situation would have been discussed many times. The mass deaths must have been seen as a God given opportunity which they grabbed with both hands.

EP must have been satisfied that they had it wrapped up. Why else treat the scene in such a cavelier manner? Why else destroy potential evidence? Why else give permission for funerals? The answer has to be that they felt further investigation to be unnecessary...........until the rellies started poking around Jeremy's name had probably only been used as that of the sole survivor. The police, I believe, wouldn't have thought of charging Jeremy had it not been for the rellies who pushed them forward AND provided them with the "evidence" with which to do it. Reason? IMO, because they were afraid that bequests alone wouldn't provide them with enough to maintain their lifestyle. Now, what was it that has been said about crimes being committed out of greed?

[lookout]

You can bet your life that the relatives had already worked out their financial gains. Something which the jury were never told about, as to who got what. Yes,,,they'd have all been rubbing their hands once Jeremy was cuffed. Pure unadulterated greed was their motives for seeing Jeremy incarcerated. You've only to read the horror stories in the months following the deaths. Absolutely disgusting.

[mertol22]

Hi mat

I don't think you understand where I am coming from. I don't think for one minute Sheila or Jeremy killed before, in no way I am suggesting that.  I am on about the psychological profile of a killer.  For example, had either one of them had any mental disorders? Had either one of them threatened to take their own life? Had either one of them made any suggestions that they wanted to kill? Had either one of them shown any signs of psychopathy? I am on about the patten leading up to the crime.

In all fairness if one was to do a psychological profile Sheila would come out top, she fits the profile.

I know there is a great deal of doubt that Sheila could have killed her family, but look at they way they were killed. One two shots to the body....not a direct kill. Both NB and JB were able to move about when they had been shot....this tells us the killer was in control of the situation and enjoyed what they were doing. The killer wanted them to suffer, taunted them if you like; until the final shots to the head killed them outright. Who ever did this mat was insane and had severe mental health problems.

No someone who kills for money, may not have killed before, but they might have shown some signs of mental illness prior to the killings.

JB was not short of money mat. He had his own place, he owned 42 acres of land, had 8% share of the caravan sight, had all his bills paid for. had 2500 a year bonus, he earned 170 per week, had a new car. He was in a relationship, he had friends, he mixed socially, he was kind hearted, he hated killing animals. The only thing that JB was famous for was his arrogance and his inhability to except what had happened and of course that press photograph with the stare.....Oh and lets not forget the holidays and high life that the press portrayed him as having....Did you know when he went to Amsterdam, they all shared one room and it was not even a 3 star..

The evidence against him is very weak and it has weakened more so over the years...with what has come to light. If he had a retrial, he would be a free man. Unless someone can come up with something that is concrete.

I did not lie to over the windows mat....There is not one scrap of evidence to say he entered those windows or left via any windows at WHF.....They were extensively examined by forensics and they found nothing....

Hi Patti, the house has a sliced onion in each room to kill the bugs, £170 in the mid 1980s was a lot of money when money went far not like today, without question jeremy was not rolling in money but not short, meanwhile in south yorkshire the region was being butchered with the miners strike 2 very different worlds, you do not kill and winner takes all did the relatives already know they were not in a shout ?

[Jane]

Hi Bridget

It depends what the def of violence is in this context but Colin's wit stat and book claims that Sheila smashed his prized possessions (not sure what these prized possessions were perhaps his artwork) to hurt him psychologically.  To my mind the smashing of property is violent behaviour.   

As far as I can see there's absolutely no evidence whatsover of JB behaving violently towards anyone or anything or going out of his way to hurt anyone mentally.  No anti-social behaviour.  No probs at school, with employers, with neighbours or girlfriends.

Egap, hi. An exercise sometimes suggested during psychotherapy is that the client punches a pillow as a way of getting anger out of their system. Basically, violence under controlled conditions.

I recall that there were statements made to some papers by Jeremy's school "friends" which record him, for various reasons as not being considered to be "one of them." Some, I imagine, saw it as an opportunity to put the boot in at a safe remove.

Whilst I think it reasonable to think he wasn't one of "them", after all, this is what the rellies seemed to think, I think it likely that one of his biggest problems was his looks. They were good. He probably never got acne and his peer group would have been jealous as hell.

[Bridget]

Egap, hi. An exercise sometimes suggested during psychotherapy is that the client punches a pillow as a way of getting anger out of their system. Basically, violence under controlled conditions.

I recall that there were statements made to some papers by Jeremy's school "friends" which record him, for various reasons as not being considered to be "one of them." Some, I imagine, saw it as an opportunity to put the boot in at a safe remove.

Whilst I think it reasonable to think he wasn't one of "them", after all, this is what the rellies seemed to think, I think it likely that one of his biggest problems was his looks. They were good. He probably never got acne and his peer group would have been jealous as hell.

