The Broken Trust | A Deadly Family Betrayal | Fatal Fraud | Forensic Files

[audio logo] NARRATOR:<i> Every fraud</i> <i> begins with a promise.</i> VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: She paid for their weddings.
She paid for various trips. She wanted to look after them as best as she could. NARRATOR:<i> A quick</i> <i> fortune, easy money, or</i>
<i> a life transformed overnight.</i> PETER JOYCE: She would have left a reasonable estate behind.
It had been a sizeable sum of money. NARRATOR:<i> But behind</i> <i> these illusions</i>
<i> lie calculated</i> <i> deceptions, carefully</i> <i> hidden in plain sight.</i>
POPPY EVERTON: It's not uncommon for us to see economic abuse mixed with psychological abuse
or coercive control. FIONA HOTSTON MOORE: It's relatively easy with online banking for someone
to help or coerce someone into transferring money out of their investments into another bank account.
NARRATOR:<i> Sometimes</i> <i> these criminals</i> <i> are backed into a corner</i> <i> and feel their only way out</i>
<i> is to kill.</i> SHEILA ANDERSON: It just feel very, very sad that somebody would want money so desperately that you'd
have to end somebody's life. [exhilarating music] - My name is Emma Wilson, and I'm a fire scientist.
I investigate fires, usually on behalf of the police. Usually the primary investigator.
So I attend a fire scene when I'm invited to, to work out where it started, how it started,
and, if possible, to help with who might have started it, if there is a who. NARRATOR:<i> In the early</i> <i> hours of December 15, 2021,</i>
<i> a fire was reported</i> <i> in the suburbs</i> <i> of Newark, Nottinghamshire.</i>
EMMA WILSON: I first got involved in this case when I was contacted by Nottinghamshire police.
I was told that it was a domestic fire, that there had been a fatality. The victim's name was Elizabeth Vamplew.
I was told that it had been investigated by a team initially, but their findings were inconclusive
and that they needed a second opinion in order to be able to confirm the route that the investigation
should go. NARRATOR:<i> Elizabeth Vamplew</i> <i> was a 77-year-old mother and</i>
<i> grandmother,</i> <i> and a familiar face</i> <i> amongst the tight</i> <i> knit community</i>
<i> of her quiet cul-de-sac.</i> - I'm Sheila Anderson. I was born and bred in Newark, and
I came down here to live in a bungalow because of my disability. Elizabeth was a very, very lovely woman.
When I opened the paper and I saw that, I was really shocked. I couldn't believe it.
It was just something that you don't hear of all the time and knew it like that.
- My name is Poppy Everton. I work for Hourglass Safe Aging. Elizabeth was a really warm and caring person,
somebody that was always going out of her way to support and help the people around her and her loved ones.
She was a devoted mother and grandmother, really enjoyed spending time with her grandkids.
That was when she was at her happiest. She ultimately loved Christmas, and her family often talk about how that time of year
brought her such joy. Very, very well liked amongst family, friends, and the community as a whole.
NARRATOR:<i> Elizabeth was most</i> <i> happy tending her small but</i> <i> well-kept garden</i> <i> and spoiling her three</i>
<i> beloved grandchildren.</i> - We also know that Elizabeth would help with money or gifts
for her family, whether that be at birthdays, Christmases. And just making sure that they felt supported by her.
- My name is Dr. Vicky Thakordas-Desai, and I am a consultant forensic psychologist.
Elizabeth seemed to be a doting and caring mother. She clearly loved her children.
She wanted the best for them. She had supported them financially. She paid for their weddings, she paid for various trips
for them, and it just seemed that she wanted to look after them as best as she could.
NARRATOR:<i> Elizabeth</i> <i> suffered from limited</i> <i> mobility and required visits</i> <i> from nurses twice a day.</i>
- My name is Peter Joyce, King's Counsel, and I was the lead prosecutor in the case.
Elizabeth was very disabled, her breathing was poor, her mobility was very poor.
She had to go around in a wheelchair. She was put to bed. She was got up. She was basically looked after.
She was all but bedbound, but not quite. NARRATOR:<i> One</i> <i> of Elizabeth's nurses</i>
<i> was her daughter-in-law,</i> <i> Karen Vamplew.</i> SHEILA ANDERSON: Well, actually, I bumped into Karen
a time or two, and I've spoken to her and we've just said hello, and she just seemed an ordinary person like myself.
POPPY EVERTON: Karen was an informal carer for Elizabeth, so although Elizabeth had paid carers coming in,
Karen was helping her with particular things that she may have needed support with.
VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: By Karen regularly checking in on Elizabeth and being present for her,
it seems that Elizabeth would have felt a sense of trust and safety around Karen.
Here was somebody who was looking after her, who wanted to ensure her well-being.
NARRATOR:<i> Karen Vamplew</i> <i> was a 41-year-old</i> <i> mother of four who was known</i> <i> to have financial difficulties.</i>
PETER JOYCE: Karen Vamplew was married to Elizabeth Vamplew son. Karen had trouble making ends meet.
There's no question about that. VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: Chronic financial stress can be very debilitating for an individual.
So the level of pressure that she would have been under to pay off her debts, to support her family would have been immense.
NARRATOR:<i> At 1:25 AM</i> <i> on December 15, 2021,</i> <i> Karen Vamplew called</i> <i> emergency services to report</i>
<i> a fire at Elizabeth's home.</i> - The version of events given by Karen was that she had woken up in the early hours of the morning.
