UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on September 08, 2017, 06:35:42 PM
-
It is against the law for anyone to benefit from the proceeds of crime. Given JB was found guilty in a court of law of murdering his family he had to forfeit any entitlement to the estate.
Most married couples have 'mirror' wills ie if husband dies first all goes to wife and vice-versa. Thereafter it usually passes on to surviving children in equal shares.
In this case SC and JB were the main beneficiaries of NB and June's wills. June made small bequests eg £100 to Jean Boutell etc.
As NB, June and SC died in the WHF tragedy then it seems to me NB and June effectively died intestate ie no named beneficiaries in place. Therefore the law decides who inherits and you can follow the link through here:
https://www.gov.uk/inherits-someone-dies-without-will
As you will see NB's nieces and nephews are the beneficiaries of his will since his parents and sisters predeceased him.
As June's mother, Mable Speakman, was still alive she would be the main beneficiary of June's estate. However given she was elderly and frail and given she was wealthy in her own right and her estate probably already had a large inheritance tax bill hanging over it a 'deed of variation' may have been drawn up whereby MS agreed to waive her right and pass it on to others.
https://www.gov.uk/alter-a-will-after-a-death
http://www.thomasguise.co.uk/intestacy-dying-without-will-husband-wife-dying-accident/
I understand there was some dispute between the Eatons and Pargeter/Wood but have no idea what it was about. It might not have been about the full estates but the land NB purchased at Little Renters ? purchased on behalf of the Eatons or something of that nature. If either party was claiming the entire Bamber estate sounds to me like they were bloody greedy!
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8601.msg410501.html#msg410501
Hmmm NB tied JB to the farm? Was JB a slave?
How could NB tie JB to something NB did not own?
Has the author read the wills? Is he/she qualified to interpret them?
-
https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/Calendar?surname=Bamber&yearOfDeath=1985&page=2#calendar
Probate was granted in December in December 1985, the estates were separate. June's estate was worth £235,827
Neville's £388,837
I think Inheritance tax threshold was £67,000 in 1985 so there would have been a canny tax bill to pay!
-
https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/Calendar?surname=Bamber&yearOfDeath=1985&page=2#calendar
Probate was granted in December in December 1985, the estates were separate. June's estate was worth £235,827
Neville's £388,837
I think Inheritance tax threshold was £67,000 in 1985 so there would have been a canny tax bill to pay!
Thanks Marple. A canny tax bill indeedy! I'm just trying to find the rate payable in 1985. I know I looked it up previously and I'm pretty sure it was 60% something. Also the threshold was shared between married couples. Some of the assets receive favourable treatment eg agricultural land is exempt once held for 2 years and meeting a very basic criteria. Even so still a hefty bill on many of the assets.
-
David you're wrong about the twins/CC right to inherit.
I've set out the laws of intestacy here with links to Gov websites. See above.
Basically every named main beneficiary in the wills had either died (NB, June and SC) or forfeited his right to inherit due to the crimes he was found guilty of (JB).
Effectively this meant the Bambers died intestate ie no valid will. Therefore the laws of intestacy kick in. Given others also predeceased NB and June eg twins, NB's parents and siblings others took their place: June's estate fell to her mother and NB's to his niece and nephew: Jackie Wood and Anthony Pargeter. Was Roland Pargeter related to NB by blood or marriage? I can't recall now. If the former then he should have had some entitlement too.
I've also explained how a 'deed of variation works' which is what I think may have happened in this case with June's mother. Mrs Speakman was in her 90's, frail and wealthy in her own right so I guess this is the reason it went to AE and DB. I think PB said she didn't want to gain financially from the tragedy and in any event she was in her 60's, wealthy in her own right and likely to have been the main beneficiary of her mother's estate. Bearing in mind inheritance tax was charged at 40% on chargeable assets over 67k.
