Grannie Speakman :

[lookout]

Its odd that so often we are told that Jeremy didn't get on with his parents and his sister. We know that Sheila did not get along with June (Dr F's wit stats),but never does anyone ever mention that Nevill was deeply unhappy within his marriage to June. That there were problems in their marriage is probably most evident by the fact that Nevill did not disclose to June that he had purchased land for Ann and Peter to repurchase when they had the funds (at their request). This is very telling imo,since June was one half of N and J Bamber Ltd. For all anyone know,Nevill could have been having an affair. Husband may have found out hence the threats and Nevill's anxiety about the upcoming shooting season and a possible "accident". The latter is purely speculation,but nevertheless a possibility.

I like your style,tyler. I'll say no more,but my thoughts wandered in that direction a long time ago !

[Jan]

So Mary Mugford lied in court ? possibly , she was supporting her daughter

So BW lied on television last year.  possibly She lied in her first statement and about seeing the silencer

Julie Mugford, James Richards, AE, RB, the Folkes's all testified that Jeremy had a poor relationship with his parents. Others testified the opposite , june put in her letter she loved the children and unfortunately June and Neville who were apparently quite private people are not here to tell us the truth .

Jeremy testified he had a difficult relationship with June. Yes he said he had , IN THE PAST . As I said Neville had just before the murders said he was very happy with Jeremy, if Jeremy was not speaking to his wife I doubt he would have said that..

Who takes over the farm management in 5 , 10 or 20 years is neither here or there. See above , yes it is relevant if you were saying Jeremy was not talking to June , it is very relevant.

[Jan]

more evidence about changing the will before Jeremy found guilty.

[Caroline]

not if he was in jail for life

And also to prove you theory of this being added to motive , then you are assuming he knew all the details of what he was due to inherit.

He didn't need to be a genius to realise his mother would inherit from her own mother. But if this is being used as an argument in defence, you also have to consider that it is also an argument in support of guilt.

[nugnug]

he would also inherit a lot of money outstanding loans that were owed to his father so a good reason to want him out the way.

wouldent have inhereted part shares in his cousens farms.

[Jan]

He didn't need to be a genius to realise his mother would inherit from her own mother. But if this is being used as an argument in defence, you also have to consider that it is also an argument in support of guilt.

I think as shown by some of my threads I have invited posters to look at each part of the case from both sides on a lot of occasions.

[scipio_usmc]

This is one of those issues greatly misrepresented by SOME Jeremy supporters.  The only reason Jeremy stood to inherit from Granny Speakman was because he killed his mother.

Granny Speakman's will left her estate in equal shares to her children- (June and Pamela).

If either daughter predeceased Granny then the share would flow to the daughter's children/grandchildren.

By killing June as well as his sister and nephews that mean he would get June's share.

According to Boutflour Granny Speakman said she wanted to change her will so that Jeremy would not be able to inherit and eliminated June.  To change her will she summoned a lawyer and a doctor.  The lawyer would consider her the client and do what she wanted not the family.

Jeremy asserted in a lawsuit filed in 2003 that the family made Granny think he was dead too and she changed her will to reflect that June's bloodline was dead.  There woudl be no need to change her will though if that were the case.  The way her will was written it woudl all go to Pam with June's bloodline dead so the will would have resulted in the same thing as the changed will.  The only reason to change the will was if she knew Jeremy was alive. For this and other reasons the suit was dismissed.

These are all the issues that pertain to Jeremy inheriting from Granny Speakman. 

So at the end of the day this was potentially another reason for Jeremy to kill his family.  Not only did he get their money but any money his parents would have inherited in the future would flow to him as a result. 

Under the slayer rule a few courts have not only barred an inheritance from the victims but any inheritance that would have gone to the victims.  But most courts do not go that far and thus most permit inheritances other than directly from the victims. 

I personally feel legislatures should amend current law to say killers are considered predeceased in terms of all inheritances that passes to them by virtue of a victim being dead even from another estate that would have flowed to the victim had the victim not been killed, but none have done so in any Common law jurisdiction I am aware of. 

In fact one US state allows testators to include a provision in your will that override's the slayer rule.  So you you can put in your will that if someone murders you they still get to inherit your estate.  I don't know what kind of a fool would want that in their will though...

So even despite the murders, if Granny did not change her will then Jeremy could have profited from his murder by inheriting June's share from Granny.  While a court could have in theory prevented such most don't and it probably would not have done so.

[nugnug]

hang on if he couldent inherit his own parents estate becouse of his conviction then he couldent inrerit anything his parents were going to inherit.

so he therefore would not of been able to challenge that in court.

[scipio_usmc]

He didn't need to be a genius to realise his mother would inherit from her own mother. But if this is being used as an argument in defence, you also have to consider that it is also an argument in support of guilt.

This is why I don't like how most courts apply the slayer rule and what rules have been put forth by legislatures.

The language of most laws only permits preventing receiving property owned by the victims not future property that would have passed to the victims.

So even despite the conviction Jeremy still could have inherited from Granny if she had not changed her will. 

This is particulary stupid when you consider that some jurisdictions do not allow the children/grandchildren of murderers to inherit either.  In 2011 UK law was amended to permit children of killers to inherit the estates of victims.  In the US though most state laws do not specify and leave it up to a court to decide and at leat 3 states bar chirldren of killers from receiving on public policy grounds.