Had become nervous around her mother-in-law and wanted to check on her. She drove to the property, said that when she got there,
she had realized she'd forgotten her keys and couldn't remember the number for the key safe.
- She said she'd gone there to look because she had not had a call from Elizabeth.
EMMA WILSON: So she tried to raise her mother-in-law by knocking on the door and the windows
and could not get any attention. But she also doesn't describe seeing, hearing, or smelling
anything else at that time. My understanding is that she was initially present for a significant period of time
when she couldn't find her keys and couldn't access the key lock according to her.
She then says that she goes back home to retrieve her key, but that she'd only left the area for around 10 minutes
and then returned. And when she returns, she opens the front door to Elizabeth's bungalow and immediately sees smoke.
PETER JOYCE: She said that she'd found the fire light. She said that she'd gone in and pressed an alarm button.
EMMA WILSON: Then Karen immediately contacts the fire service. NARRATOR:<i> Fire</i> <i> services took just</i>
<i> five minutes to respond,</i> <i> arriving at Elizabeth's home</i> <i> at 1:30 AM.</i>
EMMA WILSON: When the fire service arrived, Karen has then explained to the fire crews
and to the fire investigator that her mother-in-law was a heavy smoker and had a habit of smoking in bed.
NARRATOR:<i> When firemen</i> <i> entered the blazing property,</i> <i> they encountered</i> <i> intense heat and</i>
<i> smoke 2 feet from the floor.</i> <i> They found Elizabeth crouched</i> <i> at the foot of her bed.</i>
PETER JOYCE: Elizabeth had to be rescued by two very brave firemen who got her out alive, despite the fact she was grievously injured.
She was saying something about cigarettes to the nurse at the hospital. NARRATOR:<i> Elizabeth</i> <i> was suffering</i>
<i> from burns to 80% of her</i> <i> body and from the effects</i> <i> of smoke inhalation.</i>
- Elizabeth was recovered outside by the firefighters and that she was later taken to hospital and died there.
- All over the television, Facebook, social media and in the Newark advertiser. And it was in the Newark advertiser
that I read all about it properly. I feel very, very sad that the lady had to die.
NARRATOR:<i> On December 15, 2021,</i> <i> 77-year-old Elizabeth Vamplew</i> <i> died after being rescued</i> <i> from her burning home,</i>
<i> and police immediately</i> <i> launched an investigation.</i> EMMA WILSON: When I was first told
that there had been a fatality, I was told that she was an elderly lady who lived in an address on her own, that she had carers
come to help her on a daily basis in the morning and in the evening. And that she was largely bedbound and needed
help to move around. I was also told that she had a son and a daughter-in-law who
were part of her family group, and that her daughter-in-law was part of her care group at times
as well. NARRATOR:<i> In the initial</i> <i> stages of the investigation,</i> <i> police had little evidence</i> <i> to suggest the fire</i>
<i> was not caused</i> <i> by Elizabeth dropping</i> <i> a cigarette in her bedroom.</i>
EMMA WILSON: The information that Karen Vamplew gave to the fire investigation team at that initial stage was
that Elizabeth was a very heavy smoker and tended to smoke in bed. However, information from the carers
was that she did not smoke in her bed. She smoked once in the morning and once in the evening.
PETER JOYCE: Elizabeth was quite canny in some ways because she pretended she didn't smoke, but did
and hid the cigarette end in the kitchen or smoked outside the door. But she was also very careful about smoking
because whenever she finished her cigarette, she would put it out under a tap and hide it away to get rid of it.
EMMA WILSON: The information about smoking in her bed was only ever received from Karen.
So that was the route that the initial investigation team followed, that she was a heavy smoker.
Their conclusion was that the fire was most likely the cause of a dropped lit cigarette in the bed.
NARRATOR:<i> As part</i> <i> of the initial investigation,</i> <i> both Elizabeth's son</i> <i> and daughter-in-law, Karen,</i>
<i> were questioned by police.</i> - He was very angry that-- that had happened to him.
Quite clearly been at home on the night of his mother's death. There was nothing to do with him.
NARRATOR:<i> Police</i> <i> were particularly</i> <i> interested in questioning</i> <i> Karen about her movements</i>
<i> on the night Elizabeth died.</i> PETER JOYCE: She said she'd gone there to look because she had not had a call from Elizabeth.
Her account was she found the fire and had gone round by chance that night. That was the basic story.
There was CCTV evidence of her leaving her home. There was evidence of her car arriving and being parked quite
near to Elizabeth's home. There was CCTV evidence of her running away from the first visit back to her car,
not walking-- running. There was CCTV evidence of her getting home, carrying what looked like a towel.
There was more CCTV evidence of her coming out of her house, again, about two minutes later, having changed,
and going back, purporting then to find the house on fire. NARRATOR:<i> Police</i> <i> also discovered</i>
<i> Karen contacted</i> <i> the home insurance</i> <i> company the very day that</i> <i> Elizabeth had died in the fire.</i>
VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: Karen contacted the insurers on the same day her mother-in-law dies.
And it really just shows how insensitive she was to the situation. But equally, it raised suspicions.
NARRATOR:<i> In early</i> <i> 2022, police decided</i> <i> to take a more</i> <i> detailed look into</i>
<i> Karen Vamplew's background.</i> EMMA WILSON: I was given very little detail about the background of the case.
