Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #7

[bluesneakers]

Bluesneakers, Ive just read a number of articles about the donation and none state that the donor was in the crowd. IF the person was in the crowd and yelled out or drew attention to themselves, it would no longer be anonymous right? If you have a link that shows otherwise, thank you.

miele.m. thank you for answering so promptly.

At some point, but who knows when, I hope we get more information about this case. I fear it will become a cold case or that the police will know who/what/why but be unable to prosecute.

I am still hopeful that this 'second lens' will allow the lawyer for the Shermans to speak to some of these conspiracy theories and shed some light on certain aspects of the case without undermining any future prosecution down the road.

No, I don't have a link. I know people who work at CAMH, people who were there that day. The donor was in the crowd but not mentioned or pointed out. I assumed it had been published somewhere, but I guess not. Maybe only certain people knew. They didn't say it was a secret, but probably best to take this as JMO for now.

 

[miele.m]

The donor was in the crowd at CAMH when they announced the gift. So we know it wasn't the Shermans. Or Drake.

Hi bluesneakers

If the actual donor of the $100 million was in the crowd that day and was not a Sherman Family member or representative
would you consider the possibility then that the $100 million dollar donor than could have been
Carlo Fidani? If we can prove it wasn’t a Sherman member and identify who in fact it was than we can put this most likely weak theory to rest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bluesneakers]

Hi bluesneakers

If the actual donor of the $100 million was in the crowd that day and was not a Sherman Family member or representative
would you consider the possibility then that the $100 million dollar donor than could have been
Carlo Fidani? If we can prove it wasn’t a Sherman member and identify who in fact it was than we can put this most likely weak theory to rest.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How could you prove it was not a Sherman without proving who it was? The person who made the very generous donation wishes to remain anonymous. IMO it was not from the Shermans or anyone attached to or related to them.

 

[miele.m]

How could you prove it was not a Sherman without proving who it was? The person who made the very generous donation wishes to remain anonymous. IMO it was not from the Shermans or anyone attached to or related to them.

Ok makes sense.
Yes it was very generous and will be very helpful to lots of people in society. Thanks for your reply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[miele.m]

:whiteflag:
It's just a theory, and it's only based on what we know so far. I know many are going to go "oh no, not again!" :waiting:

We have read about them being very different as in "opposites attract" and that works well up to a certain point. One article I read describes her as a "party animal" and he would rather go to the dentist than to another fundraiser.

For years he worked 6 days a week, and worked until late. During the family trip he would rather spend time writing his book.

So, I am wondering how things were after he retired 5 years ago, and if he was looking forward to the trip to Florida with full agenda of social engagements.

At their age, people usually think of downsizing and yet they were in the process of building a bigger house. All very exciting for her, but how about him? With all the other pressing problems he had in his mind, not being able to bury himself in work like before and having to listen to her talking about all the planning the wedding, parties, spending money, selecting tiles, curtains, windows, etc. etc., instead of purchasing an already built house, anticipating all the problems they could encounter when building the new home ... maybe he couldn't take it anymore and...

Very simple plausible theory, how come no one wants to believe it though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JDG]

No, I don't have a link. I know people who work at CAMH, people who were there that day. The donor was in the crowd but not mentioned or pointed out. I assumed it had been published somewhere, but I guess not. Maybe only certain people knew. They didn't say it was a secret, but probably best to take this as JMO for now.[/QUOT

Anonymous means no one knows, yet you say the person was in the crowd and maybe only certain people knew. Well, that does away with it being anonymous then, doesn't it?

Anything given anonymously, would only be known by the head of the foundation and the donor.

No one else. No one would know if they were present or not.

 

[JDG]

Very simple plausible theory, how come no one wants to believe it though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cause it has more holes than swiss cheese.

Not everyone wants to downsize. I think its over rated unless you need the equity out of your house.
The new house was being built in the same neighbourhood that most of their children live in and I suspect it was bigger because they were hoping to have the grandchildren stay over more, larger family get togethers etc. You can never have enough space, bedrooms etc if you want extended family to stay and visit.

There was a bedroom for each of them, he required a lot of sleep, she not so much and she had a gym beside her bedroom, convenient for early morning workouts.

I have read nothing about him not working as hard, if not harder in the coming years; another reason for her to indulge her home comforts. When you have their kind of money, why not enjoy some of it??

He was known to be frugal and possibly the only things he gave a lot of leeway on was the home, so she was going all out.

I have friends who are in that age bracket, have 'downsized' and hate it. All they want is their home back but most sold to builders, so even if they could afford it, its gone. One person is very depressed, as in can barely get out of her 'condo'. Most are just regretting the whole thing of being uprooted from their homes of many years. A few like the fact that its smaller, easier to clean and they can lock the door and go away for a couple of months and the concierge keeps an eye on everything. Its not for me, that I know. We are staying put.

 

[miele.m]

cause it has more holes than swiss cheese.

Not everyone wants to downsize. I think its over rated unless you need the equity out of your house.
The new house was being built in the same neighbourhood that most of their children live in and I suspect it was bigger because they were hoping to have the grandchildren stay over more, larger family get togethers etc. You can never have enough space, bedrooms etc if you want extended family to stay and visit.