Basically the argument goes that some will kill in order to provide for their children.  I personally think that is a very stupid rule and that uless their kids were involved they should not be barred so like the UK law. 

In contrast, it makes sense to say a killer should be considered predeceased when a victim he killed is passed over and thus an inheritance goes to the killer instead.  Some say this is unfair because the victim could have died from some other cause anyway but I say who cares let them be unable to inherit period when their victim is in the inheritance chain as a deterrence to committing murder.

 

[scipio_usmc]

hang on if he couldent inherit his own parents estate becouse of his conviction then he couldent inrerit anything his parents were going to inherit.

so he therefore would not of been able to challenge that in court.

That's not true. only a few courts over the course of centuries have barred inheritances beyond directly from the victims.

While it would make sense that they can't inherit anything that the victims would have inherited as well that not the law.  I personally feel that should be the law but it isn't, you have courts of equity very occasionally holding such merely.

In fact recently in New York there was a big argument over the issue of a killer inheriting property of victims from an estate.  His victim left her property to someone and that beneficiary died and left it to the killer. The killer was prevented from inheriting proerty from the victim evne though it was an intervening estate.  The key factor was that the property was owned by the victim and flowed from the victim.

Maybe you agree with me that a killer should be entirely cut out of the inheritance chain where a victim is involved as a beneficiary not merely the decendent of the estate.  But lawmakers have so far not done anything about such and it is not much publicized so doubtful they will.

 

[nugnug]

That's not true. only a few courts over the course of centuries have barred inheritances beyond directly from the victims.

While it would make sense that they can't inherit anything that the victims would have inherited as well that not the law.  I personally feel that should be the law but it isn't, you have courts of equity very occasionally holding such merely.

In fact recently in New York there was a big argument over the issue of a killer inheriting property of victims from an estate.  His victim left her property to someone and that beneficiary died and left it to the killer. The killer was prevented from inheriting proerty from the victim evne though it was an intervening estate.  The key factor was that the property was owned by the victim and flowed from the victim.

Maybe you agree with me that a killer should be entirely cut out of the inheritance chain where a victim is involved as a beneficiary not merely the decendent of the estate.  But lawmakers have so far not done anything about such and it is not much publicized so doubtful they will.

 

i have never heard of this before have got a link to the relvant legal precedents i would be intrested to read,

the laws of england and newyork are rather diffrent.

[Jan]

This is one of those issues greatly misrepresented by SOME Jeremy supporters.  The only reason Jeremy stood to inherit from Granny Speakman was because he killed his mother.

Granny Speakman's will left her estate in equal shares to her children- (June and Pamela).

If either daughter predeceased Granny then the share would flow to the daughter's children/grandchildren.

By killing June as well as his sister and nephews that mean he would get June's share.

According to Boutflour Granny Speakman said she wanted to change her will so that Jeremy would not be able to inherit and eliminated June.  To change her will she summoned a lawyer and a doctor.  The lawyer would consider her the client and do what she wanted not the family.

Jeremy asserted in a lawsuit filed in 2003 that the family made Granny think he was dead too and she changed her will to reflect that June's bloodline was dead.  There woudl be no need to change her will though if that were the case.  The way her will was written it woudl all go to Pam with June's bloodline dead so the will would have resulted in the same thing as the changed will.  The only reason to change the will was if she knew Jeremy was alive. For this and other reasons the suit was dismissed.

These are all the issues that pertain to Jeremy inheriting from Granny Speakman. 

So at the end of the day this was potentially another reason for Jeremy to kill his family.  Not only did he get their money but any money his parents would have inherited in the future would flow to him as a result. 

Under the slayer rule a few courts have not only barred an inheritance from the victims but any inheritance that would have gone to the victims.  But most courts do not go that far and thus most permit inheritances other than directly from the victims. 

I personally feel legislatures should amend current law to say killers are considered predeceased in terms of all inheritances that passes to them by virtue of a victim being dead even from another estate that would have flowed to the victim had the victim not been killed, but none have done so in any Common law jurisdiction I am aware of. 

In fact one US state allows testators to include a provision in your will that override's the slayer rule.  So you you can put in your will that if someone murders you they still get to inherit your estate.  I don't know what kind of a fool would want that in their will though...

So even despite the murders, if Granny did not change her will then Jeremy could have profited from his murder by inheriting June's share from Granny.  While a court could have in theory prevented such most don't and it probably would not have done so.

Caroline already said that , in less words.

I have seen that Boutflour made enquiries before Jeremy was convicted - but still have seen nothing to establish that granny speakman knew anything about Jeremy being arrested or charged

the family apparently moved in with her for a while so I guess there is no independent statement about what led up to her changing her will.

[nugnug]

when did they move in with was it just before she died.

before anyone takes this the wrong way im not accusing them of bumping her off.

[Jan]

when did they move in with was it just before she died.

before anyone takes this the wrong way im not accusing them of bumping her off.

yes apparently I think Anne said shortly after the murders - I guess she must have had some kind of home help or companion before then. But I do think she was in ill health at that time because june and Pamela used to take turns to check on her as far as I remember.

[nugnug]

are so she was in fairly poor health for a while before the murders.