It helps me to remain unbiased since my initial examination of the information. My understanding is that there was some fraud aspect to it
involving financial gain of Karen taking money from Elizabeth. - Karen was hard up, no question.
Karen Vamplew's main interest in life, it seemed to me, was actually money for Karen.
Karen needed Elizabeth's money to make ends meet to maintain her lifestyle with her husband and kids.
NARRATOR:<i> Despite having no</i> <i> previous criminal record,</i> <i> police discovered</i> <i> that Karen had</i>
<i> been accused of financial</i> <i> misdealings in the past.</i> PETER JOYCE: She had a previous relationship, which
had ended when it was suggested that she'd taken money, and she then dumped that particular friend or male
friend when that came out. She wasn't charged with anything about that, but she was investigated about it.
NARRATOR:<i> Police</i> <i> also discovered</i> <i> that in the weeks</i> <i> leading up to her death,</i>
<i> Karen made a number</i> <i> of cash withdrawals</i> <i> from Elizabeth's account.</i>
- I looked at all the banking evidence. I looked at the evidence of Elizabeth's expenses,
which we saw down the years, some of the material that she'd given to Karen or money she'd given to Karen
were legitimate, but very few. - My name is Fiona Hotston Moore, and I'm a forensic accountant and expert witness.
Typically when we're looking at someone like Elizabeth and they're a bit older and perhaps spending a lot of time
at home, we expect to see fairly modest expenditure. We would see small amounts for looking after themselves,
maybe the odd gift to the family members and then regular payments to their carers.
So it's a very consistent pattern. POPPY EVERTON: When Karen was interviewed by police
several times, at a certain point, it was disclosed that some of the bills for Karen and her husband were actually in Elizabeth's name.
And the reason that was given for this was that ultimately, the company was potentially
going to cut Karen and her partner off due to the debts potentially that had accrued already.
And so they had put this in Elizabeth's name. Karen did mention that Elizabeth was aware of this.
- If I was looking at the records and I noticed that someone was paying someone else's bills,
then that could potentially be a red flag. Why would they be paying them? It could be out of the kindness of their heart,
but it could suggest that actually, they weren't aware they were paying someone else's bills
or there was a level of coercion going on. NARRATOR:<i> When police examined</i> <i> Elizabeth's bank statements,</i>
<i> the number of unusual</i> <i> cash withdrawals</i> <i> led investigators to suspect</i> <i> that Elizabeth had been</i>
<i> the victim of economic abuse.</i> - I think older people, the most common form of abuse
is economic abuse. It's often for some form of financial gain, so it's not uncommon for us to see
economic abuse mixed with psychological abuse or coercive control. PETER JOYCE: Karen was one of Elizabeth's carers.
Karen played on that to have access to Elizabeth's finances. POPPY EVERTON: Often, the power dynamic,
when there are care and support needs for the victims, can be worrying when that person who's
delivering that care and support is ultimately somebody who has their own gain in mind, and
somebody who needs that level of care and support, is going to be very dependent on that person
to provide that for them. And unfortunately, that puts them in the perfect position
to exploit that power. VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: Karen was in a trusted position. She was supporting Elizabeth, and
it is possible that because she was helping her in her day to day activities, that she felt
entitled to something from Elizabeth and entitled to that money. POPPY EVERTON: Karen admitted in a police interview
that she felt that Elizabeth was quite well off, money wise in her opinion. And ultimately, Elizabeth was in a position
where she owned the bungalow that she lived in. She was able to pay independently
for carers, for a cleaner, for a gardener and to Karen, who was in significant financial
dire straits. Ultimately, this would have potentially been an area of real resentment.
NARRATOR:<i> Police discovered</i> <i> around April 2021,</i> <i> Elizabeth had approximately</i> <i> 27,000 pounds in her bank</i>
<i> account, but the balance began</i> <i> to dwindle soon after Karen</i> <i> became Elizabeth's nurse.</i>
- It's relatively easy with online banking for someone to help or coerce someone into transferring money out
of their investments into another bank account, and it's potentially difficult to trace that
happening until it's happened. PETER JOYCE: It shows a gradual denuding of the account of Elizabeth's money and going down
and down and down. And you could see transactions happening, which were clearly for Karen's benefit.
Karen was doing much of her shopping and things on Elizabeth's account. She had access to the card.
We could see where the money had been spent, and then you could see how the account had been basically
reduced over the months from the moment Karen became a carer with the card. VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: It is possible
that Karen started to rationalize in own mind that she was entitled to some of this money.
She was caring for Elizabeth. She was checking in on her. She was doing her day-to-day errands.
So Karen may have felt a sense of entitlement to those funds. POPPY EVERTON: Hourglass did a piece of research
a few years ago, and one in four people that were spoken to did not think that taking money from an older relatives
bank account or precious items from their home counted as abuse. And this is unfortunately a--
a societal issue as a whole. This notion of entitlement that if you provide care and support for somebody,
