Found Deceased TX - Michael Chambers, 70, Hunt County, 10 March 2017 #3

[Hstevenson86]

Pawpaw was not tech savvy, didn't have an email address etc. that has been stated many times by our VI yet he felt a laptop was important enough to leave to JC in his will. I'm sure that's totally irrelevant but it jumped out at me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Razz]

Pawpaw was not tech savvy, didn't have an email address etc. that has been stated many times by our VI yet he felt a laptop was important enough to leave to JC in his will. I'm sure that's totally irrelevant but it jumped out at me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It struck me as somewhat odd too as laptops, computers etc. become antiquated quickly. My best guess is maybe he wanted the distribution of assets to appear more equitable.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[inmyhumbleopinion]

If I am not mistaken, inmyhumbleopinion dug up for us info about the last Grand Jury and there is unfinished business (sealed) from that one yet. Unless of course it is unrelated and already been acted upon. At the time it was brought to our attention here at WS some of us thought that perhaps it had to do with this case and for some reason (because truly nothing makes a lot of sense in this case) it hadn't been acted upon yet.
Note: My apologies if I am not remembering correctly which WS'er brought that to us. It was damn good sleuthing!

This is correct, and thank you for your kind words, Midge!

My apologies for not posting very much the last few days and not getting back to those of you who have offered some wonderful words of encouragement. I have been spending the last few days of summer vacation away from home with the kiddos, and have been very busy. Still checking in regularly, hoping for a break in this terribly sad case, especially with the six-month Mark coming up in a couple of weeks.

Just a quick word with regard to PaPaw's pension: Our VI has confirmed PaPaw had been drawing his regular pension, as well as DROP. We now know his regular pension has continued to be deposited into his and BC's joint account. IIRC, per DPFPS' pension plan, she has the option to receive a one-time lump sum payment also. The way it was explained to our VI by BC herself, her decision to have PaPaw declared deceased had to do with the DROP portion of his pension: In gist, since a certain document instructing the pension board how the payments should continue -mainly monthly vs. semi-annual- had not been returned when PaPaw went missing, DROP payments would have stopped, according to BC. However, in one of her most recent posts, our VI stated she was starting to feel "uneasy" about this explanation and was going to look further into it. My apologies for not providing any links; I will try to do so as soon as I get the chance.

Personally, I have a feeling there is more than money to PaPaw's disappearance. I am also wondering if in fact anyone accompanied BC to her appointments to her probate attorney, and if so, who. I understand our VI has stated one of the sons did, but she has also confirmed more than one of the "facts" of the case have changed over time. As we all know, facts do not change; they remain the same.

Prayers to our VI and her loved ones, including her beloved PaPaw.

 

[Hstevenson86]

It struck me as somewhat odd too as laptops, computers etc. become antiquated quickly. My best guess is maybe he wanted the distribution of assets to appear more equitable.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

That's really the only explanation I could think of as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nannymo]

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

Death by Absentia is what I believe was used here. It is a jurisdictional approval depending on the circumstances. The affadavit did talk about circumstantial evidence leading them to believe PaPaw was deceased. An interesting read....

 

[Jim_M]

This is correct, and thank you for your kind words, Midge!

My apologies for not posting very much the last few days and not getting back to those of you who have offered some wonderful words of encouragement. I have been spending the last few days of summer vacation away from home with the kiddos, and have been very busy. Still checking in regularly, hoping for a break in this terribly sad case, especially with the six-month Mark coming up in a couple of weeks.

Just a quick word with regard to PaPaw's pension: Our VI has confirmed PaPaw had been drawing his regular pension, as well as DROP. We now know his regular pension has continued to be deposited into his and BC's joint account. IIRC, per DPFPS' pension plan, she has the option to receive a one-time lump sum payment also. The way it was explained to our VI by BC herself, her decision to have PaPaw declared deceased had to do with the DROP portion of his pension: In gist, since a certain document instructing the pension board how the payments should continue -mainly monthly vs. semi-annual- had not been returned when PaPaw went missing, DROP payments would have stopped, according to BC. However, in one of her most recent posts, our VI stated she was starting to feel "uneasy" about this explanation and was going to look further into it. My apologies for not providing any links; I will try to do so as soon as I get the chance.

Personally, I have a feeling there is more than money to PaPaw's disappearance. I am also wondering if in fact anyone accompanied BC to her appointments to her probate attorney, and if so, who. I understand our VI has stated one of the sons did, but she has also confirmed more than one of the "facts" of the case have changed over time. As we all know, facts do not change; they remain the same.

Prayers to our VI and her loved ones, including her beloved PaPaw.

