CANADA Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #16

[Lexiintoronto]

I think you’re recalling the gist of the Prosecution’s theory, that D’s over-extended financial situation was involved in the motive and he was a beneficiary of his fathers Will. However I can find nowhere that specific details of the father’s Will was reported separately by the media and I followed that case closely as well. If you have a link of any victim’s Will obtained and reported by the media, particularly in cases where charges haven’t been laid involving anything connected to a Will, I sure don’t mind being proven wrong.

I’m not sure if this is what you might mean, but this is the first case that came to mind...

This article about murdered family members doesn’t go into great detail about an estate they inherited, but explains how it may have been a motive for the killer:

“The man suspected of wounding his sister, fatally shooting her husband and three of their kids inside their Oshawa, Ont., home last week, was all but left out of his father's will, according to court documents obtained by CBC News.

Instead, Mitch Lapa's sister Loretta Traynor and her children were the beneficiaries of almost all of her late father's estate. ”
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5717857

 

[dotr]

I’m not sure if this is what you might mean, but this is the first case that came to mind...

This article about murdered family members doesn’t go into great detail about an estate they inherited, but explains how it may have been a motive for the killer:

“The man suspected of wounding his sister, fatally shooting her husband and three of their kids inside their Oshawa, Ont., home last week, was all but left out of his father's will, according to court documents obtained by CBC News.

Instead, Mitch Lapa's sister Loretta Traynor and her children were the beneficiaries of almost all of her late father's estate. ”
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5717857

Ws thread ..
Canada - 5 people, inc. 2 teens, found dead inside Oshawa, Ontario home after shooting, 4 Sept 2020

 

[MistyWaters]

I’m not sure if this is what you might mean, but this is the first case that came to mind...

This article about murdered family members doesn’t go into great detail about an estate they inherited, but explains how it may have been a motive for the killer:

“The man suspected of wounding his sister, fatally shooting her husband and three of their kids inside their Oshawa, Ont., home last week, was all but left out of his father's will, according to court documents obtained by CBC News.

Instead, Mitch Lapa's sister Loretta Traynor and her children were the beneficiaries of almost all of her late father's estate. ”
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5717857

Yes I recall that one. It’s similar to the Oland case whereby the matter of the Will was brought forward during the Prosecution’s theory after charges were laid. Even then, if the Will was introduced as evidence I don’t think the media reported the details of the other beneficiaries. What’s different here is nobody has been charged yet and it would seem very doubtful all the beneficiaries were involved.

 

[WINDSOR]

I’ve no idea what specifically she’d be fearful of aside from the ongoing publicity which no doubt negatively impacts each of the children’s private lives. It it can’t be about JK, as trustee and beneficiary he was directly involved in the estate file so she’d be fully aware sealing it from the public wouldn’t hide anything from him especially as her husband was another trustee.

This is the first murder case in Canada where I ever recall the media publicly releasing specific details regarding Wills of the victims. It would seem logical LE always investigates anyone who stands to gain financially first. If for every homicide the Will became public knowledge, exactly who got what, in most cases I’d think that would cause the tragedy of the murder combined with published inheritances doubly difficult for the family members to face during their grieving process because of the speculation from strangers that’s bound to occur.

Wills are public in Canada, the media often releases info about them in high profile cases. That is what the SCC case was about.

 

[MistyWaters]

Wills are public in Canada, the media often releases info about them in high profile cases. That is what the SCC case was about.

That’s not quite true. Court records are public records and so wills which are probated become court record. Wills that don’t require probate are not public records, unless contested through the court. That’s why the estate file released represents but a small portion of the total Sherman wealth. Can you recall the media ever releasing details about a will prior to a trial or anyone being charged? I suspect that’s the reason AK might believe her privacy was violated. If any of us were in her shoes, I’d imagine we’d feel the same way.

So far as we know, KDs efforts to unseal the Will has offered no additional information as to whom might be suspect. It wasn’t the bombshell that the public had been more or less led to expect it might be.

 

[deugirtni]

I believe if the Shermans had not made a big deal about all the secrecy they wanted surrounding the estate and wills, etc., this would not have been a 'thing' in this case either. KD and The Star won the SCC case, and yet we really know nothing more than we already knew... whatever other information may be in there, is not being released, for whatever reason(s). There seem to have been at least a few cases in the past several years where a family member has been accused and perhaps already convicted in some cases of killing a person(s) who had named them as a beneficiary (or excluded them as a beneficiary when the person expected to have been included), but yet it seems it was basically only a one-liner in the news articles, ie "x was listed as a beneficiary (or wasn't listed) to x's estate and it is thought to be a motive in this case".

