Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #6

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
human said:
Why would he hire drug addicts? Is that even legal?
Click to expand...
:facepalm:. They weren't even given the chance to know of these possibilities. Who's to know how that may have encouraged them towards a different path?

He didn't honor it. It's not about whether or not the cousins would have met the requirements.
 
Grey-St said:
The fact remains that BS went against the wishes of their mother. The cousins were never informed that any such agreement exist. It's not about whether or not the cousins would have fulfilled the requirements to be hired, or be given the 5%.
Click to expand...

I don' t think the agreement says they were to be given 5% of the company. They were allowed to purchase 5% of the company after 2 years of work. Did they even have the money for that? I am not sure if the price was fixed at a particular rate (like stock options) or current market value.
 
Grey-St said:
Yeah, he knew good and well that what he was doing was "legally" feasible. I think that's what the OP means when they say "tricked".

I remain of the opinion that what BS did was dishonest. He went against everything a dying woman wanted for her children. So yes, morally, not great. JMO.

I also don't think anything he did in his lifetime warranted his death, and that of his lovely wife. It's heinous in every possible way, and I hope the Sherman family receives justice, and the perpetrator(s) held responsible. I just want to clarify that.
Click to expand...
Not specifically directed at you, but do we have enough facts to say what was actually done and if it was right/wrong?
Why did Barry sell 51% of the company in the 1st place? Later, why did he sell out? Was it his choice or the 51% shareholder? Why did the trust company sell at all? Were they running the company properly? Would the kids have had anything left to inherit had they not sold? Why did they sell so quickly? Why didn't they hold back 20 shares for the brothers to inherit when they were of age and sell the rest? Weren't they responsible for informing the brothers and their adoptive parents the terms of the deal?
There are A LOT more unanswered questions that would help reveal who was at fault here. Is it possible the courts got it right when they ruled in Barry's favor?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 
How many hours from now is it until the Fifth estate programme? And is it online please?
 
Tortoise said:
"I don't know who did it"

I'm not going to link the research I've done because I know that some people (not necessarily people in this thread) don't approve of statement analysis. So I will just mark it as my opinion; if a subject makes an open statement "I don't know blah blah" - so it's not a response to a question asked - it signals suppression of knowledge, because we report what we know not what we don't know.

It helps to put yourself in that situation and being asked if you killed someone. Why would you think of volunteering something you don't know... 'I don't know who did it'?
Click to expand...


And yet, in the process of 'discovery' for a court case, you are often told there are three answers to any questions. 1/ Yes 2/ No 3/ I do not know.

Possibly you mean I do not know....with blah, blah, blah added?

Its hard to prove a negative.
 
Grey-St said:
Honestly, can we stop shaming them for developing drug addictions? Please try to understand the complexities involved, the trauma involved, with how and why folks develop drug addictions.

The fact remains that BS went against the wishes of their mother. The cousins were never informed that any such agreement exist. It's not about whether or not the cousins would have fulfilled the requirements to be hired, or be given the 5%.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, when something is written such as me writing about them being drug addicts, it apparently is taken too personallly.

They were drug addicts, They would not be able to even be hired at a drug manufacturimg company.

They were given millions and they were given homes and they were given money to start businesses of their choice and interest.

I am sure the trauma led to their addiction, Barry gave drug rehab. He kept supplying them with opportunity and money. He did not cut off the spigot.

Why did he go for the lawsuit?

I think it is universallly understood with addiction that facing consequences makes many wake up. The internal pain is not addressed then but once the drug stops, then the person can start addressing the internal pain,

People did not know that back then. I imagine Barry thought providing for them is what is needed. We know that is not the answer.

Kerry appears to have been doing drugs at a young age. His mother is the one that did not find Barry acceptable. But when he heard about them, he stepped up with help.

What did they do with the help?
 
Grey-St said:
:facepalm:. They weren't even given the chance to know of these possibilities. Who's to know how that may have encouraged them towards a different path?

He didn't honor it. It's not about whether or not the cousins would have met the requirements.
Click to expand...

BS didn't honour an agreement that he had with Empire Drugs. From the court filings, one must conclude that those clauses did not pertain to any further holdings owned by BS. IF he had an obligation to those children, that was in perpetuity, it would have had to been paid. It was not.

After years of funding them, buying them homes and giving them $20,000 a month allowance.....he stopped when they said he had tried to kill their father.

I respectfully disagree about them meeting the requirements as they were not outlandish.

In order to succeed in a drug company, they would have needed a proper education and in order for the buy in, 2 yrs employment. IF those were the terms, they would be seen to be proper and need to be met by a court as the 'obligation' was also a court decision. BUT, when sued, the court denied the Winters.
 
JDG said:
As soon as their parents died, either the executor of the estate of the mother (Royal Trust) and/or the Official Guardian should have been on top of this 'inheritance' IF it existed as reported.

The Winters went to court against RT and did not win. Im not sure of the details but it seems wrong to me, IF this was true.

Possibly, once he sold the firm, BS was indeed relieved of those clauses. Remember, in the eyes of the law, that which is MORAL isn't necessarily LEGAL. We can judge til the cows come home but it all hinges on LAW. Usually the law is very clear. I suspect, BS was not obligated to carry it forward. Just my opinion and best guess.
Click to expand...


And how do we know whether or not the Winter children got an $$ inheritance from their parents? They were well off ( Over and above the company assets). Maybe they did. Also their adopted parents were quite well off.
 
Ritika said:
And how do we know whether or not the Winter children got an $$ inheritance from their parents? They were well off ( Over and above the company assets). Maybe they did. Also their adopted parents were quite well off.
Click to expand...

Thats why it says "IF"

IMO one can never be sure that an article is correct or has the whole/true story. Everything on here should start with IF. IMO LOL
 
so now they are into the Kerry portion of the story. KW retold his story about how BS wanted him to hire someone to kill Honey. When the interviewer asked KW if he warned Honey, KW said, "no, I hated Honey".

And there you have it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 202 more.
Total: 4,053 (members: 203, guests: 3,850)

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
3,850
Total visitors
4,053
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,935
Messages
17,977,952
Members
228,950
Latest member
vymocycy
Back
Top