Order of Inheritance

[lookout]

Jeremy was countersued in 2004 by the Boutflours for Jeremys' civil action against them for their undue influence in ensuring that Granny Speakman changed her will.
They were awarded £18,359,which included over £ 7,000 for two barristers to oppose Jeremy.

In actual fact,because of the running down of the N and J Bamber,the Boutflours made sure that there'd be no recourse for Jeremy,they ensured that he was liable for the legal costs,all in all to the tune of £100,000 of his money.
Basil Cock was employed to look after the interests of Jeremy while he was in prison when the asset-stripping began,but-----------------regarding the asset-stripping,he'd colluded with the family Nice man-NOT !

[Jan]

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.

I think they have been very careful not to make any comment about what Granny Speakman was told. They are only saying that they told her the rest of the family had died. therefore if she was as bright and canny as they are making out it does not make sense for her not to ask anything. No sense at all.

So it is true unless we had statements from the legal persons and the doctor then we will not know the full truth

[scipio_usmc]

personally I don't think they did plant evidence . I think they believed he did it and were more than happy to go along with the police , and do everything they could to get him out of the way . IMO

Then as it was coming up to the trial they tied up what ever lose ends they could.


Opportunists rather than planners. But then I have not read any of the books only documents

As a practical matter only the lab would have the know how and opportunity to fabricate the evidence.

If anyone honestly wants to try to prove doctored evidence that is where they should be looking.  Many Jeremy supporters liek Mike though ar enot interested in earnestly trying to find evidence that could be used in court but rather is what could be spun to try to convince ignorant members of the public.

By the same token though the lab and the police had no need at all for the family to be involved in any way and indeed would not want the family to know they did anything wrong and thus be in a position to rat them out. 

Scenario-

Police collect the moderator late August and plant evidence and want to pretend they had collected it sooner what do they do?  Police and the lab date documents earlier and lie in their statements. They would have to do that anyway even with the family being involved so why would they bother to include the family at all?

Cops could say they found it on 8/8/85 when they went through everything a second time.  Why is it superior to have police tell the family to lie and pretend they found it?  That makes no sense. 

The more detailed I try to come up with planting of evidence the more roadblocks I hit.   

[No-Bits]

Another Lomax extract:

[Jan]

So slightly different to the relatives actual statements which say at that stage she knew nothing about Jeremys involvement, and stated that comment was just about the deaths per se.


I wondered if she had a carer or something that would know the truth but it looks like the family moved in with her shortly after the tragedy .

[grahameb]

So far as I can gather it was 50% each to Jeremy and RWB.

To Pamela. But she didn't want it, saying that she didn't want to prosper from her family's tragedy, or words to that effect. She gave it away, but I'm not sure who to? I don't think RWB got any of it?

[lookout]

 This is what I couldn't get my head around all those years ago,that the Granny was old and ill and that her days were numbered,,so why would Jeremy even think about going ahead and murdering 5 people " for money,when he'd probably have realised at the time that his Granny wouldn't live forever.
Strange how she didn't crop up in his " planning ",,nor did JM ever mention anything pertaining to the Granny as regards " quick bucks " where Jeremy was concerned.

It certainly doesn't make sense to me at all. If the truth be known,it probably didn't even enter Jeremys' head to speak,or even think about his Granny in this way.

[scipio_usmc]

I think they have been very careful not to make any comment about what Granny Speakman was told. They are only saying that they told her the rest of the family had died. therefore if she was as bright and canny as they are making out it does not make sense for her not to ask anything. No sense at all.

So it is true unless we had statements from the legal persons and the doctor then we will not know the full truth

Just from a common sense perspective:

Original Will- to June and Pam per stirpes

Changed will- to Pam and her kids

If June and her entire fanily including Jeremy was dead:

Original will- Pam inherits

Changed will- Pam inherits

There is no difference so if Granny had been told he was dead she would have no reaosn to change the will.

The only reason she would have to change the will was if she knew Jeremy was still alive and she didn't want him to get June's half.

So it was never credible that they told her that Jeremy died in order to get her to change her will and neglect him.  That explains why his case was dismissed rather rapidly and why he was order to pay costs.

There is only 1 reaosn why granny would amend the above will- to exclude Jeremy.  I can only think of 2 motivations for that: 1) she hated Jeremy's guts all along and assumed June would have outlived him but upon her death figured to change it or 2) she believed Jeremy killed them

I don't believe for one second that the family tried to spare her agony and did not tell her they think Jeremy did it.  I rather believe that they would be shouting it fromt he rooftops once she learned about the murders.

While it is possible she brought up the idea of changing her will on her own it is just as likely that they brougth up the idea to her.  Since this is all legal and logical it doesn't really help Jeremy out much.


 
 

[scipio_usmc]

To Pamela. But she didn't want it, saying that she didn't want to prosper from her family's tragedy, or words to that effect. She gave it away, but I'm not sure who to? I don't think RWB got any of it?

Pam gave it to her children: David and Ann.

