Why did Julie wait a month before speaking to the police ?

[lookout]

 Blimey,Julie had been going out with Jeremy for nigh on 2 years,surely any hint of violence towards her during that time would have been a hint enough that he could display enough angst in which to murder.
I don't remember one utterance of any violent behaviour coming forthwith. If anything,it was Julies' behaviour which was questionable.

[Caroline]

Blimey,Julie had been going out with Jeremy for nigh on 2 years,surely any hint of violence towards her during that time would have been a hint enough that he could display enough angst in which to murder.
I don't remember one utterance of any violent behaviour coming forthwith. If anything,it was Julies' behaviour which was questionable.

Jeremy doesn't have to be overtly violent to use violence when required. The murders were a means to an end - a necessary evil.

[Adam]

Blimey,Julie had been going out with Jeremy for nigh on 2 years,surely any hint of violence towards her during that time would have been a hint enough that he could display enough angst in which to murder.
I don't remember one utterance of any violent behaviour coming forthwith. If anything,it was Julies' behaviour which was questionable.

I am not allowed to say 'thread already created' (opps), or leave a link. But there is a thread on here about how often weak individuals go from zero crime to inheritance killing in one go.

[nugnug]

Jeremy's supporters often criticise Julie for not going to the police straight away.

There are lots of reasons why she approached the police a month later-


She was Jeremy's girlfriend.

She loved Jeremy and said she was under his spell.

She was in shock.

She was afraid of what Jeremy may do if he found out.

She tried to deny it to herself that the man she loved was involved.

Jeremy had said that he had paid MM £2,000 to commit the massacre. Julie said she knew Jeremy did not have this money available. So she would have clung to the possibility that Jeremy was making false boasts. 

She was 20 years old. We all make wrong decisions when so young. 

Jeremy had said he was 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut case'. He said Julie would not be believed.

She was afraid she would be implicating herself. Being aware of his hatred and resentment towards his family,  and previous plans.

While still in shock, she gave a statement early on. So was afraid that changing her statement days or weeks later may put her in trouble.

She was afraid she would not be believed. Making herself look stupid and getting in trouble with the police for making false claims.

She was caught in the eye of a hurricane. Police,  relatives and the media always around, funerals to attend. Jeremy getting police cars to pick her up, then whisking her off to Amsterdam the weekend after the massacre. 

She had no one to speak to at first. Being with Jeremy most of the time after the massacre. She did not want to attend the funeral or continuously go around with Jeremy & Brett. But was persuaded to by Jeremy.

                                    --------------------------------


It is true she approached the police, (via Liz Rimmington) after they had spilt up. After finally getting to speak to other people she trusted.  She was hardly likely to approach the police while still Jeremy's girlfriend, was she ?

Jeremy said the relationship had been in decline for six months prior to the massacre. They were both young and living miles away from each other.  The massacre probably speeded up the ending of the relationship by a few weeks.  After Julie had come to terms with the massacre and cleared her head.

It is not conclusive about who jilted who. Although Jeremy has always weakly said Julie spoke to the police and testified because he jilted her. But he has never said scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.

Speaking to the police a month later seems quite normal to me (see above). Making these claims months of years later, after moving in with or marrying Jeremy would have looked much worse.

She was brave in approaching the police. Jeremy had not been arrested and the silencer evidence had not come back from the lab. The police could have laughed her out of the station. Or charged her with wasting police time. Or both.

she tried to deny he was involved even though supposed of told her months earlyer he was going to do it.

[lookout]

Jeremy doesn't have to be overtly violent to use violence when required. The murders were a means to an end - a necessary evil.

 The urge to inflict harm on someone has to be there in the first place,but to actually and physically murder " 5 " people then a person is totally crackers,which after all the assessments he's had as well as round the clock observations.
Nobody in their right mind could just murder someone on the spur of the moment like that.Saying it and doing it are two entirely different things.
Anyone contemplating a murder on this scale doesn't breathe a word to anyone. 

[nugnug]

to do that for money you would have to be a pscopath of some sort i would of thought.

[lookout]

 Of course you would,or a mercenary,, same thing really.

[Caroline]

 The urge to inflict harm on someone has to be there in the first place,but to actually and physically murder " 5 " people then a person is totally crackers,which after all the assessments he's had as well as round the clock observations.
Nobody in their right mind could just murder someone on the spur of the moment like that.Saying it and doing it are two entirely different things.
Anyone contemplating a murder on this scale doesn't breathe a word to anyone.

Sorry Lookout but this isn't the first time something like this has happened. The Menendez brothers weren't violent either until they killed their parents, nor was Brian Blackwell. The killings weren't about the violence nor the act of killing - they were a means to an end - the end being the inheritance. And no, you don't have to be 'insane' psychopathy isn't classed as insanity. Jeremy has been tested once for psychopathy and I'm not sure which method they used to test him. The others are just general psychological assessments, he doesn't get the Hare assessment for psychopathy every year. 