Considering that so little of the Sherman estate seems to have been 'public' in the first place, it is confusing (to me) as to why the family/executors would spend so much time and money to have the information sealed, creating all this intrigue. It seems to have been themselves and their own actions that caused the huge interest and publicity amongst the public and media, the very thing they seemed to want to avoid. When KD was first assigned this story, he didn't rush out to look at the estate files.. IIRC, it was months later, and only then did it become noticed, as if there was something to see there, and it became a big deal. imo.

 

[MistyWaters]

I believe if the Shermans had not made a big deal about all the secrecy they wanted surrounding the estate and wills, etc., this would not have been a 'thing' in this case either. KD and The Star won the SCC case, and yet we really know nothing more than we already knew... whatever other information may be in there, is not being released, for whatever reason(s). There seem to have been at least a few cases in the past several years where a family member has been accused and perhaps already convicted in some cases of killing a person(s) who had named them as a beneficiary (or excluded them as a beneficiary when the person expected to have been included), but yet it seems it was basically only a one-liner in the news articles, ie "x was listed as a beneficiary (or wasn't listed) to x's estate and it is thought to be a motive in this case".

Considering that so little of the Sherman estate seems to have been 'public' in the first place, it is confusing (to me) as to why the family/executors would spend so much time and money to have the information sealed, creating all this intrigue. It seems to have been themselves and their own actions that caused the huge interest and publicity amongst the public and media, the very thing they seemed to want to avoid. When KD was first assigned this story, he didn't rush out to look at the estate files.. IIRC, it was months later, and only then did it become noticed, as if there was something to see there, and it became a big deal. imo.

The only thing I can think that came out of it is the unsealing puts into question the integrity and agenda of this particular “confidant”, who was apparently Honey’s employee as well. For what reason would she attempt to alter known facts, other than it’s likely someone known to Honey also knew the Sherman’s schedule the day of Dec 13th. Unfortunately KD didn’t name her but I’d be curious what other information he reported from this same source.

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

 

[deugirtni]

It's possible H went to see a lawyer and make/update a will, but she hadn't yet signed it?

 

[dotr]

Maybe HS was waiting for the new super mansion to be built before making final decisions in her will? imo.

 

[ldlager]

That’s not quite true. Court records are public records and so wills which are probated become court record. Wills that don’t require probate are not public records, unless contested through the court. That’s why the estate file released represents but a small portion of the total Sherman wealth. Can you recall the media ever releasing details about a will prior to a trial or anyone being charged? I suspect that’s the reason AK might believe her privacy was violated. If any of us were in her shoes, I’d imagine we’d feel the same way.

So far as we know, KDs efforts to unseal the Will has offered no additional information as to whom might be suspect. It wasn’t the bombshell that the public had been more or less led to expect it might be.

Perhaps but that is no fault of KD. There could have just as easily been a bombshell contained in the documents. Most of the public’s expectations as to the importance of what was in the documents was caused by the family taking every measure possible to prevent public release of the documents. In my opinion.

 

[ldlager]

It's possible H went to see a lawyer and make/update a will, but she hadn't yet signed it?

but if she “updated” her will she must have had a will in the first place!

 

[MistyWaters]

but if she “updated” her will she must have had a will in the first place!

But what makes KD’s source unquestionably credible? When sources provide information to reporters they’re not under oath. Given the media coverage I’d be very surprised if an estate attorney who dealt with Honey failed to notice the confusion over whether Honey had a Will or not. Even her phone records would indicate if she called a lawyer to make an appointment.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

The only thing I can think that came out of it is the unsealing puts into question the integrity and agenda of this particular “confidant”, who was apparently Honey’s employee as well. For what reason would she attempt to alter known facts, other than it’s likely someone known to Honey also knew the Sherman’s schedule the day of Dec 13th. Unfortunately KD didn’t name her but I’d be curious what other information he reported from this same source.

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

Donovan mentioned that the Shermans’ estate lawyers were Davies Ward Phillips and Vineberg LLP. They’re located downtown on Wellington St., 15 minutes or so south from Yonge and St. Clair where Honey allegedly met the service provider and had that conversation.

There are a number of lawyers connected to this case, there may be some from that area. IMO, Donovan likes dropping clues, this may be one.

This quote from the article you linked stayed with me (bbm):

“The service provider told the homicide detective all of this information. At the end of the interview, the detective asked, “Who do you think did it?”

“That’s your job,” the service provider told the detective.”

(!!!)

