Chas, if someone was assaulted thirty years ago and made a complete recovery without subsequent consequences, hurt, which emerged later, they'd be statute barred, as beyond the limitation period, from claiming now. That's a problem which arises in these cases. But, equally, if the original cause was not apparent at the time they might. After all, if someone was exposed to asbestos or coal dust they might suffer no consequential injury at all at the time or immediately after. However, perhaps thirty years later, the effects of that exposure might suddenly become apparent in their case and set in to cause them extreme suffering and injury. Then they should be able to sue,and may, since they had no real or substantial reason for the action before.
That appears to be a difficulty here. If that is correct, then the actions will have to be based on present suffering consequent upon the assaults .The fact that the person who committed the assaults is dead is just an inconvenience for those who have to defend the action.
Executors have a duty of care. If they distributed the estate when they were aware of claims against it, and those claims proved valid, they might be held personally liable for the loss to the estate.It would be a bit tough, if the beneficiaries, in good faith, had spent all the money and the claimants found that there were no funds in the estate to satisfy judgment.