The meeting with The Sun newspaper:

[Jan]

I just think Jeremy was going through the motions whilst planning his scheme. Colin tells us in his book that he learned from Sheila that there was a threat from June that he might be disinherited in favour of the twins. Julie had a similar tale that Jeremy was worried his mother might leave a substantial legacy to the Church.

I apologise as I must have missed that bit - I must admit I did "skim " read a lot as it does jump around a lot. I did say the other day that I might read it again .

The only time I have seen it otherwise was that Julie and her mother said it and Basil cock I believe said he had no information about any intent to change  the wills.

[scipio_usmc]

I think that if JB is innocent we will find that a lot of Julies "evidence" will be found to be there to paint a false picture to actually give JB a motive. don't forget that at a fairly young age he was already a shareholder in two successful businesses was paid a good wage for farming and had free accommodation. It would appear that in fact the "worse " relationship (at the time of the murders) was between Sheila and June and Colin admitted he felt guilty about not handing over the letter to NB that he wrote.  Except for hearsay we have no evidence that JB was to be disinherited. Did that in fact come from Colin ? I always thought that came from Julies mother ?

And why did NB tell the estate manager that he was about to give Jeremy more management responsibilities because he was pleased how he was coming on? If Jeremy was really that bad and his relationship with June was as described then he would have chucked him out of the cottage and taken back his business shares for a start.

Jeremy's share of the business was very small so didn't make him happy, he wanted a much larger piece of the pie.  He broke in and stole money because he was unhappy with his take.  In the meantime there was no way to take the shares back you can't legally give something to someone then take it back against their will you can only take something back if you loan something to someone.

People keep ignoring Jeremy's actions after the murders.  He immediately quit the job he had farming. Someone else had to take on his duties.  He not only stopped doing his old job he didn't take over as the manager.  He had Cock appoint someone else as the temporary boss.  He acted like he was a retired playboy after the murders and this corresponds with Julie's claims. 

People who support Jeremy completely ignore all of his actions after the murders be it his lies to police at the scene, his bogus claim that the murder weapon could not be stored with the scope and moderator attached, staging too many bullets in the kitchen after the murders, replacing a perfectly functioning phone with the bedroom phone and hiding it claiming it broke then later claiming it was just an extra phone when it was found undamaged,  calling Julie before police and lying about who he called first and naturally the fact he stopped working on the farm as soon as they were dead.  Excuses are always made about him grieving so that is why he was partying it up and quit working. Never do people who support Jeremy take things at face value there is always some excuses made for him.

[Jan]

Caroline when you think of it robbing your own parents is pretty low they had been so good to him.

I agree - however ( and I know we are not supposed to give personal experiences)  my neice who was very very spolit - but had a very bad relationship with her mother - stole three or four times from her parents - hundreds of pounds and jewellery  in the end they had to take her to the police . It was as if she either wanted attention or I think guidelines and limits as to how far she could push them . Her mother was at fault as well for giving her very mixed messages .

She is now what I knew she always was a lovely kind thoughtful girl - but unfortunately this all happened when she was taking her exams so her qualifications suffered . Which is sad. I was tempted at the time to get her to move in with me - but to be fair its always easier to analyse from the outside rather then when you are in the situation yourself.

[scipio_usmc]

I apologise as I must have missed that bit - I must admit I did "skim " read a lot as it does jump around a lot. I did say the other day that I might read it again .

The only time I have seen it otherwise was that Julie and her mother said it and Basil cock I believe said he had no information about any intent to change  the wills.

What matters is Jeremy thinking she would- that provides the motive.  It doesn't matter if his perceptions are wrong what matters is what his perceptions were. Telling people the things he did such as telling the workers he didn't plan to share his inheritance with his nephews and sister says much. 

The current wills required him to share with his sister if he sold the business. If he ran it then he could keep the proceeds. That was sufficient for him to decide to kill them not to share.  If he feared being disinherited that provides an even greater motive to kill them before the change could occur.

The timing of the murders though was based around opportunity- the opportunity to kill all presented itself by virtue of them all being there together and that is what he had been waiting for.  Julie's testimony comports with this it was long term planning for when they were all staying there.

