Richard Humble died in a house fire in his home on April 9, 2011. He died leaving a will dated March 31, 2011. In this will, he left half of his estate to his sister, and half of his estate to a new friend, C who had provided him with some help while he recuperated from knee surgery. (Richard was not married and had no children. He was survived by his sister, who lived overseas.)
The story seems to be a simple one. However, the full story is a shocking one.
After investigation, C was charged with Richard’s murder. C, aged 50, was found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder on March 5, 2015, after a lengthy trial and was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for 25 years (some reports say 15 years). The conviction was recently upheld on appeal.
As summarized by the Court of Appeal, “strong circumstantial evidence” suggested that the appellant, C, set the fire to intentionally kill Richard.
Other evidence at trial addressed motive. Shortly before Richard’s death, C took control of Richard’s financial affairs. She did so by obtaining Powers of Attorney. However, there was expert evidence that the Powers of Attorney were forged. Witnesses to the Powers of Attorney testified that they did not witness Richard signing the Powers of Attorney, but that they signed as witnesses after Richard’s death.
Shortly before Richard’s death, C also forged cheques payable to herself and her son totalling $65,000.
Even more troubling was the March 31, 2011 will. C’s computer was seized and searched. It showed Google searches on how to prepare a will. It also contained draft will files dated after the death of Richard. A document examiner was of the opinion that Richard did not sign the will, but that the signature was “cut and pasted”. A search of C’s home revealed several “signed” copies of the will. Computer records showed that C printed the signing page of the will 31 times on the day before the fire. Witnesses to the will gave evidence that they did not sign the will in Richard’s presence, and that C offered them $10,000 to witness the will after Richard had died.
At trial, the Crown introduced evidence that C had used the “cut and paste” technique before. She created lawyer letters indicating that she was successful in a lawsuit and was about to collect money. She created these to delay demands from C’s brother and sister-in-law who had lent C money for the lawsuit and wanted repayment. (The Court of Appeal ultimately found that this evidence was inadmissible. However, the Court of Appeal found that no miscarriage of justice resulted.)
The Court of Appeal also noted the trial evidence that Richard had a sedative in his system at the time of his death. Richard did not have a prescription for this sedative. However, C did. She had obtained two prescriptions for this sedative from two different doctors in the days before the fire. The search of C’s computer showed searches for the drug just before Richard’s death.
To make matters stranger, C gave alibi evidence that did not turn out to be true. At trial, her lawyer argued that she did this in order to have the police believe that she had an alibi, even though she had nothing to do with the fire.
Under the heading “Other Suspicious Circumstances”, the evidence showed that (a) Richard’s home was inspected on March 29, 2011 and the electrician noted that there were batteries in
the smoke detector. When the fire occurred on April 11, there were no batteries in the smoke detector; and (b) Money, the will (allegedly), tax documents and other documents were taken from the house before the fire and were found in C’s possession. For more details on this tragic case, see the Court of Appeal decision, or a Canadian True Crime podcast.
Thanks for reading.