Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on August 31, 2014, 11:33:PM
-
It seems clear from everything I have read that Peter Eaton was branded a thief by BW but it seems like monies stolen by him has been brushed aside which seems extraordinary considering what has been said about Jeremy
Is it accepted that he was dishonest
-
well was there any anomisty between her and him if there wasnt he probely did it if there was he may well not of done.
-
It seems clear from everything I have read that Peter Eaton was branded a thief by BW but it seems like monies stolen by him has been brushed aside which seems extraordinary considering what has been said about Jeremy
Is it accepted that he was dishonest
The excuse for ignoring that fraud was because the police were too busy dealing with Jeremy at the time,court,trial,etc etc,32 statements from JM to make sure that he was nailed.
-
who did bw tell about this i would asume she told nevile bamber.
-
Nugs,this was AFTER the murders. PE was appointed to run N and J Bamber Ltd and BW reported him for stealing from the business. It is alleged that EP did not pursue the allegations as it could have undermined PE's credibility as a prosecution witness. I would have thought it was more a civil matter than a criminal matter? And the Pargeters eventually took the Eaton's and Basil Cock to court over the matter,which I believe was finally settled out of court.
-
well it would of undermined his credibility how much is he supposed to have taken.
any evedence of such things happening before the murders.
-
" Undermined his credibility " . That was the thanks that the poor deceased Neville got for helping him out over that land. To bite the very hand that fed him.Despicable character.
It's that sort of thing which puts you off liking a family who do things like that. It's already in their minds to do you out of something and get one over on you. PE would have been laughing all the way to the bank.
It would seem that the less well off that you are,the police will leave you alone,but once they get wind of you having a bob or two---------watch out ! It's always been the same with them and their mentality,and yet a lot of them are Masons,who don't appear to be poor themselves. Probably a greed thing where it's criminal to have more than them !
-
well if he had of been charged it would of put pay to the notion that the eatons were independently wealthy.
im you cant chardge somone theft and then say they have no need of money.
-
well if he had of been charged it would of put pay to the notion that the eatons were independantly wealthy.
In the first place, claiming that wealthy people don´t want MORE, is plain absurd; but yes, you are right, nugs.
-
well it would of ment the proscution coudent say they had no reason to lie and no financial motive.
-
Nugs,this was AFTER the murders. PE was appointed to run N and J Bamber Ltd and BW reported him for stealing from the business. It is alleged that EP did not pursue the allegations as it could have undermined PE's credibility as a prosecution witness. I would have thought it was more a civil matter than a criminal matter? And the Pargeters eventually took the Eaton's and Basil Cock to court over the matter,which I believe was finally settled out of court.
what was basil cock taken to court for?
-
theres no suggestion that cock was involved in the alleged theft of money was there.
-
Peter Eaton
-
Peter Eaton
-
Peter eaton
-
Peter eaton
-
Peter eaton
-
Peter eaton
-
Peter eaton
-
Peter Eaton
-
Peter eaton
-
I will post the rest of the documents later
They may all be on here but it beggars believe if their was theft from a relative when the caravan robbery has been used as an indication of Jeremy being a mass murderer.
Hopefully Harters will make some comments on this
Stealing from a dead relative?
-
Nugs,this was AFTER the murders. PE was appointed to run N and J Bamber Ltd and BW reported him for stealing from the business. It is alleged that EP did not pursue the allegations as it could have undermined PE's credibility as a prosecution witness. I would have thought it was more a civil matter than a criminal matter? And the Pargeters eventually took the Eaton's and Basil Cock to court over the matter,which I believe was finally settled out of court.
Hi Tyler, I always thought these allegations came after Jeremy's trial? The note to Anisley from Jones indicates that BW's allegations were 'after'? It's also dates 1987.
-
I often wondered why June was never told about the land deal that Neville made for allowing PE and AE to farm in order to save it being sold to a property developer.
I wonder what his idea was not to have told anyone-------not even Jeremy knew. It was known as a " confidential approach " in buying the land.
-
can we be sure she wasnt told.
-
Sadly,no,nugs.
-
Hi Tyler, I always thought these allegations came after Jeremy's trial? The note to Anisley from Jones indicates that BW's allegations were 'after'? It's also dates 1987.
Who owned the company at this time?
It sounds like preparations were being made to dissolve the company. :-\
-
does anybody know how much money was supposed to have been taken.
-
Hi Jansus. Basil Cock,as the executor of the estate,was responsible for the overseeing of the business and due to the 'alleged' theft from PE I guess the Pargeter's felt that BC had failed in his duty?
-
Hi Jansus. Basil Cock,as the executor of the estate,was responsible for the overseeing of the business and due to the 'alleged' theft from PE I guess the Pargeter's felt that BC had failed in his duty?
yes that would make sense - It was just that once in the past I read something about him ( cant remember what it was now ) but I thought - hope he is not in on some kind of deal with the family - then I dismissed it because he was an executor and seemed to have been connected with the Bambers for some time. It might have been to do with the disposal of assets at the time that Jeremy was getting the blame for , but basil Cocks name kept cropping up. He was very integral in the first few days , for example it was him that asked the sequence of the deaths - which I can understand , but it was very early days and it did seem a bit unprofessional.
-
In 1985, Nevill Bamber, his wife June Bamber and their son, Jeremy Bamber co-owned the farming company, N and J Bamber Ltd. The share ownership was distributed whereby Nevill Bamber owned 79%, June Bamber owned 1% and finally Jeremy Bamber owned 20% of the company.
While N and J Bamber Ltd, owned all the assets of the company, i.e. machinery, buildings, crops, livestock and vehicles, 600 acres of the farm was leasehold, and a further 100 acres was freehold. 50 acres (otherwise known as Charity Farm) was owned by Nevill and June Bamber, while the other 50 acres (otherwise known as Renters Farm) was shared equally between Nevill Bamber, June Bamber and Jeremy Bamber, while White House Farm itself was and still is leasehold.
Upon the tragic deaths of Nevill and June Bamber, Basil Cook was appointed Executor of their respective estates and thus was responsible for safeguarding their assets. In order to assist Jeremy Bamber in the daily management of the farm, Basil Cock appointed Peter Eaton to manage N and J Bamber Ltd, until Jeremy Bamber was able to take that role upon himself. Peter Eaton was appointed Farm Manager on the 9th August 1985.
Upon the successful conviction of Jeremy Bamber for the murders at White House Farm, Peter Eaton and his wife Ann became the tenants of the leasehold properties previously rented by Nevill Bamber. This included White House Farm, which they had already moved into. However, Basil Cock as the Executor of the estate, after the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, concluded that all the assets of the Bamber estate should be inherited by Pamela Boutflour. This decision was later challenged in the Chancery Division by Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood, Nevill Bamber’s nephew and niece - Case Number CH 1991 PN 8680.
