# Legal Question



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

A puzzle for all you amateur Legal Beagles:

I found this hidden away on my computer a few minutes ago and thought I'd have some fun and post it here for comment.

I am a retired LEO. I spent the last 16 years of my career investigating deaths. This case was out of my jurisdiction. The jurisdiction that investigated the case called me in as a consultant to review the case and settle the issue of who died first, and therefore, which will the court would enforce.

Facts:

Man and woman, both in their eighties, married for many years, found dead behind their car parked in a plowed field.

The physical evidence and a note pointed to a homicide/suicide with the man shooting his wife, then turning the gun on himself. There is no dispute on those facts.

The weapon belonged to the man.

The plowed field showed no tracks but those of the man and his wife, and during the course of the investigation, tracks investigators laid down. Nobody could approach the bodies without leaving tracks for ¼ mile.

Woman shot in the head.

Man shot in the head.

Woman shot at a distance.

Man had a contact wound typical of a self-inflicted suicide wound.

Physical evidence at the scene proved that the woman lingered for a time; attempts to move; drag marks and arm marks in the dirt and in her own blood like a snow angel.

While the woman moved after death and the man did not. However, there was extensive bleeding from the man's wound indicating that he may have outlived her.

Again, nobody disputed the above facts.

The legal problem:

The man and his wife were very rich. Multiple millions. They owned the field where they died, and other agricultural land and businesses, plus investments. They hired managers, retired and led very active lives. Tennis. Golf. Bridge with friends. All of these activities several times a week.

The last 6 months of life, they both suffer severe health problems, problems that forced them to drastically cut back on their active lives. They were severely depressed because of the change.

They both made wills years before. Depending who died first, the provisions of the wills were radically different.

There were Lawyers: One for the man, one for the woman, one for a son, one for a daughter, and three or four for a variety of charities that would either benefit or lose, depending on which will the probate judge ordered enforced first. In other words, who died first?

One additional fact, this one a preponderance, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Statements the couple made to friends and their children, statements that could have multiple meanings, indicated that they were both planning suicide.

All the lawyers agreed on the above facts, even the possibility that the couple planned their deaths. (The woman got out of the car and met the man at the back of the car. His tracks went from the driver's door to the back of the car where he stood a few feet from her and where he collapsed.)

After reviewing the case file, I wrote a critique of the investigation. I gave the investigation an A+. It was an excellent investigation from day one. Nothing confusing about the circumstances.

Based on the facts the investigation turned up, I wrote my conclusion as to who died first.

All the attorney's accepted my finding agreeing that they could not challenge my finding of fact and hope to win.

The judge agree with the attorneys and ordered one of the wills enforced first followed by the provisions of the second will.

Which will?

Who died first and how did I prove it based on the case file?

The question stymied the investigators, the Coroner, half a dozen or more attorneys, and the judge.

There was no autopsy on either body. If there had been, it would not have proved who died first.

Hint: This is not a legal question. The attorneys and judge were stuck on which legal precedent to apply based on the fact that the woman moved after the shot and the man did not but may have lived for a time. (22 caliber long rifle revolver with a 4 inch barrel.)

I will look in on this post but won't comment for a week, maybe two, depending on how much and the quality of comment this post generates.

Have at it, and have fun.

Remember, you can't make up law or twist facts to fit your preconceived notions.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

RogerK said:


> While the woman moved after death and the man did not. However, there was extensive bleeding from the man's wound indicating that he may have outlived her.


Just the facts man! If there investigation showed that he had shot her, she lived for a bit, he maybe moved her a bit, then shot himself.

Also, I know you left out alot of info! :-? But guessing each was only shot once? IMO they are going to conclude the male shot the female in the head, she struggled for a while, maybe he embraced her? Then turned the gun on himself! It is kind of hard to conclude on this without the report, pictures, etc! I will say this sounds alot like a case we reviewed in a CSCI class. :-?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Did you provide us with all the evidence, or are you waiting for us to ask a couple of key clarifications?

One thing that immediately came to mind.

