CANADA Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #17

[WINDSOR]

To start with, you say the route he was walking was the opposite of what you would expect.
He likely thought so too. So, it's no surprise to me he took the opposite route to what he believed police would expect.

IMO, he had a 'clever plan' to be untraceable, and it worked. IMO, this person knew the consesquences of getting caught, and would walk all night to avoid it.

I also think, walking past home video cameras in dark neighbourhoods is much less risky than walking along brightly lit major thoroughfares, and multiple times over less risky than getting into a car anywhere close to the house. There's hundreds of thousands of faceless guys in bulky coats in TO, but far fewer of any particular make/model of car.

JMO

I think there is more to the NW choosing his particular route than it being different than people would expect.
Getting into a car on Bayview would have been quick and easy. I do not believe the NW was walking to a vehicle rendezvous.
More likely to have more camera surveillance in commercial and business areas, than in residential areas.

I will go back to my previously mentioned theory that the NW was walking to a safe house.
Merriam-Webster definition of safe house : a place where one may engage in secret activities or take refuge.
Better destination than a hotel, public transit or vehicle pickup in my opinion.

Not unusual in the annals of espionage to have a safe house close to the target, walking distance is ideal.
If the NW and team were ex-espionage, a safe house would be obvious.

A safe house is usually some sort of innocuous residence or shelter. An apartment or studio or a loft or condo will do fine.
I cannot think of any reason not to have a safe house within in walking distance.

 

[ldlager]

I have been following this case from Day 1 (just went back for old times sake, I was post #4 after Dotr posted 3 news stories). I haven't posted much lately because I have other things to do with my time. But I have seen no evidence, anywhere, that police have stated they believe it was a professional hit. If you can contradict me, please, you must post the link.

Kevin Donovan of the Toronto Star has tried to solve this himself, without cooperation from Toronto Police, but IMO he is not an expert.

This case has had people/someone trying to influence public perception from the beginning with the whole murder/suicide fiasco. Now there appears to be a movement to try to convince people it's a hit man. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

JMO

I agree Satchie. Although TPS did state that in their view at least, the Shermans were "targeted".

 

[ldlager]

I have been following this case from Day 1 (just went back for old times sake, I was post #4 after Dotr posted 3 news stories). I haven't posted much lately because I have other things to do with my time. But I have seen no evidence, anywhere, that police have stated they believe it was a professional hit. If you can contradict me, please, you must post the link.

Kevin Donovan of the Toronto Star has tried to solve this himself, without cooperation from Toronto Police, but IMO he is not an expert.

This case has had people/someone trying to influence public perception from the beginning with the whole murder/suicide fiasco. Now there appears to be a movement to try to convince people it's a hit man. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

JMO

I agree Satchie. Although TPS did state that in their view at least, the Shermans were "targeted".

The judge you are quoting is not the judge who reviewed the TPS documents.

The judge you are quoting is on the Supreme Court, he was reviewing the argument brought by the lawyer for the Toronto Star. On the opposing side was the lawyer for the Sherman Estate.

The TPS had nothing to do with the issue of opening or closing the estate files. The judge you are quoting had no information whatever from TPS. He was expressing his opinion, just like anyone else. He was speculating: 'in my view...at least it has those hallmarks'.

Hit man, not a hit man, it's all speculation.

JMO.

What about hit woman? Hit person?

 

[MistyWaters]

I agree Satchie. Although TPS did state that in their view at least, the Shermans were "targeted".

Any murder whereby the perp consciously chooses the victim is considered targeted, isn’t only synonymous with a hitman. To the contrary, strangulation has the reputation of being a highly personal manner of murder.

 

[juli99]

I think there is more to the NW choosing his particular route than it being different than people would expect.
Getting into a car on Bayview would have been quick and easy. I do not believe the NW was walking to a vehicle rendezvous.
More likely to have more camera surveillance in commercial and business areas, than in residential areas.

