Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #12

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why? He's not representing any of the children for criminal charges. If one of the children is charged, I see no reason why Greenspan couldn't represent them.

Pure conflict of interest. He would have represented members of the victims family and had privileged communications with them.

Doesn't have to be criminal for it to be a conflict.
 
Pure conflict of interest. He would have represented members of the victims family and had privileged communications with them.

Doesn't have to be criminal for it to be a conflict.

Tighthead/others: This is a purely hypothetical situation, and I am only asking as a matter of curiosity- if LE arrested one of the Sherman children in connection with the murders of BS and HS, and he/she was charged with same, would any evidence that Mr Greenspan or the PI team uncovered or commissioned and turned over to LE prior to the arrest be admissible in court, or would it somehow be protected by solicitor/client privilege?
I hope that isn't a stupid question, and I know this is an unusual situation, but I am interested if it has an easy or complicated answer.
 
Tighthead/others: This is a purely hypothetical situation, and I am only asking as a matter of curiosity- if LE arrested one of the Sherman children in connection with the murders of BS and HS, and he/she was charged with same, would any evidence that Mr Greenspan or the PI team uncovered or commissioned and turned over to LE prior to the arrest be admissible in court, or would it somehow be protected by solicitor/client privilege?
I hope that isn't a stupid question, and I know this is an unusual situation, but I am interested if it has an easy or complicated answer.
Talk about a conflict! Currently he is representing all 4 of the adult children presumably in an effort to find the truth, keep the police on their toes, etc. If one of them ends up being charged, how could he then say, ok, nevermind the rest of you, I'm going to dump you and defend the one charged, and take back all of the evidence we've already uncovered when I represented all 4 of you, in case it might be detrimental to the one that is now charged. I would think that if one ends up charged, the remaining 3 would be at odds with that one that *is* charged and have different agendas at that time - with the 3 wanting (presumably) to know the truth of what happened no matter whodunnit, and the one wanting to get off on the charges whether he 'dunnit' or not. It might be different if all 4 of them were charged, but that is highly doubtful. I doubt if they could then take back evidence already handed over, regardless. jmo.
 
Tighthead/others: This is a purely hypothetical situation, and I am only asking as a matter of curiosity- if LE arrested one of the Sherman children in connection with the murders of BS and HS, and he/she was charged with same, would any evidence that Mr Greenspan or the PI team uncovered or commissioned and turned over to LE prior to the arrest be admissible in court, or would it somehow be protected by solicitor/client privilege?
I hope that isn't a stupid question, and I know this is an unusual situation, but I am interested if it has an easy or complicated answer.
Sure it would be admissible. If its valid information pertaining to the case, its admissible.
 
Talk about a conflict! Currently he is representing all 4 of the adult children presumably in an effort to find the truth, keep the police on their toes, etc. If one of them ends up being charged, how could he then say, ok, nevermind the rest of you, I'm going to dump you and defend the one charged, and take back all of the evidence we've already uncovered when I represented all 4 of you, in case it might be detrimental to the one that is now charged. I would think that if one ends up charged, the remaining 3 would be at odds with that one that *is* charged and have different agendas at that time - with the 3 wanting (presumably) to know the truth of what happened no matter whodunnit, and the one wanting to get off on the charges whether he 'dunnit' or not. It might be different if all 4 of them were charged, but that is highly doubtful. I doubt if they could then take back evidence already handed over, regardless. jmo.
If one is charged, I'd assume that they would forfeit their share of the inheritance and that it would be divided evenly amongst the other three?
 
Sure it would be admissible. If its valid information pertaining to the case, its admissible.

The charged child would claim privilege over the entire file. He/She may seek to lead some of it as exculpatory evidence but the other children might claim privilege as well.

It's not an issue of admissibility, it is an issue of compellability.
 
If one is charged, I'd assume that they would forfeit their share of the inheritance and that it would be divided evenly amongst the other three?

Pretty much. Slayer's rule creates a presumption that they predeceased the victim and the will is interpreted as such.

Convicted, not charged. Critical distinction.
 
In the book, KD claims Barry wanted to divorce at one time.

Honey was left alone a lot, but she had her own intense life. They went through a lot together with the risks in business and the illnesses, the miscarriages.

In a family pic in the book Honey looks gorgeous. They were generous to the community and to many children as well as their own.

The figures bandied about in the book- 100’s of millions given to children and relatives is mind boggling. But apparently it is no enough for some
 
Pretty much. Slayer's rule creates a presumption that they predeceased the victim and the will is interpreted as such.

Convicted, not charged. Critical distinction.

But Barry’s will may have a provision that in the event one of his children predeceased him, their share may go to their spouse, children, etc. Not necessarily to barry’s other children. All speculation on my part
 
If one is charged, I'd assume that they would forfeit their share of the inheritance and that it would be divided evenly amongst the other three?

Pretty much. Slayer's rule creates a presumption that they predeceased the victim and the will is interpreted as such.

Convicted, not charged. Critical distinction.

But Barry’s will may have a provision that in the event one of his children predeceased him, their share may go to their spouse, children, etc. Not necessarily to barry’s other children. All speculation on my part

Right - although spouse is very, very rare.

