• It's FREE to join our group and ALL MEMBERS ARE AD-FREE!

The Murder of Rob and Michele Reiner in Brentwood, California (1 Viewer)

Kimster said:
I just caught up with this on Law and crime. I wonder if the circumstances beyond Jackson’s control is the fact that the family isn’t willing to use trust money to pay for the defense.

What was really disturbing is that reports are saying that Nick was joking around with deputies and didn’t seem to have much of a care in the world.
Click to expand...

I don't remember where I heard this, but supposedly he didn't have a negative reaction until the police showed him the crime scene photos. When they did that, he began to cry.
 
GrandmaBear said:
LOL I just finished that maybe 10 minutes ago too. I had already seen it all earlier today from watching after the hearing outside the courthouse, etc. but I did not know about the giggling.

I think it is definitely $$. Because I don't think L & C said it but it was aid the public defenders are going to be representing him for the long haul. IF the family was still willing to pay and it was something else, they'd have hired another private attorney.

Let's hope they are REALIZING they don't want to do it for him and I'm sorry but make the same mistakes their parents may have which was helping him no matter what and enabling imo.

And Jackson was clearly the TMZ leak imo as they supposedly reported Jackson was leaving before there was even court, early this morning. The show I watched live, can't even remember which, said that and said to doubters about TMZ, see? Their info was RIGHT. Jackson stepped down everyone found out for sure later.

It was TMZ that started imo the sympathy for Nick thing, the schizophrenia came from there and more. That was Jackson giving them info he WANTED said.
Click to expand...
Nick is clearly institutionalized and probably doesn't have any remorse for his actions. Unless he is clever enough to play the laughing idiot.
 
GrandmaBear said:
LOL I just finished that maybe 10 minutes ago too. I had already seen it all earlier today from watching after the hearing outside the courthouse, etc. but I did not know about the giggling.

I think it is definitely $$. Because I don't think L & C said it but it was aid the public defenders are going to be representing him for the long haul. IF the family was still willing to pay and it was something else, they'd have hired another private attorney.

Let's hope they are REALIZING they don't want to do it for him and I'm sorry but make the same mistakes their parents may have which was helping him no matter what and enabling imo.

And Jackson was clearly the TMZ leak imo as they supposedly reported Jackson was leaving before there was even court, early this morning. The show I watched live, can't even remember which, said that and said to doubters about TMZ, see? Their info was RIGHT. Jackson stepped down everyone found out for sure later.

It was TMZ that started imo the sympathy for Nick thing, the schizophrenia came from there and more. That was Jackson giving them info he WANTED said.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Jackson was wanting Nick to play the sympathetic card and Nick wouldn’t do it. Seems to me that Nick just does whatever Nick wants to do. Pretty hard to have him for a client, if I’m right.
 
Tresir said:
He is one of the beneficiaries presumably though. If there are 4 beneficiaries then he is entitled to his share, perhaps administed by a trust.
Click to expand...
No, California has a slayer law. We were talking about it earlier in this thread.

Per AI:
California's
Slayer Law (Probate Code § 250) prevents a person who feloniously and intentionally kills someone from inheriting from the victim's estate, including wills, trusts, insurance, and jointly held property, treating them as if they died before the victim to prevent profiting from their crime, though it doesn't apply to accidental killings or involuntary manslaughter.

Key Provisions
  • Prohibition on Inheritance: The killer forfeits any property, interest, or benefit they would have received from the decedent's estate.
  • Broad Application: This rule covers wills, trusts, intestate succession (dying without a will), life insurance, joint tenancy, and even nominations as a fiduciary (executor, trustee).
  • "Slayer" Definition: Applies to those who "feloniously and intentionally" kill, not those who kill accidentally, in self-defense, or by negligent homicide.
 
Kimster said:
No, California has a slayer law. We were talking about it earlier in this thread.

Per AI:
California's
Slayer Law (Probate Code § 250) prevents a person who feloniously and intentionally kills someone from inheriting from the victim's estate, including wills, trusts, insurance, and jointly held property, treating them as if they died before the victim to prevent profiting from their crime, though it doesn't apply to accidental killings or involuntary manslaughter.

Key Provisions
  • Prohibition on Inheritance: The killer forfeits any property, interest, or benefit they would have received from the decedent's estate.
  • Broad Application: This rule covers wills, trusts, intestate succession (dying without a will), life insurance, joint tenancy, and even nominations as a fiduciary (executor, trustee).
  • "Slayer" Definition: Applies to those who "feloniously and intentionally" kill, not those who kill accidentally, in self-defense, or by negligent homicide.
Click to expand...
It would also depend on how the trust has been set up. If the trust had been paying him previously, then that part of the trust could possibly still be in effect. It would be the "after death" part that he might not be entitled to. Many of the rich have their trusts set up to pay dividends to people/charities/entities while they are still alive. There is tax benefit to that. It's how we get "trust fund babies" in many cases where their benefactors are still alive.
 
Cousin Dupree said:
I don't remember where I heard this, but supposedly he didn't have a negative reaction until the police showed him the crime scene photos. When they did that, he began to cry.
Click to expand...
Never heard that but it doesn't impress me. He's on with the cops for one, not out on his own, he's under arrest. Even if it just hit him then, doesn't impress me. Means little.

Would help if you knew where you "heard" it. I've heard no such thing.
 
Tresir said:
He is one of the beneficiaries presumably though. If there are 4 beneficiaries then he is entitled to his share, perhaps administed by a trust.
Click to expand...
They can institute the slayer law thought. The family can even ask a probate or civil judge, etc. to invoke it.

Not to mention, there may be conditions of some kind on his share or some such. We don't know what the will says.
 
Guess Who said:
It would also depend on how the trust has been set up. If the trust had been paying him previously, then that part of the trust could possibly still be in effect. It would be the "after death" part that he might not be entitled to. Many of the rich have their trusts set up to pay dividends to people/charities/entities while they are still alive. There is tax benefit to that. It's how we get "trust fund babies" in many cases where their benefactors are still alive.
Click to expand...
I think it's doubtful and if he has one at all from previously, it isn't much because he was homeless and everything else which probably means there ISN'T one.

Been discussed before, most parents would rather have the control while they are alive, especially over a problem like Nick who wouldn't be able to manage it wisely where it would all go for drugs.
 
Tresir said:
I thought we heard a figure of 22 million for the whole estate didn't we? I just don't see why his defence costs should be funded by the public.
Click to expand...
I don't want him benefiting from those he likely killed. I'd rather he have a public defender.

If it were already his money that would be different of course, if he had his own money made from his own job, etc. Of course he could use it. i agree with such laws as the slayer law. They do still have to have a court impose it. No one should be able to pay for their defense due to money from the people they likely killed. Killing of parents is OFTEN for the money on top of it. It would be like rewarding that.

I imagine if there is a lot of doubt someone did kill the person, maybe a judge would rule against imposing that law but when they are already charged, there is enough evidence to be charged, not that we are at the point yet of having had such a hearing. I think there is a major amount of evidence here and a judge would impose it.

If the parents were alive, he coudln't just use their money for a defense and if it is likely he killed them, he shouldn't be able to do it then either.

That's my opinion anyhow.

And again, we don't even know what the will says. Maybe that's what has changed. Maybe the will just was read to the family...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Forum statistics

Threads
3,247
Messages
294,787
Members
1,088
Latest member
Haley2050
Back
Top Bottom