[grahameb]

Just found this:

    In 1985, Nevill Bamber, his wife June Bamber and their son, Jeremy Bamber co-owned the farming company, N and J Bamber Ltd. The share ownership was distributed whereby Nevill Bamber owned 79%, June Bamber owned 1% and finally Jeremy Bamber owned 20% of the company.

    While N and J Bamber Ltd, owned all the assets of the company, i.e. machinery, buildings, crops, livestock and vehicles, 600 acres of the farm was leasehold, and a further 100 acres was freehold. 50 acres (otherwise known as Charity Farm) was owned by Nevill and June Bamber, while the other 50 acres (otherwise known as Renters Farm) was shared equally between Nevill Bamber, June Bamber and Jeremy Bamber, while White House Farm itself was and still is leasehold.

    Upon the tragic deaths of Nevill and June Bamber, Basil Cook was appointed Executor of their respective estates and thus was responsible for safeguarding their assets. In order to assist Jeremy Bamber in the daily management of the farm, Basil Cock appointed Peter Eaton to manage N and J Bamber Ltd, until Jeremy Bamber was able to take that role upon himself. Peter Eaton was appointed Farm Manager on the 9th August 1985.

    Upon the successful conviction of Jeremy Bamber for the murders at White House Farm, Peter Eaton and his wife Ann became the tenants of the leasehold properties previously rented by Nevill Bamber. This included White House Farm, which they had already moved into. However, Basil Cock as the Executor of the estate, after the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, concluded that all the assets of the Bamber estate should be inherited by Pamela Boutflour. This decision was later challenged in the Chancery Division by Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood, Nevill Bamber’s nephew and niece - Case Number CH 1991 PN 8680.

    In these proceedings Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood sued Basil Cock, Robert and Pamela Boutflour, David Boutflour and Peter and Ann Eaton alleging theft and false accounting in managing N and J Bamber Ltd. In any event, Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood settled after it was agreed they would inherit Nevill Bamber’s estate, while Robert and Pamela Boutflour, and Peter and Ann Eaton and David Boutflour would in turn inherit June Bamber’s estate.

    Notwithstanding Jeremy Bamber’s conviction, he was still in ownership of 20% of N and J Bamber Ltd when eventually it was wound up and the assets sold.

    N and J Bamber Ltd was dissolved on the 14th September 1999, with no assets, only costs. These costs covered winding up the company, depreciation, repairs, outstanding management fees and other miscellaneous costs totalling £80,000. Indeed Jeremy Bamber received a bill from Basil Cock stating that upon liquidation, Jeremy Bamber owed almost £16,000, which was his share of the costs of winding up N and J Bamber Ltd.

    However, in 1985, N and J Bamber Ltd was a prosperous company worth approximately £388,000. £308,000 was the 79% share Nevill Bamber owned in N and J Bamber while a further £80,000 was from other personal assets, and indeed in 1985, Jeremy Bamber’s share was worth approximately £72,000.

    Barbara Wilson the farm secretary raised concerns she had about the mismanagement of the farm back in 1987 to Essex Police, however it was not proceeded with pending the appeal of Jeremy Bamber. In view of her allegations going to the heart of the credibility of the chief prosecution witnesses as to their propensity for dishonesty, it is clear that Essex Police had an agenda in maintaining Jeremy Bamber’s conviction by eventually never investigating her complaints in any event.

    Her allegations were cumulative in nature, involved numerous third parties and illustrated a clear propensity for dishonesty. In view of the fact that after being managed for fourteen years by Peter Eaton on behalf of Basil Cock the company had gone from being worth £380,000 to owing £80,000 while profits for that time span are not accounted for, yet totalling almost £500,000 lost, the question remains as to why Essex Police breached their duty of care to Jeremy Bamber by not investigating the allegations listed in the first instance. The allegations are based upon reasonable suspicion, and Essex Police should have acted in the public interest in investigating them, especially as the officer who interviewed Barbara Wilson described her as an honest person with no clear agenda against the family.

    It is fact that during Jeremy Bamber’s trial the jury asked ‘If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his Uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour’s statement about Jeremy’s being able to kill his own parents.’

    The fact that the jury were suspicious as to motive by Jeremy Bamber’s relatives places in issue their credibility as prosecution witnesses whereby they stood to make a pecuniary gain by securing a conviction for murder with Jeremy Bamber as the accused. Thus where Jeremy Bamber’s appeal was pending at that time and where the honesty or credibility of these material witnesses to the case is in question it is relevant that these allegations were investigated appropriately. Indeed the allegations of dishonesty and asset stripping clearly tolerated by Essex Police highlights a further agenda that bites on motive by the relatives of Jeremy Bamber who misled the jury regarding that relevant question. Due to their misleading the jury, they were never cross examined at trial as to this issue.

    Robert Boutflour witness statement given to the jury, dated 17th October 1986, in response to the jury’s question, he stated that he was a very wealthy man in his own right owning a 50% share in Carbonell’s Farm, (Document A – 16), this was his primary asset. Yet he did not state that it is fact that on the 7th August 1985, he had a much greater motive to mislead the jury, because at that time he did not own Carbonell’s Farm. On the 7th August 1985, Jeremy stood to inherit 50% of Carbonell’s Farm upon the death of Mabel Speakman (his maternal grandmother) whose will left her estate equally between her two daughters, Pamela Boutflour and June Bamber.