IMO all quite valid information, as well as questions. I would not expect less from an adroit sleuther such as yourself.

I hope our VI, Pmerle00, is able to return and answer your post.

That, and verifying if PaPaw's laptop was ever cleared by CSI? I mean, would a check of SM, and emails, really not take place when someone goes missing? I would think that is an important, standard procedure? Not that I'm calling out any procedures followed in this case. Or, perhaps I am. If my eyes can see this, is not anyone in LE seeing it?

This entire case makes me cry about this family's loss. Sorry, I don't mean to get down. I really wish our LEAs had handled this correctly, in the beginning. And please, don't inform us that this Laptop was sold also?!

Okay. Diatribe over. Some questions just won't get answered. The evidence, if there ever once was any, is going away. All IMHO of course, as always.

 

[SavetheQueen]

Pawpaw was not tech savvy, didn't have an email address etc. that has been stated many times by our VI yet he felt a laptop was important enough to leave to JC in his will. I'm sure that's totally irrelevant but it jumped out at me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very curious about this laptop.


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*

 

[SavetheQueen]

This is correct, and thank you for your kind words, Midge!

My apologies for not posting very much the last few days and not getting back to those of you who have offered some wonderful words of encouragement. I have been spending the last few days of summer vacation away from home with the kiddos, and have been very busy. Still checking in regularly, hoping for a break in this terribly sad case, especially with the six-month Mark coming up in a couple of weeks.

Just a quick word with regard to PaPaw's pension: Our VI has confirmed PaPaw had been drawing his regular pension, as well as DROP. We now know his regular pension has continued to be deposited into his and BC's joint account. IIRC, per DPFPS' pension plan, she has the option to receive a one-time lump sum payment also. The way it was explained to our VI by BC herself, her decision to have PaPaw declared deceased had to do with the DROP portion of his pension: In gist, since a certain document instructing the pension board how the payments should continue -mainly monthly vs. semi-annual- had not been returned when PaPaw went missing, DROP payments would have stopped, according to BC. However, in one of her most recent posts, our VI stated she was starting to feel "uneasy" about this explanation and was going to look further into it. My apologies for not providing any links; I will try to do so as soon as I get the chance.

Personally, I have a feeling there is more than money to PaPaw's disappearance. I am also wondering if in fact anyone accompanied BC to her appointments to her probate attorney, and if so, who. I understand our VI has stated one of the sons did, but she has also confirmed more than one of the "facts" of the case have changed over time. As we all know, facts do not change; they remain the same.

Prayers to our VI and her loved ones, including her beloved PaPaw.

inmyhumbleopinion,
Am I reading the Will correctly that BC inherited everything, and only in the event of her death would the kids' get their portions disbursed? Since it seems to be pretty specific on what the kids get, does that mean these items can't be sold while BC is still alive? Or is she allowed to do what she wants with them?


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*

 

[inmyhumbleopinion]

inmyhumbleopinion,
Am I reading the Will correctly that BC inherited everything, and only in the event of her death would the kids' get their portions disbursed? Since it seems to be pretty specific on what the kids get, does that mean these items can't be sold while BC is still alive? Or is she allowed to do what she wants with them?


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*

As per "III. Disposition of Estate" in the attached, if BC survives PaPaw (which she has) he gives, devises and bequeaths all of his estate of whatever kind and whatsoever situated to his wife, BC. ONLY IF BC does NOT survive him, he gives, devises and bequeaths his estate to others as specified in the document.

The way I understand this to mean is that BC inherited everything and she is allowed to do what she wants with them.

The only caveat is that per TX family codes, -my apologies for not providing a link at this time- since there is no body as of yet, BC cannot touch anything for three years starting the date the certificate of death was issued.

The three-year waiting period is one of the reasons I suspect there is more than money to PaPaw's disappearance and certain subsequent events.

By the way, I just realized in the "PROOF OF DEATH AND OTHER FACTS" document, BC "asks that the Court find in its order that the Decedent died on May 26, 2017." PaPaw would have () turned 70 1/2-year-old the very next day. Coincidence? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. There was a reason why this specific date was used, IMO, and if so ... one more thing that makes me absolutely ill.

 

[momrids6]

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-required-minimum-distributions

"You generally have to start taking withdrawals from your IRA, SEP IRA, SIMPLE IRA, or retirement plan account when you reach age 70½. Roth IRAs do not require withdrawals until after the death of the owner."