I will go back to my previously mentioned theory that the NW was walking to a safe house.
Merriam-Webster definition of safe house : a place where one may engage in secret activities or take refuge.
Better destination than a hotel, public transit or vehicle pickup in my opinion.

Not unusual in the annals of espionage to have a safe house close to the target, walking distance is ideal.
If the NW and team were ex-espionage, a safe house would be obvious.

A safe house is usually some sort of innocuous residence or shelter. An apartment or studio or a loft or condo will do fine.
I cannot think of any reason not to have a safe house within in walking distance.

I was wandering the streets on Google Streetview yesterday, and to me the apartments at the end of Bannatyne could have served this purpose. But, how does one rent a safe house for a short period of time without it being traceable?

 

[juli99]

I'm still listening to KD's book, but I'm confused about the belts. I had thought I heard/read somewhere that they did not believe the belts were used for strangulation, but rather zip ties or something else was used. Did I imagine that? Also - why is it not possible that the belts were used? Couldn't you hang someone from a belt, similar to how people die hanging themselves on scarves hooked to doorknobs?

 

[Lexiintoronto]

I'm still listening to KD's book, but I'm confused about the belts. I had thought I heard/read somewhere that they did not believe the belts were used for strangulation, but rather zip ties or something else was used. Did I imagine that? Also - why is it not possible that the belts were used? Couldn't you hang someone from a belt, similar to how people die hanging themselves on scarves hooked to doorknobs?

*graphic

Some of the information in the book is outdated now. KD has now said both of the Shermans were strangled to death by a thin ligature (consistent with a zip tie), and were staged with the belts after being killed.

ETA: KD wrote the belts prevented them from falling back into the pool. I’d think it would be difficult to strangle a person on such a low railing how they were seated. The way you describe is an intentional suicide where the person leans forward, imo.

 

[deugirtni]

From what I recall, the person was described as a ‘service provider’ and Honey was picking them up so they didn’t have to take the subway to the Sherman home to work. (My guess is that it was her personal assistant.)

We had discussed this when KD did an article about it and someone thought the will update was due to the homes in Forest Hill: one in her name, the other in her name and Mary’s. Or possibly she added the name of her new grandchild as a beneficiary to something specific.

You made me think of something by asking why BS wasn’t with her. If it was an update to a joint will they could sign it at different times, they just need witnesses to their signatures. Maybe she signed it, but BS hadn’t yet, so it made it invalid?

That would make the last updated will signed in spring of 2017 the valid will.

ETA: This would make that November meeting about succession plans make sense and why JS may have not wanted to attend. Jack Kay, Barry and JS were to meet, and JS wanted Adam to be present. Barry said no and the meeting never took place. Barry was partly upset that Jonathon wasn’t more involved with Apotex.

2nd Edit: Maybe Barry was going to make a change in the will and with the trustee lineup again. That might explain why Jonathon wanted Adam to be present, and Barry did not.

Sorry if already covered, just catching up..

Two things:
i) Is it even allowed/legal to have a 'couple will'? Doesn't each person require their own individual will?

ii) This post made me think of something else. Is it possible that Honey purchased a generic DIY will from someplace like 'Staples' or whatever, to create her own will, on her own.. and then took it to a misc/random lawyer or notary public to have her signature witnessed? And if that were the case, does a notary public necessarily make notes on WHAT he is certifying is being signed, or does he/she potentially only make notes on perhaps his schedule/clients for each day? ie in such a case would a notary public even potentially be aware that he may have witnessed a signature of such an important document? Does a notary public even care WHAT he is witnessing a signature to, or only that he is witnessing a bonafide person's signature, ie by asking for proper ID, etc. ???

 

[juli99]

*graphic

Some of the information in the book is outdated now. KD has now said both of the Shermans were strangled to death by a thin ligature (consistent with a zip tie), and were staged with the belts after being killed.

ETA: KD wrote the belts prevented them from falling back into the pool. I’d think it would be difficult to strangle a person on such a low railing how they were seated. The way you describe is an intentional suicide where the person leans forward, imo.