In these proceedings Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood sued Basil Cock, Robert and Pamela Boutflour, David Boutflour and Peter and Ann Eaton alleging theft and false accounting in managing N and J Bamber Ltd. In any event, Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood settled after it was agreed they would inherit Nevill Bamber’s estate, while Robert and Pamela Boutflour, and Peter and Ann Eaton and David Boutflour would in turn inherit June Bamber’s estate.
Notwithstanding Jeremy Bamber’s conviction, he was still in ownership of 20% of N and J Bamber Ltd when eventually it was wound up and the assets sold.
N and J Bamber Ltd was dissolved on the 14th September 1999, with no assets, only costs. These costs covered winding up the company, depreciation, repairs, outstanding management fees and other miscellaneous costs totalling £80,000. Indeed Jeremy Bamber received a bill from Basil Cock stating that upon liquidation, Jeremy Bamber owed almost £16,000, which was his share of the costs of winding up N and J Bamber Ltd.
However, in 1985, N and J Bamber Ltd was a prosperous company worth approximately £388,000. £308,000 was the 79% share Nevill Bamber owned in N and J Bamber while a further £80,000 was from other personal assets, and indeed in 1985, Jeremy Bamber’s share was worth approximately £72,000.
Barbara Wilson the farm secretary raised concerns she had about the mismanagement of the farm back in 1987 to Essex Police, however it was not proceeded with pending the appeal of Jeremy Bamber. In view of her allegations going to the heart of the credibility of the chief prosecution witnesses as to their propensity for dishonesty, it is clear that Essex Police had an agenda in maintaining Jeremy Bamber’s conviction by eventually never investigating her complaints in any event.
Her allegations were cumulative in nature, involved numerous third parties and illustrated a clear propensity for dishonesty. In view of the fact that after being managed for fourteen years by Peter Eaton on behalf of Basil Cock the company had gone from being worth £380,000 to owing £80,000 while profits for that time span are not accounted for, yet totalling almost £500,000 lost, the question remains as to why Essex Police breached their duty of care to Jeremy Bamber by not investigating the allegations listed in the first instance. The allegations are based upon reasonable suspicion, and Essex Police should have acted in the public interest in investigating them, especially as the officer who interviewed Barbara Wilson described her as an honest person with no clear agenda against the family.
It is fact that during Jeremy Bamber’s trial the jury asked ‘If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his Uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour’s statement about Jeremy’s being able to kill his own parents.’
The fact that the jury were suspicious as to motive by Jeremy Bamber’s relatives places in issue their credibility as prosecution witnesses whereby they stood to make a pecuniary gain by securing a conviction for murder with Jeremy Bamber as the accused. Thus where Jeremy Bamber’s appeal was pending at that time and where the honesty or credibility of these material witnesses to the case is in question it is relevant that these allegations were investigated appropriately. Indeed the allegations of dishonesty and asset stripping clearly tolerated by Essex Police highlights a further agenda that bites on motive by the relatives of Jeremy Bamber who misled the jury regarding that relevant question. Due to their misleading the jury, they were never cross examined at trial as to this issue.
Robert Boutflour witness statement given to the jury, dated 17th October 1986, in response to the jury’s question, he stated that he was a very wealthy man in his own right owning a 50% share in Carbonell’s Farm, (Document A – 16), this was his primary asset. Yet he did not state that it is fact that on the 7th August 1985, he had a much greater motive to mislead the jury, because at that time he did not own Carbonell’s Farm. On the 7th August 1985, Jeremy stood to inherit 50% of Carbonell’s Farm upon the death of Mabel Speakman (his maternal grandmother) whose will left her estate equally between her two daughters, Pamela Boutflour and June Bamber.
In his diary for that period in 1985, Robert Boutflour was concerned about Jeremy being a beneficiary only 5 days after the tragedy at White House Farm, (Robert Boutflour’s Diary Doc D-18). It is fact that on the 24th August 1985, Robert Boutflour met his own solicitor, Mr Rant, to receive legal advice to be informed as to how he could stop Jeremy from ‘profiting from his act.’ At that meeting he records how he was advised that the only way to allay this was for Mabel Speakman to change her will. Thus on the 2nd September 1985, Robert Boutflour organised for a solicitor, Mr Peek to visit Mabel Speakman in order for her to change her will. Thus ensuring that his wife, Pamela Boutflour was the only beneficiary of the estate.
Indeed during the trial there is record (Document AB-40 pages 50 – 52), of a discussion in chambers between counsel and the trial Judge regarding Robert Boutflour having a motive to lie to the jury about Jeremy
In 2003, Jeremy commenced civil proceedings against the Boutflour’s as to their use of undue influence in ensuring Mabel Speakman changed her will. There was no legal aid available for this action, and Jeremy was forced to represent himself, thus he was not fully informed of the procedures undertaken to ensure a hearing took place. The proceedings never commenced, because Jeremy failed to submit a pre-action letter to the respondents stating his case, prior to launching the action.
In January 2004, the Boutflour’s countersued Jeremy, this was for the costs of defending his proceedings. They were awarded £18,359.50 including over £7,000 for two barristers to oppose him. They did not have any need to employ a barrister in any event because they would have been instructed that due to there being an omission to act accordingly as to procedure, the case would have been struck out in any event.
Thus, not only were the Boutflour’s instrumental in ensuring that Jeremy had no recourse to funds in order to fight his case while in prison, by running down N and J Bamber Ltd, they also ensured that he was made liable for legal costs that they needn’t have incurred in the first instance due to their having access to legal advice. They have cynically ensured that Jeremy lost altogether just over £100,000 of his own money.
Not content with inheriting Mabel Speakman’s estate and June Bamber’s, they needed to ensure Jeremy suffered great financial loss, so as to prevent him fighting his case from prison. Basil Cock was employed to protect his interests, but on the face of it colluded with the family regarding the asset stripping of N and J Bamber Ltd.
In view of the fact that Essex Police did not address the matter with a view to investigating it, it is obvious that they did not want any attention drawn to the allegations of theft and dishonesty because it would have impugned the credibility of these witnesses as to the successful prosecution of Jeremy Bamber.
In Jeremy’s complaint to the IPCC dated December 2011, he questions why the Eaton’s and the Boutflour’s were not investigated in the first instance and that they are investigated again, by an external Police Force for theft and fraud in addition to investigating Essex Police themselves as to why they did not undertake a full and comprehensive investigation of the allegations made back in 1987.
-
the post above explains one other thing - it was basil not Jeremy who appointed Peter Eaton to run the farm in the first few days ( I would think that was for pretty obvious reasons)
And the other reason I fleetingly thought BC may be a bit suspect was that Junes purse was listed on the assets - but the Wallet of Nevilles that Anne apparently handed to him which apparently had a lot of cash in it was not mentioned in the list of assets .
I then dismissed the thought because I thought there may be a more detailed list of assets later.
It was just a bit odd that Anne let Jeremy call the police and accuse them of taking the wallet when in fact she knew where it was all the time.