    In his diary for that period in 1985, Robert Boutflour was concerned about Jeremy being a beneficiary only 5 days after the tragedy at White House Farm, (Robert Boutflour’s Diary Doc  D-18). It is fact that on the 24th August 1985, Robert Boutflour met his own solicitor, Mr Rant, to receive legal advice to be informed as to how he could stop Jeremy from ‘profiting from his act.’ At that meeting he records how he was advised that the only way to allay this was for Mabel Speakman to change her will. Thus on the 2nd September 1985, Robert Boutflour organised for a solicitor, Mr Peek to visit Mabel Speakman in order for her to change her will. Thus ensuring that his wife, Pamela Boutflour was the only beneficiary of the estate.

    Indeed during the trial there is record (Document AB-40 pages 50 – 52), of a discussion in chambers between counsel and the trial Judge regarding Robert Boutflour having a motive to lie to the jury about Jeremy

    In 2003, Jeremy commenced civil proceedings against the Boutflour’s as to their use of undue influence in ensuring Mabel Speakman changed her will. There was no legal aid available for this action, and Jeremy was forced to represent himself, thus he was not fully informed of the procedures undertaken to ensure a hearing took place. The proceedings never commenced, because Jeremy failed to submit a pre-action letter to the respondents stating his case, prior to launching the action.

    In January 2004, the Boutflour’s countersued Jeremy, this was for the costs of defending his proceedings. They were awarded £18,359.50 including over £7,000 for two barristers to oppose him. They did not have any need to employ a barrister in any event because they would have been instructed that due to there being an omission to act accordingly as to procedure, the case would have been struck out in any event.

    Thus, not only were the Boutflour’s instrumental in ensuring that Jeremy had no recourse to funds in order to fight his case while in prison, by running down N and J Bamber Ltd, they also ensured that he was made liable for legal costs that they needn’t have incurred in the first instance due to their having access to legal advice. They have cynically ensured that Jeremy lost altogether just over £100,000 of his own money.

    Not content with inheriting Mabel Speakman’s estate and June Bamber’s, they needed to ensure Jeremy suffered great financial loss, so as to prevent him fighting his case from prison. Basil Cock was employed to protect his interests, but on the face of it colluded with the family regarding the asset stripping of N and J Bamber Ltd.

    In view of the fact that Essex Police did not address the matter with a view to investigating it, it is obvious that they did not want any attention drawn to the allegations of theft and dishonesty because it would have impugned the credibility of these witnesses as to the successful prosecution of Jeremy Bamber.

    In Jeremy’s complaint to the IPCC dated December 2011, he questions why the Eaton’s and the Boutflour’s were not investigated in the first instance and that they are investigated again, by an external Police Force for theft and fraud in addition to investigating Essex Police themselves as to why they did not undertake a full and comprehensive investigation of the allegations made back in 1987.

[scipio_usmc]

Just found this:

Someone needs to teach the author how to add.

How could Granny leave 50% of the farm to Jeremy and Pam and Jeremy end up with 50%?  Jeremy would have ended up with 25% if the claims are right about granny owning 50%.

That seems indicative of how the entire piece was inflating the chances of them framing Jeremy for money.

[Jan]

What is interesting is that in RWB statement he said that Jeremy and he got on well. And yet 5 days after the murders When he did not have all the facts or evidence in his possession ( how could he the police still were stating that it was murder suicide) he was making moves to ensure Jeremy was out as far as the family was concerned. That is a man on a mission. You would think they would all be in shock - obviously not.

[grahameb]

Someone needs to teach the author how to add.

How could Granny leave 50% of the farm to Jeremy and Pam and Jeremy end up with 50%?  Jeremy would have ended up with 25% if the claims are right about granny owning 50%.

That seems indicative of how the entire piece was inflating the chances of them framing Jeremy for money.

So you are immediately hostile to this even before you have read the document correctly? I would have thought this would spur you into some real investigative work instead of critisising every author that defends Bamber. Now that is what any sensible person calls "prejudice".

[grahameb]

Someone needs to teach the author how to add.

How could Granny leave 50% of the farm to Jeremy and Pam and Jeremy end up with 50%?  Jeremy would have ended up with 25% if the claims are right about granny owning 50%.

That seems indicative of how the entire piece was inflating the chances of them framing Jeremy for money.

No you've got it wrong. Bamber was to inherit 50% before she changed her will. After she changed her will the 50% was to be divided between her two daughters instead.

[grahameb]

What is interesting is that in RWB statement he said that Jeremy and he got on well. And yet 5 days after the murders When he did not have all the facts or evidence in his possession ( how could he the police still were stating that it was murder suicide) he was making moves to ensure Jeremy was out as far as the family was concerned. That is a man on a mission. You would think they would all be in shock - obviously not.

I am amazed how quickly he made up his mind that Bamber was guilty. This was long before Mugford's statement or anybody else's statements if it comes to it. I agree he was out to get Jeremy. Very suspicious behaviour if you ask me?