I think many of the theories over Sheila's mental state and her 'profile' as a killer could equally apply to Jeremy. He was also adopted, and so had the same potential for issues to arise from that. He was sent to boarding school relatively young, where he was bullied. Sheila's problems may or may not have manifested in her mental illness, his may have manifested in his seemingly cold arrogance an poor relationship with his adoptive parents, particularly with his mother. Going back to Patti's post regarding serial killers profiles, didn't Geoffry Dahmer start with animals?

[Jane]

I think many of the theories over Sheila's mental state and her 'profile' as a killer could equally apply to Jeremy. He was also adopted, and so had the same potential for issues to arise from that. He was sent to boarding school relatively young, where he was bullied. Sheila's problems may or may not have manifested in her mental illness, his may have manifested in his seemingly cold arrogance an poor relationship with his adoptive parents, particularly with his mother. Going back to Patti's post regarding serial killers profiles, didn't Geoffry Dahmer start with animals?

Bridget, hi. How are you? Many of those theories apply to me, too. However, I did have ghastly acne!!! All I can say is that children will respond to the same stimulii in different ways, but I suspect that June waged a different type of control over Sheila, her own repressed emotions, perhaps, and of course this is just IMO, causing Sheila to suppress hers. In spending so much energy on Sheila, it's possible that Jeremy felt neglected by her. I get the impression that he didn't feel as inextricably bound to her as Sheila did and possibly the "cold arrogence" helped shield him from feeling hurt by it.

[Bridget]

Bridget, hi. How are you? Many of those theories apply to me, too. However, I did have ghastly acne!!! All I can say is that children will respond to the same stimulii in different ways, but I suspect that June waged a different type of control over Sheila, her own repressed emotions, perhaps, and of course this is just IMO, causing Sheila to suppress hers. In spending so much energy on Sheila, it's possible that Jeremy felt neglected by her. I get the impression that he didn't feel as inextricably bound to her as Sheila did and possibly the "cold arrogence" helped shield him from feeling hurt by it.

Hi April, I'm fine thanks!

I can't disagree with any of that, but it still doesn't make Sheila a killer, IMO

[Bridget]

Hi Bridget

There's one fundamental difference between Sheila and Jeremy with regard to their upbrining and that is June's mental illness in 1959 caused by adopting Sheila.  Imo this is quite likely to have given rise to an attachment disorder.  June did not suffer mental illness shortly after adopting Jeremy.

First Sheila suffered a 'Primal Wound' ie separation from her birth mother. 

http://nancyverrier.com/information-for-adoptees/

Second Sheila suffered an attachment disorder by having an unresponsive caregiver in the crucial first year or so of life.

http://www.attachmentexperts.com/whatisattachment.html

I'm afraid to say the above link says much about Sheila.

I doubt if there are many adoptive mothers who adopt and then become so depressed that they need ect as an in-patient.  June was 34/35 years of age when she adopted Sheila.  She made a conscious decision to adopt.  I feel sure she must have had reservations at the time and this is unforgiveable in my view.  Dr F's wit stat states Sheila as saying June lacked warmth towards her and I wld imagine the relationship was frosty throughout.  (OMG if Maggie was here she wld be going ape.  I can feel her wrath just thinking about it).

Thanks, there's some interesting information on that link and I can see why you would come to the conclusion that attachment disorder may be at the root of Sheila's problems. But her problems are well documented, we know that she had them, although probably not as much was known then as it is now about why she had them. But the fact that she had them, for whatever underlying reason, doesn't mean she killed her family.

Given what is said here about June, even though she was apparently mentally recovered by the time she adopted Jeremy, do you think she was able to connect with him?

[Jane]

Hi April1

I wld imagine a lot of not being one of "them" amounted to Jeremy not engaging in sports ie cricket, rugby and football.  It's a Q I keep meaning to ask Mike which I'll do next.  I think Jeremy might have had an artistic bent like his birth sister and for this reason he might have been considered not one of "us".  Plus he might just naturally have felt at ease around females.  Note in The Guardian vid he refers to accompanying Sheila on modelling assignments and mixing with her friends and he was only 15 yoa at the time.  His gawky mates were prob jealous of his 'pulling power' and ease with women.

Egap! YES!! right on the nail, and just imagine what sort of problems any artistic leanings would creazte for him!!! My God, it doesn't bear thinking about. Home life. Anything falling outside of what their strict moral code regarded as "normal" would have been frowned upon. Wasn't Neville supposed to have referred to him as "Nancy?" Didn't the rellies make insinuations about his sexuality? Is there any work less suited, than farming, to an artistic personality? School life!!!! Imagine him being surrounded by all those tough, macho kids, all taking the piss out of him, because he wasn't like them, and not being able to go home and tell his parents. WAS the arrogance about "You can't touch me because you can't reach me?"