Thank you - I've struggled to understand their positioning without a drawing/diagram (which I don't think I really want).

 

[deugirtni]

Most of us accept that these murders were carefully planned and orchestrated. Little or nothing was left the chance or guesswork.
So I am curious about the NW's path that evening.

The TPS have video of the NW going to and from the Sherman home. We know they do not have video of the NW getting dropped off or getting picked up.

The Sherman house was located much closer to Bayview than Leslie at about 400 metres. The distance to the corner Leslie and Stubbs, the apparent path the NW is following, is 2000 metres. That is five times a greater distance.

Since a criminal does not want to be in the risk area any longer than necessary, why do you think the NW chose the path and destination he did?

You can be sure it was not a random decision.
It had to be a powerful reason(s), because the NW knew the longer he walked the more cameras he would encounter.
What factors do you think would mandate the choosing the longer route? That answer could lead to solving this case.

To start with, you say the route he was walking was the opposite of what you would expect.
He likely thought so too. So, it's no surprise to me he took the opposite route to what he believed police would expect.

IMO, he had a 'clever plan' to be untraceable, and it worked. IMO, this person knew the consesquences of getting caught, and would walk all night to avoid it.

I also think, walking past home video cameras in dark neighbourhoods is much less risky than walking along brightly lit major thoroughfares, and multiple times over less risky than getting into a car anywhere close to the house. There's hundreds of thousands of faceless guys in bulky coats in TO, but far fewer of any particular make/model of car.

JMO

TPS say they don't exactly have video of NW going to and from the S home, but rather, in the near vicinity of the home, coming and then leaving after an amount of time which would allow an assumed appropriate amount of time for murders to have occurred. And we actually don't know whether or not TPS has video of NW getting dropped off or getting picked up - they haven't shared with the public as to his origin or his destination, or the beginning or end of what trail TPS has been able to follow. I'm not sure about the route since I'm not familiar with the area, his destination, how to get there, etc.. but agree with Satchie's post that a random individual walking at night in residential neighbourhoods is far less likely to be able to be identified (especially with certainty), than getting into or out of a vehicle at some point, or walking along better lit commercial areas. He likely imagined no attention would be paid to him, just a generic man taking a walk in a neighbourhood at a good speed for a power-walk in the later evening, likely just an area resident. Good on TPS to have narrowed it down to ONE individual they're unable to find a reason for being there. imo.

 

[deugirtni]

I was just coming to say that in KD's book, he quotes Barry as saying that women were too emotional to be estate trustees. Is that why the daughters were removed as trustees? Would he have thought Honey was not emotionally stable enough to make decisions about a will on her own?

Imo, I think he was likely referring more to potential decisions that may need to be made now and then about perhaps staffing issues, layoffs, etc., and females perhaps becoming too emotional in the employees' potential circumstances in potentially being laid off, in contrast with making the hard decisions that would be best financially in the company's best interests.

 

[juli99]

Sorry if already covered, just catching up..

Two things:
i) Is it even allowed/legal to have a 'couple will'? Doesn't each person require their own individual will?

I wish we had a lawyer here, this seems like it would be easy to answer. All I could find was this article from the States.

At first, I thought there's no way Barry would do a joint will, since he was so particular about legal stuff and this is clearly not the best way to do it. But - he also didn't trust women to make decisions.

Interesting to note from below - some states will refuse a joint will. I remember reading that they had to apply to appoint trustees for BOTH Barry and Honey in the absence of a will.

Is it possible that the existing will was NOT ACCEPTED by the Probate court?

Problems of a Joint Will for Married Couples

What Is a Joint Will?
Typically, a joint will provides that:

• when one spouse dies, the survivor will inherit everything, and
• when the second spouse dies, everything will go to the children.

Most joint wills also contains a provision stating that neither spouse can change or revoke the will alone—which means that the will can't be changed after the first spouse dies. A conventional will is always revocable. But a joint will is really a binding legal contract, which cannot be revoked or changed after one spouse has died.

