Hello followers!
I have little time for I need to confer some information to some people quickly, but you would be interested to know that I have indeed found something amiss in the testament, yet I am not sure what to make of it. It seems that a specific clause was eliminated yet I cannot comprehend a conventional reason of greed for why such a provision was removed.
Simply stated, the provision required that all the funds received by the Bingley Foundation be required to go through a a specific bank account labelled by the ending number 3704 – and, coinciding with the report given to me by Miss Bingley and Spalding, it may be the exclusive account that Richard used to control her funds. Yet somebody must have gone in and altered the will such that the requirement of this account was removed so Jane’s access was virtually unlimited. Why? And who, since it could not be Jane herself.
Come to think of it, why was such a requirement placed in the will in the first place? Granted it seems an unnecessary piece of red tape but why remove it so secretively?
Sherlock Holmes
Mr. Holmes, I have thought if quite a disturbing possibilty for the removal of this bit of red tape. Is it possible someone gave Jane unlimited access to the account and then murdered her father? There could be two reaons for this. One could be an attempt to frame Jane. It is also possible that it was indeed Jane who removed the restrictions on the money, and then either murdered or had someone else murder her father. This would recquire a helper. Her boyfriend both provided her with an alibi and could possibly be willing to help Jane with a scheme like that.
NeverSlender
If you check Sherlock’s comments on his previous post (Meeting with Jane) he mentions that Rupert was the one who recommended the restaurant and the time to Daniel. It seems more like Rupert was the one setting up Jane’s alibi.
Yes… Rupert provided his sister with an alibi. Then the testament had a suspicious clause removed that would have restricted Jane’s access to the wealth – a will which Rupert had access to. Rupert seems to be playing Jane’s guardian angel; that much is clear.
But the question remains: how could Rupert anticipate that his father – or a man matching the description – would jump off Brooklyn Bridge? And why was there such an account mentioned in the will in the first place? And why was Richard keen to have men perhaps less than competent play the witness to his new testament? Why did he change the testament at all?
Regarding the witnesses maybe Richard had little choice in the matter.
But if he was coerced why would Rupert need to fraudulently alter the testament after it was just updated? Doesn’t make sense…
No, no the only people had access to the will at the time of its alteration was Richard, his son and lawyer Rupert, and a mixture of his aging business associates. Strange it would seem, as a competent businessman such as Richard surely would like to know that his witnesses would be attentive to detail and changes…
Actually, that makes me think of Rupert once again. Remember what he said to Daniel? That he wanted to make things right between him and his sister?
Perhaps Rupert felt guilty that Jane and their father had a terrible relationship and that Rupert had done nothing about it. Otherwise you’d think that he would complain that most of the money would go to her suddenly, rather than him.
When our victim jumped from the bridge was anyone seen near the place he jumped from? It is possible he was already dead when he fell.
Intriguing theory – sadly all witness from the bridge indicated that he was seen by himself jumping off, not thrown or dropped…
In fact the evidence is so clear that one would almost believe that our victim wanted to make very clear that he was jumping off the bridge.
Good evening, Mr. Holmes.
There’s something bothering me about that bank account. Why would only Jane’s access be restricted? There must be a reason for it.
I can’t help wondering if Jane and Rupert might have worked together. Unfortunately, I have no solid evidence to back my theory up; it’s just conjecture at this point.
This may seem outlandish, but could someone have dressed as Richard, jumped off the bridge, and later thrown the body in the water?
Holmes, it has been a while since I last spoke with you. My spologies. I’m afraid I have been rather busy on other fronts.
I do not have much time to spare at the moment, but I would like a clarification of something mentioned in one of your previous posts. You say the body of Richard washed ashore. With today’s technology, we can do what is known as a DNA test to confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt whether a corpse is the real person. Could you tell me if the police did such a test, and thereby remove any doubts? My compatriots have brought up concerns that he may still be alive.
Also, I would find more information on Rupert, but I think there is someone else behind this whole thing. My suspicions point towards someone manipulating even Rupert. I think it is a good possibility that the change in the will was an attempt to thwart the people he was being coerced by. Since Jane now possesses unlimited access, they cannot now control the money. It’s just a thought, however, so I understand why you wouldn’t put much faith in it.