you are entitled to money. You're entitled to belongings. It's just not true. You provide care and support for somebody in your family
because you want to provide care and support for them that doesn't come with strings attached,
or it shouldn't come with strings attached. But ultimately, people do feel entitled to some form
of gain from that. And that's where these situations in domestic abuse can really escalate and the risk can really escalate.
FIONA HOTSTON MOORE: In cases such as Elizabeth, we would also look at their wider financial investments.
So we'd be looking at any ISAs and savings and so on that they've got and seeing whether those ISAs and
savings were still there, or was there evidence that actually those had been drawn from as well.
NARRATOR:<i> Police also</i> <i> discovered that in the days</i> <i> leading up to her death,</i> <i> 10,000 pounds was withdrawn</i>
<i> from Elizabeth's</i> <i> individual savings account,</i> <i> known as an ISA.</i>
POPPY EVERTON: This essentially goes to show the access that Karen does have, not
only to Elizabeth's account, but we have to think about how she may have coerced that
from Elizabeth and what the conversations may have been to lead to that, whether it's emotional manipulation,
whether it's coercive control and the level of threat there. There are lots and lots of ways that people
can use to essentially manipulate and exploit older people for financial gain. VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: Karen was in a position of trust.
Elizabeth had trusted her with access to her accounts. And over time, Karen took advantage of that trust
and drained Elizabeth's account of her savings. This tells me that Karen had really started to see Elizabeth
as a means to an end. Elizabeth was a financial source for her. It seems that Karen had stopped seeing Elizabeth as a--
as a human being, and she was reduced to an object that could satisfy her own needs and desires.
NARRATOR:<i> During</i> <i> their investigation</i> <i> into Elizabeth</i> <i> Vamplew's death, police</i>
<i> discovered that the day before</i> <i> Elizabeth died in the house</i> <i> fire, Karen Vamplew accompanied</i> <i> her mother-in-law to the bank.</i>
PETER JOYCE: The bank was saying, before we authorize funds, any more payments on the card,
we want to see the older Mrs. Vamplew. In other words, Elizabeth to see whether or not she
was being taken advantage of by the user of the card. Elizabeth was bedbound, and Karen did something with regard
to the phone that stopped the bank getting in touch directly with Elizabeth, like turning off the answering
machine, something like that. But she prevented the bank getting directly to Elizabeth while she Karen, was milking the account.
NARRATOR:<i> When the bank were</i> <i> unable to speak with Elizabeth</i> <i> on the phone, the bank limited</i> <i> Elizabeth's spending to just</i>
<i> 5 pounds per transaction.</i> - And that's when the bank put a stop on the card.
And effectively, that's when the goose stopped laid the golden egg. It's also the time, I think, when Elizabeth first
became really aware as to just how extensive Karen's raiding of her account had been.
POPPY EVERTON: On the 14th of December 2021, Karen accompanied Elizabeth to the bank.
And this is something that we may see in situations where that perpetrator will attend appointments,
whether at a bank, a GP surgery with social care with that victim, because ultimately, what this does
is if that victim is concerned that something's going on or something untoward maybe happening,
particularly with their finances, because Karen went with Elizabeth. It leaves very little room for any disclosures
to be made to bank staff or to any other professionals that we see in these situations as well.
PETER JOYCE: And it's almost certain that that was the first time that Elizabeth really
understood just how Karen had been milking Elizabeth's account, because there was
virtually nothing left in it. It was very, very depleted by her daughter-in-law.
For the first time, Elizabeth knew just what had been happening to her money. NARRATOR:<i> After</i> <i> examining bank records,</i>
<i> police discovered that</i> <i> in just eight months,</i> <i> Elizabeth's account</i> <i> balance dropped</i>
<i> from 27,000 to 105 pounds.</i> POPPY EVERTON: It's very likely that during that trip
to the bank, Elizabeth realized how much money had been taken out of her account.
The vast differences with what should be in there to her knowledge and what was actually in the account,
and it may be at that point, she has become aware that she has been exploited by her daughter-in-law, Karen.
And ultimately, in that moment, you have to consider the horror, the betrayal, the concerns
about money worries, because not only has this been done by somebody in a position of trust and somebody
within the family, so that betrayal is going to be very much overwhelming. NARRATOR:<i> The trip</i> <i> to the bank was</i>
<i> less than 24 hours</i> <i> before the fire that</i> <i> would take Elizabeth's life.</i>
- There was not really much time for Elizabeth to react. And if she was made aware during that trip to the bank
the financial economic abuse that was happening from her daughter-in-law, it is quite suspicious that the incident
happened the following day. And similarly, something that we see as a charity when there are grandchildren in a situation, an older person
may not choose to report to the police because ultimately, they do not want to criminalize the parents
of their grandchildren. PETER JOYCE: The day after the visit to the bank, two things
happened, I think. Elizabeth found out what had been happening. And the day after, the money had ceased for Karen.
Elizabeth had ceased to be of use to Karen. She was only a burden now in terms of having to care for her.
