The Noble Cause Framing Theory

[Alias]

The jewellery was still removed without even informing Jeremy. I find that wrong, and I have to wonder how THAT came about.
If Jeremy wasn´t informed and Co?k didn´t intend to, where was the jewellery supposed to go? There is something very wrong here, in my book, so I understand Jeremy´s anger over this.

[Caroline]

The jewellery was still removed without even informing Jeremy. I find that wrong, and I have to wonder how THAT came about.
If Jeremy wasn´t informed and Co?k didn´t intend to, where was the jewellery supposed to go? There is something very wrong here, in my book, so I understand Jeremy´s anger over this.

Perhaps June wanted to leave Jewellery to her sister. I haven't seen her will in full but if that were the case then I can understand why he kept the rings. You can argue that 'morally' he should have told Jeremy but legally, he was in his rights to make sure the rings (or at least June's), remained part of the assets.

[Jane]

Perhaps June wanted to leave Jewellery to her sister. I haven't seen her will in full but if that were the case then I can understand why he kept the rings. You can argue that 'morally' he should have told Jeremy but legally, he was in his rights to make sure the rings (or at least June's), remained part of the assets.

I've often used the throw away line that "everything became Jeremy's" but that isn't quite right. If June had left instructions for certain items to go to specific people/places, those item wouldn't have been Jeremy's. So he could have demanded whatever he wanted about where HE wanted them to go but it could legally have been countermanded by Cock who had been charged with the duty of seeing that the terms of the will were carried out as per June's requests.

[lookout]

Yes,April,,it's down to the executor of the will,,and not necessarily those who are the next of kin.

[lookout]

 If Jeremy had actually killed anyone at all,,he'd have made sure that most valuables such as small items like jewellery would have been well pocketed,,as nobody would then have been the wiser as to what was in Junes' possession. Also,,it would have been a far easier task who to pinpoint if certain items had been missing ( such as what the relatives knew of )
No sign of a break-in----jewellery missing,,it WOULD then have made more sense to blame Jeremy,as regards greed. I'd have blamed him myself.
All " sellable " items still remained in-situ. Seems strange to me,,seeing as he knew how to steal !
 

[lookout]

 Anyone planning a murder would have made it look like a robbery with violence,,but not a thing was touched. Even Nevilles' watch was still there. So if Jeremy was supposed to have carried out such a massacre,,he must have been as thick as whatsits not to make it look like a robbery thrown in. I thought he was an intelligent man,who also looked shifty. So exactly what was it that he wanted from a farmhouse,,which didn't even belong to his parents,,or even its contents ?
So greed was obviously not a motive.

[Jane]

Whilst Jeremy may NOT have done it, Lookout, neither of the above would convince me of his innocence. There was no point, as you say, in him pocketing small valuables because he'd have been the first suspect. Secondly it appears that he believed that everything in the house was his anyway, as reflected in his wishes for the jewellery, so why not leave it in situ until such time as he was more composed and could go through it at his leiisure.

[grahameb]

Whilst Jeremy may NOT have done it, Lookout, neither of the above would convince me of his innocence. There was no point, as you say, in him pocketing small valuables because he'd have been the first suspect. Secondly it appears that he believed that everything in the house was his anyway, as reflected in his wishes for the jewellery, so why not leave it in situ until such time as he was more composed and could go through it at his leiisure.

As campion junior has always said (and I have always been amazed by his insight into the most complicated of issues) Bamber was well and truly stitched up. The one who did it lies dead by her own hand.

[lookout]

As campion junior has always said (and I have always been amazed by his insight into the most complicated of issues) Bamber was well and truly stitched up. The one who did it lies dead by her own hand.

Grahame,,I miss that man.He was so wise.

[tyler]

I am a little confused? Why would Jeremy (if guilty) want to make the crime appear as a robbery? His defence was/is that his mentally ill sister was responsible.

[lookout]

I am a little confused? Why would Jeremy (if guilty) want to make the crime appear as a robbery? His defence was/is that his mentally ill sister was responsible.

Tyler,,I know that..I was just explaining that if the crime had appeared to have been a robbery with violence,,stuff taken and all that,,then and only then would I have quite possibly blamed Jeremy,with his albeit short history of theft through greed. As it stands,,my personal belief is and always has been that it was his sister.

[grahameb]

Tyler,,I know that..I was just explaining that if the crime had appeared to have been a robbery with violence,,stuff taken and all that,,then and only then would I have quite possibly blamed Jeremy,with his albeit short history of theft through greed. As it stands,,my personal belief is and always has been that it was his sister.

I have always believed it happened as the police first said it happened.

[lookout]

 Me too,Grahame. Then I'd also formed my own opinion back in 1985 anyway,as it happened.

[grahameb]

Me too,Grahame. Then I'd also formed my own opinion back in 1985 anyway,as it happened.

So did I. While it was still fresh in people's minds. Long before all these young wippersnappers were even born. And I haven't really changed my overall opinion on the case. I questioned the verdict at the time and I remember that I was aghast when I heard it. I thought to myself, "How on earth could they6 find a man guilty on such flimsy evidence?" I also remember asking a barrister friend of mine at the time if I could get hold of the court manuscripts so that I could research the case further and she informed me that it would not be likely. I was on to the case long before all these little tyro authors came about.

[tyler]

Agreed Grahame. It would be interesting to learn as to what is contained within the files of the first investigation (and second) that led both Taff Jones and subsequently Jim Kinneally to assert that Sheila was responsible. I just cannot accept that EP arrived at this conclusion because 'Jeremy led them in this direction' and certainly cannot believe that upon seeing Sheila (as she is depicted in the crime scene photos) that they couldn't recognise that Sheila's body had been so very obviously  'staged'.