Those are some interesting tidbits you brought up. It reminded me of my dad‘s estate. He named the four kids in the will but my sister had passed away and he hadn’t changed the Will. Her portion automatically went to her children, not to the other three siblings.
Yes, as you know we've had things too. Not the same scenario exactly but second brother like rest of us inherited from first brother that died who had no children. Second brother died just a few months later and he did have a son. Not a one of us thought his share should be ours, everything he had including my brother's would go to his son. I can't recall if we had all yet, I think one more amount of money was yet to come and if I recall, we split that to include the son even though his dad had not received it yet, first brother died while his dad was still alive. I hope that made sense. All was done correctly but we didn't have to be made to do it correct, no one thought otherwise. BUT now if you take a guy like this relative in this case, he'd have probably said NO, Dave's money from mom shouldn't go to his children it goes to us (the other sibs) but that's not true, she died while Dave was still alive. I don't care if all was distributed or sold yet or not.
So yeah, you're right with your dad not chanigng his will, that would not eliminate your sister, her share would go to her descendants unless of course he specified if anyone should predecease him then do this or that.
I do know the law varies some in different states but I think that kind of thing is pretty much the same in most as to where it goes. It also basically never goes upwards to parents unless there are no children or siblings or spouse and I think only then it may.
Not sure in that one.
It sounds as if in some other post that the ex was handling the money for the kids or putting it wherever and so it would seem Dave's kids got everything including grandma's money as they should I'd hope. Even big IF, but IF grandma's will said if one of her children died before her, it should be split among the remaining (making each share bigger instead of going to their children, going to siblings), it wouldn't apply here because Dave was not dead when she died.
So in closing, if he thought any of it would be his, he'd be sadly mistaken and is not that up on such things or too bright.
It also isn't like he could have taken the checks when he was there and set a fire and killed him (theoretically speaking, speculatively of course) because he'd have to place himself at the scene prior to the fire and then would be a suspect. I guess he could claim Dave gave them to him but that doesn't fly either for two reasons. Again he'd have to admit to meeting/being there and second, Dave would have to endorse them for him to cash them.
So what would be his motive? That's what lacks for me here I guess. Did he stupidly think Dave's share would come to them? It wouldn't be "him" it would be all remaining siblings and split. If he knew it would go to his kids then that does him no good unless he thought he'd be their guardian and control it. That doesn't seem likely. And certainly not a sure bet. Did Dave have a will, that's another question.
It wasn't my intent but like happens sometimes talking things by saying them with the keyboard kind of brings thoughts when I've had no time to really think about the case so now yeah, that takes me to, if he knew better that it would no get him that money then what would be this relative's motive?? Anger?? There are other things in estates, is it possible Dave was given some valuable antique, some coin collection, something else of value? Setting a fire would take away any evidence anything was stolen...
I guess I'm just missing motive, he certainly sounds like a very prime suspect in Dave's to consider otherwise. He'd have to really know little about who inherits if someone dies. Did he even stupidly think Dave's own assets would go to siblings and not his children? And then ya know if he is that dumb, then planning this with including Troy seems unlikely if he isn't that smart but there are different kinds of smarts so not necessarily I guess.
Now I'm just kind of talking it out to myself I guess to see what comes.
Here's the thing I guess. LE could eliminate him or could have easily OR make him a very viable suspect. He lives in another state right and nowhere close or did at the time? Either he could have been there or he couldn't have been. If they looked into him at all early on, there has to be proof one way or the other. We just don't know what they do...
What does STAND out to me is Dave himself told
@Red Clover about this relative wanting his share of the money and predicted the relative would show up there and expected it. That is HUGE to me. Now the way the relative contacted the mother of the other victim AND inserted himself in the case and was NASTY to her and more. I can't ignore a bit of that, it is big reason pointing a HUGE BLINKING RED ARROW HIS way. So in talking through it I come to this now... There is real reason here in Dave's at least to look at him. He well could have though contacted the mom in the other case trying to point to any other perp but himself or a connection knowing he didn't know the other victim so can't be tied, etc....
I won't probably keep up with that either but would it pay to have a group message sharing more about this guy? Pretty sure I know the relationship but haven't had time to look close at obit, names, look up myself, etc.
If there is reason not to name him here or the relationship then maybe we can in messaging? Just a thought.
️
It's actually really good to know I'm not the only one that had a less than awesome experience over there. 