And so she killed her. NARRATOR:<i> With police now</i> <i> believing that Elizabeth</i>
<i> was the victim of economic</i> <i> abuse before she died,</i> <i> fire expert Emma</i> <i> Wilson was brought</i>
<i> in to determine exactly where</i> <i> and how the fire was started.</i> - The damage at the bungalow was relatively limited.
It was primarily restricted to the bedroom that Elizabeth used. There was some damage that had come out
into the hallway of the bungalow, and some smoke damage had spread to some of the rooms
where doors had been opened. However, information from the carers was that she did not smoke in her bed.
PETER JOYCE: Elizabeth didn't take cigarettes into her bedroom. She normally smoked at the kitchen door
so the smell would not invade the house. She didn't want the smell in the house, which
was another feature why you wouldn't have her smoking in her bedroom. And she always took great care to get rid of the evidence
of having smoked. NARRATOR:<i> Emma was also</i> <i> skeptical of Karen Vamplew's</i>
<i> account that she hadn't noticed</i> <i> the fire when she first arrived</i> <i> at her mother-in-law's home.</i>
- So Karen's story didn't make sense, because if she had been outside that front door of the bungalow
10 minutes prior to her entering it and alerting the fire service to a large flaming fire,
I would have expected her to have heard the smoke detector, smelled smoke, or seen smoke as she looked
through the letter slot. And therefore to have alerted the fire service at that point
of a fire within the property. As a fire scientist, my issue with that is there is a difference in the way
that flaming fires and smoldering fires burn. Smoldering fires develop with large amounts
of smoke but no flames. They can take a minimum of 10 minutes on the right materials,
but more likely 20, 30 minutes or several hours to develop into a flaming fire. Whereas a flaming fire or a fire
started by a lighter, or a match, that continues as a flaming fire for its entire duration and only
takes minutes to really take hold. So there is a big difference in the timing factors of those different types of fires.
NARRATOR:<i> Emma Wilson</i> <i> and the forensic team</i> <i> examined photographic</i> <i> evidence from the fire</i>
<i> to determine if she believed</i> <i> the fire had been started</i> <i> by Elizabeth smoking in bed.</i>
EMMA WILSON: The only evidence of smoking materials that I saw in the images was in the kitchen.
PETER JOYCE: They went into great detail as to where the fire had started. I mean, they looked in the kitchen for things
like cigarettes and the ashtray. - I did ask the initial investigation team if they found anything amongst the debris.
The reason I asked that is because when something like a lighter is burnt in a fire,
it doesn't look like a lighter anymore. All you have are the metallic parts. So you have the lighter shroud, you have the flint wheel,
but you don't have the plastic bodies. I asked the initial investigation team if they'd found anything like that,
and they said they had not. NARRATOR:<i> The forensic</i> <i> team decided</i> <i> to carry out a series</i> <i> of tests to replicate</i>
<i> the start of the fire using</i> <i> samples of Elizabeth's bedding.</i> EMMA WILSON: As part of their investigation,
they did carry out some laboratory-based burning tests. These were small scale tests based
on fragments of the bedding and the mattress recovered from the scene. The tests that were done, however, were inconclusive.
This is likely because there'd been a fire-- firefighters had extinguished the fire with quite a lot of water,
so the materials that they used were no longer in their primary state. So they were wet, and they'd probably
suffered from being packaged in plastic packaging for a while afterwards as well.
The conclusion that they reached was that with those materials, it did not cause a fire.
But given that they had been altered by the addition of firefighting water that they couldn't be sure that under other conditions,
such as the materials being dry, that it could not have caused a fire. NARRATOR:<i> Emma Wilson</i> <i> decided to carry</i>
<i> out more elaborate</i> <i> tests to determine</i> <i> the cause of the fire.</i>
EMMA WILSON: I made two recommendations. One, recommendation was to carry out a new series of burning tests to use dry materials that
were the same or as similar as possible to those that Elizabeth had in her property.
And that meant getting the same type of mattress, getting bedding of the same type,
and also washing it and making sure that it had some wear to it so that it wasn't brand new.
And then setting up a burning test so that we could see whether or not on these dry materials that were as close as
possible to the ones Elizabeth had, whether or not we could start a fire using a cigarette.
PETER JOYCE: They did all sorts of tests. They did do tests with a fire expert. They did it in a shipping container
with identical mattress, identical things. They needed to prove that Elizabeth hadn't
set fire to the bed herself. EMMA WILSON: We set up a mattress with the bedding.
We carried out several tests using cigarettes, all of the same brand that Elizabeth smoked.
We would light them and we would put them in different positions within the bedding.
That included partial covering with the duvet, that included putting it on the pillow
and on the mattress with the sheet on it itself. So we did several tests and none of them
initiated even a smoldering fire. The final test that we carried out involved applying a flame to the corner of the bed,
and that initiated a fire immediately. The fire that we lit caused fire damage in a very similar pattern to what could be
seen in Elizabeth's bedroom. It was my opinion in my review process that this was not an accidental death at that stage.
