Grannie Speakman :

[lookout]

As I'd already stated,Jeremy had less than 12 months to wait until the grannie died. So why go and blast 5 people ( complete with silencer  for the sake of a few months ?

[Alias]

As I'd already stated,Jeremy had less than 12 months to wait until the grannie died. So why go and blast 5 people ( complete with silencer  for the sake of a few months ?

Jeremy wouldn´t have inherited anything from granny Speakman, June and Pamela would.

[lookout]

Jeremy wouldn´t have inherited anything from granny Speakman, June and Pamela would.

I'm pretty sure that June would have given something to both Jeremy and Sheila,as she sounded like a generous woman.

[Alias]

I'm pretty sure that June would have given something to both Jeremy and Sheila,as she sounded like a generous woman.

I agree that June and Nevill Bamber were quite generous parents to the point where they spoiled their children; that said, there is nothing that makes me believe that June would have given them any substantial amount of money.

[scipio_usmc]

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.

If you look at all the materials about UK forfeiture law you will find this over and over:

"Under the Forfeiture Rule, a person cannot benefit (e.g. inherit under a will or through intestacy) from someone whom they have unlawfully killed."

The rule when expresses always says can't benefit from someone they killed.

The 1982 Forfeiture Act actually spells out in subsection 4 what property is to be forfeited:

(4)The interests in property referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a)any beneficial interest in property which (apart from the forfeiture rule) the offender would have acquired—

(i)under the deceased’s will (including, as respects Scotland, any writing having testamentary effect) or the law relating to intestacy or by way of ius relicti, ius relictae or legitim;

(ii)on the nomination of the deceased in accordance with the provisions of any enactment;

(iii)as a donatio mortis causa made by the deceased;

or

(iv)under a special destination (whether relating to heritable or moveable property); or .

(b)any beneficial interest in property which (apart from the forfeiture rule) the offender would have acquired in consequence of the death of the deceased, being property which, before the death, was held on trust for any person


--------

Note how it doesn't mention future inheritances which the deceased misses out on.

If you are asking me for any modern caselaw where a killer was prevented from inheriting from a relative other than the victims I can't find any. The original forfeiture rule awarded the state with the proceeds but that was changed in the 1880s or somewhere aroudn that time by statute. 

After that the forfeiture rule was applied to prevent collecting on insurance policies  taken out on the victim and in 1914 in Estate of Hall was applied to inheritance.

You might want to read Hilton v Allen (1940) 60CLR 691 because that discusses in detail the theory behind preventing one from benefiting from the victim they slay.  While people assume that killers can't inherit form other estates that is not the case they simply can't inherit the estates of their victims.



 

[scipio_usmc]

I agree that June and Nevill Bamber were quite generous parents to the point where they spoiled their children; that said, there is nothing that makes me believe that June would have given them any substantial amount of money.

Jeremy was jealous because Pam gave all the proceeds from the caravan site to her kids whereas June and Nevill did not.  The Caravan site was given to the sisters (June and Pam) before granny's death.    June gave a little ownership portion to Jeremy but would nto give him any of the preceeds beyond that.  In contrast, Pam gave the proceeds to her kids.

This would tend to support your assessment.

[Jan]

I agree that June and Nevill Bamber were quite generous parents to the point where they spoiled their children; that said, there is nothing that makes me believe that June would have given them any substantial amount of money.

They don't strike me as the type of family to discuss that sort of thing .June with her religious beliefs  would I think tried to encourage her children to stand on their own feet unless they were in trouble.

[Alias]

They don't strike me as the type of family to discuss that sort of thing .June with her religious beliefs  would I think tried to encourage her children to stand on their own feet unless they were in trouble.

I have to disagree with that. June made a lot of decisions for her GROWN children. She even broke up with Colin over the phone - without consulting Sheila!!! Sheila didn´t want to break up with CC.
June suggested that she buy a flat for Julie Mugford so that people wouldn´t talk about her sleeping over at Jeremy´s. Both Jeremy and Sheila were dependent on their parents financially - not a good way to learn how to stand on your own two feet!
They bought a flat for Sheila, a house and car for Jeremy.
June decided that the twins and Sheila come to WHF for that last visit. She talked them into it - none of them wanted to be there! They desperately didn´t want to be there.
June was very bossy - and Nevill let her be.

[scipio_usmc]

They don't strike me as the type of family to discuss that sort of thing .June with her religious beliefs  would I think tried to encourage her children to stand on their own feet unless they were in trouble.

People with strong religious beliefs tend to be charitable.  Far form making Jeremy stand on his own 2 feet they gave him royalties from the Caravan site, a place to live, a car and a salary that was more than someone doing the work he did would earn.  They coddled him they didn't make him stand on his own 2 feet.

