CANADA Canada - Billionaire Couple Barry & Honey Sherman Murdered at Home, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #24

[ldlager]

Murdering somebody because you think you are in the will. Rather risky don't you think?

No I said benefit financially. That does not mean that the murderer necessarily thought they were in the Will. At least not directly. For example, a business associate of one of the Sherman children could easily have presumed that they would benefit financially from the death of the Sherman’s, as their business associate would inherit a very large fortune.
As just one example.

 

[ldlager]

True. But in the end, the estate executors decided to cut its losses and not go after some of the people who owed Barry money.

Super risky play, to be sure. The executors could easily have continued Barry’s hard-line stance.

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.

 

[WINDSOR]

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

 

[ekc]

No I said benefit financially. That does not mean that the murderer necessarily thought they were in the Will. At least not directly. For example, a business associate of one of the Sherman children could easily have presumed that they would benefit financially from the death of the Sherman’s, as their business associate would inherit a very large fortune.
As just one example.

as the saying goes where theres a will theres relatives...but in my experience if parents left anyone in their will they would all know about it except those not in the know presumably...so not knowing would give you a heads up as to "i must be in the will as we were this and that"...what happened to frank d'angelo who also owed a chunk back to barry...sorry for the ramble but i am going every which way from 60 with this ...just saying

 

[fadedglitter]

as the saying goes where theres a will theres relatives...but in my experience if parents left anyone in their will they would all know about it except those not in the know presumably...so not knowing would give you a heads up as to "i must be in the will as we were this and that"...what happened to frank d'angelo who also owed a chunk back to barry...sorry for the ramble but i am going every which way from 60 with this ...just saying

Not a single person who would be in a position to know has ever suggested that Honey had a will. Nobody has claimed to be a beneficiary of her will. Nobody has claimed to be an executor of her will. Nobody has said a lawyer contacted them to advise them they were an executor of her will. A court has decided that she did not have a will.

Legally, she had no will. There is no evidence that she ever had one.

 

[ekc]

Not a single person who would be in a position to know has ever suggested that Honey had a will. Nobody has claimed to be a beneficiary of her will. Nobody has claimed to be an executor of her will. Nobody has said a lawyer contacted them to advise them they were an executor of her will. A court has decided that she did not have a will.

Legally, she had no will. There is no evidence that she ever had one.

sorry for stiring the pot...will do more homework

 

[ldlager]

Not a single person who would be in a position to know has ever suggested that Honey had a will. Nobody has claimed to be a beneficiary of her will. Nobody has claimed to be an executor of her will. Nobody has said a lawyer contacted them to advise them they were an executor of her will. A court has decided that she did not have a will.

Legally, she had no will. There is no evidence that she ever had one.

However, the killer(s) may have assumed she had one. If money was the motive for the killings, they likely felt they also had to kill HS, as they may have assumed thatBS’ entire estate would go to Her.

 

[fadedglitter]

However, the killer(s) may have assumed she had one. If money was the motive for the killings, they likely felt they also had to kill HS, as they may have assumed thatBS’ entire estate would go to Her.

This would be a killer who did not know what was in the wills but assumed they were a beneficiary? Someone like the nephews/nieces? Those people were named in trusts, but perhaps they misunderstood and confused the trust with the will. (A pretty significant difference, as it turned out!)

It seems bizarre and psychopathic to murder a person who you mistakenly believed had named you in their will. But there are many bizarre aspects of this case.

 

[FromGermany1]

Not a single person who would be in a position to know has ever suggested that Honey had a will. Nobody has claimed to be a beneficiary of her will. Nobody has claimed to be an executor of her will. Nobody has said a lawyer contacted them to advise them they were an executor of her will. A court has decided that she did not have a will.

Legally, she had no will. There is no evidence that she ever had one.

Bbbbut HS had told someone (one of the women from her staff), she had an appointment to change her LW? If I plan to change my LW, there was the 1. version of a will obviously?
Too many secrets .....

 

[WINDSOR]

Bbbbut HS had told someone (one of the women from her staff), she had an appointment to change her LW? If I plan to change my LW, there was the 1. version of a will obviously?
Too many secrets .....

If Honey, mis-spoke, or was being deceptive, or the staff member mis-heard, would it be the first time in the history of mankind, that such a thing has happened?

 

[fadedglitter]

If Honey, mis-spoke, or was being deceptive, or the staff member mis-heard, would it be the first time in the history of mankind, that such a thing has happened?

I believe the staff member was honestly mistaken about what Honey was doing that day. We know Honey had at least one trust, which she likely believed would serve a similar purpose and would provide for her sister’s kids. It’s common for lay people to confuse legal terms.

