SMF - Just Installed!
Quote from: Tom Rogers on April 22, 2023, 11:36:53 AMLuke Mitchell Is Innocent - Detective Scott Forbes Tells AllWhat is your view of the case Tom? Do you think Jodi's brother was the killer, and was helped to escape the scene of the crime by the moped boy's?
Quote from: Zak Beresford on January 21, 2023, 07:48:52 AMAgree Erik.
What's interesting though if we are talking from a relatives being jealous of Jeremy taking over and inheriting. It was a slow burning candle. He had been adopted by nevill and June from six weeks of age. He was their child. nevill was his middle name. It wasn't as if he was plucked from a care home at the age of 14. I find the term cuckoo completely childish and horrible to put it blunt.
Boutflour and co must have known from an early era that Jeremy would inevitably inherit all the assets. Then we are left with a situation that regardless of who committed the massacre. That boutflour and co jumped on the bandwagon and used the event to benefit themselves. Shelia gone. And to help engineer a campaign to put Jeremy in the nick.
There's the old addage of no smoke without fire. Though I must admit the idea that the relatives effectively "ganged" up on Jeremy to help put him away. I struggle now to see the difference that they genuinely thought he was guilty or they to put it bluntly just wanted the assets
Quote from: Zak Beresford on January 21, 2023, 07:48:52 AMHello Zack, nice to see you back.
I think it's likely the relatives disliked both of them, but appeared better disposed towards Sheila as she would have been perceived as less of a threat to their interests. As a man, Jeremy was in a direct position to take over the farm. Sheila, too, was in a position to do so, but more indirectly, through her twin boys, who may have grown up wanting to be involved in the various businesses. However, the twins were still very young and away in London.
Quote from: Erik Narramore on January 20, 2023, 03:15:25 PMQuote from: Zak Beresford on January 20, 2023, 10:56:20 AMWhy do the relatives seem to have a strong dislike towards Jeremy than to Shelia?
It has to be said that other than the occasional meetings and family celebrations etc. They had separate life's and were not the close.
I think we can all agree that Jeremys upbringing and general behaviour was a lot more trouble free than Shelias was
Hello Zack, nice to see you back.
I think it's likely the relatives disliked both of them, but appeared better disposed towards Sheila as she would have been perceived as less of a threat to their interests. As a man, Jeremy was in a direct position to take over the farm. Sheila, too, was in a position to do so, but more indirectly, through her twin boys, who may have grown up wanting to be involved in the various businesses. However, the twins were still very young and away in London.
Quote from: Erik Narramore on January 29, 2022, 01:39:29 AMScenario 1:
Here we have a young woman with paranoid schizophrenia and a history of violence and threats of violence, who is estranged from her husband and works in dead-end jobs, dislikes her mentally-ill mother who adopted her and has disturbing psychotic delusions about her own twin sons. She is disappointed by a meeting with her biological mother, who returns to Canada. She is also a recreational drug user. Her psychotropic dosage has been reduced drastically in the last month or two. She is already in the house and has access to a rifle and a loaded magazine, with more ammunition nearby. She argues with her father and she starts threatening to go upstairs with the rifle. He cannot lay his hands on her and is also concerned to keep her downstairs and away from her mother and her own sons, so he tries to calm her down in the kitchen and also rings his son (her brother) while she is present. When the son answers, she runs upstairs and starts shooting. She kills her family, all at close range, including her sons, then turns the gun on herself. She is duly found with the rifle on or by her body. She is forensically clean, but it is believed she washed herself prior to suicide, as is fairly common.
Scenario 2:
Now we have a young man with no history of violence, who lives 2/3 miles away. We say that he goes out in the middle of the night to the house, enters and leaves undetected and without leaving any blood traces. He proceeds to kill his entire family, including two little boys in their beds, simply so he can have lots of money now and drink champagne and have meals at restaurants and go to St Tropez. He may also buy a smallholding in Dorset - he hasn't decided yet, let's see what happens with probate. He does this even though he already has a lot of money and a secure future with a large inheritance down the line. He also tells his girlfriend what he is planning to do and then reveals to her what has happened after he does the deed, albeit obliquely in the form of a made-up story about a hitman - in effect, he is confessing to her. She spills the beans to a friend, and this friend engages in horseplay with this mass murderer at her 21st. birthday party a few days later. He'd planned it all out and even staged a few phone calls to put the police off the trail. The police fall for it. Except for one detective. The killer spends much of his inheritance before he receives it, splashing out like there's no tomorrow. He also allows the relatives, whom he does not see eye-to-eye with, keys to the crime scene. This, after the police had offered the keys to him, which would have allowed him to easily dispose of any further incriminating evidence missed by the police. The relatives come forward with the evidence instead, which had been mysteriously overlooked by the police themselves. These same relatives stand to gain if he is convicted and imprisoned. He even dropped hints to one or two people of his murderous intentions beforehand, including a hostile uncle.
Honestly, which of these two scenarios is the more plausible?