After the sentencing of Karen Vamplew for the murder of her mother-in-law, prosecutors have revealed how they built the case against her.
Vaplew, 44, formerly of Kings Road, Newark, was today (May 20) sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 32 years by Judge Timothy Spencer following a four-week trial at Leicester Crown Court.
She murdered her vulnerable mother-in-law, Elizabeth Vamplew, 77, by setting fire to her bed at her home, at 2 Eton Court, while she was asleep in the early hours of December 15, 2021, in order to access inheritance to pay off her serious debts.
Elizabeth, known as Anne, died in hospital from her burn and smoke inhalation injuries later the same day.
Andrew Baxter, a deputy chief crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) East Midlands, said: “Elizabeth Vamplew’s tragic death was caused by the greed of her own daughter in law. Karen Vamplew had been helping herself to her money and, once this was spent, she killed her in the most cynical and calculating way possible to get her hands on the inheritance.
“Vamplew had been posing as a dutiful, caring relative, but this trial had uncovered the reality, that Mrs Vamplew was a nuisance to her and she was just out for financial gain. I would like to offer my heartfelt sympathies to Mrs Vamplew’s extended family and loved ones who must feel the betrayal of one so close to them.”
Following the successful prosecution of Vamplew, the CPS has explained how the case was built.
The main hurdle for the CPS to overcome in proving that Vamplew was responsible for her mother-in-law’s death, it explained, was whether the fire had been started deliberately.
Anne was known to be a smoker, so it was essential that the jury could be certain that her death had not been caused by an accidental fire started by Anne smoking in bed.
The CPS advised that extensive investigations into the cause of the fire were needed before any charges could be considered. These investigations revealed that the fire could only have been started by applying a flame directly to the bedding while Anne was sleeping — and video evidence of fire tests with bedding and alight cigarettes were played in court during the trial.
It also found there were no traces of smoking materials in the bedroom and the only trace of Anne’s smoking habit were found where she always left them. She had, as she usually did, extinguished them under the tap.
Additionally, the CPS found Anne would not have been able to hear this happening around her, and would therefore not have woken up to sound the alarm as she routinely did not wear her hearing aid when she was sleeping.
The CPS also presented financial evidence to demonstrate that Vamplew had been accessing money regularly from her mother-in-law’s account and evidence that the defendant knew that her husband would inherit half of the estate.
CCTV evidence showed that she had visited Mrs Vamplew’s home just after midnight and that she had run away half an hour later, before returning to raise the alarm. By then the fire had taken hold and there was no prospect of Anne surviving.
Vamplew claimed that she had forgotten her keys and was unable to get into the property. CCTV evidence revealed that she had driven to the property, but parked some distance away, instead of immediately outside as she usually did — but she kept her key to Anne’s home on the same keyring as her car keys.
The CPS explained this evidence combined to build a case that this was a planned killing, financially motivated after Vamplew had lost her access to Anne’s bank account.