 

[Jim_M]

As per "III. Disposition of Estate" in the attached, if BC survives PaPaw (which she has) he gives, devises and bequeaths all of his estate of whatever kind and whatsoever situated to his wife, BC. ONLY IF BC does NOT survive him, he gives, devises and bequeaths his estate to others as specified in the document.

The way I understand this to mean is that BC inherited everything and she is allowed to do what she wants with them.

The only caveat is that per TX family codes, -my apologies for not providing a link at this time- since there is no body as of yet, BC cannot touch anything for three years starting the date the certificate of death was issued.

The three-year waiting period is one of the reasons I suspect there is more than money to PaPaw's disappearance and certain subsequent events.

By the way, I just realized in the "PROOF OF DEATH AND OTHER FACTS" document, BC "asks that the Court find in its order that the Decedent died on May 26, 2017." PaPaw would have () turned 70 1/2-year-old the very next day. Coincidence? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. There was a reason why this specific date was used, IMO, and if so ... one more thing that makes me absolutely ill.

RSBM

I saw that date requested, May 26, 2017, and it did not hit me. You highlight that MC is not 70 1/2 years old, until May 27th. What else kicks in, or goes away, on May 27th, hmmm?

More, and more, this is feeling like a, "How to get away with (..........)!" scenario. Where you fill in the blank with the first word that popped into your thoughts. All MHO as always.

 

[creepcrusher]

I'm wondering why that particular date was picked for him to be declared legally dead. What's the significance? Does it mean something, or is it just random?


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*

I feel like Pmerle already talked to us about this particular date having something to do with the drop plan. Something Papaw had overlooked and there was a deadline that had to do with his age.

ETA I believe this was the excuse BC gave when she was asked about it by family.

 

[Jim_M]

I'm wondering why that particular date was picked for him to be declared legally dead. What's the significance? Does it mean something, or is it just random?


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*

MC was born November 27, 1946. He was 70 years, 103 days old, when he went missing. He would be 70 years, 180 days on May 26th. Going past the 26th makes him 70 1/2 years old. Many savings plans (IRAs, and the like), automatically kick into disburse mode at that time. My question would be, what else does turning 70 1/2 years old affect? Insurance? Anything to do with his pension, or DROP? All IMHO as always.

 

[Hstevenson86]

Very curious about this laptop.


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*

Me too , especially since I didn't know it existed until now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mrsNKY]

Ok. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I thought it was settled that BC phoned MC about purchasing the mascara?? This has changed three distinct times and each of these three stories have been circulated another three times. I'm starting to think these stories are intentionally being changed, or some people are asking deep questions and what they are being told is not consistent.
1. There signal was if she needed something she would leave thr empty container on the vanity.
2. She called him at eight and asked him to pick up items
3. She asked him to pick it up before she left
Arghh! Which is correct? Actually, I don't think we will get the whole story for quite awhile. I have been all morning reading from the 1st thread. Now on BPH they story has gone backwards.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

[creepcrusher]

Ok. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I thought it was settled that BC phoned MC about purchasing the mascara?? This has changed three distinct times and each of these three stories have been circulated another three times. I'm starting to think these stories are intentionally being changed, or some people are asking deep questions and what they are being told is not consistent.
1. There signal was if she needed something she would leave thr empty container on the vanity.
2. She called him at eight and asked him to pick up items
3. She asked him to pick it up before she left
Arghh! Which is correct? Actually, I don't think we will get the whole story for quite awhile. I have been all morning reading from the 1st thread. Now on BPH they story has gone backwards.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Our VI specifically said BC contradicted herself with that story. She said she told her something different from what she put on the BPH page.

 

[SavetheQueen]

Our VI specifically said BC contradicted herself with that story. She said she told her something different from what she put on the BPH page.

MY understanding is that she had left the mascara out on the counter. It stayed there for two days. She asked him the morning of the 10th before she left for work to pick her up some. At around 8am, she stated that she texted him to remind him. That's what I've gotten out of what has been said about it. But who really knows?


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*

 

[mrsNKY]

Our VI specifically said BC contradicted herself with that story. She said she told her something different from what she put on the BPH page.

Thank you!! Whew! Glad to know I'm not completely bonkers. Lol
Just when I think I have part of this story down, I see something else that completely changes and I start all over. It has become impossible to attempt to put facts together.

There seems to be a lot of BPH members reading here now! Maybe they will join us with their thoughts and ideas!

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

[mrsNKY]

I thought this would be an insignificant detail, however; seeing as how this can't be told straight, I wonder IF this could be an important detail? Maybe in the timing? Hmm. And there are no Imessages correct? They only retrieved phone logs. They need to get those Imessages!

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

[knowthings]

The Mascara was the number one red flag for me!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk