The Bamber Estate

[Holly Goodhead]

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!

[Holly Goodhead]

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?

[Marple]

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!

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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. 

[Nicholas]

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

[Holly Goodhead]

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. 

[Nicholas]

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

[Holly Goodhead]

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?

[Holly Goodhead]

Btw I hope the champagne socialists on Blue are not too disturbed by references to inheritance tax and reduction in the same sentence.   

[Holly Goodhead]

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. 

[Nicholas]

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

[Holly Goodhead]

Posters are reminded to "keep to thread topics where possible" as per rules on Home Page.  Thank you.

[Nicholas]

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

[david1819]

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?