-
In 1985, Nevill Bamber, his wife June Bamber and their son, Jeremy Bamber co-owned the farming company, N and J Bamber Ltd. The share ownership was distributed whereby Nevill Bamber owned 79%, June Bamber owned 1% and finally Jeremy Bamber owned 20% of the company.
While N and J Bamber Ltd, owned all the assets of the company, i.e. machinery, buildings, crops, livestock and vehicles, 600 acres of the farm was leasehold, and a further 100 acres was freehold. 50 acres (otherwise known as Charity Farm) was owned by Nevill and June Bamber, while the other 50 acres (otherwise known as Renters Farm) was shared equally between Nevill Bamber, June Bamber and Jeremy Bamber, while White House Farm itself was and still is leasehold.
Upon the tragic deaths of Nevill and June Bamber, Basil Cook was appointed Executor of their respective estates and thus was responsible for safeguarding their assets. In order to assist Jeremy Bamber in the daily management of the farm, Basil Cock appointed Peter Eaton to manage N and J Bamber Ltd, until Jeremy Bamber was able to take that role upon himself. Peter Eaton was appointed Farm Manager on the 9th August 1985.
Upon the successful conviction of Jeremy Bamber for the murders at White House Farm, Peter Eaton and his wife Ann became the tenants of the leasehold properties previously rented by Nevill Bamber. This included White House Farm, which they had already moved into. However, Basil Cock as the Executor of the estate, after the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, concluded that all the assets of the Bamber estate should be inherited by Pamela Boutflour. This decision was later challenged in the Chancery Division by Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood, Nevill Bamber’s nephew and niece - Case Number CH 1991 PN 8680.
In these proceedings Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood sued Basil Cock, Robert and Pamela Boutflour, David Boutflour and Peter and Ann Eaton alleging theft and false accounting in managing N and J Bamber Ltd. In any event, Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood settled after it was agreed they would inherit Nevill Bamber’s estate, while Robert and Pamela Boutflour, and Peter and Ann Eaton and David Boutflour would in turn inherit June Bamber’s estate.
Notwithstanding Jeremy Bamber’s conviction, he was still in ownership of 20% of N and J Bamber Ltd when eventually it was wound up and the assets sold.
N and J Bamber Ltd was dissolved on the 14th September 1999, with no assets, only costs. These costs covered winding up the company, depreciation, repairs, outstanding management fees and other miscellaneous costs totalling £80,000. Indeed Jeremy Bamber received a bill from Basil Cock stating that upon liquidation, Jeremy Bamber owed almost £16,000, which was his share of the costs of winding up N and J Bamber Ltd.
However, in 1985, N and J Bamber Ltd was a prosperous company worth approximately £388,000. £308,000 was the 79% share Nevill Bamber owned in N and J Bamber while a further £80,000 was from other personal assets, and indeed in 1985, Jeremy Bamber’s share was worth approximately £72,000.
Barbara Wilson the farm secretary raised concerns she had about the mismanagement of the farm back in 1987 to Essex Police, however it was not proceeded with pending the appeal of Jeremy Bamber. In view of her allegations going to the heart of the credibility of the chief prosecution witnesses as to their propensity for dishonesty, it is clear that Essex Police had an agenda in maintaining Jeremy Bamber’s conviction by eventually never investigating her complaints in any event.
Her allegations were cumulative in nature, involved numerous third parties and illustrated a clear propensity for dishonesty. In view of the fact that after being managed for fourteen years by Peter Eaton on behalf of Basil Cock the company had gone from being worth £380,000 to owing £80,000 while profits for that time span are not accounted for, yet totalling almost £500,000 lost, the question remains as to why Essex Police breached their duty of care to Jeremy Bamber by not investigating the allegations listed in the first instance. The allegations are based upon reasonable suspicion, and Essex Police should have acted in the public interest in investigating them, especially as the officer who interviewed Barbara Wilson described her as an honest person with no clear agenda against the family.
It is fact that during Jeremy Bamber’s trial the jury asked ‘If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his Uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour’s statement about Jeremy’s being able to kill his own parents.’
The fact that the jury were suspicious as to motive by Jeremy Bamber’s relatives places in issue their credibility as prosecution witnesses whereby they stood to make a pecuniary gain by securing a conviction for murder with Jeremy Bamber as the accused. Thus where Jeremy Bamber’s appeal was pending at that time and where the honesty or credibility of these material witnesses to the case is in question it is relevant that these allegations were investigated appropriately. Indeed the allegations of dishonesty and asset stripping clearly tolerated by Essex Police highlights a further agenda that bites on motive by the relatives of Jeremy Bamber who misled the jury regarding that relevant question. Due to their misleading the jury, they were never cross examined at trial as to this issue.
Robert Boutflour witness statement given to the jury, dated 17th October 1986, in response to the jury’s question, he stated that he was a very wealthy man in his own right owning a 50% share in Carbonell’s Farm, (Document A – 16), this was his primary asset. Yet he did not state that it is fact that on the 7th August 1985, he had a much greater motive to mislead the jury, because at that time he did not own Carbonell’s Farm. On the 7th August 1985, Jeremy stood to inherit 50% of Carbonell’s Farm upon the death of Mabel Speakman (his maternal grandmother) whose will left her estate equally between her two daughters, Pamela Boutflour and June Bamber.
In his diary for that period in 1985, Robert Boutflour was concerned about Jeremy being a beneficiary only 5 days after the tragedy at White House Farm, (Robert Boutflour’s Diary Doc D-18). It is fact that on the 24th August 1985, Robert Boutflour met his own solicitor, Mr Rant, to receive legal advice to be informed as to how he could stop Jeremy from ‘profiting from his act.’ At that meeting he records how he was advised that the only way to allay this was for Mabel Speakman to change her will. Thus on the 2nd September 1985, Robert Boutflour organised for a solicitor, Mr Peek to visit Mabel Speakman in order for her to change her will. Thus ensuring that his wife, Pamela Boutflour was the only beneficiary of the estate.
Indeed during the trial there is record (Document AB-40 pages 50 – 52), of a discussion in chambers between counsel and the trial Judge regarding Robert Boutflour having a motive to lie to the jury about Jeremy
In 2003, Jeremy commenced civil proceedings against the Boutflour’s as to their use of undue influence in ensuring Mabel Speakman changed her will. There was no legal aid available for this action, and Jeremy was forced to represent himself, thus he was not fully informed of the procedures undertaken to ensure a hearing took place. The proceedings never commenced, because Jeremy failed to submit a pre-action letter to the respondents stating his case, prior to launching the action.
In January 2004, the Boutflour’s countersued Jeremy, this was for the costs of defending his proceedings. They were awarded £18,359.50 including over £7,000 for two barristers to oppose him. They did not have any need to employ a barrister in any event because they would have been instructed that due to there being an omission to act accordingly as to procedure, the case would have been struck out in any event.
