Author Topic: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.  (Read 2411 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13781
ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« on: November 13, 2024, 02:06:AM »
I gave ChatGPT an inheritance scenario based on the laws in effect during 1985.

"In this tragic scenario under English law, where the order of death of family members cannot be ascertained, the rules of commorientes (simultaneous death) apply as governed by the Law of Property Act 1925, specifically section 184. Under this rule, if it is impossible to determine the order of death, the law presumes that the older person died before the younger person.

Given that:

The daughter was intended to inherit the estate of her parents.
The deaths of the mother, father, daughter, and her two young children occurred at the same time, with no clear evidence of who passed first.
Here’s how inheritance would be distributed:

Application of Section 184 - Law of Property Act 1925
Presumed Order of Deaths: Since age is used to determine the presumed order of death:

The mother and father are presumed to have died first.
The daughter is presumed to have died after her parents.
The daughter’s children are presumed to have died after her.
Inheritance to the Daughter: Given this presumed order:

The daughter inherits her parents' estate as she is presumed to have survived them.
Inheritance to the Daughter’s Heirs:

Since the daughter is presumed to have died after inheriting her parents' estate, her estate (including what she inherited from her parents) would pass to her heirs.
However, as her children also died and were her next of kin, and they have no descendants, the inheritance will go according to the Rules of Intestacy.


Here’s how English intestacy law would apply in this case:

Presumed Order of Deaths:

Under section 184 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the presumed order of deaths is that the daughter outlived her parents and inherited their estate.
Following this, the older child is presumed to have outlived the younger sibling, meaning the estate would pass to the older child.
Inheritance from the Older Child:

Once the estate reaches the older child, the law of intestacy would apply to distribute the child’s estate.
Under the Rules of Intestacy, if a minor child dies without a will and no descendants, the estate would pass to the child’s surviving parent, who, in this case, is the father.

Conclusion:

Therefore, the father of the two children would inherit the estate through the presumed order of deaths and the subsequent intestate succession through the older child.
In summary, under English law, the father of the two children would inherit the estate in this scenario, as he would be the closest surviving relative under the intestacy rules.
"

Offline BarefootDanC

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 973
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2024, 10:42:PM »
I gave ChatGPT an inheritance scenario based on the laws in effect during 1985.

"In this tragic scenario under English law, where the order of death of family members cannot be ascertained, the rules of commorientes (simultaneous death) apply as governed by the Law of Property Act 1925, specifically section 184. Under this rule, if it is impossible to determine the order of death, the law presumes that the older person died before the younger person.

Given that:

The daughter was intended to inherit the estate of her parents.
The deaths of the mother, father, daughter, and her two young children occurred at the same time, with no clear evidence of who passed first.
Here’s how inheritance would be distributed:

Application of Section 184 - Law of Property Act 1925
Presumed Order of Deaths: Since age is used to determine the presumed order of death:

The mother and father are presumed to have died first.
The daughter is presumed to have died after her parents.
The daughter’s children are presumed to have died after her.
Inheritance to the Daughter: Given this presumed order:

The daughter inherits her parents' estate as she is presumed to have survived them.
Inheritance to the Daughter’s Heirs:

Since the daughter is presumed to have died after inheriting her parents' estate, her estate (including what she inherited from her parents) would pass to her heirs.
However, as her children also died and were her next of kin, and they have no descendants, the inheritance will go according to the Rules of Intestacy.


Here’s how English intestacy law would apply in this case:

Presumed Order of Deaths:

Under section 184 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the presumed order of deaths is that the daughter outlived her parents and inherited their estate.
Following this, the older child is presumed to have outlived the younger sibling, meaning the estate would pass to the older child.
Inheritance from the Older Child:

Once the estate reaches the older child, the law of intestacy would apply to distribute the child’s estate.
Under the Rules of Intestacy, if a minor child dies without a will and no descendants, the estate would pass to the child’s surviving parent, who, in this case, is the father.

Conclusion:

Therefore, the father of the two children would inherit the estate through the presumed order of deaths and the subsequent intestate succession through the older child.
In summary, under English law, the father of the two children would inherit the estate in this scenario, as he would be the closest surviving relative under the intestacy rules.
"


This is the presumption in law in the absence of other evidence, but if it was suicide, Sheila must have been the last to die.

Do we know who Jeremy shot last?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44386
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2024, 09:07:AM »
This is the presumption in law in the absence of other evidence, but if it was suicide, Sheila must have been the last to die.

Do we know who Jeremy shot last?

Julie said the twins were shot first and Sheila last.

