CANADA Canada - Billionaire Couple Barry & Honey Sherman Murdered at Home, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #23

[ldlager]

Are you thinking that the killers destroyed her will?

I would be shocked if Honey kept her will at home, or had taken it home for execution.

Yes I believe that. I keep my Will at home also, fwiw. I suspect the vast majority of people do also.
HS allegedly told a service provider very shortly before her death that she was “updating her will” or words to that effect. That implies to me that she had a Will. I believe the service provider was telling the truth when she told police that HS has told her that. I see no reason for the service provider to lie to police when being questioned as part of a murder investigation. MOO

 

[AndrewM71]

Yes I believe that. I keep my Will at home also, fwiw. I suspect the vast majority of people do also.
HS allegedly told a service provider very shortly before her death that she was “updating her will” or words to that effect. That implies to me that she had a Will. I believe the service provider was telling the truth when she told police that HS has told her that. I see no reason for the service provider to lie to police when being questioned as part of a murder investigation. MOO

Certainly not my experience, especially amongst people of higher net worth. Lawyer’s office or safety deposit box. Most people don’t have a fire proof safe at home.

So if there was a break in at her home, where she kept her will, why wouldn’t the trustees apply to prove a copy of the will? Seems like strong evidence to overcome the presumption of revocation by destruction.

 

[newclues]

More likely BS asked HS to bring the Will home so he could review it and subsequently witness it, instead of him travelling to a lawyers office. Maybe that’s what HS was talking about when she said she was “looking after a few things” or words to that effect. I believe HS had at least a draft of a will if not a final Will at her house the night she was murdered.And I believe the murderers took it.
MOO

BS was taking home that night an inspection report for the house that was being sold. This was found on the floor of the basement entrance from the garage along with his gloves. It appears that he was quickly ambushed coming into the basement from the garage by his killer. This quick eagerness may have resulted in HS's will being quickly snatched up in the process by the killer if BS had had it with him. There seems to have been some kind of impatience in the killer's waiting for BS to come home by getting him right at the basement door. Was BS jumped for something of value on him?

 

[al66pine]

BS was taking home that night an inspection report for the house that was being sold. This was found on the floor of the basement entrance from the garage along with his gloves. It appears that he was quickly ambushed coming into the basement from the garage by his killer. This quick eagerness may have resulted in HS's will being quickly snatched up in the process by the killer if BS had had it with him. There seems to have been some kind of impatience in the killer's waiting for BS to come home by getting him right at the basement door. Was BS jumped for something of value on him?

@newclues From ^
"Was BS jumped for something of value on him?"

Q: Thinking about something in particular?
@newclues ? Anyone?

 

[newclues]

@newclues From ^
"Was BS jumped for something of value on him?"

Q: Thinking about something in particular?
@newclues ? Anyone?

HS's will?

 

[MerlinFalcon]

I wonder if Kevin Donovan has given up. He had said he would go to court every 6 months if I remember correctly, and he last wrote an article about the case in December.

 

[ldlager]

Certainly not my experience, especially amongst people of higher net worth. Lawyer’s office or safety deposit box. Most people don’t have a fire proof safe at home.

So if there was a break in at her home, where she kept her will, why wouldn’t the trustees apply to prove a copy of the will? Seems like strong evidence to overcome the presumption of revocation by destruction.

Given

Certainly not my experience, especially amongst people of higher net worth. Lawyer’s office or safety deposit box. Most people don’t have a fire proof safe at home.

So if there was a break in at her home, where she kept her will, why wouldn’t the trustees apply to prove a copy of the will? Seems like strong evidence to overcome the presumption of revocation by destructi

Perhaps the only Trustee that knew of the existence of HS’ Will didn’t want it found.

 

[ldlager]

Certainly not my experience, especially amongst people of higher net worth. Lawyer’s office or safety deposit box. Most people don’t have a fire proof safe at home.

So if there was a break in at her home, where she kept her will, why wouldn’t the trustees apply to prove a copy of the will? Seems like strong evidence to overcome the presumption of revocation by destruction.

Andrew would you say, based on your experience, that it is highly likely that “higher net worth individuals “ would have a will?
It seems to me highly unlikely that HS , as a spouse of one of the ten wealthiest men in Canada, did not have a Will.

 

[WINDSOR]

BS was taking home that night an inspection report for the house that was being sold. This was found on the floor of the basement entrance from the garage along with his gloves. It appears that he was quickly ambushed coming into the basement from the garage by his killer. This quick eagerness may have resulted in HS's will being quickly snatched up in the process by the killer if BS had had it with him. There seems to have been some kind of impatience in the killer's waiting for BS to come home by getting him right at the basement door. Was BS jumped for something of value on him?