[lookout]

Sorry Lookout but this isn't the first time something like this has happened. The Menendez brothers weren't violent either until they killed their parents, nor was Brian Blackwell. The killings weren't about the violence nor the act of killing - they were a means to an end - the end being the inheritance. And no, you don't have to be 'insane' psychopathy isn't classed as insanity. Jeremy has been tested once for psychopathy and I'm not sure which method they used to test him. The others are just general psychological assessments, he doesn't get the Hare assessment for psychopathy every year.

I haven't read into those that you've mentioned,but I bet they were entirely different,even if the end result was for financial gain. No two murders are alike anyway,as circumstances are different,but I imagine that Jeremy is far more intelligent than those noted,in that he'd know immediately that he'd gain nothing by murdering anyone.He's also have realised that if he'd wanted cash that he could have applied for a bank loan at any given time,so there'd have been no reason for him to have murdered. He had no motive whatsoever as money wasn't an issue.He'd NEVER been deprived or refused it by his parents and he always knew he could go to either of them,as he'd been funded all along.

There was just no reason for him to have murdered at all. I couldn't imagine him working up a sweat,going into that farmhouse and killing everyone-----------bar a yapping dog. 

[Caroline]

I haven't read into those that you've mentioned,but I bet they were entirely different,even if the end result was for financial gain. No two murders are alike anyway,as circumstances are different,but I imagine that Jeremy is far more intelligent than those noted,in that he'd know immediately that he'd gain nothing by murdering anyone.He's also have realised that if he'd wanted cash that he could have applied for a bank loan at any given time,so there'd have been no reason for him to have murdered. He had no motive whatsoever as money wasn't an issue.He'd NEVER been deprived or refused it by his parents and he always knew he could go to either of them,as he'd been funded all along.

There was just no reason for him to have murdered at all. I couldn't imagine him working up a sweat,going into that farmhouse and killing everyone-----------bar a yapping dog.

If you don't know about the others, then you don't know about their intellect. Also you have to pay a loan back but not an inheritance.

[lookout]

If you don't know about the others, then you don't know about their intellect. Also you have to pay a loan back but not an inheritance.

There aren't many murderers who end up collecting inheritances,I'll bet.

[Caroline]

There aren't many murderers who end up collecting inheritances,I'll bet.

There are lots who try.

[lookout]

There are lots who try.

This is exactly where lack of intelligence comes into play with their lack of forward thinking regarding forensic investigations where a bead of sweat can cause them to relinquish everything they think they'd laid hands on so easily for.
Jeremy may have been all things,but not a risk-taker.

[Adam]

People have said Jeremy could not have committed the massacre as he had no history of violence.

It is true he had no history of violence, but he had recently committed a crime against his family, and had lots of hatred and resentment towards his family and the situation he found himself in. As discussed.

Inheritance killers are free men. Otherwise they would not be able to commit their inheritance killing. The other famous inheritance killers had no history of violent crime, apart from Defeo who apparently had fired a rifle in a rage before.  However most had financial problems, committed minor crime and had poor relationships with their families, which usually included hatred and resentment.

Despite having respectable jobs and no history of violent crime, they took the huge jump to murder relatives for inheritance. There are several reasons why.

Each case is different, but there would be lots of other reasons, apart from inheriting. See the 'Steve Benson' & the 'Apart from £436,000....' threads. These reasons together with inheriting huge amounts of money would increase motivation.

The killer would know their intended victims. Know exactly when, where and how would be the most effective way to kill them. They will have constant access to the family members. Most victims would have known their assassin. The killer would feel comfortable in carrying out the crime on someone they know.

The killer would be desperate or greedy for money. Or both. Not being experienced violent criminals or Criminal masterminds, getting money via inheritance is their only option. They would know no other way, not having the courage to try to rob a bank for money, or have the mind to  commit hi tec financial crime.

Not being big time criminals, they will then spend several months or years planning the crime and plucking up the courage.

Not having violent histories will go in their favour. The police will surely not suspect they would be capable of committing such a violent crime to loved family members. But if they did, the killer obviously believed the police would find no proof, the killer would also have a ready made alternative suspect.

Anyway it is a fact that people have murdered for inheritance. Both the Menendez brothers & Defeo admitting their crime. So the big jump is possible

[Adam]

Lookout the thread about inheritance killers is on page 6. I am not allowed to leave the link.

Page 7 also has a thread on Steve Benson. I am not allowed to leave a link. 

Benson looked a real wimp and was a businessman. However still killed family members for inheritance. The Youtube video has him unconvincingly crying at the funeral. A bit like Jeremy.