mugford rwb and the order of death.

[sherlock]

I think that just might of been the time that rwb relised that even if Jeremy is convicted without a death the money was rightfully colins.

It probably took Robert a little while to find that out - he did not have the advantage in those days of Wikipedia :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_death

In particular you will see that  :

" The common law provision that, without evidence, there can be no presumption as to which of the commorientes died first, was superseded by the passage of the Law of Property Act 1925, Section 184. Under this statute, where the order of death of two persons is uncertain, the elder of the two is deemed to have died first. "

So without Julie's sudden return of memory the law would have assumed the twins died last ...

Not good for Robert or the relatives at all ...

How convenient that Julie suddenly remembered this detail ....

She did not remember during 4 days with Police ...

That is because it did not happen ...

It is unbelievable ...

[nugnug]

it also explians the sudden hurry to change the speakman will

if bamber had been convicted and the speakman will hadn't been changed colin would of had a claim on that estate too.

[sherlock]

it also explians the sudden hurry to change the speakman will

if bamber had been convicted and the speakman will hadn't been changed colin would of had a claim on that estate too.

Robert certainly had wills on his mind at that exact time ...

He lied to grandma Speakman saying that Jeremy had died ...

That was actually fraud ...

Does anyone want to try and claim that was not fraud by Robert ?

So we all know Robert committed fraud on one will that month ...

So how can any of you be sure he did not commit fraud on the other will (with Julie's help) ?

The facts speak for themselves ....

[Kaldin]

Some interesting theories here. I don't know what the position would have been if the twins had died last, inheritance-wise, it depends on whether there were 30-day clauses in the Wills. Would it have been assumed that Sheila died last even without the testimony of Julie Mugford? If so, then anything she inherited from her parents who died before her (excluding a 30-day clause) would go to her next of kin - her grandmother. 

[sherlock]

Some interesting theories here. I don't know what the position would have been if the twins had died last, inheritance-wise, it depends on whether there were 30-day clauses in the Wills. Would it have been assumed that Sheila died last even without the testimony of Julie Mugford? If so, then anything she inherited from her parents who died before her (excluding a 30-day clause) would go to her next of kin - her grandmother.

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 ....

[Jane]

Some interesting theories here. I don't know what the position would have been if the twins had died last, inheritance-wise, it depends on whether there were 30-day clauses in the Wills. Would it have been assumed that Sheila died last even without the testimony of Julie Mugford? If so, then anything she inherited from her parents who died before her (excluding a 30-day clause) would go to her next of kin - her grandmother.

Given that Sheila was believed to have committed suicide after committing murder, it might have been a little difficult for her to have died anywhere other than last?

[Kaldin]

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 ...

I mean after the conviction of Jeremy. If Sheila had been the culprit, Jeremy would have inherited everything, not Colin.

[sherlock]

I mean after the conviction of Jeremy. If Sheila had been the culprit, Jeremy would have inherited everything, not Colin.

Robert knew that unless Jeremy was convicted that Jeremy would inherit the lions share ...

That is why he planted the silencer and got Julie to lie ...

To be fair to the man he probably had convinced himself Jeremy was guilty ...

After all to Robert Jeremy was a "queer" criminal drug dealing illegitimate "bastard" ...

I believe Robert's family were facing impending poverty at that time ...

Robert believed what he wanted to believe ...

He lied to grandma Speakman ...

He convinced David, Julie, possibly Anne and certain Police Officers that Jeremy did it ...

The rest is history ...

People can point to Jeremy and Julie and the caravan break in or their drug dealing or Julies cheque frauds - but by far the biggest proven fraudster in all this by a very long way indeed  is Robert Boutflour lying to grandma Speakman telling her that her beloved grandson was dead ...

What sort of man was Robert Boutflour ?

[Steve_uk]

It probably took Robert a little while to find that out - he did not have the advantage in those days of Wikipedia :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_death

In particular you will see that  :

" The common law provision that, without evidence, there can be no presumption as to which of the commorientes died first, was superseded by the passage of the Law of Property Act 1925, Section 184. Under this statute, where the order of death of two persons is uncertain, the elder of the two is deemed to have died first. "

So without Julie's sudden return of memory the law would have assumed the twins died last ...