It seems that many here do not want to embrace the idea if there was a Will for Honey, or even a draft of one, that the lawyer who was involved in preparing the document would not have contacted the police, or the estate trustee's or Brian Greenspan, the lawyer representing the Sherman family soon after the deaths, or the family/heirs directly.

Any lawyer in Ontario who was involved in Will preparation for Honey, would have both an moral and ethical obligation to disclose this information, not necessarily the contents and details of his work but at least the existence of his work. I also believe as some of you do, that the contents of a Will could have some bearing on the crime. Therefore not contacting the police regarding the existence of a Will, could be seen as an obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation.

I find it hard to believe that any lawyer would withhold information about the existence of a will.

Finally, since the TPS has had access to the Sherman's bank accounts, if a lawyer was retained on Honey's behalf for purposes of preparing a will, there would be some sort of record of the transaction, a cheque, debit card, credit card or even an e-transfer. The lawyer could have been paid in cash, but since lawyers are obligated to keep strict financial records this would not be any advantage for either party.

Yes people being defended against criminal charges, will sometimes pay their lawyers with cash, however they do that because to avoid banking records of their sources of income.

IMO

 

[fadedglitter]

It seems that many here do not want to embrace the idea if there was a Will for Honey, or even a draft of one, that the lawyer who was involved in preparing the document would not have contacted the police, or the estate trustee's or Brian Greenspan, the lawyer representing the Sherman family soon after the deaths, or the family/heirs directly.

Any lawyer in Ontario who was involved in Will preparation for Honey, would have both an moral and ethical obligation to disclose this information, not necessarily the contents and details of his work but at least the existence of his work. I also believe as some of you do, that the contents of a Will could have some bearing on the crime. Therefore not contacting the police regarding the existence of a Will, could be seen as an obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation.

I find it hard to believe that any lawyer would withhold information about the existence of a will.

Finally, since the TPS has had access to the Sherman's bank accounts, if a lawyer was retained on Honey's behalf for purposes of preparing a will, there would be some sort of record of the transaction, a cheque, debit card, credit card or even an e-transfer. The lawyer could have been paid in cash, but since lawyers are obligated to keep strict financial records this would not be any advantage for either party.

Yes people being defended against criminal charges, will sometimes pay their lawyers with cash, however they do that because to avoid banking records of their sources of income.

IMO

Exactly. There is just no chance she had one. There have been numerous court matters about this, and no evidence she had a signed, witnessed will.

 

[Cedars]

Given

Perhaps the only Trustee that knew of the existence of HS’ Will didn’t want it found.

So, do you believe Honey had a will that would leave a significant portion of her estate to someone other than Barry and her children? Why would she do that?

Barry's will was very explicit about what would happen if Honey survived him, and then later died. Multiple trustees were appointed to oversee this process.

It seems, while Barry was alive, he directly supplied her with income, ie oversaw how much she got and basically what for.

Is it likely that Honey would be encouraged to then, privately, separately, create a will that contradicted the intent of Barry's will? That if she died first, she might leave everything she owned to her sister, or a cat rescue or other charity, rather than have it remain with Barry as part of the ultimate family legacy to their children?

I think Barry saw it as quite straightforward - under probate, if she had died before Barry, everything would become his. No will necessary.

If she had survived 30 days beyond Barry's death, his will would have been invoked, the trust would have been created, etc.

IMO, the only things she might have meant by a will, would be momentos like a particular painting to so-and-so who admired it, or something. But that stuff's minor and tedious while you are living a full life.

I think they both operated on the same principle - if you want to give stuff away, give it while you're alive. Once you've died, it all becomes part of the family legacy.

JMO

 

[ldlager]

It seems that many here do not want to embrace the idea if there was a Will for Honey, or even a draft of one, that the lawyer who was involved in preparing the document would not have contacted the police, or the estate trustee's or Brian Greenspan, the lawyer representing the Sherman family soon after the deaths, or the family/heirs directly.

Any lawyer in Ontario who was involved in Will preparation for Honey, would have both an moral and ethical obligation to disclose this information, not necessarily the contents and details of his work but at least the existence of his work. I also believe as some of you do, that the contents of a Will could have some bearing on the crime. Therefore not contacting the police regarding the existence of a Will, could be seen as an obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation.

I find it hard to believe that any lawyer would withhold information about the existence of a will.