A joint will appears to both fulfill many couples' wishes and address some of their key concerns. First, as many couples want, it provides that the survivor will inherit all the property of the first spouse to die. Second, it's then assured that no matter what happens after that, the children will eventually inherit everything. For example, if the survivor remarried, the children wouldn't have to worry that their inheritance would go to their new stepparent. Instead, because the terms of the joint will would be locked in, they would be guaranteed to inherit.

Potential Problems With Joint Wills
Today, estate planning lawyers advise against joint wills, and they are rarely used. The reason is that making it impossible for the surviving spouse to change the terms of the will can turn out to be a very bad result. The survivor—who may live years or decades after the first spouse's death—cannot react to changed life circumstances, and the family may suffer as a result.

For example, the survivor might not be able to:

• Give an adult child some of his inheritance early—perhaps to buy a house or start a business
• Help grandchildren with college expenses
• Put restrictions on the money that will be inherited by a child who is financially irresponsible
• Sell the family home and buy something smaller, or move into an assisted living facility
• Sell or give away other assets covered by the will

There can also be estate tax complications if the estate is very large.

Some states (Wisconsin, for example), do not allow joint wills. If presented with a joint will, a probate court will try to separate the document into two separate wills. If the document is written in a way that it can only become effective when the second spouse dies, the court will refuse to admit it to probate.

 

[juli99]

I wish we had a lawyer here, this seems like it would be easy to answer. All I could find was this article from the States.

At first, I thought there's no way Barry would do a joint will, since he was so particular about legal stuff and this is clearly not the best way to do it. But - he also didn't trust women to make decisions.

Interesting to note from below - some states will refuse a joint will. I remember reading that they had to apply to appoint trustees for BOTH Barry and Honey in the absence of a will.

Is it possible that the existing will was NOT ACCEPTED by the Probate court?

Problems of a Joint Will for Married Couples

What Is a Joint Will?
Typically, a joint will provides that:

• when one spouse dies, the survivor will inherit everything, and
• when the second spouse dies, everything will go to the children.

Most joint wills also contains a provision stating that neither spouse can change or revoke the will alone—which means that the will can't be changed after the first spouse dies. A conventional will is always revocable. But a joint will is really a binding legal contract, which cannot be revoked or changed after one spouse has died.

A joint will appears to both fulfill many couples' wishes and address some of their key concerns. First, as many couples want, it provides that the survivor will inherit all the property of the first spouse to die. Second, it's then assured that no matter what happens after that, the children will eventually inherit everything. For example, if the survivor remarried, the children wouldn't have to worry that their inheritance would go to their new stepparent. Instead, because the terms of the joint will would be locked in, they would be guaranteed to inherit.

Potential Problems With Joint Wills
Today, estate planning lawyers advise against joint wills, and they are rarely used. The reason is that making it impossible for the surviving spouse to change the terms of the will can turn out to be a very bad result. The survivor—who may live years or decades after the first spouse's death—cannot react to changed life circumstances, and the family may suffer as a result.

For example, the survivor might not be able to:

• Give an adult child some of his inheritance early—perhaps to buy a house or start a business
• Help grandchildren with college expenses
• Put restrictions on the money that will be inherited by a child who is financially irresponsible
• Sell the family home and buy something smaller, or move into an assisted living facility
• Sell or give away other assets covered by the will

There can also be estate tax complications if the estate is very large.

Some states (Wisconsin, for example), do not allow joint wills. If presented with a joint will, a probate court will try to separate the document into two separate wills. If the document is written in a way that it can only become effective when the second spouse dies, the court will refuse to admit it to probate.

And to be clear - if neither of them had a valid legal will, then the estate would be divided equally among the four children by Ontario law. Exactly as has happened.