Thus, not only were the Boutflour’s instrumental in ensuring that Jeremy had no recourse to funds in order to fight his case while in prison, by running down N and J Bamber Ltd, they also ensured that he was made liable for legal costs that they needn’t have incurred in the first instance due to their having access to legal advice. They have cynically ensured that Jeremy lost altogether just over £100,000 of his own money.
Not content with inheriting Mabel Speakman’s estate and June Bamber’s, they needed to ensure Jeremy suffered great financial loss, so as to prevent him fighting his case from prison. Basil Cock was employed to protect his interests, but on the face of it colluded with the family regarding the asset stripping of N and J Bamber Ltd.
In view of the fact that Essex Police did not address the matter with a view to investigating it, it is obvious that they did not want any attention drawn to the allegations of theft and dishonesty because it would have impugned the credibility of these witnesses as to the successful prosecution of Jeremy Bamber.
In Jeremy’s complaint to the IPCC dated December 2011, he questions why the Eaton’s and the Boutflour’s were not investigated in the first instance and that they are investigated again, by an external Police Force for theft and fraud in addition to investigating Essex Police themselves as to why they did not undertake a full and comprehensive investigation of the allegations made back in 1987.
Brilliant, informative and thought provoking post,thanks Jansus.
-
the post above explains one other thing - it was basil not Jeremy who appointed Peter Eaton to run the farm in the first few days ( I would think that was for pretty obvious reasons)
And the other reason I fleetingly thought BC may be a bit suspect was that Junes purse was listed on the assets - but the Wallet of Nevilles that Anne apparently handed to him which apparently had a lot of cash in it was not mentioned in the list of assets .
I then dismissed the thought because I thought there may be a more detailed list of assets later.
It was just a bit odd that Anne let Jeremy call the police and accuse them of taking the wallet when in fact she knew where it was all the time.
maybe she just forgot.
-
Re # 30, jansus, where is this from?
I hope you copied/pasted it and din´t type it all. In any case, thanks. :)
-
whoops forgot source :-[
I cant take any credit - it was posted from Grahame - but not sure where it was from originally - but it does seem to tally up with dates etc.
-
so had jeremy not been convicted the company would of been owned enterly by him
-
I find it all quite interesting . If Jeremy had got out on appeal early on - the company was quickly being run down. If I remember correctly the farming was very profitable because NB was such forward thinking farmer and had invested in farming opium for medicinal purposes.
So really the Eatons had things handed to them on a plate, but of course the profits would have gone to the limited company . BW made it quite clear she could prove her accusations if the accounts had been presented and checked.
-
so had jeremy not been convicted the company would of been owned enterly by him
yes and you don't think his father would have allowed him to have 20% shares at his age if he did not trust him would you ? And his shares were worth £72000 , a lot of money in those days.
So much for him being jealous of Sheila and so hard done by.
-
whoops forgot source :-[
I cant take any credit - it was posted from Grahame - but not sure where it was from originally - but it does seem to tally up with dates etc.
It seems as though Anthony Pargeter got a good deal to settle his court action, almost as if those being sued had something to hide. It all sounds very murky and suggests that the relatives were mercenary and dishonest.
-
I find it all quite interesting . If Jeremy had got out on appeal early on - the company was quickly being run down. If I remember correctly the farming was very profitable because NB was such forward thinking farmer and had invested in farming opium for medicinal purposes.
So really the Eatons had things handed to them on a plate, but of course the profits would have gone to the limited company . BW made it quite clear she could prove her accusations if the accounts had been presented and checked.
selling opium i think it must of run in the family.
-
yes and you don't think his father would have allowed him to have 20% shares at his age if he did not trust him would you ? And his shares were worth £72000 , a lot of money in those days.
So much for him being jealous of Sheila and so hard done by.
so before the murders he already had 72000 at his disposal unless there was some clause that he couldn't sell them.
-
yes and you don't think his father would have allowed him to have 20% shares at his age if he did not trust him would you ? And his shares were worth £72000 , a lot of money in those days.
So much for him being jealous of Sheila and so hard done by.
This is very generous towards Jeremy! All of it. The house, the car, decent wages, Osea Caravan Park to be split 50-50 with Ann Eaton and now this.
If Jeremy committed those murders out of greed, he was plain stupid!
-
but the jury don't seem to of been told of jeremys independent wealth assuming it was independent wealth.
for a man whose supposed to not get on with his parents hes being treated very well by them.
but what i woould really like to know is those shares could be sold.
-
selling opium i think it must of run in the family.
at least this was in a legal and very clever way.
-
i notice poor old sheila hasnt got any shares.
-
i notice poor old sheila hasnt got any shares.
If she did do illegal drugs - which seh admitted to her doctor she did, she would have sold them to get cash - probably. June and Nevill would have known that.
-
she only dope like jeremy did she wasnt a smack head.
-
If she did do illegal drugs - which seh admitted to her doctor she did, she would have sold them to get cash - probably. June and Nevill would have known that.
She was so rarely at the farm that she wouldn't have become VERY rich from it.
-
well i know you wouldent want somone like sheila involved in running the company but you would think they might of given her a 1 percent share or something.
-
She was so rarely at the farm that she wouldn't have become VERY rich from it.
Sorry April, don´t think I understand? :-[
-
Sorry April, don´t think I understand? :-[
For Sheila to have been able to sell any drugs which were being grown, legally or otherwise, at WHF she would have had to be there on a regular basis to collect them.
-
if Jeremy was resentful i cant see any rational reason for him to be.
seems sheila had more to complain about.
-
For Sheila to have been able to sell any drugs which were being grown, legally or otherwise, at WHF she would have had to be there on a regular basis to collect them.
I was talking about shares. It seems like Nevill and June had given Jeremy some Shares, but not Sheila. Maybe they were afraid she would just sell them for a quick buck (for drugs possibly.)
BTW, was thinking anout the Cannabis allegedly grown by Jeremy at the farm. First of all, how could he do that without Nevill finding out? We have recently seen that the farmland they had at their disposal was not that extensive.
Secondly, how could there have been enough of it for anyone to make a good profit? Julie was supposed to have sold the pot that came out of this. Is this another myth? Was what she was selling rather smuggled into the country?
-
It seems clear from everything I have read that Peter Eaton was branded a thief by BW but it seems like monies stolen by him has been brushed aside which seems extraordinary considering what has been said about Jeremy
Is it accepted that he was dishonest
Everything you "accept" is the complete opposite of reality.
Her allegations that she suspected he was doign wrong were never substantiated and in fact th eonly person who coudl have been cheated was Ann's brother because they ended up splitting the estate equally. Since Ann's brother never complained he was cheated the same assumption is that he wasn't.
-
thats if the shares were salable assets some company's have rules that you cant sell the shares without approval.
-
Re # 30, jansus, where is this from?
I hope you copied/pasted it and din´t type it all. In any case, thanks. :)
from jeremy's website
-
thats if the shares were salable assets some company's have rules that you cant sell the shares without approval.
