Misconceptions About Jeremys Upbringing

[grahameb]

He wasn't.

Why did RWB feel it necessary to get grandma to change her will to exclude Jeremy then?

[grahameb]

How nice. Pity he called her a looney, nutter, psychotic depressive and said he did not like her on the massacre night.

Jeremy's supporters have often said he would not have committed the massacre due to inheriting from his grandmother. However I never seen any proof of this and it was never discussed at trial. Although Neville's will was, which Jeremy said he had read & agreed it tied him to the farm in order to inherit.

RWB called her a looney. Which of course in layman's terms she was. Jeremy was only telling the truth. Ask the Boutflours who always called them both (although they strongly deny it) cuckoos. I think you will probably find that the relatives called Jeremy a lot worse because they hated him?

[grahameb]

How nice. Pity he called her a looney, nutter, psychotic depressive and said he did not like her on the massacre night.

Jeremy's supporters have often said he would not have committed the massacre due to inheriting from his grandmother. However I never seen any proof of this and it was never discussed at trial. Although Neville's will was, which Jeremy said he had read & agreed it tied him to the farm in order to inherit.

Doesn't Wilkes say anything about it? I am surprised.

[No-Bits]

Why did RWB feel it necessary to get grandma to change her will to exclude Jeremy then?

To remove June's share.

[grahameb]

So you again admit you are a Jeremy supporter. Maybe you will stop pretending to be sititng on the fence as an objective party finally?  When you write things liek this then profess you are objective and on the fence it doesn't wash.

You look at it ass backwards.  Instead of looking at the evidence you look at whethe ryou believe Jeremy would be able to kill and would do so for the amount of money at stake and you say he would not even though you personally did not know him and there is no way you could know what he is or is not capable of.  There are thousands of examples of peopel killing family over lesser amounts of money than he stood to gain some for even small insurance policies like $5-10,000.

Rational objective people follow the evidence where it leads and the evidence established Jeremy did it.

In your ass backwards way of looking at it you decide that he would never have done it and therefore that means the vast evidence against him is all faked.  You see it more liekly all the evidence was planted and everyone involved is lying except Jeremy because you woudl rather believe that they all lied and all the evidence planted than to believe Jeremy did it.

So no evidence would be strong enough in your eyes to prove Jeremy guilty, you refuse to believe he could have done it so all the evidence has to be lies and planted though you have not a shred of evidence to actually prove anyone lied or planted anything. 

Some of the evidence proving his guilt is beyond control of police though.  You still ignore that because you simply don't want to believe he did it end of story.

Anytime your true position is shown to be flawed and purely out of bias you lash out like a child, deny it and claim you are objective and rational and I am twisting and all sorts of BS.

I am not twising anything your SIMPLISTIC and CHILDISH rationale of why you believe Jeremy is innocent was typed with your own fingers and it was: "I believe this crime was done by someone who was very disturbed in the mind. 5 lives for below £500,000. Nah! Not effeminate Jeremy. It just don't add up."

It adds up to you that eveyrone planted/concealed evidence and lied as opposed to Jeremy killing anyone despite his proven lies and the fact his claims DO NOT ADD UP.  His claims make no sense and he repeatedly lied and changed his story.  Even the staged bullets int he kitchen don't add up there were too many.  His story doesn't add up and your childish rationale fails to acocunt for the most damning evidence that proves Sheila did nothing.

There is no way Sheila could have committed the murders without having minor injuries and getting blood /GSR on her clothing and had to wear gloves as well.  Ther eis no way for such gloves and clothing to have been been hid at WHF never to be found. Police were convinced the did it early on and searched for such evidence finding none.  She can't have killed herself because she was dragged flat after she was dead and the bible opened and closed in a pool of blood that formed after she was dead.  Police could not have done these things her blood was dry by the time they entered. 

You simply ignore Jeremy admitting he removed the scope and hid the phone replacing it with the bedroom phone and anything else he did that is highly suspicious.

Your claims don't add up anymore than Jeremy's.  Stop accusing those you call guilters of having blinders, it it you and Jeremy supporters wearing the blinders.

Aren't you one extremely rude individual? You don't even appear to have the resolution of a child to even understand what I believe do you. I suggest that you cease and desist to continue to try and belittle others with you viscious manner and simplistic mind. Please have a little more respect for your elders. You appear to lack even an iota of wisdom and foresight? I wonder why you guilters cannot hold an adult conversation without abusing others at some level?

[grahameb]

To remove June's share.

I believe it was Ann Eaton who said that he went there to ensure that Jeremy wouldn't benefit in any way from her will. In other words to write him out of it?

[No-Bits]

I believe it was Ann Eaton who said that he went there to ensure that Jeremy wouldn't benefit in any way from her will. In other words to write him out of it?

I don't know who specifically it was, possibly Robert, but yes, they explained what Jeremy had done and the will was altered.

June's share would have filtered down to him (possibly  ) and I think he was going to receive some extra Osea Caravan park shares.

That's as I understand it anyway. 

[grahameb]

I don't know who specifically it was, possibly Robert, but yes, they explained what Jeremy had done and the will was altered.

June's share would have filtered down to him (possibly  ) and I think he was going to receive some extra Osea Caravan park shares.

That's as I understand it anyway. 

And this of course was either before the trial, or possibly before the verdict was known?

[No-Bits]

And this of course was either before the trial, or possibly before the verdict was known?

Well I would imagine so, as Speakman passed away before the trial. It's lucky they didn't wait until after!!!

They were clearly convinced, and the verdict shows their fears were justified.

[No-Bits]

Aren't you one extremely rude individual? You don't even appear to have the resolution of a child to even understand what I believe do you. I suggest that you cease and desist to continue to try and belittle others with you viscious manner and simplistic mind. Please have a little more respect for your elders. You appear to lack even an iota of wisdom and foresight? I wonder why you guilters cannot hold an adult conversation without abusing others at some level?

You 'GUILTERS' 

One misbehaves and we all get branded.   

[grahameb]

You 'GUILTERS' 

One misbehaves and we all get branded.   

Well no not all Hartley. But this man does annoy me a bit sometimes with his snyde remarks which are for the most part uncalled for. I really am not what you term a Bamber supporter as such. But I tend to argue from that standpoint a lot because of such people as scipio. I will often argue in favour of Bamber just to annoy him.

[lookout]

I believe it was Ann Eaton who said that he went there to ensure that Jeremy wouldn't benefit in any way from her will. In other words to write him out of it?

But why,if he hadn't been convicted at that point ? As I've already said,why bother changing it when RWB knew that it was a foregone conclusion anyway ? A tad premature,wasn't it ?

[No-Bits]

Well no not all Hartley. But this man does annoy me a bit sometimes with his snyde remarks which are for the most part uncalled for. I really am not what you term a Bamber supporter as such. But I tend to argue from that standpoint a lot because of such people as scipio. I will often argue in favour of Bamber just to annoy him.

I'd never have guessed. 

[grahameb]

But why,if he hadn't been convicted at that point ? As I've already said,why bother changing it when RWB knew that it was a foregone conclusion anyway ? A tad premature,wasn't it ?

It just goes to demonstrate just how much they believed him to be guilty and if he got off then he would have arguably inherited the lot?

[No-Bits]

It just goes to demonstrate just how much they believed him to be guilty and if he got off then he would have arguably inherited the lot?

I'm not sure how it works. Pamela would have still received her share, how June's share would have been distributed I do not know.