-
Caroline at Today at 12:42 PM »
"That's not what we were talking about. It is suggested that RWB et al had Jeremy framed to inherit. Problem with that is, is that it is complicated and even the solicitor didn't know and had to seek advice. This being the case, it is unlikely that RWB et al would have the first clue who would get the money and they could have ended up with nothing. So, not really a motive. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg422166.html#msg422166
Caroline Today at 12:55 PM »
"They didn't consult a solicitor from day one Lookout - the idea that they framed Jeremy for the money falls flat because of the complications.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg422173.html#msg422173
The voice of reason - thanks for clearing that up Caroline
Now will SOMEONE please tell Bamber in order to bring an end to the continued abuse and harassment his surviving relatives have had to endure for over 3 decades
The smear campaign launched by Bamber in relation to these innocent people has been relentless
-
The jury wasn't stupid. They knew the Bamber estate was substantial and the relatives were going to benefit if JB was found guilty. They still found him guilty.
Much of the 'Money Trail' vid is factually incorrect.
If JB's conviction is overturned, as I think it will be, then it will be down to the lawyers to thrash out a settlement. Until such time why JB and his 'supporters' waste time and effort on all of this is beyond me.
-
Human beliefs are shaped by perception, but the new research suggests delusions — unfounded but tightly held beliefs — can turn the tables and actually shape perception. People who are prone to forming delusions may not correctly distinguish among different sensory inputs, and may rely on these delusions to help make sense of the world, the study finds.
https://www.livescience.com/39038-how-delusions-shape-perception.html
"A delusion is a belief that is clearly false and that indicates an abnormality in the affected person's content of thought. The false belief is not accounted for by the person's cultural or religious background or his or her level of intelligence. The key feature of a delusion is the degree to which the person is convinced that the belief is true. A person with a delusion will hold firmly to the belief regardless of evidence to the contrary. Delusions can be difficult to distinguish from overvalued ideas, which are unreasonable ideas that a person holds, but the affected person has at least some level of doubt as to its truthfulness. A person with a delusion is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real.
Delusions are a symptom of either a medical, neurological, or mental disorder. Delusions may be present in any of the following mental disorders
http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusions.html
-
David you're wrong about the twins/CC right to inherit.
I've set out the laws of intestacy here with links to Gov websites. See above.
Basically every named main beneficiary in the wills had either died (NB, June and SC) or forfeited his right to inherit due to the crimes he was found guilty of (JB).
Effectively this meant the Bambers died intestate ie no valid will. Therefore the laws of intestacy kick in. Given others also predeceased NB and June eg twins, NB's parents and siblings others took their place: June's estate fell to her mother and NB's to his niece and nephew: Jackie Wood and Anthony Pargeter. Was Roland Pargeter related to NB by blood or marriage? I can't recall now. If the former then he should have had some entitlement too.
I've also explained how a 'deed of variation works' which is what I think may have happened in this case with June's mother. Mrs Speakman was in her 90's, frail and wealthy in her own right so I guess this is the reason it went to AE and DB. I think PB said she didn't want to gain financially from the tragedy and in any event she was in her 60's, wealthy in her own right and likely to have been the main beneficiary of her mother's estate. Bearing in mind inheritance tax was charged at 40% on chargeable assets over 67k.
On reflection I haven't explained the above very well!
I posted:
"Given others also predeceased NB and June eg twins,..."
Obviously this is the hub of the argument ie the relatives et al were keen to establish order of death to gain financially.
I've explained all the main named beneficiaries in the wills either died during the tragedy or forfeited his right to inherit due to the crimes he was found guilty of. Therefore the laws of intestacy kick in:
https://www.gov.uk/inherits-someone-dies-without-will/y/england-and-wales/no
The link takes users through a decision like tree.
With the question:
"Are there any living children, grandchildren or other direct descendants eg (great-grandchildren)?
The answer is obviously 'NO'. Therefore it moves on. The beneficiaries for NB's estate are living nephews and nieces
and for June's her mother.
Beneficiaries are able to waive their rights by completing a 'deed of variation' which is what may have happened here. Why would a beneficiary such as June's mother and/or those advising her want substantial assets arriving in her estate when she was frail (bed ridden?) and in her 90's? She may well have been reducing her estate over recent years to reduce inheritance tax.
Everyone seems to forget there are very few certainties in life other than death and taxes.
The Bamber estate was valued at some 400k - 500k gross but what was the value after debts and taxes? Capital Gains Tax and Inheritance Tax?