The twins being shot first, suggests he ascented up one of the back stair cases so there was less chance of being heard.
The first bedroom door he came to was the twins.

Believe he would have shot the twins once each. Leaving him 9 bullets for the main bedroom.

Sheila being shot last suggests she did not wake mid massacre
« Last Edit: November 15, 2024, 09:15:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Cambridgecutie

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6569
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2024, 09:45:AM »
This is the presumption in law in the absence of other evidence, but if it was suicide, Sheila must have been the last to die.

Do we know who Jeremy shot last?

Makes no difference.  The main beneficiaries of the wills were the spouses ie June and Nevill and then Sheila and Jeremy pretty much 50/50.  Upon the death of June, Nevill and Sheila, JB became the main beneficiary.  Given he was on remand when the estate was going through probate the outcome of the trial was the decider.  If he was found 'not guilty' he would have benefitted from the entire estate.  If he was found 'guilty'  he would forfeit the entire estate as he could not benefit from his crimes. 

As he was found 'guilty' and all the main named beneficiaries were deceased the laws of intestacy kicked in: basically a pecking order of next of kin.  By this time June's mother was also deceased.  Therefore June's next of kin was her sister, PB.  As PB did not want another load of wealth entering her estate she used a deed of variation to waive her right and nominate her two adult children: DB and AE.

With regard to NB's estate the same rules applied with his niece, Jackie Wood, and nephew, Anthony Pargeter benefitting.
Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

All goals from Lionesses Euro 2025:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DQq5gnwGjs

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13781
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2024, 11:54:AM »
This brings us back to Sherlocks analysis

As the assumed murderer I think Sheila would have not inherited anything ...

A strong principle in UK law is that no person can benefit in any way from a crime they commit ...

So it would be assumed that as the youngest the twins died last and Colin would have inherited a big slice ...

This principle also explains why it was so important for Robert to see Jeremy convicted of the murders ...

Jeremy's conviction stopped him from inheriting in line with this legal principle ...

So to Robert (a known will fraudster) it was important that Jeremy was convicted and that there was some evidence (Julie's "remembered" statement) that the twins died first ...

It makes no sense (other than to a deranged Sheila perhaps) for anyone to shoot the twins before Nevill ...

Julie did not "remember" Jeremy telling her the twins died first during 4 days with Police ...

Julie was telling lies that Robert Boutflour asked her to tell ...

The truth is easy to see when looking at these details ...

Robert was a known liar (he lied in court about the money and lied to grandma Speakman about Jeremy having died)

Robert was a known will fraudster (his lies to grandma Speakman about Jeremy dying)

Robert was behind the planting of the silencer ...

Robert was behind Julie's lies to the Police ...

His motive was very simple - money ....

It is not important what would have happened ...

What is important is what the relatives thought would happen ...

Between 10th and 23rd September 1985 they thought it was in their interests if the
twins died before Sheila ...

It is clear Colin would have had a claim if the twins inherited ...

So by saying the twins died first they ruled out Colin's claim...

Sheila's inheritance would then pass to Mabel Speakman ...

The relatives had already by deceit made sure that 100% of Mabel's money was going to them ...

What part of this are you having trouble understanding ?

The relatives needed some evidence that the twins died first to stop 100% of the Bambers money going to Colin ...

Even hearsay evidence from a murderer would tip the matter in the favour of the relatives ...

In the absence of any other evidence it would be accepted as decisive ...

The evidence would only possibly be ignored if it was to the benefit of the murderer ...

The relatives knew the importance of the twins being held to have died first ...

Can you explain why Julie "forgot" so many details in her first 4 confession sessions ?

You cannot explain it - can you ?

There is only one possible explanation ...

On this particular point Julie lied to assist the relatives to get 100% of the Bamber money ...

We know the relatives deceived Mabel Speakman on her deathbed - we know Robert Boutflour deceived the jury about the inheritance - we know that Julie deceived the jury about the News of the World deal ...

We know that Julie was a skilled and practiced liar for money (cheque book frauds) ...

Why are you having trouble seeing why she "forgot" such details until her fifth interview ?

You seem to think Julie and Robert etc were highly honest moral people ...

You know 100% that is not at all true - agreed ?



Why are you having trouble seeing what the relatives and Julie did

Offline BarefootDanC

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 973
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2024, 01:17:PM »
This brings us back to Sherlocks analysis

Sherlock's analysis is full of miss-information.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44386
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2024, 01:37:PM »
Sherlock's analysis is full of miss-information.

Are you going to create a Bamber scenario?

