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

[Professor Moriarty]

Why kill both? Barry Sherman seems to have had a lot of competitors and others who felt that they had lost out to him financially, but why kill Honey too?

If the killer was clever enough to do what he did and get away with it, would he not have been able to kill one without killing the other?

 

[Clue Keeper]

What was the "staging" for? What did it mean?

Why not put the bodies in the pool under the pool cover? They would not have been found for a longer time and any DNA traces would be less likely to remain?

The killer may have staged the scene to mimic a murder-suicide, making it appear as though Barry had killed Honey before taking his own life. This tactic initially worked.
JMO

 

[Clue Keeper]

Why kill both? Barry Sherman seems to have had a lot of competitors and others who felt that they had lost out to him financially, but why kill Honey too?

If the killer was clever enough to do what he did and get away with it, would he not have been able to kill one without killing the other?

I believe, it's about money. By killing both at once, the estate bypassed Honey’s potential new will and the trust she would have controlled, allowing the inheritance to flow immediately to the heirs.
JMO

 

[AndrewM71]

I believe, it's about money. By killing both at once, the estate bypassed Honey’s potential new will and the trust she would have controlled, allowing the inheritance to flow immediately to the heirs.
JMO

Honey was the beneficiary of the trust.

The whole point of a trust is that the beneficiary has no control over it. The trustees do.

 

[Clue Keeper]

Honey was the beneficiary of the trust.

The whole point of a trust is that the beneficiary has no control over it. The trustees do.

In the specific context of the Sherman family and Barry’s estate planning, Honey’s role as the primary beneficiary and her potential role as a trustee created significant friction. If Barry died, Honey would not just be waiting for a check; she would likely have had a seat at the table with the other trustees to decide how the money was distributed to the children. Many trusts of this size give the primary beneficiary (Honey) a "power of appointment."
JMO

 

[fadedglitter]

I believe, it's about money. By killing both at once, the estate bypassed Honey’s potential new will and the trust she would have controlled, allowing the inheritance to flow immediately to the heirs.
JMO

This is just flat out not true. Honey had no will and controlled no trust. The inheritance did not flow immediately to the heirs: it was overwhelmingly in illiquid assets like Apotex, Honey had no will that would have simplified distribution of her real estate, and Barry’s will required the heirs to reach specific ages before receiving their shares. Only Lauren was over age 35 at the time of the murders. Wrapping up the estate would have been extremely complex. It is likely still underway eight years later.

The fastest way to get money from Barry Sherman was to ask for the cash.

 

[Calcano]

The fastest way to get money from Barry Sherman was to ask for the cash.

Unless it was money you already had that Barry wanted back from you.

 

[fadedglitter]

Unless it was money you already had that Barry wanted back from you.

Yes. And because I suspect that the murderer was triggered somehow by the requests for repayment, I think this is highly significant. Barry was cutting people off and calling loans in late 2017, some of them in amounts that would be large to the recipients but relatively small to a billionaire. We don’t know the full list of people who were being asked for repayments or told not to cash their regular “gift” cheques. One of those people may have overreacted.

I don’t believe any of the heirs is responsible for the murders.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

In the Sherman case there is no evidence of a lookout or driver so there is likely nobody to cut a deal with.

I've just watched the 3 episode youtube series Unjust Crime (Isn't all crime unjust?). The youtuber said that Kevin Donovan of the Toronto Star thinks the walking man in the video might have been a lookout.

 

[AndrewM71]

I've just watched the 3 episode youtube series Unjust Crime (Isn't all crime unjust?). The youtuber said that Kevin Donovan of the Toronto Star thinks the walking man in the video might have been a lookout.

He does.

But there is no evidence of that, and Donovan’s suppositions aren’t evidence.

 

[planet]

Yes. And because I suspect that the murderer was triggered somehow by the requests for repayment, I think this is highly significant. Barry was cutting people off and calling loans in late 2017, some of them in amounts that would be large to the recipients but relatively small to a billionaire. We don’t know the full list of people who were being asked for repayments or told not to cash their regular “gift” cheques. One of those people may have overreacted.

I don’t believe any of the heirs is responsible for the murders.

That's interesting. Do you have an idea (hunch, instinct, supposition) about which category of person was likely responsible? e.g. colleague, friend, investor, extended family member, other

 

[WINDSOR]

Why kill both? Barry Sherman seems to have had a lot of competitors and others who felt that they had lost out to him financially, but why kill Honey too?

If the killer was clever enough to do what he did and get away with it, would he not have been able to kill one without killing the other?

It is my understanding that if Honey lived, the money goes into a trust for her benefit. The estate would not go to the four children.

You can imagine Barry being murdered and Honey still alive, she would go to the ends of the earth to find the perpetrator. Plus there would not be any money going to the kids to build a new arena.

If it was not about the money, Honey could live, but if it was about the money Honey had to die.

MOO

 

[tricia]

TODAY, JANUARY 17TH = GUARDIAN ZOOM MADNESS
It’s EPIC.
It’s 8 HOURS.
It’s our MONTHLY GUARDIAN ZOOM CALL — and you’re invited!
Saturday, January 17
12 NOON – 8 PM Eastern
(Yes, really. No, you don’t have to stay the whole time )

YOU MUST REGISTER FIRST — CLICK HERE to register
Pro tip: You do NOT have to use your real name. Your Websleuths username is perfect.
WHAT WILL WE TALK ABOUT?

(Here are a few ideas but we can talk about almost anything you want)​

What case drives you absolutely crazy — and why
What changes you’d like to see on Websleuths
Your brush with fame (we KNOW you have one)
And lots more laughs, surprises, and great conversation

FREE STUFF!​

We’ll be giving away FREE Guardian memberships
You can nominate Websleuths members you think deserve one — because kindness matters.