What happens if you die without a Will? (Intestate) - FREE Legal Information | Legal Line

 

[deugirtni]

I wish we had a lawyer here, this seems like it would be easy to answer. All I could find was this article from the States.

At first, I thought there's no way Barry would do a joint will, since he was so particular about legal stuff and this is clearly not the best way to do it. But - he also didn't trust women to make decisions.

Interesting to note from below - some states will refuse a joint will. I remember reading that they had to apply to appoint trustees for BOTH Barry and Honey in the absence of a will.

Is it possible that the existing will was NOT ACCEPTED by the Probate court?

Problems of a Joint Will for Married Couples

What Is a Joint Will?
Typically, a joint will provides that:

• when one spouse dies, the survivor will inherit everything, and
• when the second spouse dies, everything will go to the children.

Most joint wills also contains a provision stating that neither spouse can change or revoke the will alone—which means that the will can't be changed after the first spouse dies. A conventional will is always revocable. But a joint will is really a binding legal contract, which cannot be revoked or changed after one spouse has died.

A joint will appears to both fulfill many couples' wishes and address some of their key concerns. First, as many couples want, it provides that the survivor will inherit all the property of the first spouse to die. Second, it's then assured that no matter what happens after that, the children will eventually inherit everything. For example, if the survivor remarried, the children wouldn't have to worry that their inheritance would go to their new stepparent. Instead, because the terms of the joint will would be locked in, they would be guaranteed to inherit.

Potential Problems With Joint Wills
Today, estate planning lawyers advise against joint wills, and they are rarely used. The reason is that making it impossible for the surviving spouse to change the terms of the will can turn out to be a very bad result. The survivor—who may live years or decades after the first spouse's death—cannot react to changed life circumstances, and the family may suffer as a result.

For example, the survivor might not be able to:

• Give an adult child some of his inheritance early—perhaps to buy a house or start a business
• Help grandchildren with college expenses
• Put restrictions on the money that will be inherited by a child who is financially irresponsible
• Sell the family home and buy something smaller, or move into an assisted living facility
• Sell or give away other assets covered by the will

There can also be estate tax complications if the estate is very large.

Some states (Wisconsin, for example), do not allow joint wills. If presented with a joint will, a probate court will try to separate the document into two separate wills. If the document is written in a way that it can only become effective when the second spouse dies, the court will refuse to admit it to probate.

I found this from a Canadian site:

The Joint Will vs the Mirror Will

One of the most common requests that we receive from couples intending to prepare their Will is a single document covering the two people. There is a misconception that a couple share all of their assets, and so one Will would work for both – that is, a “Joint Will“, a single document serving the needs of two people. Many people regard the terms “couple’s Will” and “joint Will” as interchangeable.

Joint Wills used to be prepared back in the days before computers and printers. The main benefit was that it saved the effort of typing and then re-typing very similar documents.

Joint Wills were also prepared back during a time when family property was considered to be owned by the family patriarch. Particularly when there was a single “breadwinner” in the home, there used to be a sense that the wife or mother didn’t own property outright. But today, we understand that both partners have equal rights to all property including shared property. So each partner needs their own Will.

The most common scenario is for a couple to name each other as their main beneficiary in their own Will. Then for each Will to have an “alternate” backup plan in case the two partners are both involved in a common accident. If neither partner survives the other, then the estate is distributed according to the alternate distribution plan.

The creation of two Wills, naming each other as the main beneficiary, is what is know as creating “Mirror Wills” because the two documents effectively mirror each other.

However, Mirror Wills are a loose concept, the two documents are not legally tied to each other, they are not fixed and each document can be updated independently of each other. In fact, the two documents do not need to mirror each other exactly at all.

Couple's Will - Writing Wills as a couple in Canada.

 

[juli99]

Imo, I think he was likely referring more to potential decisions that may need to be made now and then about perhaps staffing issues, layoffs, etc., and females perhaps becoming too emotional in the employees' potential circumstances in potentially being laid off, in contrast with making the hard decisions that would be best financially in the company's best interests.