Most posters have created a Bamber/Sheila scenario depending on there stance.

Guest29835 posted what Sheila had for breakfast 2 weeks earlier. But it just needs to include the journey to/from WHF & what happened inside. Order of shots etc. Matching the crime scene evidence.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2024, 01:42:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13781
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2024, 01:47:PM »
Sherlock's analysis is full of miss-information.

And what makes you say that?

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13152
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2024, 03:22:PM »
Are you going to create a Bamber scenario?

Most posters have created a Bamber/Sheila scenario depending on there stance.

Guest29835 posted what Sheila had for breakfast 2 weeks earlier. But it just needs to include the journey to/from WHF & what happened inside. Order of shots etc. Matching the crime scene evidence.

Jumped in the motor.

If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Curiosity

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2024, 03:56:PM »
Jumped in the motor.
Started up the engine and awoke his neighbours on either side and across.
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and furballs.

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13152
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2024, 07:12:PM »
Started up the engine and awoke his neighbours on either side and across.

Yeah in fairytale land
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2024, 10:01:PM »
Makes no difference.  The main beneficiaries of the wills were the spouses ie June and Nevill and then Sheila and Jeremy pretty much 50/50.  Upon the death of June, Nevill and Sheila, JB became the main beneficiary.  Given he was on remand when the estate was going through probate the outcome of the trial was the decider.  If he was found 'not guilty' he would have benefitted from the entire estate.  If he was found 'guilty'  he would forfeit the entire estate as he could not benefit from his crimes. 

As he was found 'guilty' and all the main named beneficiaries were deceased the laws of intestacy kicked in: basically a pecking order of next of kin.  By this time June's mother was also deceased.  Therefore June's next of kin was her sister, PB.  As PB did not want another load of wealth entering her estate she used a deed of variation to waive her right and nominate her two adult children: DB and AE.

With regard to NB's estate the same rules applied with his niece, Jackie Wood, and nephew, Anthony Pargeter benefitting.
That's not entirely accurate. Jackie and Anthony didn't inherit automatically. Had they done so there would have been no need to go to law to receive their uncle's estate.

Offline Cambridgecutie

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6569
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2024, 11:32:AM »
That's not entirely accurate. Jackie and Anthony didn't inherit automatically. Had they done so there would have been no need to go to law to receive their uncle's estate.

My understanding is that assets that clearly originated from the Bamber side of the family eg the property in Surrey automatically went to JW and AP.  There was some contention as to who owned what in terms of assets that were connected with the Bamber, Boutflour, Eaton and Speakman estates ie what belonged to the estates of JB's relatives and what belonged to his parents.  There was much intertwining.  Anyway, as I understand it JW and AP thought they were short-changed, pursued it through litigation and the matter resolved.  Whether everyone was entirely happy with the outcome who knows!?  But it shows the sort of people you are dealing with: GRASPING.

Had it not been for the tragedy they were only ever in line for small bequests eg AE 1k from June.  Given all concerned were relatively wealthy why not donate the value of the assets under dispute to a charity instead of getting involved in an unseemly dispute?  Disgusting behaviour.  And the fact AE chose to live at WHF with the knowledge of what occured shows to my mind she is most likely a psychopath. 
Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

All goals from Lionesses Euro 2025:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DQq5gnwGjs

Offline Rob_

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4822
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2024, 04:12:PM »
My understanding is that assets that clearly originated from the Bamber side of the family eg the property in Surrey automatically went to JW and AP.  There was some contention as to who owned what in terms of assets that were connected with the Bamber, Boutflour, Eaton and Speakman estates ie what belonged to the estates of JB's relatives and what belonged to his parents.  There was much intertwining.  Anyway, as I understand it JW and AP thought they were short-changed, pursued it through litigation and the matter resolved.  Whether everyone was entirely happy with the outcome who knows!?  But it shows the sort of people you are dealing with: GRASPING.

Had it not been for the tragedy they were only ever in line for small bequests eg AE 1k from June.  Given all concerned were relatively wealthy why not donate the value of the assets under dispute to a charity instead of getting involved in an unseemly dispute?  Disgusting behaviour.  And the fact AE chose to live at WHF with the knowledge of what occured shows to my mind she is most likely a psychopath.

I could never have lived in the house knowing what had happened, personally I think the house should have been bulldozed.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: ChatGPT inheritance scenario.
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2024, 07:00:PM »
I could never have lived in the house knowing what had happened, personally I think the house should have been bulldozed.
Remember it's a working farm, and the White House forms part of it. What better testament to Nevill and June than to keep it all going.