So it means that somebody set the fire rather than it being a dropped lit cigarette.
I think it was at this point that the investigation team were confident that they could
say that this fire was caused by a person applying a flame to the bedding. PETER JOYCE: They completely disproved any idea
that a cigarette, a lit cigarette could have caused the fire to Elizabeth's bed.
And they proved that the only way the fire could have been started was by a live flame ignition.
NARRATOR: <i> On September 27, 2023,</i> <i> Karen Vamplew is</i> <i> rearrested and charged</i>
<i> with the murder of her</i> <i> mother-in-law, Elizabeth.</i> PETER JOYCE: Having spoken to two CPS lawyers, I think,
it was quite apparent, having spoken to them that they'd come to the conclusion she
should-- she should be prosecuted. I'm bound to say, my reaction was exactly the same.
She must be. And the fact that Elizabeth was bedbound at the top of the bed and the fire started at the foot of the bed, clearly
meant that someone else had lit it. The case was with a lighter. The report proved that it was caused by naked flame.
Now, that would not have been, and could not have been at the foot of the bed done by Elizabeth.
So there's one obvious person-- Karen. NARRATOR:<i> In April</i> <i> 2024, Karen Vamplew</i>
<i> stood trial</i> <i> at Leicester Crown Court</i> <i> for the murder</i> <i> of her mother-in-law,</i>
<i> Elizabeth Vamplew.</i> PETER JOYCE: It was emotion. The emotion in the dock was the defendant
looking at photographs of her children throughout. The emotion in the public gallery was her husband.
VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: Karen would have known that by killing Elizabeth, that was going
to bring a tremendous amount of grief and loss to her husband and the family. Yet, it seems that she justified her actions
by convincing herself that the ends justified the means that her husband was going to inherit the money,
that Elizabeth was old and frail and that removing that pain for her. It is possible that she justified all of those things.
NARRATOR:<i> Despite</i> <i> pleading not guilty,</i> <i> Karen Vamplew did not</i> <i> give evidence in court.</i>
PETER JOYCE: But she didn't come out of the dark. She didn't give evidence. She didn't risk giving evidence and risk being cross-examined
about the overwhelming case that in the end, we had against her because there was no satisfactory answer she could give.
She couldn't possibly have answered the questions I was going to have for her, so she didn't come out.
VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: Despite the evidence against her, Karen protested her innocence.
And that can be for a number of reasons. It's a method of self-protection and self-survival.
Again, Karen may also have had the dawning of realization that she's killed a family member,
she's killed a mother-in-law. And the significant impact that that's going to have on her family.
NARRATOR:<i> After</i> <i> a 21-month investigation,</i> <i> the prosecution argued</i> <i> money was Karen's motive</i>
<i> for killing Elizabeth.</i> PETER JOYCE: We could prove that Karen had been taking money from Elizabeth.
What I was really interested in proving was that she'd killed her. If you're prosecuting a case, you
don't actually need a motive, so long as you can prove the killing. I was proving the killing because that's
what she was charged with. She wasn't charged with fraud. That was the motive for the killing.
NARRATOR:<i> During the trial,</i> <i> Elizabeth's financial records</i> <i> were shown to the jury</i> <i> to illustrate</i>
<i> the depth of the financial</i> <i> abuse she suffered in the weeks</i> <i> before her death.</i>
FIONA HOTSTON MOORE: In cases like Elizabeth's case, we would be attaining the banking records of the victim
over a number of years. And we would be analyzing them to see what was their typical areas that they spent money
on to try and get a feel for how much they typically spent in a year and in which areas
they spent it. And then we would be looking for changes in those trends of expenditure.
So are there now larger amounts, perhaps being withdrawn from the bank or cash transactions,
and who is making those withdrawals, if we can actually tell, and what might be the reason for those?
So those would be the telltale red flags. NARRATOR:<i> During</i> <i> the trial, the prosecution</i>
<i> also highlighted the number</i> <i> of inconsistencies</i> <i> in Karen's version</i> <i> of what happened</i>
<i> the night Elizabeth died.</i> PETER JOYCE: She told friends different things.
She told husband different things. She told family different things. She had been lying to all these people about what had happened.
The order of events had gone where when she'd found the fire, and so on. She'd just been lying to her friends and family throughout,
and they basically felt betrayed. VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: Karen had spun a web of lies.
Her stories were inconsistent, her accounts were discrepant, and investigators would have picked up on that
and used that to their advantage. NARRATOR:<i> The prosecution</i> <i> argued that once she had</i>
<i> drained Elizabeth's</i> <i> account of all her funds,</i> <i> Karen set fire to Elizabeth's</i> <i> home because she believed her</i>
<i> husband would</i> <i> inherit half of her</i> <i> mother in law's</i> <i> estate, thought to be</i>
<i> worth around 150,000 pounds.</i> PETER JOYCE: I think she probably hoped that her husband would get a part of his mother's
will, and she Karen would benefit from it because she would have left a reasonable estate
behind as well. Well, it would mean a sizeable sum of money for Karen's husband and Karen's sister-in-law,