-
Btw I hope the champagne socialists on Blue are not too disturbed by references to inheritance tax and reduction in the same sentence. 8(0(* 8(0(*
-
So the argument the relatives, police, JM and Uncle Tom Cobley were keen to establish order of death and/or twins predeceasing other victims to gain financially from the Bamber estate is WRONG. It would be completely out of their hands and the laws of intestacy would prevail.
-
So the argument the relatives, police, JM and Uncle Tom Cobley were keen to establish order of death and/or twins predeceasing other victims to gain financially from the Bamber estate is WRONG. It would be completely out of their hands and the laws of intestacy would prevail.
TOTALLY WRONG Holly
Jeremy Bamber MANUFACTURED THIS STORY in order to give him plausible deniability and hide behind the veil of "innocence" he has MANUFACTURED EACH & EVERYONE of the STORIES argued over for nearly 33 years
-
Posters are reminded to "keep to thread topics where possible" as per rules on Home Page. Thank you.
-
Posters are reminded to "keep to thread topics where possible" as per rules on Home Page. Thank you.
Maybe you should set us an example Holly
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8530.msg427897#msg427897
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8533.msg427780#msg427780
Your behaviour as moderator reflects on you Holly, they are YOUR actions
-
On reflection I haven't explained the above very well!
I posted:
"Given others also predeceased NB and June eg twins,..."
Obviously this is the hub of the argument ie the relatives et al were keen to establish order of death to gain financially.
I've explained all the main named beneficiaries in the wills either died during the tragedy or forfeited his right to inherit due to the crimes he was found guilty of. Therefore the laws of intestacy kick in:
https://www.gov.uk/inherits-someone-dies-without-will/y/england-and-wales/no
The link takes users through a decision like tree.
With the question:
"Are there any living children, grandchildren or other direct descendants eg (great-grandchildren)?
The answer is obviously 'NO'. Therefore it moves on. The beneficiaries for NB's estate are living nephews and nieces and for June's her mother.
Its an interesting and complicated subject this. That link goes by (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011. I don't know how much has changed since 1985.
Interstingly enough the forfeiture rule does not apply to the insane who kill relatives. If at first since it was accepted Sheila committed suicide after killing her parents and children. Whatever was intended for Sheila could in theory end up with Colin via the twins. Maybe that is what happened?
-
Its an interesting and complicated subject this. That link goes by (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011. I don't know how much has changed since 1985.
Interstingly enough the forfeiture rule does not apply to the insane who kill relatives. If at first since it was accepted Sheila committed suicide after killing her parents and children. Whatever was intended for Sheila could in theory end up with Colin via the twins. Maybe that is what happened?
Caroline at Today at 12:42 PM »
"That's not what we were talking about. It is suggested that RWB et al had Jeremy framed to inherit. Problem with that is, is that it is complicated and even the solicitor didn't know and had to seek advice. This being the case, it is unlikely that RWB et al would have the first clue who would get the money and they could have ended up with nothing. So, not really a motive. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg422166.html#msg422166
Caroline Today at 12:55 PM »
"They didn't consult a solicitor from day one Lookout - the idea that they framed Jeremy for the money falls flat because of the complications.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg422173.html#msg422173
The voice of reason - thanks for clearing that up Caroline
Now will SOMEONE please tell Bamber in order to bring an end to the continued abuse and harassment his surviving relatives have had to endure for over 3 decades
The smear campaign launched by Bamber in relation to these innocent people has been relentless
-
So the argument the relatives, police, JM and Uncle Tom Cobley were keen to establish order of death and/or twins predeceasing other victims to gain financially from the Bamber estate is WRONG. It would be completely out of their hands and the laws of intestacy would prevail.
This is all based on the assumption that they were given sound and accurate advice. And whoever gave JM those details had their facts right (no pun intended)
By the looks of the things, even the person who they got advice from didn't know the answer.
-
This is all based on the assumption that they were given sound and accurate advice. And whoever gave JM those details had their facts right (no pun intended)
By the looks of the things, even the person who they got advice from didn't know the answer.
Can you list the times and dates JM is alleged to have been given any details by anyone other than Jeremy Bamber
-
Maybe you should set us an example Holly
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8530.msg427897#msg427897
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8533.msg427780#msg427780
Your behaviour as moderator reflects on you Holly, they are YOUR actions
As I said previously as moderator I make the judgement calls on on/off topic.