There was a bedroom for each of them, he required a lot of sleep, she not so much and she had a gym beside her bedroom, convenient for early morning workouts.

I have read nothing about him not working as hard, if not harder in the coming years; another reason for her to indulge her home comforts. When you have their kind of money, why not enjoy some of it??

He was known to be frugal and possibly the only things he gave a lot of leeway on was the home, so she was going all out.

I have friends who are in that age bracket, have 'downsized' and hate it. All they want is their home back but most sold to builders, so even if they could afford it, its gone. One person is very depressed, as in can barely get out of her 'condo'. Most are just regretting the whole thing of being uprooted from their homes of many years. A few like the fact that its smaller, easier to clean and they can lock the door and go away for a couple of months and the concierge keeps an eye on everything. Its not for me, that I know. We are staying put.

Great insight to give JDG thanks!
Makes a lot of sense.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grey-St]

No, I don't have a link. I know people who work at CAMH, people who were there that day. The donor was in the crowd but not mentioned or pointed out. I assumed it had been published somewhere, but I guess not. Maybe only certain people knew. They didn't say it was a secret, but probably best to take this as JMO for now.

Anonymous means no one knows, yet you say the person was in the crowd and maybe only certain people knew. Well, that does away with it being anonymous then, doesn't it?

Anything given anonymously, would only be known by the head of the foundation and the donor.

No one else. No one would know if they were present or not.

The head of the foundation may not even know. If I truly wanted to remain anonymous, I'd get a lawyer to transfer the donation on my behalf.

CAMH staff may have gotten wind that the donor was present on the day of the announcement, but still not know who the individual is. It could also be a rumour.

JMO.

 

[ldlager]

The head of the foundation may not even know. If I truly wanted to remain anonymous, I'd get a lawyer to transfer the donation on my behalf.

CAMH staff may have gotten wind that the donor was present on the day of the announcement, but still not know who the individual is. It could also be a rumour.

JMO.

If the donor was present that day the press would know who it is. There aren’t that many people who can afford a gift of that size. Doesn’t matter who it was however, as long as they follow through on their committment.

 

[bluesneakers]

No, I don't have a link. I know people who work at CAMH, people who were there that day. The donor was in the crowd but not mentioned or pointed out. I assumed it had been published somewhere, but I guess not. Maybe only certain people knew. They didn't say it was a secret, but probably best to take this as JMO for now.[/QUOT

Anonymous means no one knows, yet you say the person was in the crowd and maybe only certain people knew. Well, that does away with it being anonymous then, doesn't it?

Anything given anonymously, would only be known by the head of the foundation and the donor.

No one else. No one would know if they were present or not.

What matters here is the donor wasn't the Shermans.

 

[dotr]

Imo.
"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth".

 

[WINDSOR]

Can charitable donations be made anonymously and still be written off by the donor?

Yes, I think that is possible and legal under the Canadian Tax laws. Most donations are never publicly acknowledged anyway, at least mine are not, they are too small.

 

[musicaljoke]

Can charitable donations be made anonymously and still be written off by the donor?

No. If a cash donation is made to a Registered Charity and that organisation receives it anonymously, then they are not able to issue a donation receipt. In that case, the donor cannot claim it as a charitable donation. But, if they are a business, they may be able claim the expense in a business related line item.

Mind you, it's not easy to make a large monetary donation anonymously. There is almost always a paper or electronic trail. Usually "anonymous" donations are not really anonymous. Rather, the donor has merely asked that their name not be published, and in that kind of situation a charity receipt would be issued.

I have some experience with this because I issue tax receipts for two Registered Charities.

 

[dotr]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...lop-pot-pill-for-medical-marijuana-users.html
March 25 2018

Barry Sherman was helping to develop ‘pot pill’ for medical marijuana users

A year before his murder, the Apotex founder had agreed to work with CannTrust to produce a slow-release medical marijuana pill that would treat chronic pain, depression, PTSD and more. The pill was seen as a disrupter to Big Pharma, as an alternative to highly addictive opioids.

In the year before his murder in December, the 75-year-old billionaire had a lot on his plate. The potentially revolutionary marijuana pill was one project; a major investment in a Toronto condominium tower was another. There were ongoing legal battles with his cousins who alleged that he owed them a stake in his company (they eventually lost in court), and he was still running Apotex, which he founded in the early 1970s.

The deaths of Sherman and his wife, Honey, 70, are now being investigated as a targeted double homicide. The probe is into its fourth month but, as the Star recently revealed, Toronto police initially considered Honey to be the sole victim, according to search warrant documents filed in court. That murder-suicide theory was debunked after police received information from a second pathologist who viewed the bodies.

Meanwhile, Toronto police continue their investigation into the murders, which detectives say was a “targeted” double homicide. A recent court document obtained by the Star and related to search warrants filed in the case notes that police have received “64 tips,” and 51 detectives are probing the case.

 

[andreww]

cause it has more holes than swiss cheese.