which no doubt Karen would have hoped to have benefited from. VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: Karen had rationalized in her mind
that she needed the money, and that someday her husband was going to inherit that money.
She needed the money there and then, so she-- there is evidence of her using identity fraud
and taking money from Elizabeth's account to fund her own lifestyle. Her actions became desensitized,
and she started to morally justify in her own mind why taking money from Elizabeth at this stage in her life
was appropriate and valid. So she justified it, she rationalized it in her own mind
and therefore, very quickly had accepted a conclusion that ending Elizabeth's life
was one of the options. PETER JOYCE: I think the real motive was, in fact, getting rid of the burden of having to care for someone when
you really didn't want to. NARRATOR:<i> A key piece</i> <i> of evidence for the prosecution</i>
<i> was the testimony of fire</i> <i> expert, Emma Wilson.</i> EMMA WILSON: As an expert witness arriving at court,
knowing that your testimony is going to be a large part of the case, it's going to be a big part of the jury's considerations,
and it's going to help them make their decision on innocence and guilt. For me, knowing that that's the reason
I'm appearing in court, there's a nervousness to it. NARRATOR:<i> Emma's testimony</i> <i> was vital to prove</i>
<i> that the fire could</i> <i> not have been started</i> <i> by Elizabeth smoking in bed.</i>
PETER JOYCE: Elizabeth never, on the evidence, smoked in her room. Secondly, she always smoked in the kitchen or by the door--
the open door. She didn't like people to smell the fact she'd been smoking. She didn't like people to see that she'd been smoking, which
was why she'd put the cigarette out under the tap rather than leaving a sort of smelly ember.
Basically, she hid the fact that she'd been smoking from the carers coming from her sister.
They all knew she smoked, but she was the pretense that she didn't. But she didn't take cigarettes into her bedroom.
EMMA WILSON: Considering the physical evidence that we have, it's my view that it's more likely that Karen
entered Elizabeth's bungalow, went to her bedroom, ignited a fire on the bed whilst Elizabeth was in it,
and then left the property and closed the door after her. She then went home, got changed,
and it is likely that she had some sort of injury or wound or burn on her arm, and that's why she had a tail
covering it when she returned. That when she returned, she did enter a property that was filled with smoke and had
a fairly sizable fire within it and pressed the care line. It is likely that Elizabeth became aware of the fire
because she wasn't found in her bed. She was found by the firefighters at the base of the bed on the floor.
So she had made some attempt to escape. NARRATOR: <i> The prosecution argued</i>
<i> that Karen's movement</i> <i> on the night of the fire</i> <i> clearly showed this was a crime</i> <i> of planning and premeditation.</i>
- She went around to Elizabeth's house when Elizabeth was in bed, having been tucked up for the night by the carers at about 6 o'clock.
And she went round and set fire to the bed whilst Elizabeth was in it. Eventually, when she went back for the second time,
pretending to find the fire that she'd lit, poor Elizabeth had managed, however,
disabled to get out of bed and was lying on the floor at the foot of the bed. And that's where she was rescued by the firemen.
VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: The event shows a level of planning and premeditation, although there's clearly evidence of a lack
of sophistication within that. Karen had access to the home and started the fire in the home.
So for Karen, she was intent upon doing this. She planned it. It was now or never.
She had to take the opportunity and that's what she did-- starting the fire, burning the house
down with Elizabeth in it. NARRATOR:<i> On May 17, 2024, the</i> <i> jury delivered their verdict.</i>
PETER JOYCE: She was convicted of murder unanimously by the jury. No question of a majority verdict.
EMMA WILSON: Hearing the verdict, it is almost like a sense of completion because to me and the evidence that I had,
that is what I would have expected the jury to get from that. PETER JOYCE: She had to be given
life in prison, because that's the only sentence for murder. And in this case, it was 32 years.
NARRATOR:<i> Despite</i> <i> the successful conviction,</i> <i> the verdict provided</i> <i> mixed emotions</i>
<i> for Elizabeth's family.</i> PETER JOYCE: I went to see the family and friends.
It was then that it became-- I became aware just how crossed the husband was. Her husband was very angry, not at the verdict.
He was very angry that the initial police investigation had wrongly arrested him, because he
was nothing to do with the killing of his mother. He was livid that he had been arrested
in the first investigation and understandably. VICKY THAKORDAS-DESAI: There are no winners in this--
the tragedy of losing a mother in the way that she was lost, a grandmother in the way that she was lost,
but equally a wife and a mother who would have been detained and is detained for a very long time.
The psychological shadow and effects of that would-- would be immense. POPPY EVERTON: It's very hard to imagine
how Elizabeth's family would have been affected by this situation. I think it's very difficult to think about them having
to pick up the pieces of not only losing someone that was very dear to them and a huge part of their family,
but also who the perpetrator was and what the motivations were is going to be really, really hard to come to terms
with as a family member. It is almost a double betrayal. You've lost somebody, and the person
that has taken them from you is also within your family. [somber music] [exhilarating music]