Any action recently taken to edit/remove posts was done on the basis that I could not even see a tenuous link/off topic banter.
There's nothing preventing posters starting new threads providing threads/posts don't deviate from the rules on the home page.
-
This is all based on the assumption that they were given sound and accurate advice. And whoever gave JM those details had their facts right (no pun intended)
By the looks of the things, even the person who they got advice from didn't know the answer.
Was the advice from solicitor Basil Cock? What type of work did he practice in?
As you know I have experience and qualifications in this area. Although I wouldn't regard myself as an 'expert' as such.
In terms of distributing the estate I don't believe the order of deaths is relevant. The main beneficiaries of the wills all died: NB, June and SC. JB lost his right to inherit due to his conviction. Therefore the laws of intestacy kick in. Had one twin or both survived then yes they would have been entitled to the full estate.
As the twins died the laws of intestacy move on to NB's nieces and nephews and June's mother.
Marple posted up thread the value of NB and June's individual estates. I was surprised to see NB's was significantly greater?
Are the values net or gross?
NB had recently purchased some land in his name but this had a loan attached to it?
NB had fairly recently inherited from his mother but the renovation of a property had a loan attached?
June was a 42% shareholder in OCP. NB didn't own any shares.
I think arguments between the Boutflours/Eatons v Pargeter/Wood revolved around who was entitled to what.
If NB and June had a joint life first life assurance policy this would require order of death but asfaik the only life assurance policy was 10k on June's life covering a mortgage on the Maida Vale flat.
-
Just to reiterate given June's mother's circumstances: age, health, financial status I can see solicitors etc advising a 'deed of variation' hence it filtered down to the Boutflours/Eatons.
The natural order: June's mother (Mrs Speakman) PB, June's surviving nieces/nephews: AE, DB.
I think PB said she didn't want to benefit financially. Given she was most likely to be the main (sole) beneficiary of her mother's estate post June's death then I can understand the decision to filter down further to AE/DB perhaps using a further deed of variation.
I don't see anything untoward here.
-
Its an interesting and complicated subject this. That link goes by (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011. I don't know how much has changed since 1985.
Interstingly enough the forfeiture rule does not apply to the insane who kill relatives. If at first since it was accepted Sheila committed suicide after killing her parents and children. Whatever was intended for Sheila could in theory end up with Colin via the twins. Maybe that is what happened?
I'm pretty sure my explanation is correct which also ties in with what actually happened.
If I remember correctly from my training at one time caps existed under intestacy rules. I can't recall the monetary amounts but it was something like 250k max per child thereafter 125k max per grandchild and the it filtered down with the amounts reducing per relatives removed. I think there was a max cap with the excess going to the Crown. (Music to the ears of the champagne socialists on Blue.
Think about it logically what is a will? A bit of paper setting out what you want to happen when you die. NB and June did this and it was entirely in keeping with what most people do: spouse to spouse and then children in equal shares or there abouts. In this case all the main beneficiaries died and JB forfeited his right to inherit. Effectively they died intestate and therefore the state decides/intestacy laws kick in.
I've explained why I think it filtered down to AE/DB from MS and PB.
-
Was the advice from solicitor Basil Cock? What type of work did he practice in?
As you know I have experience and qualifications in this area. Although I wouldn't regard myself as an 'expert' as such.
In terms of distributing the estate I don't believe the order of deaths is relevant. The main beneficiaries of the wills all died: NB, June and SC. JB lost his right to inherit due to his conviction. Therefore the laws of intestacy kick in. Had one twin or both survived then yes they would have been entitled to the full estate.
As the twins died the laws of intestacy move on to NB's nieces and nephews and June's mother.
Marple posted up thread the value of NB and June's individual estates. I was surprised to see NB's was significantly greater?
Are the values net or gross?
NB had recently purchased some land in his name but this had a loan attached to it?
NB had fairly recently inherited from his mother but the renovation of a property had a loan attached?
June was a 42% shareholder in OCP. NB didn't own any shares.
I think arguments between the Boutflours/Eatons v Pargeter/Wood revolved around who was entitled to what.
If NB and June had a joint life first life assurance policy this would require order of death but asfaik the only life assurance policy was 10k on June's life covering a mortgage on the Maida Vale flat.
