What's the bias I don't really understand. That I only see the ones that get caught and had a victim willing to show up in court over it? So this is actually probably a much bigger issue than I think it is?
Only cases with easy to prove paper trails are worth taking to court, straightforward cases where the result is all but guaranteed get settled outside court, etc, etc.
Not sure how that refute the GP's point. You're just saying that what the GP has seen is a smaller part of all the bad stuff that really happens. Which they acknowledged.
My point is don't draw conclusions from what you see in court. Just because probate court is packed doesn't mean most heirs can't figure it out amicably.
Just because you're seeing the cases that create prosecutable paper trails doesn't mean anything about what fraction of that type of crime they are.
