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

[ldlager]

Jack gets to decide what he meant by that.

Jack says follow the money and goes on and on about Barry’s involvement with seedy characters. Not the heirs.

AFAIK JK never defined “seedy characters” to exclude any Sherman family members, let alone just the four Sherman heirs.

 

[FromGermany1]

If whoever ordered the hit was smart enough not to change it financially for those on the receiving end of the Shermans’ generosity, I can see why no one is super invested in solving the case.

Plus Apotex itself…I wonder if Barry was getting old and either “not showing old business acumen” or “his type A impulsivity and fast thinking that was so helpful to him in younger years, was working against him in later life”. Then his death and Apotex changing guidance could be a plus (or at least, not a minus) to the company, to investors and to Canada.

On the other hand, the case may not be solved merely because there is no evidence against anyone specific. Or the evidence will never meet the burden of proof.

bbm
Do you think, there were investors?

 

[fadedglitter]

Apotex was privately held at Barry’s death. It wasn’t a company traded on the stock market.

 

[WINDSOR]

More individuals than just the heirs benefitted financially or otherwise from the fact that the Sherman’s were no longer alive. But the heirs also benefitted, certainly financially.

I am not aware of anybody who 'benefitted financially or otherwise' from the Sherman's deaths besides the heirs. With their deaths ended their philanthropy, and easy loans to friends and family. All debts owed to the Sherman's would be still owed to the estate and the heirs.

 

[fadedglitter]

Agreed that it would be super risky to murder a creditor in hopes that the executors would decide not to collect on amounts due. This is what happened, but it was not at all foreseeable. There was definitely a significant likelihood that the heirs would have continued their father’s litigious nature and pursued all creditors, if not to maximize their inheritance then “just on principle”.

 

[Charlot123]

bbm
Do you think, there were investors?

Currently, Apotex exists and formally there are investors: SK Capital Partners. Before, there were Primark Capital and Jobs and Prosperity Fund.

How were things in Barry’s time, I can’t tell. It was privately owned but in its time, Apotex had acquired several companies as well, and how are terms of acquisition worded, I can not tell.

Here are the ones it acquired: Topgen ESV Belgium and Lareq Pharma SL in Spain.

Also, if some workers were paid in Apotex stocks, there are stock owners.

 

[Charlot123]

I am not aware of anybody who 'benefitted financially or otherwise' from the Sherman's deaths besides the heirs. With their deaths ended their philanthropy, and easy loans to friends and family. All debts owed to the Sherman's would be still owed to the estate and the heirs.

OK did their deaths totally end the philanthropy or did the heirs pledge something to Jewish funds or to Shermans’ preferred party?

 

[fadedglitter]

OK did their deaths totally end the philanthropy or did the heirs pledge something to Jewish funds or to Shermans’ preferred party?

“Today, Alexandra is in control of the Sherman philanthropy. Each of the four children have also created their own individual foundations.”

From Suspicion: Murder on Mount Olive: S2 The Billionaire Murders | E9 Succession, May 26, 2023

S2 The Billionaire Murders | E9 Succession

Podcast Episode · Suspicion: Murder on Mount Olive · S2 E9 · 34m

podcasts.apple.com

This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[ldlager]

I am not aware of anybody who 'benefitted financially or otherwise' from the Sherman's deaths besides the heirs. With their deaths ended their philanthropy, and easy loans to friends and family. All debts owed to the Sherman's would be still owed to the estate and the heirs.

With their death BS was no longer the driving force behind a competitor, for example. Similarly, associates of the hires stood to potentially benefit financially from their inheritance. Etc etc etc

 

[ldlager]

Agreed that it would be super risky to murder a creditor in hopes that the executors would decide not to collect on amounts due. This is what happened, but it was not at all foreseeable. There was definitely a significant likelihood that the heirs would have continued their father’s litigious nature and pursued all creditors, if not to maximize their inheritance then “just on principle”.

I don’t necessarily agree. For example, has FDA been forced by the heirs to repay? If so, we surely heard he would be bankrupt by now. Also, MS husband was not, to my knowledge, required by the hires to repay the tens of millions he spent on a jewellery company. Has JD been forced to repay his loans from BS? I’m sure there are others.

 

[fadedglitter]

I don’t necessarily agree. For example, has FDA been forced by the heirs to repay? If so, we surely heard he would be bankrupt by now. Also, MS husband was not, to my knowledge, required by the hires to repay the tens of millions he spent on a jewellery company. Has JD been forced to repay his loans from BS? I’m sure there are others.

That’s right. The heirs decided to get it over with and not pursue everyone who owed their father money. It was just extra zeros and every decision was painful.

As noted above, this would be a super risky strategy for any debtor. But perhaps the person felt they could influence the heirs’ decision-making. This is unlikely for people like FDA but someone like their uncle Allan might have thought (correctly as it turned out) that there would be no need to pay up in the end.

 

[WINDSOR]

We do not know from whom the estate tried to collect from. Chances are they reviewed each debt and considered if it was even collectible. Likely FDA had little or no money left to pay the estate.

I feel very comfortable in saying, if money was the motive, nobody but the heirs were going to be enriched.

