If it is true that the executors “forgave” or did not pursue amounts owed to the Sherman’s (although I do not recall hearing about this), I find it especially telling that JS reportedly went out of his way to cancel favourable business arrangements that MS was enjoying, like cancelling her rent free storage locker; making her return her Apotex Leafs season tickets to the company (as told to me by a friend); cutting off her supply of money, etc.
I agree ldlager. Since Barry's loans in the most part were in the six figures plus, I believe the trustees would have an ethical obligation to attempt to collect the outstanding amounts where due.
Regarding the term 'benefits financially'. If I murder a wife of a friend, to save him the cost of the divorce, with the hope my friend gives me some money after, is a risky plan. A judge could rule, that when the money came to me, there was in fact a conspiracy, and my friend would be guilty of a crime, maybe not murder, but still a serious crime.
It is my understanding that if I was convicted, I would not be able to keep any proceeds.
Alternative scenarios
1) One of the heirs' 'friends' had the Sherman's killed, with the expectation of some benefit from the heir. The heir had no knowledge of this fact.
2) The friend and the heir conspired to commit the crime, and share some proceeds.
In the first scenario, if the heir becomes aware of this he has a ethical and moral obligation to inform Law Enforcement of what he/she knows. I the heir does not disclose the facts, he/she could be charged with numerous serious crimes. By not disclosing, it may follow they were in a conspiracy, all along.
In organized crime trials, "Just because my friend killed my enemy, without my knowledge, I am innocent," was used effectively for decades. The Justice system evolved, and the fact a friend does you a favour you are implicated.
MOO