How it started

[Steve_uk]

Don't forget the rest Adam, otherwise some might think you're withholding information. Also, you need to quote it properly. You missed out the bit about Sheila getting £10,000.

"If the Trustees are not satisfied that my son will continue in farming as aforesaid (the decision being in their absolute discretion) then my residuary estate shall be divided between my children in equal shares."

As you can see, Sheila would have got only £10,000 if Jeremy continued to farm, but if he did not, she would half and he would get half - he wouldn't be disinherited. 

It's an interesting Will. How would the Trustees make that judgment? What if Nevill died naturally and Jeremy carried on farming until it had all been settled and then stopped? There was no time limit imposed.

But you're missing the bigger picture here Kaldin of how Jeremy glorified in perversity. This manifested itself not only in his working garb or his refusal to work the crop sprayer, but spread insidiously into financial affairs with the Osea Road break-in and finally the ultimate transgression: the act of overturning the wishes of his parents with the wills.

[Kaldin]

But you're missing the bigger picture here Kaldin of how Jeremy glorified in perversity. This manifested itself not only in his working garb or his refusal to work the crop sprayer, but spread insidiously into financial affairs with the Osea Road break-in and finally the ultimate transgression: the act of overturning the wishes of his parents with the wills.

I think others are missing the bigger picture actually. There's been talk of Jeremy not inheriting unless he stayed in farming, and that is not true.

[Steve_uk]

That loan interests me - more specifically, the relatives interest in that loan interests me. I think that both Jackie Wood and Ann discussed it, and Robert B referred to it. Why was it their business anyway? I just get this feeling that the relatives felt that everything the Bambers did was their business, but I don't know why.

Nevill could have bought a business, or shares in one, and then Jeremy could have run it - he didn't need to give him money directly. I would have thought that if your son hates the family business so much, you'd want them to do something they enjoyed.

This more or less did happen with the purchase of land adjacent to Little Rentners Farm, though it was June's money which bought it. The loan was discussed by the relatives post-mortem and why shouldn't it have been after such a tragic event, as they attempted to make sense of the whole affair.

[Kaldin]

This more or less did happen with the purchase of land adjacent to Little Rentners Farm, though it was June's money which bought it. The loan was discussed by the relatives post-mortem and why shouldn't it have been after such a tragic event, as they attempted to make sense of the whole affair.

Huh? That land was bought in order to be sold to Ann Eaton later - allegedly. Jeremy didn't have a business there. Of course Pamela acquired that land later, so Ann perhaps didn't have to buy it.

[sherlock]

'If my son, Jeremy Bamber is, in the opinion of the trustees, farming with me at the date of my death, or the date of the death of my wife, whichever is the later, and are resonably satisfied that he intends to carry on farming thereafter, then the remainder of my residuary estate should go to my son'.

If he had done it for the money then why did he walk away from farming straight after the deaths ?

Why did he not make more of a show of wanting to carry on farming ?

If he was motivated by that clause in the will why did he give zero indication of continuing farming ?

Surely he would have been keen to give that impression if that was his motive ?

I am expecting a no comment from you on this one Adam

But I don't blame you - it is a very hard question indeed for the believers in his guilt to answer ...

[Steve_uk]

I think others are missing the bigger picture actually. There's been talk of Jeremy not inheriting unless he stayed in farming, and that is not true.

But he wanted the whole loaf not half, because Sheila had contributed nothing to the Bamber bank balances. The temptation of owning the Maida Vale flat also became too much, a dwelling which would impress the opposite sex far more than the cramped conditions of Bourtree Cottage.

I have been reading about Mark Lundy again (prostitute need or alibi?), Scott Peterson(age 30 and Viagra tablets) and Jeremy Bamber (one track mind, crude sexual remarks abound) and I'm wondering whether overwork is the source of their randiness and the cause of their many vicissitudes.

[Adam]

'March Nevill upstairs'. I don't think so.