As the children had publicly expressed no interest in running Apotex, the motive for some outsider wanting to take control from Barry Sherman upon Barry's death does not seem reasonable either. For example if Jack Kay wanted sole control of the Apotex and had Barry murdered for this reason, when Jonathon fired him he was out of Apotex. So power and control would never be available to an outsider, and therefore -not likely a motive.

MOO

 

[ldlager]

We do not know from whom the estate tried to collect from. Chances are they reviewed each debt and considered if it was even collectible. Likely FDA had little or no money left to pay the estate.

I feel very comfortable in saying, if money was the motive, nobody but the heirs were going to be enriched.

As the children had publicly expressed no interest in running Apotex, the motive for some outsider wanting to take control from Barry Sherman upon Barry's death does not seem reasonable either. For example if Jack Kay wanted sole control of the Apotex and had Barry murdered for this reason, when Jonathon fired him he was out of Apotex. So power and control would never be available to an outsider, and therefore -not likely a motive.

MOO

“…if money was the motive, nobody but the heirs were going to be enriched….”
Or someone associated with the heirs, like a business associate, etc. Or someone who thought they would inherit money on the death of the Sherman’s, who believed they were in the Will(s)

 

[fadedglitter]

Or someone who knew they were a beneficiary of one of the Shermans’ trusts. The wealth wasn’t just passed along through the will.

 

[Charlot123]

-Is Apotex doing better now than under Barry?
- Are the children's money safe (got what they expected according to the will)?
- the funds that the Shermans supported were not let dry?

Seems that there is no one proactively pushing the case to be solved.

I would not be surprised if some people might be interested in solving the case, but perhaps, even scared.

 

[fadedglitter]

-Is Apotex doing better now than under Barry?
- Are the children's money safe (got what they expected according to the will)?
- the funds that the Shermans supported were not let dry?

Seems that there is no one proactively pushing the case to be solved.

I would not be surprised if some people might be interested in solving the case, but perhaps, even scared.

Apotex was sold, with some parts at a loss. We are in the realm of speculation, but with Barry, Jack and Jeremy gone it’s likely the company would be less profitable than it was under their leadership.

It is similarly a matter of speculation whether Mr. Risky Business’s other investments would have collectively done better under his control as opposed to the trustees’ before dispersal to the heirs.

From my perspective everyone who would have been expected to be in the will was in the will. The Shermans spoke of giving money away in their lifetimes, not after death. There are no surprises in the will. The trusts are private but what we know of them is not surprising either.

Alexandra is said to be in control of the Sherman philanthropy and appears to be evaluating charitable donations through the lens of what she believed her parents’ philosophies to be. Her siblings are making their own decisions about how to donate their own money.

 

[WINDSOR]

“…if money was the motive, nobody but the heirs were going to be enriched….”
Or someone associated with the heirs, like a business associate, etc. Or someone who thought they would inherit money on the death of the Sherman’s, who believed they were in the Will(s)

Let us say for a minute, I am best buddies with one of the heirs. If I assume I will benefit by killing my buddy's parents, so my buddy will get richer.

How do I know my buddy, the heir will be okay with me killing his parents?
How do I know the heir will give me money?
How do I know I will not get caught?
If I tell the heir, I did it, (remember we are best buddies), how do I know he will not turn me in?
If I 'cleared' my plans with the heir before hand, he is now culpable of the murders.

The prosecution will consider the heir as part of a conspiracy that committed murder.

Someone associated with the heirs killing the Sherman's, in my opinion is not probable unless they were in a conspiracy with an heir.

 

[ldlager]

Let us say for a minute, I am best buddies with one of the heirs. If I assume I will benefit by killing my buddy's parents, so my buddy will get richer.

How do I know my buddy, the heir will be okay with me killing his parents?
How do I know the heir will give me money?
How do I know I will not get caught?
If I tell the heir, I did it, (remember we are best buddies), how do I know he will not turn me in?
If I 'cleared' my plans with the heir before hand, he is now culpable of the murders.

The prosecution will consider the heir as part of a conspiracy that committed murder.

Someone associated with the heirs killing the Sherman's, in my opinion is not probable unless they were in a conspiracy with an heir.

Speaking hypothetically of course. One example of what I was referring to. There are others:
If you were in business with the heir, and jointly owned a company that needed funds to expand, and risked having existing loans called, you would know that additional funds would be available after the inheritance.
Why would you assume that you would tell the heir of your involvement? That would be crazy.
MOO

 

[fadedglitter]

Only a complete psychopath would murder a business partner’s parents in hopes that the business partner would inherit large sums and then invest that money into the shared business.

All of these scenarios are working backwards from the assumption Jonathon must have been involved. I think they are all extremely unlikely.

 

[Charlot123]

Only a complete psychopath would murder a business partner’s parents in hopes that the business partner would inherit large sums and then invest that money into the shared business.

All of these scenarios are working backwards from the assumption Jonathon must have been involved. I think they are all extremely unlikely.

I think the approach, "who profits?" is reasonable, only in this case, there were so many people connected financially with Barry that it is a tangled web.