The Research Required To Support A Family Conspiracy

[Erik Narramore]

A starting-point for researchers should be the wills and probate documents and information from the Land Registry and Companies House - all of which are public documents and disclose objective factual information.

The Bamber and Speakman wills were probated, so are available for public viewing.  Some knowledge of company law, land law, charity law and agricultural tenancies and how they work would be required (which I have).

Then you have to consider the flow of information.

The intentions of June and Nevill were probably communicated to Pam Boutflour, who would have leaked the information to the other relatives through gossip and private discussions and what not.

Additionally, Barbara Wilson was indiscreet - a sort of petty slanderer and gossip-mongerer.

Mabel Speakman's intentions were known.

Immediately following the deaths, the relatives must have known that Jeremy would likely inherit the estate, including the fief, freeholds and tenancies of other lands and farms, shares in two limited companies and property, various valuable chattels, and so forth.

Why specifically would that harm them?  And if they knew this was coming anyway, because Jeremy was the son, then why weren't they steeled for it?

What specific allegations did the relatives make about Jeremy's intentions for the estate?  How did Jeremy communicate these intentions to them?

The point about vital interests is that there is a distinction to make.

It's one thing to say Jeremy would have caused them heartache, trouble and aggravation: he was acting insensitively and giving away family heirlooms, or he was going to sell his shares in the caravan park to a mysterious Russian with a clipped Hampshire brogue, or he was a bit of a woofter and prancing around in women's clothes, or he was saying how he was going to give up the family farming tradition and sell out for a smallholding on the South Island of New Zealand, or whatever.

None of these things could drive the family to malevolence on the level you posit.

But it's another thing entirely to say that Jeremy threatened them vitally, i.e. in some way fundamentally.

Here's what I consider examples of intérêts vitaux under threat that may lead to a slide into corruption and dishonesty on the part of the relatives:

Jeremy's inheritance threatened them with bankruptcy/insolvency and effective homelessness.

Jeremy was going to throw them off their land and had clearly expressed his intention to do so.

Nevill's estate was owed a substantial amount of money - a life-changing amount - by the relatives and Jeremy had indicated he would enforce the debt and wanted repayment of the principal, and he had a loan agreement and security/lien to support this threat.

Before I leave you with this, let's go back to things that might have annoyed or troubled the relatives.  I've said that such a thing would not lead them to intentionally frame Jeremy for murder without regard for his guilt or innocence, but it might however lead them down a road to find evidence that backs up their suspicions that he is the murderer.  For instance, let's say Ann is heartbroken that Jeremy intends to sell Vaulty Manor and he goads her about it.  Ann would not on this basis intentionally frame Jeremy for murder, but it might make her more determined to find evidence that he is a murderer - if you see the distinction - and it might also make her blind to countervailing facts, views and opinions that point to Jeremy's innocence.