Who knows, perhaps she had the option of getting shares as well as Jeremy, but preferred cash. Seems to me that the Bambers went out of their way to treat their children equally (and very, very well financially).
-
i notice poor old sheila hasnt got any shares.
Sheila wasn't farming. Jeremy farmed to get the bulk of Nevill's farm assets. In exchange for farming he was given a share and would receive more down the line until he took over. If he gave up famring while they were alive then he would not be given more and upon death there would be a choice- if he farmed he would get most of the assets with just a small sum of money going to Sheila but if he gave up farming then they would split the proceeds 50/50.
That is part of why he wanted Sheila dead. With her alive he would have to keep farming because if he stopped farming she would get half. With her dead he could quit farming and get it all.
-
well even if thares couldent be sold there would be the divendends though and think a 20 percent share would bring in a fair annual dividend.
-
Sheila wasn't farming. Jeremy farmed to get the bulk of Nevill's farm assets. In exchange for farming he was given a share and would receive more down the line until he took over. If he gave up famring while they were alive then he would not be given more and upon death there would be a choice- if he farmed he would get most of the assets with just a small sum of money going to Sheila but if he gave up farming then they would split the proceeds 50/50.
That is part of why he wanted Sheila dead. With her alive he would have to keep farming because if he stopped farming she would get half. With her dead he could quit farming and get it all.
that many shares suggests he had a fair amount of cash avialble to him.
-
Who knows, perhaps she had the option of getting shares as well as Jeremy, but preferred cash. Seems to me that the Bambers went out of their way to treat their children equally (and very, very well financially).
They were not treated equally, that is part of his gripe. She was given the flat for free, she did not have to work for it. In contrast he had to work for them to receive what they gave him so far as a place to live and car. He was given shares in the various farm endeavors including the caravan site because he was being primed to take over one day. Upon Nevill's death the assets of the farm would be shared if they were ever liquidated but would be Jeremy's so long as he farmed it.
So Jeremy could farm and own it all or walk away and have to share it equally with his sister's line.
They didn't want to have it so that Jeremy has to do all the work and yet she shares in the profits. If he farmed it then he would get all the profits from such operations and not have to share a dime of it with her. They were being treated equally though in the sense that if he stopped farming and it were dissolved they divide it. it was left in trust so that Jerey could not stop farming and cheat her.
-
seems to me he was being treated much better than she was.
-
Sheila wasn't farming. Jeremy farmed to get the bulk of Nevill's farm assets. In exchange for farming he was given a share and would receive more down the line until he took over. If he gave up famring while they were alive then he would not be given more and upon death there would be a choice- if he farmed he would get most of the assets with just a small sum of money going to Sheila but if he gave up farming then they would split the proceeds 50/50.
That is part of why he wanted Sheila dead. With her alive he would have to keep farming because if he stopped farming she would get half. With her dead he could quit farming and get it all.
You complete idiot
Provide the prove of anything you have posted above
Facts and prove, now get posting
-
seems to me he was being treated much better than she was.
They gave him 1/3 of 50 acres and 20% of the company, was that worth more than the London flat they gave Sheila? I have no idea.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
She got a place to live in London. She didn't have to work for them to receive it. This meant she could use whatever she made working in the city for her food and utilities and they probably gave her money if she were short in such regard. Jeremy was jealous of this he wanted to live in the city.
While he stood to get the business that would only be if he ran it and farmed. If he walked away he only owned 20% and probably could not sell his shares to anyone so it would be of limited value till they died. If he walked away after their death he would get 60% while Sheila would get 40%
He would only get 100% if he continued doing the work and that 100% would be simply the profits from running the farm. If he sold the company then he would get 60% of the proceeds and Sheila 40%.
-
They were not treated equally, that is part of his gripe. She was given the flat for free, she did not have to work for it. In contrast he had to work for them to receive what they gave him so far as a place to live and car. He was given shares in the various farm endeavors including the caravan site because he was being primed to take over one day. Upon Nevill's death the assets of the farm would be shared if they were ever liquidated but would be Jeremy's so long as he farmed it.
So Jeremy could farm and own it all or walk away and have to share it equally with his sister's line.
They didn't want to have it so that Jeremy has to do all the work and yet she shares in the profits. If he farmed it then he would get all the profits from such operations and not have to share a dime of it with her. They were being treated equally though in the sense that if he stopped farming and it were dissolved they divide it. it was left in trust so that Jerey could not stop farming and cheat her.
[/quote
Post proof of the rubbish you have posted above
I expect your another poster who is 100% Jeremy is guilty
-
You complete idiot
Provide the prove of anything you have posted above
Facts and prove, now get posting
You are the idiot since these are Jeremy's own claims. It is his claim that in exchange for farming he was given 20% of the company, 1/3 of 50 acres and was being groomed to take over one day. Nevill's will details that upon his death Sheila gets 10,000 pounds and everything else goes in trust to Jeremy so long as he farms but if he stops farming then it is divided 50/50.
You are so ignorant of all the facts of this case that it is astounding.
-
so he was prety well made then.
and 72 thousands worth of shares well he could possbley them and took of anyway it would of been more than enough to live on in those days.
-
so he was prety well made then.
and 72 thousands worth of shares well he could possbley them and took of anyway it would of been more than enough to live on in those days.
Are you talking about while they were alive or after they were dead? Finding someone to buy him out would have been dififcult. Apart from sale restrictions probably being in place, no one wants to buy a minority interest and be at the mercy of others. So if he quit farming while they were alive he would have had problems selling the hsares to live off of, he would have needed another job.
After their death I think he would have blown the whole thing even if he got everything and had gotten away with it. You have to live modestly if you want to live off interest. He wanted to live the playboy liftestyle though.
-
if the divedends are profitably enough you can find buyers for a minority interest.
-
June and Neville adored both children and before June began sick there was obviously a lot of love at home
Reminder of Junes letter
"My darlings...Should anything happen to me and I have to leave you, I write to tell you of my love for you and to thank you for all you have given me. All I ask is that God will love and protect you through the years ahead, and that some day, God willing, we may meet again. My love always, my darlings. Mums".
Nobody was going to leave anyone out of their will
-
if the divedends are profitably enough you can buyers for a minority interest.
Stocks don't always pay dividends. The profits can be rolled over into the company simply.
-
considering sheila was ill and dont she had much head for business anyway couldn't Jeremy have cheated her out of her share if he was as devious as is claimed.
-
considering sheila was ill and dont she had much head for business anyway couldn't Jeremy have cheated her out of her share if he was as devious as is claimed.
First of all the inheritance of the residuary estate was to be left in trust so that Jeremy could not simply say I will farm and then sell everything a month later and keep it all. The trustees would disburse the funds to Sheila and himself if he ever decided to liquidate.
Second Jeremy was not even the Executor so had no way to get around things by crook unless he bribed others handling the matter.
At any rate, you seem to mistake her condition for stupidity. She was not stupid and when it comes to inheritances people pay attention to who gets what and how.