Not good for Robert or the relatives at all ...

How convenient that Julie suddenly remembered this detail ....

She did not remember during 4 days with Police ...

That is because it did not happen ...

It is unbelievable ...

But this is surely irrelevant as Julie would be quoting the word of a convicted child killer, which would be deemed worthless.

[Steve_uk]

Robert certainly had wills on his mind at that exact time ...

He lied to grandma Speakman saying that Jeremy had died ...

That was actually fraud ...

Does anyone want to try and claim that was not fraud by Robert ?

So we all know Robert committed fraud on one will that month ...

So how can any of you be sure he did not commit fraud on the other will (with Julie's help) ?

The facts speak for themselves ....

This isn't in any of the books.

[Steve_uk]

100% right ...

Who on earth would Jeremy (or Malcolm) shoot the twins before Neville ?

Neville was the obvious threat ...

It is obvious that Jeremy (or Malcolm) would have shot Nevill First ....

On the assumption that Nevill was in bed when first shot then June would have been second ...

I assume (I may be wrong) that had the twins died last then Colin would have inherited a large slice ....

Jeremy and Robert Boutflour had motive for wanting people to think the twins died first ....

Julie stating Jeremy told her that the twins died first could not however benefit Jeremy ...

Why would Jeremy have gone into so much detail with Julie ?

Julie stating Jeremy told her that the twins died first could however benefit Robert Boutflour ...

I believe the relatives planted the silencer and persuaded Julie to confess ...

The above point is one of many details that fits this having been the case ...

The only real evidence against Jeremy was the silencer and Julie's confession ...

Also consider this - why the hell is that detail not in Sheils's statements of 12/13 th September ?

Did she really forget that detail for 11 days - I doubt it very much ...

And she allegedly forgets what order Jeremy said the others were killed in ?

Unbelievable that she would "forget" - she remembers she was told the order - but "can't remember" ?

It was very convenient for Robert Boutflour that Julie remembered this detail 11 days later ....

When it came to arguing about the inheritance that "detail" stopped Colin getting a large share ...

He could test that the murder weapon was working; as it was it was known to be stiff.

[sherlock]

But this is surely irrelevant as Julie would be quoting the word of a convicted child killer, which would be deemed worthless.

Not at all ...

When it came to disputing the will it would be done in a civil court not a criminal court ...

In a civil court - without any other evidence - Julie's statement would be accepted as fact ...

[Steve_uk]

Not at all ...

When it came to disputing the will it would be done in a civil court not a criminal court ...

In a civil court - without any other evidence - Julie's statement would be accepted as fact ...

I'm not sure any court would accept testimony which emanated from a convicted child killer, who in any case was allegedly reporting what the proxy killer Matthew Macdonald had told him.

[sherlock]

I'm not sure any court would accept testimony which emanated from a convicted child killer, who in any case was allegedly reporting what the proxy killer Matthew Macdonald had told him.

In the absence of any other evidence they would ...

Jeremy would not benefit from this in any way ...

If he was convicted on the basis of this statement there is no reason why in the absence of any other evidence why the civil court would not accept it ...

Civil courts work on the basis of what is more than 50% likely - not the "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the criminal courts use ...

When there is very little evidence to go on then the civil courts must use whatever little evidence is available ....

[Kaldin]

Robert knew that unless Jeremy was convicted that Jeremy would inherit the lions share ...

That is why he planted the silencer and got Julie to lie ...

To be fair to the man he probably had convinced himself Jeremy was guilty ...

After all to Robert Jeremy was a "queer" criminal drug dealing illegitimate "bastard" ...

I believe Robert's family were facing impending poverty at that time ...

Robert believed what he wanted to believe ...

He lied to grandma Speakman ...

He convinced David, Julie, possibly Anne and certain Police Officers that Jeremy did it ...

The rest is history ...

People can point to Jeremy and Julie and the caravan break in or their drug dealing or Julies cheque frauds - but by far the biggest proven fraudster in all this by a very long way indeed  is Robert Boutflour lying to grandma Speakman telling her that her beloved grandson was dead ...

What sort of man was Robert Boutflour ?

He was certainly very determined, but how do you think he managed to plant the silencer evidence, and do you know for a fact that he told Mabel that Jeremy was dead?