 

[Lexiintoronto]

But what makes KD’s source unquestionably credible? When sources provide information to reporters they’re not under oath. Given the media coverage I’d be very surprised if an estate attorney who dealt with Honey failed to notice the confusion over whether Honey had a Will or not. Even her phone records would indicate if she called a lawyer to make an appointment.

From all the details this person gave Donovan, it should have been easy for him to verify what they said, imo.

If he or she lied about the will and lawyer’s visit, that’s a huge deception, but it’s possible. I think a few people have lied to Donovan (my opinion only).

I don’t know the ethics of this, but could the ‘service provider’ in this story actually be a person we already know by name in other articles and the book? (‘you didn’t hear it from me, but...’)

Eta: It may be possible they found the lawyer and a copy of the will, just not the *original signed version* or she hadn’t signed it as was suggested. (Less likely, I know.)

 

[MistyWaters]

Donovan mentioned that the Shermans’ estate lawyers were Davies Ward Phillips and Vineberg LLP. They’re located downtown on Wellington St., 15 minutes or so south from Yonge and St. Clair where Honey allegedly met the service provider and had that conversation.

There are a number of lawyers connected to this case, there may be some from that area. IMO, Donovan likes dropping clues, this may be one.

This quote from the article you linked stayed with me (bbm):

“The service provider told the homicide detective all of this information. At the end of the interview, the detective asked, “Who do you think did it?”

“That’s your job,” the service provider told the detective.”

(!!!)

Did she volunteer to take a lie detector test I wonder, assuming she did indeed speak to TPS? Her insinuation is quite obvious that an amended Will or missing might involve motive. But I notice the assumption her information is credible without knowing her identity, nor having confirmation she was a service provider. For me that’s a big leap in belief containing a whole lot of question marks.

Perhaps one of KDs motivation in the unsealing of the estate files was to test her credibility? If he’s able to move the investigation forward by having opened his ear to these anonymous characters, it won’t matter to him which path it might eventually lead toward.

I distinctly recall KD didn’t deny that one of his sources may be the actual killer. I truly do believe he’d like to see this murder solved but I think it’s all about expectations. I just don’t quite believe he has the ability to solve it for the general public, especially prior to TPS announcing an arrest.

 

[nuff]

I distinctly recall KD didn’t deny that one of his sources may be the actual killer. I truly do believe he’d like to see this murder solved but I think it’s all about expectations. I just don’t quite believe he has the ability to solve it for the general public, especially prior to TPS announcing an arrest.

If any of you have followed KD's series of articles Toronto Star entitled "Death in a Small Town", concerning the tragic cold case of a little boy, Nathaniel McLellan, it appears that it has led directly to manslaughter charges being laid at last. I think KD views himself as a crusader as well as a journalist, and keeps hoping to push TPS on the Sherman case. (I know it's pay-walled, but it's a fascinating series that got results.)

 

[MistyWaters]

If any of you have followed KD's series of articles Toronto Star entitled "Death in a Small Town", concerning the tragic cold case of a little boy, Nathaniel McLellan, it appears that it has led directly to manslaughter charges being laid at last. I think KD views himself as a crusader as well as a journalist, and keeps hoping to push TPS on the Sherman case. (I know it's pay-walled, but it's a fascinating series that got results.)

The Ghomeshi scandal comes to mind. The women who told their story to KD didn’t fare very well on the witness stand. There’s always that risk in reporters pushing public opinion toward a prosecution. In a murder trial opinion doesn’t pass as evidence and almost everything he’s reported would be considered hearsay within a courtroom. Do we want reported say-so of anonymous people influencing our justice system, a quasi trial by media? Not me, if police forces aren’t capable of solving murders that’s what public focus should be placed on.

JMO

 

[Bobbi Pearl]

But what makes KD’s source unquestionably credible? When sources provide information to reporters they’re not under oath. Given the media coverage I’d be very surprised if an estate attorney who dealt with Honey failed to notice the confusion over whether Honey had a Will or not. Even her phone records would indicate if she called a lawyer to make an appointment.

The article first addresses this witness as a personal "confidant" of Honey. Then presented as a "service provider" (that saw the face time call). It may be one of her physical therapists:

That would be someone who is assumed trusted and "in the best interest" of Honey. I know many wealthy families with large homes actually assist with the house cleaning while the staff is present and working. After years of assistance, and proven that they can be trusted with the private life details of the family, they become cared for like a family member.