The context I heard it in was in naming a fifth estate trustee. They wanted to name a fifth trustee so there would be a tie-breaker in the event of ties. Someone mentioned there were no female trustees, and Barry said that women were too emotional to fill the role. From KD's book.

 

[ldlager]

Any murder whereby the perp consciously chooses the victim is considered targeted, isn’t only synonymous with a hitman. To the contrary, strangulation has the reputation of being a highly personal manner of murder.

Targeted could mean that a person was targeted for robbery, not necessarily murder. Or if a criminal walks by the house and sees someone unloading their car and attacks them, were they "targeted"? We don't know what evidence LE has that the Sherman's were "targeted", but presumably they have some reason to state that. DS Gomes did NOT specifically state that the Sherman's were targeted for murder, just that they were targeted. She chose her phrasing very carefully. Her exact words are (4:25 of the attached video) "... we have sufficient evidence to describe this as a double homicide investigation, and that both Honey and Barry Sherman were in fact targeted...".
LE stating that they were targeted implies to me that LE has some evidence that some action involving the Shermans was preplanned in some way. It could be a professional hitman, it could be some other criminal, it could be someone else.

 

[deugirtni]

The context I heard it in was in naming a fifth estate trustee. They wanted to name a fifth trustee so there would be a tie-breaker in the event of ties. Someone mentioned there were no female trustees, and Barry said that women were too emotional to fill the role. From KD's book.

I wonder if BS may have been concerned that if he were to put one of his daughters in the mix, first off, which one would he choose.. the oldest??, and then would/might that person be swayed by their bro? Was it known at the time that BK was friends with JS, but even if so, the friendship was tempered with BK's marriage to his own daughter as well. Who could've imagined that both B and H would die at the same time, that his daughter's marriage to the one executor would fail, and that his long-time friend, confidant and business partner would be ousted by his son, to the point where his participation as executor was no longer invited to participate as one of the four executors in their meetings.

 

[Bobbi Pearl]

Sorry if already covered, just catching up..

Two things:
i) Is it even allowed/legal to have a 'couple will'? Doesn't each person require their own individual will?

ii) This post made me think of something else. Is it possible that Honey purchased a generic DIY will from someplace like 'Staples' or whatever, to create her own will, on her own.. and then took it to a misc/random lawyer or notary public to have her signature witnessed? And if that were the case, does a notary public necessarily make notes on WHAT he is certifying is being signed, or does he/she potentially only make notes on perhaps his schedule/clients for each day? ie in such a case would a notary public even potentially be aware that he may have witnessed a signature of such an important document? Does a notary public even care WHAT he is witnessing a signature to, or only that he is witnessing a bonafide person's signature, ie by asking for proper ID, etc. ???

My experience with a notary public is that they must know you for a minimum of X # of years, and vouch that is you. My cousin with a degree in engineering is a notary public, many people have the certification to be one, back in the day when you needed one to sign your passport photo, we always had him sign - and just funny note, he was younger than most he signed for.

 

[ldlager]

I wonder if BS may have been concerned that if he were to put one of his daughters in the mix, first off, which one would he choose.. the oldest??, and then would/might that person be swayed by their bro? Was it known at the time that BK was friends with JS, but even if so, the friendship was tempered with BK's marriage to his own daughter as well. Who could've imagined that both B and H would die at the same time, that his daughter's marriage to the one executor would fail, and that his long-time friend, confidant and business partner would be ousted by his son, to the point where his participation as executor was no longer invited to participate as one of the four executors in their meetings.

Since you asked the question, isn't it possible that BK could have known all those things in advance?

 

[ollie2]

Hi All- new member.
I have been reading this case for the last 3 years.
When I read that Barry thought women were too emotional to be...forget the exact wording. Wondering if we are not clear on the role of the Trustee. A trustee carries out the terms of the Will as prescribed. Whether men or women who are trustees, emotion doesn't change what they have been sworn to abide to, as directed by the will.