There isn't evidence he decided to act at that exact moment because he feared the will was going to be changed in the very near future.  He expressed generalized fears that such could happen not any signs that such was imminent and going to happen in upcoming days and he thus had to act.

[scipio_usmc]

I agree - however ( and I know we are not supposed to give personal experiences)  my neice who was very very spolit - but had a very bad relationship with her mother - stole three or four times from her parents - hundreds of pounds and jewellery  in the end they had to take her to the police . It was as if she either wanted attention or I think guidelines and limits as to how far she could push them . Her mother was at fault as well for giving her very mixed messages .

She is now what I knew she always was a lovely kind thoughtful girl - but unfortunately this all happened when she was taking her exams so her qualifications suffered . Which is sad. I was tempted at the time to get her to move in with me - but to be fair its always easier to analyse from the outside rather then when you are in the situation yourself.

Jeremy stole for the money, he didn't let on that he did it and didn't want to get caught.  He was not happy with the money he was getting.  This is a problem for those saying he was content with his lot as is the fact he quit farming.  Obviously he would not have quit farming if he enjoyed it and was content with it. 

[Steve_uk]

What matters is Jeremy thinking she would- that provides the motive.  It doesn't matter if his perceptions are wrong what matters is what his perceptions were. Telling people the things he did such as telling the workers he didn't plan to share his inheritance with his nephews and sister says much. 

The current wills required him to share with his sister if he sold the business. If he ran it then he could keep the proceeds. That was sufficient for him to decide to kill them not to share.  If he feared being disinherited that provides an even greater motive to kill them before the change could occur.

The timing of the murders though was based around opportunity- the opportunity to kill all presented itself by virtue of them all being there together and that is what he had been waiting for.  Julie's testimony comports with this it was long term planning for when they were all staying there.

There isn't evidence he decided to act at that exact moment because he feared the will was going to be changed in the very near future.  He expressed generalized fears that such could happen not any signs that such was imminent and going to happen in upcoming days and he thus had to act.

#1261 and #1263 are powerful posts. Jeremy told Julie "it's now or never" and how close it came to being "never" which would have spared so much grief for so many.

[susan]

I agree - however ( and I know we are not supposed to give personal experiences)  my neice who was very very spolit - but had a very bad relationship with her mother - stole three or four times from her parents - hundreds of pounds and jewellery  in the end they had to take her to the police . It was as if she either wanted attention or I think guidelines and limits as to how far she could push them . Her mother was at fault as well for giving her very mixed messages .

She is now what I knew she always was a lovely kind thoughtful girl - but unfortunately this all happened when she was taking her exams so her qualifications suffered . Which is sad. I was tempted at the time to get her to move in with me - but to be fair its always easier to analyse from the outside rather then when you are in the situation yourself.

Jan I totally agree it is so easy to judge looking in from the outside.  Did Jeremy steal from his parents as an act of defiance or did he think they can afford to loose it anyway or was it done to impress Julie or was he just wanting the money to spend.  Glad your niece turned herself around.

[Jan]

What matters is Jeremy thinking she would- that provides the motive.  It doesn't matter if his perceptions are wrong what matters is what his perceptions were. Telling people the things he did such as telling the workers he didn't plan to share his inheritance with his nephews and sister says much. 

The current wills required him to share with his sister if he sold the business. If he ran it then he could keep the proceeds. That was sufficient for him to decide to kill them not to share.  If he feared being disinherited that provides an even greater motive to kill them before the change could occur.

The timing of the murders though was based around opportunity- the opportunity to kill all presented itself by virtue of them all being there together and that is what he had been waiting for.  Julie's testimony comports with this it was long term planning for when they were all staying there.

There isn't evidence he decided to act at that exact moment because he feared the will was going to be changed in the very near future.  He expressed generalized fears that such could happen not any signs that such was imminent and going to happen in upcoming days and he thus had to act.

I personally don't believe Julie and her mother But I said I  will re-read Colins book because that to me is more relevant and I don't remember him saying that.

We also have no idea what June would have done with her inheritance from her mother - for all we know she may have set up Jeremy and Sheila  with properties - as she said in her note - she loved them both.