Not everyone wants to downsize. I think its over rated unless you need the equity out of your house.
The new house was being built in the same neighbourhood that most of their children live in and I suspect it was bigger because they were hoping to have the grandchildren stay over more, larger family get togethers etc. You can never have enough space, bedrooms etc if you want extended family to stay and visit.

There was a bedroom for each of them, he required a lot of sleep, she not so much and she had a gym beside her bedroom, convenient for early morning workouts.

I have read nothing about him not working as hard, if not harder in the coming years; another reason for her to indulge her home comforts. When you have their kind of money, why not enjoy some of it??

He was known to be frugal and possibly the only things he gave a lot of leeway on was the home, so she was going all out.

I have friends who are in that age bracket, have 'downsized' and hate it. All they want is their home back but most sold to builders, so even if they could afford it, its gone. One person is very depressed, as in can barely get out of her 'condo'. Most are just regretting the whole thing of being uprooted from their homes of many years. A few like the fact that its smaller, easier to clean and they can lock the door and go away for a couple of months and the concierge keeps an eye on everything. Its not for me, that I know. We are staying put.

BBM, you inadvertently bolstered my theory without trying. Barry simply didn't want to leave his home and start over. IMO this is still a murder suicide, and the move was the catalyst that led to it.

 

[andreww]

No. If a cash donation is made to a Registered Charity and that organisation receives it anonymously, then they are not able to issue a donation receipt. In that case, the donor cannot claim it as a charitable donation. But, if they are a business, they may be able claim the expense in a business related line item.

Mind you, it's not easy to make a large monetary donation anonymously. There is almost always a paper or electronic trail. Usually "anonymous" donations are not really anonymous. Rather, the donor has merely asked that their name not be published, and in that kind of situation a charity receipt would be issued.

I have some experience with this because I issue tax receipts for two Registered Charities.

I disagree. For one, there is no way in hell Barry would leave that tax deduction sitting on the table. Don't kid yourself, that is the main reason why rich people make sizeable donations. Secondly, anonymous donations are not truly anonymous. It simply means that the charity will not reveal your name on any donation list.

And this whole issue reminded me of an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Larry David and Ted Danson both make equally large donations to a charity, but Danson does it anonymously. However, he intentionally lets it slip to a few "loose lipped" people, and by the time of the big gala everyone knows that Danson is "anonymous". Larry is pissed because Danson is getting all the attention not only for being generous, but for doing it anonymously, despite the fact that everyone knows. If anyone knows about Larry David, they know that what he writes is often based on real life observations, so I sure this kind of thing does happen.

 

[miele.m]

BBM, you inadvertently bolstered my theory without trying. Barry simply didn't want to leave his home and start over. IMO this is still a murder suicide, and the move was the catalyst that led to it.

Does anyone know why he so aggressively sued most if not all the contractors to his Old Colony home? What percentage of that Home did he actually pay for in the end?
How bad could these contractors have done their work? And why such a high percentage of contractors were sued?
Perhaps he wasn’t up to paying full price for this new 16,000 square foot home? Perhaps he didn’t feel like going through the entire process of having to sue contractors again to get his home at below cost again? Perhaps he didn’t want to go through this whole house process again? He seemed to like to keep cars for 15-20 years and drove them into the ground. Maybe he started resenting this new house purchase?
He already had a whole roster of law suits on the go plus this new marijuana pill project , no need to change homes now.
Something to consider as he has just left a meeting with the architect with his wife that last night . Maybe the house costs were just getting too high for him?
Maybe this was indeed the trigger?
IDK....... just considering all possibilities.

Another question I have is this..............
Who would be discredited the most by it actually being/appearing as a murder suicide?
In the end when would actually benefit the most by it being dubbed a double murder versus a murder suicide?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[miele.m]

Does anyone know why he so aggressively sued most if not all the contractors to his Old Colony home? What percentage of that Home did he actually pay for in the end?
How bad could these contractors have done their work? And why such a high percentage of contractors were sued?
Perhaps he wasn’t up to paying full price for this new 16,000 square foot home? Perhaps he didn’t feel like going through the entire process of having to sue contractors again to get his home at below cost again? Perhaps he didn’t want to go through this whole house process again? He seemed to like to keep cars for 15-20 years and drove them into the ground. Maybe he started resenting this new house purchase?
He already had a whole roster of law suits on the go plus this new marijuana pill project , no need to change homes now.
Something to consider as he has just left a meeting with the architect with his wife that last night . Maybe the house costs were just getting too high for him?
Maybe this was indeed the trigger?
IDK....... just considering all possibilities.

Another question I have is this..............
Who would be discredited the most by it actually being/appearing as a murder suicide?
In the end who would actually benefit the most by it being dubbed a double murder versus a murder suicide?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[miele.m]

BBM, you inadvertently bolstered my theory without trying. Barry simply didn't want to leave his home and start over. IMO this is still a murder suicide, and the move was the catalyst that led to it.

Does anyone know why there hasn’t been a large reward offered by the family to anyone that could come forward with very valuable information that could lead to the identity and arrest of the suspects?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk