BBM. My gut instinct tells me that no way that if Bob had met with foul play that that was an accident. The fact that his disappearance occurred the day after they had a *heated* family meeting wherein they discussed finances is too much of a coincidence for his disappearance to be a simple accident.
If it had been an accident, there'd be no need to cover it up. For instance, let's say Bob was brushing his teeth and JeM went into the bathroom to do repairs and accidentally knocked into Bob and Bob fell over and hit his head on the sink, and then passed out cold and suffered a fatal heart attack. There'd be no reason for JeM or anyone to cover that up. It would be easily explainable: an elderly man with poor coordination/balance had a fatal mishap in his bathroom. This likely happens frequently in senior homes.
No, Bob's disappearance and whatever led up to it which I suspect is foul play had to be intentional.
You may well be correct.
When I think accident in this context, I think of a scenario where someone came to Bob's house Monday morning to argue with him some more over the situation with the trust and Fontelle. Maybe with the express intention to bully Bob into agreeing. That person did not go to Bob's house intending to kill him but during the argument, tempers got out of control and the perp either punched Bob or pushed him. Again, not with the intention to kill but with the intention to intimidate him into agreeing to keep Fontelle off his accounts and (possibly) to distribute Georgia's half of the marital assets.
When Bob fell and either suffered a closed head injury (which causes little to no blood, even for significant fractures) or a heart attack, the perp panicked. They were guilty of causing Bob's death and they knew it. Their instinct was to cover it all up and that is exactly what they did. Perhaps with help from one or more other family members.
When people panic, they do stupid, stupid things. For instance, there's the case of the French Ambassador to the Soviet Union in the early 60s. Maurice DeJean was a hero of the French resistance and a friend of Charles de Gaulle. To make a complicated story short, DeJean had an affair with a KGB operative who then faked having her husband discover it. To cover up the affair, DeJean began passing along trade information to the Soviets. In other words, he began to commit treason, then still a capital crime in France in order to cover up his extramarital affair. When de Gaulle found out, he famously dismissed him with " Alors, Dejean, on baise maintenant?" (roughly, "So, DeJean, you enjoy sleeping with women?").
Maurice DeJean was not a stupid man nor was he philosophically at odds with the French government. If he had taken a calm moment to ask himself "is divorce worse than being sentenced to death for committing treason?" I have no doubt he would have come to the correct answer. But he panicked and the KGB made sure he was kept in a constant stage of panic.
A sad end for a war hero.
In the scenario as I theorise it, it would not qualify as capital murder (premeditation of murder) or even murder in the 2nd degree (an action taken on the spur of the moment to cause someone's death) but somewhere among the various manslaughter charges (taking an action that results in a death). Plus abuse of human remains.
If my theory is anywhere close to the truth, then the first person to the DA wins. Under such a scenario, the first person to talk would be given a much reduced sentence or possibly not even charged with a felony at all (prosecutors have a wide latitude in charging). Whoever else was involved will be in great legal danger, even if they think they did less than the first person to talk.