 

[al66pine]

Bbbbut HS had told someone (one of the women from her staff), she had an appointment to change her LW? If I plan to change my LW, there was the 1. version of a will obviously?
Too many secrets .....

@FromGermany1

Reference to LW?
Meaning L___ Will?
What kind of will?
TiA.

 

[wibbleflea]

I believe the staff member was honestly mistaken about what Honey was doing that day. We know Honey had at least one trust, which she likely believed would serve a similar purpose and would provide for her sister’s kids. It’s common for lay people to confuse legal terms.

Possible but whoever the service provider was was quite clear about the conversation. Article below:

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Was the service provider the hairdresser? I seem to remember her making an appearance on one of the two main podcast series (either the Star’s or CBC’s) or perhaps the Crave documentary. Can anyone remember?

The article above is worth reading in full. The person providing the information also says Honey repeatedly mentioned the importance of making a will.

 

[dotr]

2019

Honey Sherman had a will she updated shortly before billionaire couple slain, confidant reveals

Close confidant of Honey Sherman told police the billionaire philanthropist spoke of making changes to her will in the weeks before the murders.

www.thestar.com

''During the Toronto Star’s investigation, family and friends of the Sherman couple have said while Barry had a will (dating back to 2013 and updated in early 2017), they did not know if Honey had a will.
According to comments made by Honey before she died, she did have a will.
Roughly a week after the Nov. 13, 2017, birth of the Sherman couple’s third grandchild, Honey told one of her confidants she had just that day “updated” her will at a lawyer’s office.
“Honey and I were talking and she said meet me at Yonge and St. Clair Avenue. She said she was just coming from her lawyer’s office and she had just updated her will. She had done some amendments,”

 

[wibbleflea]

Possible but whoever the service provider was was quite clear about the conversation. Article below:

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Was the service provider the hairdresser?

More likely a massage therapist.

 

[fadedglitter]

Forgive me as I get frustrated about the whole business with wills!

If Honey had a will, she never asked anyone to be her executor. She never told anyone they were a beneficiary. Nobody has come forward to say they witnessed her signature. No law firm has contacted the court to say they had a copy of her executed will. No person has come forward to say a law firm contacted them after her death to say they were an executor. A judge reviewed all of the evidence and decided she did not have a will.

Barry had a will, and his executors knew about it. There is no evidence Honey had a will, only a nagging sense that she must have had one, and only among people in no position to know. Even her sister has never suggested that she had a will.

 

[wibbleflea]

Forgive me as I get frustrated about the whole business with wills!

If Honey had a will, she never asked anyone to be her executor. She never told anyone they were a beneficiary. Nobody has come forward to say they witnessed her signature.

I get the frustration. Here’s what’s interesting in the light of the facts you quote: there’s no obvious reason for this service provider to tell police (early in the investigation) that Honey had told her repeatedly about the importance of having a will and had also told her that she had just updated hers at her lawyer’s office.

No will was found. It could mean it hadn’t been completed (that instructions were given on updates) but there could be other reasons. What you’re saying is undisputed but makes the service provider’s memory (which sounds far from vague) more interesting, not less.

No firm has come forward to say that Honey was in the process of updating her will. Is that normal in the case of an incomplete will? (Genuine question, not rhetorical.) And no will was found. Both these things are potentially interesting in light of this person’s statement to police, made early in the investigation (per the Star article).

 

[Cedars]

No firm has come forward to say that Honey was in the process of updating her will.

But how would the public know what has or hasn't happened? IMO, any lawyer involved would not call up Kevin Donovan and give him the inside scoop and all the details.

JMO

 

[Charlot123]

I get the frustration. Here’s what’s interesting in the light of the facts you quote: there’s no obvious reason for this service provider to tell police (early in the investigation) that Honey had told her repeatedly about the importance of having a will and had also told her that she had just updated hers at her lawyer’s office.

No will was found. It could mean it hadn’t been completed (that instructions were given on updates) but there could be other reasons. What you’re saying is undisputed but makes the service provider’s memory (which sounds far from vague) more interesting, not less.

No firm has come forward to say that Honey was in the process of updating her will. Is that normal in the case of an incomplete will? (Genuine question, not rhetorical.) And no will was found. Both these things are potentially interesting in light of this person’s statement to police, made early in the investigation (per the Star article).

There are wills and wills. Advanced healthcare directives were called a living will in the 90es. I wonder if the “will” Honey spoke about could be of a different kind. JMO.

 

[Charlot123]

I wonder if in this case, one has to go “back”. Not to look at people who expected to improve their financial situation should the Shermans die soon, and together, but look at the people whose situation did not change? Who got exactly what they were promised to get? They could probably be crossed off the list of suspects.