He knew what was in his father's will as well.  If he farmed the land and carried on where Nevill left off then he would get the bulk of Nevill's assets but they would be in trust so that he had to keep farming to enjoy the spoils.  The spoils woudl be the profits.  In he didn't want to farm and wanted to liquidate the assessts then those assets would be divided evenly among Jeremy and Sheila.  So the only way he would get more than Sheila is if he agreed to keep farming the land to carry on Nevill's legacy.

Jeremy and Sheila were financially dependent upon their parents.  Sheila's jobs were sufficient to pay her livign expenses other than shelter but shelter is the most expensive so having her parents buy her a flat was pretty damn significant.   Jeremy likewise being provided with a house and car was pretty significant. He ran home to mommy and daddy because he could not make it in the real world on his own or didn't want to put in the effort to try.

[Jan]

I have to disagree with that. June made a lot of decisions for her GROWN children. She even broke up with Colin over the phone - without consulting Sheila!!! Sheila didn´t want to break up with CC.
June suggested that she buy a flat for Julie Mugford so that people wouldn´t talk about her sleeping over at Jeremy´s. Both Jeremy and Sheila were dependent on their parents financially - not a good way to learn how to stand on your own two feet!
They bought a flat for Sheila, a house and car for Jeremy.
June decided that the twins and Sheila come to WHF for that last visit. She talked them into it - none of them wanted to be there! They desperately didn´t want to be there.
June was very bossy - and Nevill let her be.

I was not aware of all of that , especially the colin bit? that's quite weird.

I thought they only bought the flat to help her out because she was ill.

It does sound a bit more like controlling than helping?I was aware of how Sheila felt though because it was in various statements .

But I am still not sure they would have talked about how much money was in Granny speakmans will

[Caroline]

People with strong religious beliefs tend to be charitable.  Far form making Jeremy stand on his own 2 feet they gave him royalties from the Caravan site, a place to live, a car and a salary that was more than someone doing the work he did would earn.  They coddled him they didn't make him stand on his own 2 feet.

He knew what was in his father's will as well.  If he farmed the land and carried on where Nevill left off then he would get the bulk of Nevill's assets but they would be in trust so that he had to keep farming to enjoy the spoils.  The spoils woudl be the profits.  In he didn't want to farm and wanted to liquidate the assessts then those assets would be divided evenly among Jeremy and Sheila.  So the only way he would get more than Sheila is if he agreed to keep farming the land to carry on Nevill's legacy.

Jeremy and Sheila were financially dependent upon their parents.  Sheila's jobs were sufficient to pay her livign expenses other than shelter but shelter is the most expensive so having her parents buy her a flat was pretty damn significant.   Jeremy likewise being provided with a house and car was pretty significant. He ran home to mommy and daddy because he could not make it in the real world on his own or didn't want to put in the effort to try.

That's not always the case Scipio, in fact  where I live (Co. Durham) the opposite is often true and religious folk can be quite puritanical. I imagine the hand outs came at a cost ie. constant reminders and threats to cut him off if he didn't toe the line.

[nugnug]

from exeprience ifind that deeply religious people want to be charitable with other peoples money not there own.

[Caroline]

from exeprience ifind that deeply religious people want to be charitable with other peoples money not there own.

  Amen!!

[scipio_usmc]

I was not aware of all of that , especially the colin bit? that's quite weird.

I thought they only bought the flat to help her out because she was ill.

It does sound a bit more like controlling than helping?I was aware of how Sheila felt though because it was in various statements .

But I am still not sure they would have talked about how much money was in Granny speakmans will

There is a fine line between helping and controlling.  Placing strings on receipt of welfare benefits such as having to pass a test to prove you are drug free can be considered controlling but is meant to help.  People forced to make concessions they don't want to make are naturally bitter.

Jeremy's fmaily gave him a good education and he reached the crossroads of getting a career on his own or working at the family farm.  The fmaily farm offered him a place to live, car and good salary compared to the work he was doing.  An entry level manfacuring or service sector job (the kind he had been doing) offered him less money and no free shelter or car the salary had to cover everything.  He wante dhis parents to give him freebies like Sheila got so he could bum around.  Instead it was either work for us or work elsewhere and make your own way.

Ultimately this was the cause of the murders.  He didn't like farming but didn't want to go work and make his own way so killing them for everything they owned was the only way he was getting the easy life. People like him typically blow through all the the money they stole then have to either find a new victim or a dead end job and meager existence they hate.   

The polar opposite is the kind of peopel who win millions in the lottery and yet still won't give up their job to the younger generation in desperate need of finding work and stay at a job until they croak and then leave a fortune to charity.

A happy medium can be elusive at times.


 

[scipio_usmc]

from exeprience ifind that deeply religious people want to be charitable with other peoples money not there own.

No you are mistaking politicians for religious people- they are the ones who want to use other people's money. Religious people devote their time and money to helping others.