Going off of Sicon’s idea…
Have you tried getting an autopsy report, Mr. Holmes? Knowing how the victim died may help with the case–if he was strangled or poisoned or died of causes other than injuries sustained from a fall and/or drowning, then it would give credence to the theory that someone dressed up as the victim and jumped off of the bridge to create witnesses to a suicide.
Again, the autopsy shows an open-shut drowning. No signs of extended beating or struggle such that one may expect from fight. The dress-up idea is an interesting one, and perhaps it would explain a plot against Richard, but on its own I’m left with too many loose ends in a plot, many of which involved Richard himself. The irony is that Richard seems more connected to his own death than Jane, who got the most out of the deal.
Actually, that gives me something of an idea. There’s something I must look up.
Ah… ah I may have stumbled upon something important. I was just in contact with Mrs. O’Shea back in England and she indicated to me a damning red flag against Richard’s hedge fund, such that he was about to be tried and almost certainly found guilty for giving fraudulent financial information to investors. All assets that he retained would be considered confiscate if he was found guilty… yet his assets managed to escape confiscation as he could never stand trial, since he was found dead, tested and all. But what’s important is… if he were presumed dead, he wouldn’t be considered able to stand trial.
I thought perhaps his suicide was faked, but we may have thought incorrectly in WHO was faking his suicide…
Rupert was very assertive that his father was suicidal.
Yet his old business partner, James refused to believe it and Jane was also ‘stunned’.
Yes, I’m afraid you do not understand; so imagine if you will that Richard was looking to jump off the bridge in order to fake his death. Why it would explain why he was so visible in his act, but more tellingly why he would have altered his will such that it placed all his monetary resources in an account which only he and a few select others could access! Fake his death, alter his identity, live somewhere where the account was accessible and its use easy to hide like, for example, in the country of Costa Rica where the foundation was doing much of its charity work!
Ah, but what would you need for the plan? You would need inattentive testament witnesses and… what else do you suppose?
Sherlock
Well I suppose if he did really jump himself. He would need would need someone else in on it. Rupert seems the most likely as he was assuring everyone how depresse his father one and he had set up a alibi for his sister on the day of the supposed suicide.
YES! But the problem is the necessity for an accomplice in such a dire circumstance means that you must trust him without condition. Perhaps Richard surely would have thought the trust of his son was earned by his apparent devotion, the incentive of finance, and most of all by base familial loyalty. Yet what, I ask you, if Rupert did not have such loyalties? Or perhaps he did but he had applied them to someone else in the family such that, in order to help the family member, he had to help conspire with his father to fake his own suicide, alter the conditions of his father’s will so that the father would not succeed, and then remove seemingly the only way that could stand in between him and the wealth generously provided?
That night, when – or, I should say, if, Richard jumped off that bridge, he would have found it too risky to go to sure by himself. He would have wanted to be intercepted. But to be intercepted in such a manner puts you completely at the mercy and kindness of the interceptor – particularly when you yourself showed little mercy or kindness yourself… Do you understand what I am saying?
Do you mean if Richard was going to jump Rupert may not have decided to save him because he had a more important loyalty to another family – such as his sister.
Dear Holmes,
I thank you for your quick and detailed answers to my inquiry. I think that most of the fragments of this chaos have been collected, but I’m sure you already see what is to be done anyway, so I won’t say anything on that topic. In reality, I have something else to speak of at this time.
You see, after your rather disastrous meeting with Poirot at the Eiffel Tower, he noticed your deduction regarding his choice of glasses, and decided that that was enough proof of your identity, along with the other things that he knew. He attempted to contact you shortly thereafter in order to apologize for his behavior, but you had already departed. As such, he has traveled to New York as well in order to convey his apology in person. Seeing as you are currently working, a meeting at this time is obviously not going to work out, but I wonder if you would be amenable to a discussion of such a prospect at a future time.
Please inform me of your answer, and my compatriots shall carry it to Poirot.
~Sicon112