-
the fact dident nevile never gave her any responsibility in the company says to me she had no head for bushiness.
-
the fact dident nevile never gave her any responsibility in the company says to me she had no head for bushiness.
She probably had no head for farming. He gave Jeremy a share to get Jeremy interested in it and to teach him. If Jerey refused to work on the farm then I am sure he would not have given it to him. He didn't do it to shaft Sheila, Nevill's goal was to keep his legacy going after he got too old and even after his death but if that didn't happen then they have to share the spoils.
-
ho he dident do it to shaft her he just thought she wasn't up to it.
well to be honest as hes dead and dident keep a diary we dont have a clue what he was thinking.
but thats what i think he thought.
-
ho he dident do it to shaft her he just thought she wasn't up to it.
well to be honest as hes dead and dident keep a diary we dont have a clue what he was thinking.
but thats what i think he thought.
While we don't know if he tried to get Sheila to become a farming partner I don't think it is going out on a limb to say that she would have rejected such an offer if it were made to her. Does anyone seriously think that Sheila would have said yes to working on the farm in exchange for a share in the ownership and thus lived there instead of London? I sure don't. There is a big difference between occasionally helping out on the farm and making it your profession.
Jeremy had no better options so got sucked into the farming world. Sheila had her own world she just visited the farm. Jeremy was jealous of that even though she had schizophrenia and thus not one to envy.
-
Where do you get the idea that Jeremy was jealous of Sheila ? It's nonsense and also a childish thing to say.
He certainly wouldn't have been jealous of her illness !!
-
he may of been i cant see that theirs any evidence to prove it.
-
he may of been i cant see that theirs any evidence to prove it.
His comments to Julie and Colin in particular are very telling. He told Colin how he hated his family controlling him with money and was bitter about Sheila being given a place in London to live withou having to work for it. He wanted to live in London and no to have to work for what his family gave him.
What he got in terms of the 1/3 of the 50 acres, a small portion of the Caravan site and 20% of the company may in fact have been worth more than Sheila's flat but he had to work for it while she didn't and the city life is what he wanted because that is where the fun is. He wanted to go to clubs and fancy restaurants not country dives.
that is why he quit farming as soon as they were dead and left the running of the farm to others prior to his conviction. He was done with it and would have sold everything, moved to London and probably blown through all his money in a matter of a few years then been in a quandry.
-
June had Sheilas' life mapped out. It was her who wanted Sheila to take an interest in the business side of it as this is one reason that Sheila went to secretarial classes paid for by her parents,but London was a magnet for partying,so that idea went to the wall. Then it was June whose suggestion of the Lucie Clayton school that might have had appeal,but failed again.
The whole problem lay with the mother and daughter relationship where personalities clashed and both women were forever pulling against each other. Nobody but nobody can lead a life of being controlled,I don't care what anyone says,and sooner or later one of them,or both,are going to snap-------and that's exactly what happened.
-
June had Sheilas' life mapped out. It was her who wanted Sheila to take an interest in the business side of it as this is one reason that Sheila went to secretarial classes paid for by her parents,but London was a magnet for partying,so that idea went to the wall. Then it was June whose suggestion of the Lucie Clayton school that might have had appeal,but failed again.
The whole problem lay with the mother and daughter relationship where personalities clashed and both women were forever pulling against each other. Nobody but nobody can lead a life of being controlled,I don't care what anyone says,and sooner or later one of them,or both,are going to snap-------and that's exactly what happened.
Lookout, , you've set that out so well one cannot fail to see that it could equally well be ascribed to Jeremy. Sheila had kicked against all the plans her parents had for her and by so doing had got herself a smart "residence" in London, a partying lifestyle and VERY importantly, DISTANCE between her and her parents. Jeremy, on the other hand, HAD, more or less, toed the parental line. HE hadn't caused his parents the problems which Sheila had. It HAD to have seemed to him that whilst Sheila's bad behaviour was rewarded -SHE had her freedom and financial support- HE was stuck doing his parents bidding which earned him a two up two down tied to the job which tied him down. Sibling rivalry can distort the clearest thinking.
-
Morning April/lookout
whilst both posts make sense I tend to think Jeremy was the one who was most tied with the farm and living so close to his parents Sheila had the freedom of London and out of reach of her parents especially June. How controlled was Jeremy I suspect outwardly he was but inwardly he was his own person and rebelled against their control.
-
Lookout, , you've set that out so well one cannot fail to see that it could equally well be ascribed to Jeremy. Sheila had kicked against all the plans her parents had for her and by so doing had got herself a smart "residence" in London, a partying lifestyle and VERY importantly, DISTANCE between her and her parents. Jeremy, on the other hand, HAD, more or less, toed the parental line. HE hadn't caused his parents the problems which Sheila had. It HAD to have seemed to him that whilst Sheila's bad behaviour was rewarded -SHE had her freedom and financial support- HE was stuck doing his parents bidding which earned him a two up two down tied to the job which tied him down. Sibling rivalry can distort the clearest thinking.
Hi April,I purposely left Jeremy out as besides him not fitting into a scenario of murder ( my thoughts ),he also tended to do his own thing anyway but at the same time he had the sense that if he worked hard,he could also play hard too. Sheila just couldn't settle to anything even though choices and opportunities were there-----on a plate. Between her and her mother,the old saying came into play," you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink ",and this pull was evident in every way with mother and daughter.
It wasn't a case of making flesh of one and fowl of another as regards Jeremy and Sheila because the parents treated them equally from their schooling onwards. Nobody on this earth can predict how their children are going to turn out,whether adopted or not,as each person is an individual with individual needs,etc. June was going out of her way to " mould " Sheila into a person the same as she was who'd had the same stark and stern upbringing as someone brought up in the Victorian era.
I would say that both children respected their parents,and it was this respect that stopped Sheila from kicking off verbally,which I think would have got rid of all the pent-up emotions that the girl had,especially as she wasn't allowed to speak of them. June was hard and difficult for Sheila to approach over anything as Sheila used to tell her friends everything,an example being that on Sheilas' last stay in hospital,June had passed it off as just being " one of those things ",which upset Sheila greatly that she'd told her friend Sonja that she felt as though her problem could be solved by sending her here or there,a very simplistic approach to what was a devastating illness.
If only we had the full unabridged version of Sheilas' illness as the answer to this crime would be there.
-
Hi April,I purposely left Jeremy out as besides him not fitting into a scenario of murder ( my thoughts ),he also tended to do his own thing anyway but at the same time he had the sense that if he worked hard,he could also play hard too. Sheila just couldn't settle to anything even though choices and opportunities were there-----on a plate. Between her and her mother,the old saying came into play," you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink ",and this pull was evident in every way with mother and daughter.
It wasn't a case of making flesh of one and fowl of another as regards Jeremy and Sheila because the parents treated them equally from their schooling onwards. Nobody on this earth can predict how their children are going to turn out,whether adopted or not,as each person is an individual with individual needs,etc. June was going out of her way to " mould " Sheila into a person the same as she was who'd had the same stark and stern upbringing as someone brought up in the Victorian era.