Finally, since the TPS has had access to the Sherman's bank accounts, if a lawyer was retained on Honey's behalf for purposes of preparing a will, there would be some sort of record of the transaction, a cheque, debit card, credit card or even an e-transfer. The lawyer could have been paid in cash, but since lawyers are obligated to keep strict financial records this would not be any advantage for either party.

Yes people being defended against criminal charges, will sometimes pay their lawyers with cash, however they do that because to avoid banking records of their sources of income.

IMO

The bill could have gone to Apotex. As part of a corporate retainer or standard monthly fee.

 

[ldlager]

So, do you believe Honey had a will that would leave a significant portion of her estate to someone other than Barry and her children? Why would she do that?

Barry's will was very explicit about what would happen if Honey survived him, and then later died. Multiple trustees were appointed to oversee this process.

It seems, while Barry was alive, he directly supplied her with income, ie oversaw how much she got and basically what for.

Is it likely that Honey would be encouraged to then, privately, separately, create a will that contradicted the intent of Barry's will? That if she died first, she might leave everything she owned to her sister, or a cat rescue or other charity, rather than have it remain with Barry as part of the ultimate family legacy to their children?

I think Barry saw it as quite straightforward - under probate, if she had died before Barry, everything would become his. No will necessary.

If she had survived 30 days beyond Barry's death, his will would have been invoked, the trust would have been created, etc.

IMO, the only things she might have meant by a will, would be momentos like a particular painting to so-and-so who admired it, or something. But that stuff's minor and tedious while you are living a full life.

I think they both operated on the same principle - if you want to give stuff away, give it while you're alive. Once you've died, it all becomes part of the family legacy.

JMO

But again I go back to the fact that HS was murdered. Why? Why not just murder BS, it would have been easy to do. IMO the killer(s) or at least those responsible for the murders wanted to make sure that both BS and HS were gone. I believe that the killers didn’t know the specific contents of BS will. Let’s say these murders didn’t happen and BS died of natural causes 5 years later. The killer didnt want to take a chance that HS would leave her estate (including her inheritance from BS) to someone other than them. Or perhaps entirely to charities. Who knows? So HS had to be murdered also. It doesn’t matter what the contents of any Will that HS had at her time of death. She was killed to prevent her potentially excluding certain individuals from inheriting her estate. LE has stated that the estate is embedded in the case (I am paraphrasing). The estate is long settled, so LE must be of the view that estate matters are an integral part of their investigation and potentially a motive in the killings.MOO

 

[Cedars]

But again I go back to the fact that HS was murdered. Why? Why not just murder BS, it would have been easy to do. IMO the killer(s) or at least those responsible for the murders wanted to make sure that both BS and HS were gone. I believe that the killers didn’t know the specific contents of BS will. Let’s say these murders didn’t happen and BS died of natural causes 5 years later. The killer didnt want to take a chance that HS would leave her estate (including her inheritance from BS) to someone other than them. Or perhaps entirely to charities. Who knows? So HS had to be murdered also. It doesn’t matter what the contents of any Will that HS had at her time of death. She was killed to prevent her potentially excluding certain individuals from inheriting her estate. LE has stated that the estate is embedded in the case (I am paraphrasing). The estate is long settled, so LE must be of the view that estate matters are an integral part of their investigation and potentially a motive in the killings.MOO

Yes, even considering a broader range of motives, if murdering Barry would just result in Honey becoming a rich widow, that might not have been what their killer wanted to happen.

JMO

 

[FPoulet]

It seems that many here do not want to embrace the idea if there was a Will for Honey, or even a draft of one, that the lawyer who was involved in preparing the document would not have contacted the police, or the estate trustee's or Brian Greenspan, the lawyer representing the Sherman family soon after the deaths, or the family/heirs directly.

Any lawyer in Ontario who was involved in Will preparation for Honey, would have both an moral and ethical obligation to disclose this information, not necessarily the contents and details of his work but at least the existence of his work. I also believe as some of you do, that the contents of a Will could have some bearing on the crime. Therefore not contacting the police regarding the existence of a Will, could be seen as an obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation.

I find it hard to believe that any lawyer would withhold information about the existence of a will.

Finally, since the TPS has had access to the Sherman's bank accounts, if a lawyer was retained on Honey's behalf for purposes of preparing a will, there would be some sort of record of the transaction, a cheque, debit card, credit card or even an e-transfer. The lawyer could have been paid in cash, but since lawyers are obligated to keep strict financial records this would not be any advantage for either party.