1. How many shell casings were found at the scene? ( e.g, how many rounds were found to have been fired?)


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

R y a n said:


> Did you provide us with all the evidence, or are you waiting for us to ask a couple of key clarifications?
> 
> One thing that immediately came to mind.
> 
> 1. How many shell casings were found at the scene? ( e.g, how many rounds were found to have been fired?)


Thats what I was saying, but not sure if the actual police report, and death report can be exposed? :-?


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

I'm no expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night! 
I'd say, if it was a double suicide or a murder suicide, the woman died first, because he wouldn't shoot himself until he knew his lifelong mate wasn't suffering anymore.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

There was or should have been stipulations given in the wills pertaining to this. Many of the wills I have read give good direction concerning the deaths and time between deaths of a married couple. So if they had a decent Lawyer there should have been no questions.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Who died first really only matters regarding the wife. If for some reason she outlived her husband then all of the property would be split based on her ownership. Otherwise the property would be split in accordance to law because the man committing the act of murder would not be entitled to inherit or gain from his act. Thus anyone who is receiving things from his estate would be limited to what he had at the time of death and not what he stood to gain with his wifes death.

Not sure this was what you where looking for, but laws regarding property are pretty cut and dried in that regard.


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

I think Ron nailed it.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

In most affairs cause of Death is not required, but in Insurance crap it is.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

I don't care who died first.

Which remaining relative do I ask to hunt the field now?


----------



## cut'em (Oct 23, 2004)

I'm going to answer this for you. You stated that They both made wills years before. Depending who died first, the provisions of the wills were radically different. These folks new what their wills stated and I'm sure gave this act prior thought. Therefore they knew what the outcome would be by him shooting her then himself. They assumed she would die first and therefore the will would revert to his side. They had to of discussed that and This would have been their dying plan and wanted it in this order her first then him.In your opening statement under facts, it mentions the prior planning: "All the lawyers agreed on the above facts, even the possibility that the couple planned their deaths". This is how I would have approached the case. Unless of coarse she shoots like most women and missed him the first four shots and he grabbed the gun and did it himself. LOL


----------



## faithsdave (Jan 8, 2004)

He shot himself, bullet passed and hit her. She tried moving to get the gun, thus the marks in the dirt. She outlived him.


----------



## duckmander (Aug 25, 2008)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that he died first.

Reason being; He is sitting on a bench outside the pearly gates.
Telling St. Peter she will be a minimum of 30 minutes late.

I have been waiting on her since 1932.

JUST MY .02


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

Too often we hear of the murder/suicide......who has an example of a suicide/murder?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I do. Ole come home and found Lena with Sven. He put a gun to his head and told Lena if she ever did that again he would kill himself. Lena laughed at him and Ole says what's so funny your next.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

faithsdave said:


> He shot himself, bullet passed and hit her. She tried moving to get the gun, thus the marks in the dirt. She outlived him.




That is what I was driving at when I asked my question...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I would guess Roger gave us all we need to know, I just can't figure it out yet.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ok, with only the facts I'll take a stab at this. The courts may have looked at brain dead as final death. I would. If the woman moved in the fashion described it indicates cerebral activity. The man did not move. I would say he was brain dead instantly, his heart may have survived for a while and pumped blood. The man died first, and the woman later.


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> The courts may have looked at brain dead as final death.


Interesting!! With that theory though just think how many death certificates, you'd be filling out in Minnesota right now!!!! :lol:


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

woodpecker said:


> With that theory though just think how many death certificates, you'd be filling out in Minnesota right now!!!! :lol:


Now THAT is funny right there!


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

Woodpecker,

When it comes to putting people in public office.....your are right on. 

Let's not hijack this thread though.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Doesn't matter. The attorneys for all the benificiaries will make sure the legal battle drags out till there isn't a dime left.


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

Ref said:


> Let's not hijack this thread though.


You are correct Ref.!!! I am very interested in the outcome of this puzzle!! :beer:


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

RogerK must have forgot about this one??????


----------