Did someone know Barry and Honey Sherman’s schedule? Close friends were away and they had nothing planned
Sorry, it is paywalled but here is the tidbit that gives a hint:

"Saturday, Dec. 9: Honey has just returned from a trip to sunny Miami to see the Art Basel art fair. She is at home at 50 Old Colony Rd., where she and Barry have lived since they built the 12,000 square foot house in the early 1980s. It’s where they raised their four children, Lauren, Jonathon, Alexandra and Kaelen. The house was for sale — asking price $6.9 million. In the early afternoon, one of Honey’s physical therapists (friends say she had a “small army who kept her limber”) is upstairs treating her in the master bedroom. A realtor who works for the Shermans, Elise Stern, pops by to show the house, but the prospective buyer cannot be present and so Stern uses FaceTime to tour the home."

If accurate, we can glean from this that the facetime video was shot on a Saturday afternoon 5 days before the estimated death on Dec 13. Curious if the Wed viewing was the same potential buyer that did the facetime on Sat?

Also in this article is the fact that an offer was presented but it was too low, but who was the offer from the facetime viewer? Was the offer completely rejected or was a counteroffer in play?

 

[Bobbi Pearl]

Maybe it is time for a summary of what we think we know: No insults intended to anyone, myself included.

How a reporter writes a sentence can really have us thinking many different thoughts. We are down to pretty much 1 journalist dedicated to this "story", and it will be his view and narrative that we will follow.

It makes me think of an experiment we did in a high school English class. We were speed reading and playing with leaving out keywords like "the", her, him, "it, and, - others common words I cannot recall. When these words are removed from a sentence (or skipped over when reading) the story and or meaning can change entirely. Like the game Telephone, the initial statement never is repeated back after 6 or 7 others pass on the whispered sentence. Same for reporters who are told you only have space for 800 characters, remove 1,000 words and we can go to print with this story!

Also, communications are always difficult if the expectations are not clear, understood, and the same on all sides.

A little IT help desk story about communications and if things are not well communicated; a user in Canada is supported by the US HQ, her email to help desk was that something was wrong with her new keyboard, it would not let her type in Canadian. (she just got a new laptop and add on keyboard; pre imaged/set up and delivered the day prior)

Help desk sent via overnight courier a new keyboard. The user said the same problem,
2 more keyboards were sent, same problem
discussed sending new laptop, because the laptop key pad had the same issue
Help Desk said they will investigate but do not see a Canadian keyboard as an option to purchase.
This went on for 6+ weeks until a non-technical person better understood her issue, it was not the actual keyboard that was auto-correcting her spelling as she wrote, it was Microsoft and the US image they had used to set up her machine, no matter how many times she would correct the spelling it would not let her override the US dictionary on the laptop. (she could have added the Canadian spelling of those specific words to the dictionary manually - but that is another topic)

We really have very little 100% proven 100% factual knowledge and or details of this case, We have what reporters had space to share and get us wound up about. I once read a great statement something like " Most people listen with the intent to reply, not with the intent to understand completely before offering a reply" - meaning we hear the first few words and are already forming our response when the speaker has not even finished their thought and reasoning for us to consider.

So I catch myself yet again knee-deep in weeds on subject matter that really probably has no bearing on the circumstances and most likely the outcome of this case. We grasp at straws to keep the conversation going, not a bad thing, but maybe too invasive to the family and their privacy. I myself need to remind myself, they (the Sherman family, relatives) or their close friends may read some of our posts and first and foremost they are actual living and breathing human beings who are more appalled than we are of what was done to this couple.

Reporters I assume are guilty of this as well, they want a story and may have selective hearing when details shared do not help the narrative.

Close to everyone here only wants what is fair and just for this family, we do not pry into private details for untoward reasons, but I am sure they must feel like they are living under a microscope - like celebrities and the paparazzi, and many tidbits of juicy information shared with media outlets or on blog sites were for clickbait and really not worth the time to write the article.

The witness(es) that gave details of what they say they told police was 6 weeks after the killings, memory would be getting confused already, with all of the talking to family and friends they would have done, reading the paper and online details any info that could be found scrutinized, I am sure they would be adamant to mention details that were missing from the media reports when speaking to police though, so I believe there is truth in any actual interview with police, if that is what they shared in the interview great, maybe they are told not to say anything about certain things? the last bit about the detective asking her who did she think did it, sounds off to me, but again this was 6 weeks later and maybe she was really really close to Honey (Confidant) or maybe they ask everyone. But KD only mentioned that about her.

 

[ldlager]

But what makes KD’s source unquestionably credible? When sources provide information to reporters they’re not under oath. Given the media coverage I’d be very surprised if an estate attorney who dealt with Honey failed to notice the confusion over whether Honey had a Will or not. Even her phone records would indicate if she called a lawyer to make an appointment.

I was just responding to Deugirtni's post/quote. I think KD's "source" was lying, or mistaken about what was said. JMO