Yes people being defended against criminal charges, will sometimes pay their lawyers with cash, however they do that because to avoid banking records of their sources of income.

IMO

I don’t agree that any lawyer working on Honey’s will would have an obligation to disclose this or be seen as obstructing justice. It is complicated. Solicitor-client privilege is real. Even if the lawyer wanted to share information, they may not be able to come forward due to privilege obligations. We have seen the Blaney lawyer Doug Hendler acknowledge his involvement (which is known by contemporaneous emails (redacted) and phone records) but advise he can’t share information due to solicitor-client privilege. MOO.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

I am in the camp that believes she had a will. The person who said she was updating her will couldn't have made that up.

 

[FromGermany1]

I am in the camp that believes she had a will. The person who said she was updating her will couldn't have made that up.

Yes, why should the person have made it up?! Further: why should HS have said it to her, when it wasn't true? She didn't know, she would be murdered short time after she said it and this statement would become interesting.

 

[dotr]

Thinking again about the break ins that occurred in and around the neighbourhood prior to the murders and the belief that the Shermans had been surveilled for a month or even longer.
Could it be that thieves ( burglary tourists?) captured images of the Sherman killer/s, if so, would they dare turn in that info. for the reward?
For that matter, was H & B and/or their home, monitored by more than one faction of bad actors? speculation, fwiw, imo.

June 21, 2019 rbbm

Murdered billionaire Barry Sherman planned to give away or invest much of his fortune, sources say

In the year before he was murdered, Barry Sherman was working on plans to give large amounts of money to charity and his wife, Honey, who was also killed, as well as expand his company Apotex, people close to the late couple say.

www.thestar.com

''Barry Sherman had big plans in the year leading up to his murder — make an enormous donation to charity, gift hundreds of millions of dollars to his wife, Honey, and expand Apotex.''

Barry and Honey Sherman may have been under ‘surveillance’ a month before their murders, homicide detectives believe

Documents show police sought cellphone data for dozens of ‘persons of interest,’ and confirm Barry Sherman had been ‘restrained at the wrist.’

www.thestar.com

''One year into the Barry and Honey Sherman murder investigation, a bombshell: Toronto Police believed it was possible the murderer or murderers were stalking the billionaire couple a month or more before they were killed, search warrant documents reveal.''

Crime tourism a growing problem in Canada, says FBI agent | Globalnews.ca

Two Chilean burglary rings were broken up in the Greater Toronto Area in recent years, but police are under no illusion that they’ve made anything more than a dent.

globalnews.ca

By Mike Armstrong March 20, 2019 rbbm
''The FBI has dubbed the phenomenon South American Theft Groups (SATGs). While there are thieves from several countries, the biggest group hitting Canada appears to hail from Chile.
In April last year, Halton Regional Police arrested 15 Chilean nationals. They say the group was responsible for more than 400 residential break-ins.''

Police: Burglary tourists are using hidden cameras to plan thefts

Originally concentrated in southern California, burglary tourism is spreading across the country.

www.newsnationnow.com

''In some cases, criminals have used livestreams to track when people leave, usually in affluent neighborhoods, so they know when to strike.
The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department said South American theft groups are behind the trend, with people from Chile or Colombia who enter the U.S. on limited tourist visas to engage in criminal activity.
In the past, burglary tourists surveilled homes by hiding out nearby before disabling security systems. But now thieves have stepped things up with technology, in particular hidden cameras disguised as things like fake rocks.''

Detecting bad actors via behavioural analytics — Financier Worldwide

www.financierworldwide.com

 

[FromGermany1]

I don’t agree that any lawyer working on Honey’s will would have an obligation to disclose this or be seen as obstructing justice. It is complicated. Solicitor-client privilege is real. Even if the lawyer wanted to share information, they may not be able to come forward due to privilege obligations. We have seen the Blaney lawyer Doug Hendler acknowledge his involvement (which is known by contemporaneous emails (redacted) and phone records) but advise he can’t share information due to solicitor-client privilege. MOO.

As a naive layman, I would always say: change the law fGs! A murder is more important than privileges are, IMO. There are more and more rich people and more and more murders in their circles, I think. Finding the guilty party must be made easier by law, not more difficult. MOO

 

[RHR]

Certainly not my experience, especially amongst people of higher net worth. Lawyer’s office or safety deposit box. Most people don’t have a fire proof safe at home.

So if there was a break in at her home, where she kept her will, why wouldn’t the trustees apply to prove a copy of the will? Seems like strong evidence to overcome the presumption of revocation by destruction.

H and B were not typical wealthy people. I don't believe they even had a safe.