Sheila was in the kitchen when Nevill phoned Bamber. What was she doing in the kitchen that was 'crazy' ?

I agree Nevill's phone call was abrupt - 8 or 11 words & 2 or 4 seconds.

Sheila cut Nevill's phone call off. And still he did nothing although she came within inches of him.

If Nevill was right behind Sheila as she entered the main bedroom, please explain the 9 bullets prior to Nevill running downstairs.

And I am hopeing you answer my post for you from yesterday.

[Adam]

If he had done it for the money then why did he walk away from farming straight after the deaths ?

Why did he not make more of a show of wanting to carry on farming ?

If he was motivated by that clause in the will why did he give zero indication of continuing farming ?

Surely he would have been keen to give that impression if that was his motive ?

I am expecting a no comment from you on this one Adam

But I don't blame you - it is a very hard question indeed for the believers in his guilt to answer ...

Because he thought he had done enough. Talking to the police. Giving a statement. Meeting the relatives. Going to the funeral.

There were expensive hotels waiting for him in St Tropez, Pevensey, Eastbourne, Burnham & Amsterdam. As well as Sheila's London flat. Besides which, Brett had come over expecting some jolly ups.

[guest2181]

If he had done it for the money then why did he walk away from farming straight after the deaths ?

Why did he not make more of a show of wanting to carry on farming ?

If he was motivated by that clause in the will why did he give zero indication of continuing farming ?

Surely he would have been keen to give that impression if that was his motive ?

I am expecting a no comment from you on this one Adam

But I don't blame you - it is a very hard question indeed for the believers in his guilt to answer ...

There was no need to satisfy any clause in the event that Sheila was not alive.

[Steve_uk]

Huh? That land was bought in order to be sold to Ann Eaton later - allegedly. Jeremy didn't have a business there. Of course Pamela acquired that land later, so Ann perhaps didn't have to buy it.

Well there may have been more than one reason behind the land's purchase but in Chapter 17 of CAL's book it specifically states that the land was registered in Jeremy's name.

[guest2181]

Well there may have been more than one reason behind the land's purchase but in Chapter 17 of CAL's book it specifically states that the land was registered in Jeremy's name.

I'm not sure I believe that to be true, it doesn't make any sense.

[Steve_uk]

If he had done it for the money then why did he walk away from farming straight after the deaths ?

Why did he not make more of a show of wanting to carry on farming ?

If he was motivated by that clause in the will why did he give zero indication of continuing farming ?

Surely he would have been keen to give that impression if that was his motive ?

I am expecting a no comment from you on this one Adam

But I don't blame you - it is a very hard question indeed for the believers in his guilt to answer ...

No in the scheme of things in this case it's quite straightforward: Jeremy had planned and executed the murders, the hard work had been done and he relaxed, too much as it turned out as DS Stan Jones heard a chuckle behind closed doors emanating from his quarter at Bourtree Cottage. He had stuffed his parents' intentions, he had cocked a snook at the relatives, who were supposedly in no position to influence events, and he became the major beneficiary of land, money and property of which he had the most tenuous connection and as it transpired was going to inherit illegally in any case.

[Kaldin]

Well there may have been more than one reason behind the land's purchase but in Chapter 17 of CAL's book it specifically states that the land was registered in Jeremy's name.

Ann Eaton said that too, but it was just land - more farming. If he didn't like farming, he wouldn't like that land.

[Jane]

It's not enough for people to say that he killed his family for money, they say that he also hated them. That's why he was able to kill them in cold blood, beat his father, and shoot his own mother between the eyes.

Not enough to say of Jeremy, but perfectly acceptable to say of Sheila. perhaps?

[Steve_uk]

Ann Eaton said that too, but it was just land - more farming. If he didn't like farming, he wouldn't like that land.

But he feigned interest in farming for the last two years of the victims' lives, to allow time for the murder preparations.