I would say that both children respected their parents,and it was this respect that stopped Sheila from kicking off verbally,which I think would have got rid of all the pent-up emotions that the girl had,especially as she wasn't allowed to speak of them. June was hard and difficult for Sheila to approach over anything as Sheila used to tell her friends everything,an example being that on Sheilas' last stay in hospital,June had passed it off as just being " one of those things ",which upset Sheila greatly that she'd told her friend Sonja that she felt as though her problem could be solved by sending her here or there,a very simplistic approach to what was a devastating illness.
If only we had the full unabridged version of Sheilas' illness as the answer to this crime would be there.
Lookout, that I'm not taking Jeremy OUT of this sibling rivalry equation, doesn't, on it's own, put him INto a scenario for murder.
I'm trying to see Sheila as she and her exploits MAY have been seen through the eyes of her younger brother. That he "played it differently" from Sheila doesn't mean he didn't FEEL the same as her. It is said that, to a child, ANY attention, no matter how negative, is better than NO attention. If Jeremy saw his parents' constantly being attentive to Sheila's needs it would mean that he felt HIS needs were being ignored.
(I have very dear friends whose son, in his late 40's has only recently told them how much he'd hated boarding school and how miserable he'd been the whole time he was there. Horrified and feeling guilty, they asked him why he'd never told them. He said there'd have been no point, all their attention was given to his sister. They admitted to me that this was probably true. He had been a "good" child. In their eyes, not requiring their attention. She on the other hand had been difficult and demanding of attention. My late partners two sons, individually, told me exactly the same story)
It strikes me as odd that, despite their expensive educations, neither Sheila nor Jeremy qualified for anything -in a world of less money, their lives would certainly been far less comfortable if they'd had nothing to rely on save the wages of unskilled work- one reason for this MAY be that they had both been pushed down roads inappropriate for them. For similar reasons, I too, left school with no qualifications - more correctly,that I was permitted to make use of.
We know that at LEAST 50% of the Bamber children was not cut out for life in the country. ONE managed to escape. The other toed the line. I'm inclined to think the line finally ran out.
It also occurs to me that I've spent MOST of my time on this forum focusing on Sheila. THIS may have been the story of Jeremy's childhood.
-
Lookout, that I'm not taking Jeremy OUT of this sibling rivalry equation, doesn't, on it's own, put him INto a scenario for murder.
I'm trying to see Sheila as she and her exploits MAY have been seen through the eyes of her younger brother. That he "played it differently" from Sheila doesn't mean he didn't FEEL the same as her. It is said that, to a child, ANY attention, no matter how negative, is better than NO attention. If Jeremy saw his parents' constantly being attentive to Sheila's needs it would mean that he felt HIS needs were being ignored.
(I have very dear friends whose son, in his late 40's has only recently told them how much he'd hated boarding school and how miserable he'd been the whole time he was there. Horrified and feeling guilty, they asked him why he'd never told them. He said there'd have been no point, all their attention was given to his sister. They admitted to me that this was probably true. He had been a "good" child. In their eyes, not requiring their attention. She on the other hand had been difficult and demanding of attention. My late partners two sons, individually, told me exactly the same story)
It strikes me as odd that, despite their expensive educations, neither Sheila nor Jeremy qualified for anything -in a world of less money, their lives would certainly been far less comfortable if they'd had nothing to rely on save the wages of unskilled work- one reason for this MAY be that they had both been pushed down roads inappropriate for them. For similar reasons, I too, left school with no qualifications - more correctly,that I was permitted to make use of.
We know that at LEAST 50% of the Bamber children was not cut out for life in the country. ONE managed to escape. The other toed the line. I'm inclined to think the line finally ran out.
It also occurs to me that I've spent MOST of my time on this forum focusing on Sheila. THIS may have been the story of Jeremy's childhood.
April, what I will say is that both children were given equal chances as regards education and one wasn't treated any different to the other so far as that was concerned,so it was down to the children to either make or break.
In our household,it wasn't deemed as important for the daughter to be as encouraged in the education department as it was for the son,so as a consequence my brother received the most encouragement and also rewards when he gained his 11+ exam to grammar school. All this outpouring of " favouritism " towards him didn't make a scrap of difference to how I felt,as I wasn't the sensitive type. It was clear to everyone both within the family and outsiders that my brother was the shining example in the family,and just where I came in,I didn't know,but as I'd said,I wasn't particularly bothered either. At the time,anyway.
However,as I got older,I rebelled and did the opposite to what mum wanted me to do. Her idea was for me to leave school and " just get a job " ! That wasn't what I had in mind as I'd studied anatomy and physiology at school,as well as biology so my intention was to go straight to college,which I did.
In my late teens,for the first time,I'd heard that mum went into care at 10 years old after her mother died and she was left looking after a very sick father.She was going out scrubbing steps to earn a crust as there was no money. So the upshot of the way her mind worked was that she wanted me to work as hard as she had done and bring some wages in. No way. Dad was working and so was she in between going to her Sistership whatever that was. My life wasn't my own.
What I'm saying is this mother/daughter thing seemed to be something in the 60's and 70's and by no means did it always involve those having been adopted. It was a mentality that was carried from years previous,where a lot of mothers didn't " move with the times ". There were times when I did bubble up with rage,and I'm sure that if I hadn't been the level-headed and laid-back person that I was,I too could have done damage.
It's other people who drive you mad,not necessarily that there was anything amiss,mentally, in the first place. Sheila had reached the end of her tether as she had more issues in such a short life than many of us have in a lifetime.
-
His comments to Julie and Colin in particular are very telling. He told Colin how he hated his family controlling him with money and was bitter about Sheila being given a place in London to live withou having to work for it. He wanted to live in London and no to have to work for what his family gave him.
What he got in terms of the 1/3 of the 50 acres, a small portion of the Caravan site and 20% of the company may in fact have been worth more than Sheila's flat but he had to work for it while she didn't and the city life is what he wanted because that is where the fun is. He wanted to go to clubs and fancy restaurants not country dives.
that is why he quit farming as soon as they were dead and left the running of the farm to others prior to his conviction. He was done with it and would have sold everything, moved to London and probably blown through all his money in a matter of a few years then been in a quandry.
or he may havent wanted sometime off after suffering a terrble tragedy i mean if my family god forbid had been wiped out i dont think id fell like going back to workfor a while.
certanly not at the place it happened.
-
or he may havent wanted sometime off after suffering a terrble tragedy i mean if my family god forbid had been wiped out i dont think id fell like going back to workfor a while.
certanly not at the place it happened.
As I´ve said before, if Jeremy had started work immediately after the tragedy, he would be branded as cold and unfeeling. He can´t win.
-
As I´ve said before, if Jeremy had started work immediately after the tragedy, he would be branded as cold and unfeeling. He can´t win.