REGISTER HERE for the call
Want to become a Guardian? CLICK HERE — it’s easy and only $3/month

Come and go as you please.
Pop in. Pop out. Stay 10 minutes or all day — it’s totally up to you.
Hope to see you today
Tricia

 

[Professor Moriarty]

He does.

But there is no evidence of that, and Donovan’s suppositions aren’t evidence.

The walking man video is evidence of someone who could have been a look out. It certainly isn't persuasive evidence of a look out. (There is no strong evidence of much in this case.) He might just have been a completely innocent person, out for a stroll, who hasn't come forward or been traced. If he was a look out, $35 million could be persuasive.

On the other hand, if I murdered two family members, I was very wealthy and I was confident that there was no one who could incriminate me and claim an award, I could offer a large amount for appearances sake.

 

[AndrewM71]

The walking man video is evidence of someone who could have been a look out. It certainly isn't persuasive evidence of a look out. (There is no strong evidence of much in this case.) He might just have been a completely innocent person, out for a stroll, who hasn't come forward or been traced. If he was a look out, $35 million could be persuasive.

On the other hand, if I murdered two family members, I was very wealthy and I was confident that there was no one who could incriminate me and claim an award, I could offer a large amount for appearances sake.

The fact that he could have been a lookout is not evidence that he was. It’s that simple. Donovan thinking he is doesn’t make it evidence. Donovan also thinks two people managed to enter and exit the house undetected. There is no evidence of this.

I don’t understand the relevance of your second point as to what I said. It seems like an off-topic way to make JS your suspect. Has nothing to do with the walking man, or what constitutes evidence or anything I said.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

The fact that he could have been a lookout is not evidence that he was. It’s that simple. Donovan thinking he is doesn’t make it evidence. Donovan also thinks two people managed to enter and exit the house undetected. There is no evidence of this.

I don’t understand the relevance of your second point as to what I said. It seems like an off-topic way to make JS your suspect. Has nothing to do with the walking man, or what constitutes evidence or anything I said.

As I said, there is not much evidence in this case. That is why the case is unsolved and discussed. As with many cases on this website, people offer opinions and talk of possibilities. Kevin Donovan just gives a view, as do many people. One person's judgement might be that one person carried out the murder. Another might favour two or more as murderers.

 

[dotr]

What was the "staging" for? What did it mean?

Why not put the bodies in the pool under the pool cover? They would not have been found for a longer time and any DNA traces would be less likely to remain?

The murders are far from being sexually motivated and we have no idea if the killer is a serial killer or not, but maybe some things are universal?.. fwiw, speculation, imo. rbbm
February 5, 2019

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bruce-mcarthur-serial-killer-murders-1.5005532

'Posing refers to manipulating the bodies of victims, putting them into grotesque, humiliating and often sexually degrading positions.''

''Lee said posing is often done for the gratification of the killer, who gets a thrill out of controlling that situation.
"There's something tantalizing to serial killers about being able to totally control a person even in post-mortem. That behavior is something that reflects those underlying desires and urges to dominate and control a person," Lee said.

Arntfield said posing is "extraordinarily rare" and is almost unique to sexual serial killers.

Serial killers pose a body to enhance public shock, meaning they want the bodies to be discovered that way, he said. Or a pose can be used as a stand-in for fantasy vignettes that often go back to the offender's formative years.''

 

[fadedglitter]

As I said, there is not much evidence in this case. That is why the case is unsolved and discussed. As with many cases on this website, people offer opinions and talk of possibilities. Kevin Donovan just gives a view, as do many people. One person's judgement might be that one person carried out the murder. Another might favour two or more as murderers.

There is a huge amount of evidence in this case, but none of it indicates a second person was on site. There is one person on camera walking up to the house and walking away.

Kevin Donovan would not invent a “lookout” if the walking man physically resembled his preferred suspect. He’s never explained why a lookout would be needed or what he would have done. I don’t understand why this ludicrous idea is so accepted here.

 

[fadedglitter]

That's interesting. Do you have an idea (hunch, instinct, supposition) about which category of person was likely responsible? e.g. colleague, friend, investor, extended family member, other

I think it was someone Barry had helped out financially, who panicked. I think the amount was relatively small compared to Barry’s overall wealth. I think the person is not one of the people WSers tend to suspect.

I feel like a broken record here: the police have redacted everything that relates to persons of interest and current investigative theories. The unredacted sections of the ITOs are not a viable basis for guessing the direction of the investigation. They are unredacted precisely because they do *not* indicate what the police are investigating.

 

[planet]

I think it was someone Barry had helped out financially, who panicked. I think the amount was relatively small compared to Barry’s overall wealth. I think the person is not one of the people WSers tend to suspect.

I feel like a broken record here: the police have redacted everything that relates to persons of interest and current investigative theories. The unredacted sections of the ITOs are not a viable basis for guessing the direction of the investigation. They are unredacted precisely because they do *not* indicate what the police are investigating.

Asking with genuine curiosity: Do you have a narrative that would account for the scene and both murders?

What has bothered me about this case from the start (other than the fact that it's unsolved) is that the murders took place in the family home. A confrontation that escalated or was miscalulated (e.g. the person intended to confront Barry but instead, Honey was home; they struggled; she was killed; then Barry arrived and he was killed) seems more plausible than planned homicide. It seems incredibly high risk to intentionally kill two people (directly, or by proxy) in their family home. It's physically demanding, the opportunities to leave evidence are many, and the timing had to be perfect. I'm sceptical this was planned.

My sole conviction about this case is that there was one killer. Ultimately, evidence is the only thing that matters.