When an elderly woman dies in a house fire, suspicion falls on her daughter-in-law who controls her keys, her bills and the access to family money.

This true crime series delves into cases where financial schemes spiral into betrayal, violence and murder, exposing the deadly cost of lies fueled by greed.

For More FilmRise Check Out Our Other Channels: FilmRise Television: https://www.youtube.com/⁨@UCVVXDVee0JZ2dlPYtpdTZVg FilmRise Movies: https://www.youtube.com/@FilmRiseMovies Highway to Heaven - Full Episodes: https://www.youtube.com/@HighwaytoHeavenFullEpisodes

Brief Summary

Elizabeth Vamplew's death in a fire leads to a murder investigation of her daughter-in-law Karen, revealing economic abuse and betrayal.

Key points

The Illusion of Care. Elizabeth Vamplew was a devoted mother and grandmother, but her care came with hidden dangers.
A Fatal Fire. On December 15, 2021, a fire claimed the life of 77-year-old Elizabeth Vamplew.
Suspicion Arises. Karen Vamplew's actions on the night of the fire raised red flags for investigators.
Financial Manipulation Uncovered. Police discovered that Elizabeth's savings were drained by her daughter-in-law, Karen.
The Day Before the Fire. Karen accompanied Elizabeth to the bank, leading to revelations about her finances.
Suspicion Surrounds the Fire. Fire experts determined the fire was likely set intentionally, not an accident.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

Elizabeth was a really warm and caring person.

POPPY EVERTON

3:04WatchMar 6, 2026

Tension

85/ 100High tension

More from True Crime Files

Solve the Crime

Read a real case one clue at a time, then see how your call held up against the investigators.