Not by anyone rationa because life goes on. People who party afterwards get criticized but whether it deserves criticism depends ont he nature. There is a difference between continuing to live one's life and changing to all play and no work. Some people will work more to avoid their grief. Some will dwell on things and even try to do things they think would please those they lost including keeping their legacy going.
Jeremy didn't try to keep their legacy going he quit farming the same day. He didn't try to bury himself in work he quit working. He went around trying to find what he could sell so he would have money to part with and that was the extent of work he did.
He expressed no remorse or guilt for supposedly leaving out the murder weapon.
He reacted the way someone would who won a big lottery jackpot. Actually some people who win the lottery refuse to quit and still work anyway.
-
Not by anyone rationa because life goes on. People who party afterwards get criticized but whether it deserves criticism depends ont he nature. There is a difference between continuing to live one's life and changing to all play and no work. Some people will work more to avoid their grief. Some will dwell on things and even try to do things they think would please those they lost including keeping their legacy going.
Jeremy didn't try to keep their legacy going he quit farming the same day. He didn't try to bury himself in work he quit working. He went around trying to find what he could sell so he would have money to part with and that was the extent of work he did.
He expressed no remorse or guilt for supposedly leaving out the murder weapon.
He reacted the way someone would who won a big lottery jackpot. Actually some people who win the lottery refuse to quit and still work anyway.
Which is as I said. There IS no book of rules when it comes to human behaviour -that prerogative is left to the law- but just because the do things differently to how we would do them, it doesn't mean that they're automatically guilty...........................OR INNOCENT EITHER!!!!!
-
Alias the thing that got to me was he was selling his parents possessions probably most of them antiques that could have been in the family for generations this seems so cold and callous as if he could not wait to get his hands on the Estate.
-
Alias the thing that got to me was he was selling his parents possessions probably most of them antiques that could have been in the family for generations this seems so cold and callous as if he could not wait to get his hands on the Estate.
I don´t know so much about this particular aspect of the case. What did he sell?
-
Alias the thing that got to me was he was selling his parents possessions probably most of them antiques that could have been in the family for generations this seems so cold and callous as if he could not wait to get his hands on the Estate.
His actions COULD have revealed a long held and deep seated anger and resentment. It MAY have been about him never FEELING part of the family, in which case he'd have had no compunction about selling "family" pieces.
-
I don´t know so much about this particular aspect of the case. What did he sell?
as far as I have seen Basil Cock Was instructing most of the family in respect of the possessions including the jewellery ,wallet etc. Not just Jeremy - he was telling the rest of them what to do as well.
-
as far as I have seen Basil Cock Was instructing most of the family in respect of the possessions including the jewellery ,wallet etc. Not just Jeremy - he was telling the rest of them what to do as well.
I have so often heard that he sold antiques, but I have no idea what it was exactly about.
-
I have so often heard that he sold antiques, but I have no idea what it was exactly about.
it came from Annes statement - she also sowed the seed by saying before the murders he had commented on some antique chairs and she was surprised that he knew about antiques.
Not sure if her words can be verified,
-
it came from Annes statement - she also sowed the seed by saying before the murders he had commented on some antique chairs and she was surprised that he knew about antiques.
Not sure if her words can be verified,
I thought she said it of Brett -she may have been more surprised about his knowledge of antiques than BC's- but I could be wrong.
-
His actions COULD have revealed a long held and deep seated anger and resentment. It MAY have been about him never FEELING part of the family, in which case he'd have had no compunction about selling "family" pieces.
????
-
One thing is interesting, and that is Brett Collins´ utter silence about anything to do with this case. Has he ever opened his mouth to defend his friend?
-
One thing is interesting, and that is Brett Collins´ utter silence about anything to do with this case. Has he ever opened his mouth to defend his friend?
Alias, we had a New Zealand guy join us some time back. He had apparently known Brett Collins who comes over as a bit of a wide boy who dabbled in a bit of everything. He was asked about the possibility of a robbery concerning Rolex and Cartier watches. He said there was so little big crime out there that it would have been well known had it happened but Knowing what he did of Brett any supposedly nicked watches of that calibre were probably fakes, the stop overs en route being the obvious places to buy them.
It's not Jeremy's guilt that I object to as much as the myths which have grown up around it as proof of it eg he nicked watches, he was friends with gays, he "master minded" a burglary, he put his feet up on a desk, etc etc etc.
-
Alias, we had a New Zealand guy join us some time back. He had apparently known Brett Collins who comes over as a bit of a wide boy who dabbled in a bit of everything. He was asked about the possibility of a robbery concerning Rolex and Cartier watches. He said there was so little big crime out there that it would have been well known had it happened but Knowing what he did of Brett any supposedly nicked watches of that calibre were probably fakes, the stop overs en route being the obvious places to buy them.
It's not Jeremy's guilt that I object to as much as the myths which have grown up around it as proof of it eg he nicked watches, he was friends with gays, he "master minded" a burglary, he put his feet up on a desk, etc etc etc.
Yes - loads and loads of myths. From both sides, I might add.
Has Colin ever spoken publicly about the case?
-
I will be posting a lot more about Peter Eaton tonight
-
Alias the thing that got to me was he was selling his parents possessions probably most of them antiques that could have been in the family for generations this seems so cold and callous as if he could not wait to get his hands on the Estate.
Some people are sentimental and will keep everything that belonged to family members who passed on.
Others will be less sentimental and just keep the things they like and get rid of things they do not.
Usually though there is a period of time before they get to the point where they decide to deal with the items. Unless multiple family members are around to inherit in which case there could be a fight over who gets to the stuff first and there is a fight over who plunders first.
Jeremy thought many of the items were more valuable than they turned out to be. He even went to plunder Sheila's flat, he did this pretty early on rather than a griving period and then after that period dealing with their property. He wasn't working and drawing aslary, he needed money so was trying to see what he could unload quickly but at the same time was assessing the value of items he thought would be worth a bundle to see how much he would ultimately be able to get.
It is not surprising he falls into the category of not wanting to keep anything and just being interested in the money. It is also not surprising that he didn't wait for a period of time grieving before looking at the items to decide whether he wanted to keep them or what. These actions are in accordance with the picture painted by the prosecution of a man who cared about money so much he stole from his family's business and killed them all in order to be the sole heir.
Naturally his supporters try to blame it on Cock and come up with other excuses to try to pretend that he did grieve and didn't care about disposing of the assets right away but clearly he did look at the value of the property right away. It took many months before we started dealing with the furnishings and goods owned by my late grandmothers. Deciding what to keep, what to offer other family and friends and then what to do with what remains can actually be a daunting task. A lot of times you have no use for something and yet have a problem parting with it anyway simply because it was owned by a loved one. He had no such attachments for rather obvious reasons so his biggest problem was valuing the property not deciding what to get rid of.
He was said to have considered selling nude pictures of his sister so that says it all I think. Some people are remorseful after they kill while others are not. Obviously he wasn't so had no motivation to keep their belongings.