Basil Cock was the accountant. I don't know who the solicitor was. I thought when JB went for his visit on 8th ? Aug he was asked the question about order of deaths?
-
Basil Cock was the accountant. I don't know who the solicitor was. I thought when JB went for his visit on 8th ? Aug he was asked the question about order of deaths?
You'd think Bamber would be too traumatised to think about money and order of deaths at this point
Why didn't he post pone this for a later date and why take along JM - didn't he claim their relationship had been over for some time?
Was he pissed as in drunk around this time? I ask because in his 14 page letter to the Daily Mail he suggests he turned to alcohol
-
Does anyone know who Nevill and June's executor(s) was(were)?
-
Does anyone know who Nevill and June's executor(s) was(were)?
That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.
-
That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.
Could it have been that June's executor was her sister Pam and Nevill's was June and that Jeremy Bamber only came to be dealing with the lawyer by virtue of the fact that he was their next of kin? Scipio probably knows the answer to this.
-
Could it have been that June's executor was her sister Pam and Nevill's was June and that Jeremy Bamber only came to be dealing with the lawyer by virtue of the fact that he was their next of kin? Scipio probably knows the answer to this.
I think Basil Cock, accountant, may have been an executor. This probably explains why he was at WHF on 10th Aug and wanted farm sec, BW, present.
Why do I always think of Basil Brush when I read Basil Cock?! Is there some fallacy about a fox tail?!
-
Actually thinking about this further the whole thing must have gone on hold until a verdict was reached by which time June's mother, Mable Speakman, had passed away? With June deceased then I'm assuming the bulk of MS's estate passed to PB. PB was unlikely to want further assets in her estate to add to an ever increasing inheritance tax liability. Also I think she said she didn't want to benefit, financially, from the tragedy. Therefore I think a deed of variation was drawn up to pass to AE/DB.
I feel quite confident I'm right on this.
I don't think order of deaths played any part here. I think any court would consider NB and June effectively died intestate and the laws of intestacy prevailed with a deed of variation as above.
Wills can always be contested but I can't see any court ruling NB's estate should go to June's side of the family or vice versa. It might have been different if anyone was dependent on the Bambers financially eg children or elderly relatives but this wasn't the case here. No one was dependent on them.
Why would a court rule all assets should go to one side of the family over the other? The Bambers had been married some 35 years? I think a court would view their assets much the same as a divorcing couple. In fact the wills set out their assets.
-
Think I've finally nailed this now!
The commorientes rule would apply "for the purposes of determining title to property". Meaning June's estate passes to NB's (NB is deemed to have survived June by virtue of age). NB's estate would then be administered eg debts repaid , taxes collected etc. The net estate would then be distributed in accordance with NB and June's wishes ie SC/JB. With SC deceased and JB forfeiting his right to inherit effectively the Bambers died intestate. However the commorientes rule doesn't apply to the intestacy rules ie in this case the entire Bamber estate was placed in NB's estate but this doesn't mean NB's next of kin ie AP/JW have full entitlement.
This is obviously an unusual case and if the two sides were unable to agree to a 50:50 split then I'm pretty sure a court would decide this for them!
The idea that the order of deaths pertaining to twins/SC has any relevance is wrong. It has no bearing whatsoever. By the time the estate was ready for distributing to the beneficiaries SC was deceased. The idea CC had any entitlement is also completely wrong.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-383-4021?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
-
As I said previously had one or both twins survived they would have received the full estate as NB and June's next of kin.
The only reason the estate went to AP/JW and *AE/DB is that they were all next of kin.
*PB was June's next of kin but she said she didn't want to benefit financially from the tragedy. Therefore I think a deed of variation must have been drawn up in order for June's share to pass to AE/DB.
-
As I said previously had one or both twins survived they would have received the full estate as NB and June's next of kin.
The only reason the estate went to AP/JW and *AE/DB is that they were all next of kin.
*PB was June's next of kin but she said she didn't want to benefit financially from the tragedy. Therefore I think a deed of variation must have been drawn up in order for June's share to pass to AE/DB.
Had SC survived then she would take precendece over the twins. As SC and twins died then the estate went to the Bambers next of kin with a deed of variation to bypass PB.