Your question is interesting, but I’d like to reiterate . . .
A writes B into will. We’ll call this the “wealth” A concludes that B will inherit the wealth upon the death of A.
A has the capacity to change the will.
For B to inherit wealth, 2 things are sufficient. (1) A is dead. (2) A did not change the will or make exceptions before death.
On these conditions alone, the way that A dies is irrelevant, B still attains the wealth.
On a more realistic approach, it’s assumed that usually a will is written on the assumption that the benefactors are trusted and non-malicious toward the giver. To prevent complications, (the wealth possibly denied to B), A would have to be implicit that there are no desired exceptions to these conditions.
SUMMARY
There’s insufficient information to say wheather the son can logically inherit the wealth. But realistically, it’s unlikely.
If if the father knew the intent of his son would he have change his mind? We know he would be angry. But it is not enough reason for the will to be revoked.
In most states (in the US) the answer to whether an heir could inherit from a decedent the heir killed, is no–and by kill, I mean an act of homicide. Of course, whether the heir has been convicted of the death in a criminal trial, or found liable for the death in a civil trial, makes a difference. (In the OJ cases, OJ was found criminally innocent but civilly liable.) In some jurisdictions, probate law also makes this distinction.
For example, if a son were to be found innocent at trial, but liable for the death of his father–from which he was to inherit everything–many jurisdictions would perhaps revoke or abate (I can’t think of the proper probate term) any devise–etc–or intestate share to be received. While others will allow the civilly liable heir to inherit the estate. But in most jurisdictions, if the son were found criminally liable, he would get nothing. But, if the son had children of his own, his devise or intestate share would pass to his children.