Also Jeremy had said they were going to leave WHF and use the money  for coming out of the lease early  on other properties - so there were probably other things going on we are not even aware of.

[Caroline]

Jan I totally agree it is so easy to judge looking in from the outside.  Did Jeremy steal from his parents as an act of defiance or did he think they can afford to loose it anyway or was it done to impress Julie or was he just wanting the money to spend.  Glad your niece turned herself around.

Plain and simple.

[Jan]

Plain and simple.

that is why we should not judge others actions by our own experiences . However that works both ways - because that is your interpretation of his actions - but I would say what ever the truth that there was a complicated family relationship between both Sheila and Jeremy and their mother -so we should not assume that was his motive at that time . The only person who we hear not a bad word about was Neville. So if it was greed do you think he assumed his father would just forgive him if he found out so it was worth the risk ?

[Caroline]

that is why we should not judge others actions by our own experiences . However that works both ways - because that is your interpretation of his actions - but I would say what ever the truth that there was a complicated family relationship between both Sheila and Jeremy and their mother -so we should not assume that was his motive at that time . The only person who we hear not a bad word about was Neville. So if it was greed do you think he assumed his father would just forgive him if he found out so it was worth the risk ?

Personally, I don't think he cared either way and was only bothered when words like 'disinherited' were mentioned. I think Jeremy had a way of being able to ultimately manipulate others when he needed to - but perhaps he felt he had gone to far this time and risked being cut off.

[Jan]

Jeremy stole for the money, he didn't let on that he did it and didn't want to get caught.  He was not happy with the money he was getting.  This is a problem for those saying he was content with his lot as is the fact he quit farming.  Obviously he would not have quit farming if he enjoyed it and was content with it.

He was still young - perhaps  at that time he did think that farming was not for him . but a people keep pointing out his parents were very generous to him and if he had of changed his mind he may have only got 1/2 of his inheritance - but I bet they would have supported him in the long run. Neville may have been disappointed but I bet he would have still been there for  him. I still think I would have been more angry if I had been Sheila - why should she be written out just because Jeremy was taking over the business? Sure he could have  a  farm managers wage and his shareholders percentage of future profits - but why would he be entitled to more than 1/2 of the estate. If I had been Sheila I would have felt hurt by what appeared to be favouritism. Also Jeremy had shares in both businesses - Sheila did not have shares why not?

[Alias]

Personally, I don't think he cared either way and was only bothered when words like 'disinherited' were mentioned. I think Jeremy had a way of being able to ultimately manipulate others when he needed to - but perhaps he felt he had gone to far this time and risked being cut off.

You don´t disinherit your child for just one mistake, and admittedly, the caravan site burglary was a rather bg mistak, a crime actually. Still, one burglary is not enough to disinherit a child. there must have been more.

[Steve_uk]

He was still young - perhaps  at that time he did think that farming was not for him . but a people keep pointing out his parents were very generous to him and if he had of changed his mind he may have only got 1/2 of his inheritance - but I bet they would have supported him in the long run. Neville may have been disappointed but I bet he would have still been there for  him. I still think I would have been more angry if I had been Sheila - why should she be written out just because Jeremy was taking over the business? Sure he could have  a  farm managers wage and his shareholders percentage of future profits - but why would he be entitled to more than 1/2 of the estate. If I had been Sheila I would have felt hurt by what appeared to be favouritism. Also Jeremy had shares in both businesses - Sheila did not have shares why not?

June had bought the flat in Maida Vale,which she wanted to put in Sheila's name(wasn't this discussed in the car park at the Northampton hospital with Robert Boutflour during June's incarceration there?). She anyway brough Sheila money and food when she visited.

[Jan]

June had bought the flat in Maida Vale,which she wanted to put in Sheila's name(wasn't this discussed in the car park at the Northampton hospital with Robert Boutflour during June's incarceration there?). She anyway brough Sheila money and food when she visited.

June loaned some money for the flat but had it secured by a mortgage - so I don't thing that showed 100% trust. And food is not the same as shares in a business.

Neville had a large overdraft at the time of the murders - seems there were quite high figures of money floating around for loans /property /land deals.