As far as I understood 'the Slayer's Rule', I had interpreted it to mean that one who willingly caused the death of another would not be able to benefit from the death.. so rather than being considered as 'predeceased', wouldn't such a person not be considered at *all*, as far as the Will goes.. ie to mean that any inheritance amount that *would* have gone to the killer-beneficiary, would *not* go instead to that person's children or next of kin, but rather, it would bypass that person altogether as if they weren't in the Will at all, and instead be split up amongst the other beneficiaries. Afterall, if person Y was cut out of the Will, then it would stand that Y's children would also therefore not inherit any of that money from Y's estate when Y became deceased, since Y never received it in the first place. It doesn't seem right that a killer's offspring would be entitled to their killer-parent's share of the proceeds. I hope how you've explained it isn't how the law is interpreted! imo.
 
I don’t recall this video being posted here previously

That’s an excellent video on the topic.

He points out what other journalists have mentioned: Barry seems the likely target as it’s believed that money or his business dealings were the motive. So why kill Honey?

Soon after the murders, a retired FBI agent said in an interview that finding out why Honey was killed is the key to solving both murders.

There are endless suspects in Barry’s murder, but few for Honey. Maybe that’s why TPS focused mainly on Honey at first.
 
That’s an excellent video on the topic.

He points out what other journalists have mentioned: Barry seems the likely target as it’s believed that money or his business dealings were the motive. So why kill Honey?

Soon after the murders, a retired FBI agent said in an interview that finding out why Honey was killed is the key to solving both murders.

There are endless suspects in Barry’s murder, but few for Honey. Maybe that’s why TPS focused mainly on Honey at first.

It would be reassuring to think that TPS had the murders figured out almost immediately (not M/S) and were working surreptitiously behind the scenes.

How could they determine that Honey was the main target at such an early stage in their investigation? I don't think that was even possible, and therefore it doesn't explain TPS never applying for warrants to include Barry as a murdered victim in their search for possible motives.

Unfortunately, I think it is apparent that TPS screwed up the investigation for several weeks. But I'm hopeful that they have made progress and may solve this case.
 
That’s an excellent video on the topic.

He points out what other journalists have mentioned: Barry seems the likely target as it’s believed that money or his business dealings were the motive. So why kill Honey?

Soon after the murders, a retired FBI agent said in an interview that finding out why Honey was killed is the key to solving both murders.

There are endless suspects in Barry’s murder, but few for Honey. Maybe that’s why TPS focused mainly on Honey at first.
I'd presume that the killer/s had to use Honey up close and personal in order to get to Barry, if he was the main target. If that's true, then the question might be: why didn't the killer simply murder Barry at another place or time, i.e., shooting him as he left his office building at night.
It also always comes back to another question. Why didn't any neighbor surveillance cams or an actual neighbor see anyone else outside the Sherman home that night? I'm presuming Honey knew the killer/s and let them inside.
All these things have been discussed before, but this case is endlessly fascinating to me. I do believe it will be solved one day.
 
That’s an excellent video on the topic.

He points out what other journalists have mentioned: Barry seems the likely target as it’s believed that money or his business dealings were the motive. So why kill Honey?

Strangulation is an up-close-and-personal way to kill, as I recall KD's book reminds us. IMO HS was as much a hated target as her husband. If money was one motive, the other had to be very personal and intense ... which if true, narrows the suspect list considerably. And it was HS who is said to have tried to discourage his practice of making large financial gifts to their children and some of his friends.
 
That’s an excellent video on the topic.

He points out what other journalists have mentioned: Barry seems the likely target as it’s believed that money or his business dealings were the motive. So why kill Honey?

Soon after the murders, a retired FBI agent said in an interview that finding out why Honey was killed is the key to solving both murders.

There are endless suspects in Barry’s murder, but few for Honey. Maybe that’s why TPS focused mainly on Honey at first.
I think the answer to that question points to someone killing Barry for his money, and killing Honey to eliminate her as the primary heir. MOO.
 
Strangulation is an up-close-and-personal way to kill, as I recall KD's book reminds us. IMO HS was as much a hated target as her husband. If money was one motive, the other had to be very personal and intense ... which if true, narrows the suspect list considerably. And it was HS who is said to have tried to discourage his practice of making large financial gifts to their children and some of his friends.
JS apparently hated Honey.
 
I have been thinking about how Barry was found- legs crossed, glasses neatly on his face.
This may sound strange, but As a male, I frankly wouldn't have done that, i.e. position his glasses perfectly, it just seems kind of weird to me, and not a detail that I would worry about, putting glasses back properly on another man's face. I'm not trying to sound sexist, but has anyone considered that perhaps a woman was in the room, and did the final neat and tidy "arranging" of the bodies? I'm not saying women would be more capable of killing anyone, I'm just thinking that putting the glasses back neatly on a man's face might be something that a woman might be more apt to do than a man. I will stop writing now in case I further offend anyone.... Not my intention for sure!! Maybe I should stop watching murder mysteries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
2,592
Total visitors
2,758

Forum statistics

Threads
590,041
Messages
17,929,260
Members
228,044
Latest member
Bosie
Back
Top