found this- although of course this is a statement not a proof of what finally happened to the estate.
It is probably the best that we are going to find since at least it is someone who claims to have been involved in the process and to know about it.
While he could have been lying it doesn't seem like that is the case.
If these claims are true then for sure they made her aware that they thought Jeremy did it and she agreed because why else would she be in a great hurry to change her will so that Pam got everything instead of Jeremy getting June's share?
Also it made no sense to say that they told her everyone else died and yet for her to not ask about Jeremy. Ann Eaton wasn't really sure what she knew about Jeremy or the exact circumstances of the will being changed.
Obviously her claim that David told her she didn't ask about Jeremy until December is not what he claimed.
That is why it is dangerous though to go by the grapevine. When Ann talks about things she personally witnessed it is one thing. When she talks about what people told her it is another. That creates multiple chances for the message to get messed up like her being in error about June and Sheila being found in bed. While it is possible a cop messed up and said that it is more likely she misunderstood what she was told or misremembered what she was told. As time passes you forget what you witnessed even but forget even sooner what someone claimed.
The lawyer is of course the most reliable source. To avoid malpractice claims you keep a detailed record of what the people tell you they want to accomplish so you can establish you followed their wishes. Clients can be pretty freaking ridiculous. A friend drafted 2 wills for a husband and wife and told them they should retitle some of their assets so each owned around 50% in order to make the plan conained in the wills work. They never did and one spouse, the one that died owned almost nothing. The plan had been to give 500,000 to the kids and the remainder to the spouse using a one time exempption of $500,000 from the estate tax. Because the dead soouse had no assets in their name the bequests failed and the exemption was unable to be used. So that meant the estate of the survivor was huge instead of reduced like they hoped- sop big tax bill when he died. They were pissed off so sued him for malpractice because they didn't follow his instructions to retitle assets.
The point is that lawyers are very careful and he would be in a position to say if Boutflour's account is true though it sounds credible and likely.
Jeremy's claim that it was changed to write him out because they said he was dead makes no sense since his death would simply result in Pam getting everything under the existing will so the result would have been the same as the change supposedly effected.
Ann Eaton's belief it was changed to make her and David beneficiaries instead of Pam was wrong. But Eaton's error could have been from the fact her mother decided to share the estate with them forgetting that her mother did it vountarily.
