It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pharma billionaire and wife found dead in 'suspicious' case

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 12:23 PM
a reply to: ipsedixit


dozens of lawsuits.....government probe into$1100 a plate cutbacks....they have donated millions to schools and hospitals...but in 2015 they donated 2016 they gave $66,000.00....they were having construction done another house they own...but that was stalled..

one of their daughters just had a baby and another daughter is going to get married...and during the holiday season...terrible timing for the daughters

posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 05:24 AM
Part One

There are a lot of advantages to hiring a defense attorney to conduct a parallel investigation of a murder of a member of one's own family, parallel that is, to a police investigation which might, in due course, come to consider one a suspect in the crime.

One might make disclosures to an attorney that were highly incriminating and yet because of the privilege accorded to attorney/client communications, those incriminating disclosures might never come to light in court.

If, as in this case, the defense attorney were to hire very competent former police detectives to conduct this parallel investigation, as has been done, these investigators might flush out all manner of awkward facts about the case, facts that, in due course, the police themselves might uncover.

Having knowledge of these facts as early as possible would enable a defense attorney to craft a well thought out response to whatever evidence the police might eventually present in court.

In addition to this, a defense attorney, considering the sorts of things his own investigators have told him that the police are likely to discover on their own, might want to limit police access to his clients, access that the police might assume, on the face of it, at the beginning of a case, to be reasonable and without malice intended, but which might be the occasion of some costly pratfall by the defense attorney's client.

The most sticky point of all is the case where the parallel investigation because of its privileged access, and disclosures obtained under attorney/client privilege, actually obtains evidence in the case which is not turned up by the police investigation and then withholds that evidence, thereby preventing the police from conducting a successful investigation.

The legal rules on this situation are, no doubt, thoroughly understood by the Sherman family attorney, Brian Greenspan.

The Toronto newspapers have not, in print, considered this sort thing. I'm certain that people in the various newsrooms have hashed it over among themselves.

The business of withholding evidence, under attorney/client privilege by a private investigator came into the investigation of the disappearance of Kathie Durst, as told in Andrew Jarecki's documentary film, The Jinx: the Life and Deaths of Robert Durst.

There was also the feeding of false information to the press, information known to the Durst family and to the police and believed at that time, by the police certainly, by the family perhaps, to be true.

This was the notion that Kathie Durst was seen after her last known meeting with her husband, in South Salem, N.Y., the night of her disappearance. It was reported in the press that she had been seen by a doorman, returning to a penthouse apartment in New York City, occupied by her and her husband, whom she had left at the house in South Salem earlier in the evening.

The police detective involved in the case at that time believed that this "fact" (subsequently proven to be untrue) had been leaked to the press by someone inside the Durst family circle, since the information was known to the Durst family and to the police but to noone else. The detective speculated that Susan Berman, a friend of Robert Durst had been the person who leaked this false piece of exculpatory information to the press on behalf of Robert Durst to help relieve press pressure on him.

The matter is discussed at 9:58 of the following linked video:

Closer to home, the Sherman family has expressed concerns about police interaction with the press, specifically the information, "from police sources" that the police impression of the scene where the bodies of Barry and Honey Sherman were found, was of a murder/suicide, an assumption universally rejected by members of the Sherman family and friends of the deceased couple.

The Mayor of Toronto, John Tory, has spoken to the police about the Sherman family's concerns.

"Most of the mayor's conversation with the Sherman family involved him expressing condolences. The family did raise a concern that they were seeing information in the media before it was communicated to them by police," Mr. Peat said in an e-mail.

"The mayor conveyed those concerns to Toronto Police. He conveyed those concerns dispassionately and did not make any requests of police, but simply relayed their concerns about communication of information, similar to what he would do when other families he contacts have concerns with police or anyone else."

The police might well view this intervention by the mayor as political pressure and also as an attempt by the family to move close to the investigation.

Of course the family has the right to be kept abreast of developments in the investigation. There is nothing unusual about that and nothing about their request, in itself, that indicates any special leverage coming from them.

However it is also potentially problematic if the police decide that a person or persons within the family are possible suspects in a case of murder. Statements made by the police to the press can sometimes be of a strategic nature, designed to influence the behavior of a suspect. The Sherman family shouldn't have input on that sort of thing.

I'm not faulting the mayor, or the family in this matter. I'm simply pointing out that we are right up against an area of concern.

Incidentally, I wrote this last night and I notice in this morning's Toronto Star, a story reporting that questions have been raised about the mayor's meeting with the police. ard-chair-says.html

Tory’s actions fall within a grey area of the Police Services Act, which governs all board members, said former police services board chair Alok Mukherjee.

What Tory did for the Sherman family “creates the impression that a prominent family has special access to policing services,” said Mukherjee, who retired from the Police Services Board in 2015, and became a visiting professor at Ryerson University’s department of criminology and office of equity, diversity and inclusion.

“Whether this is true or not does not matter. Not every family or person has the ability to get the city’s mayor to be their spokesperson on a police investigation.”

At 9:37 of the following linked video, former NYPD detective Michael Struk, who was working the Kathie Durst case received a phone call from Robert Durst's lawyer, defense attorney Nick Scoppetta, requesting that all further communications from the police go through him. Struk described the call as "the classical lawyering up".

"If you've got nothing to hide and you dropped your wife off at the train station, why would you go out and hire a criminal defense attorney?"
was how Kathie Durst's brother, Jim McCormack, put it.

posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 05:25 AM
Part Two

Andrew Jarecki, in an interview, in the above linked video, with Robert Durst said,

"Nick Scoppetta was your lawyer, to defend you from the potential of accusations."

Durst replied, "He was my lawyer but he was supposed to find Kathie Durst. I mean if he could find Kathie Durst there'd be no accusations."

Jarecki, "Was he supposed to find Kathie?"

Durst, "Yes, it was the whole intent of it."

Jarecki, "Do you think Nick did work to try to find Kathie?"

Durst, "Yes, he brought in a private investigator who used to be a cop and, or, used to be a big cop in that precinct, . . . ahm, what was it . . Ed Wright."

Wright, in a telephone conversation with Mark Smerling, producer of The Jinx, said that he had been chief investigator of the New York State Organized Crime Task Force.

Durst said,

"Ed Wright was able to get lots of stuff from the police. He knew the police. The police liked him. He was able to get information that was . . . theoretically unavailable. Who thought what. Who said what."

Smerling, in his telephone conversation with Wright, wondered if he could talk a little bit with Wright about what was going on in the case at that time, since Wright had access to Durst "at a time that was critical".

Wright's response,

"Yeah, but, at the time, I was working for Nick Scoppetta, who was representing him. So, anything that he had indicated to me during my interview, you know, it's privileged, same as whatever he said to Scoppetta."

Jarecki and Smerling's team obtained copies of Ed Wright's confidential 1982 reports to Scoppetta, the lawyer hired by Durst's father Seymour Durst, to represent Robert Durst.

The report was a record of inconsistencies in the accounts of the night Kathie Durst disappeared, given by his client, Robert Durst, and others.

The report is dealt with in the following linked video, starting at 13:15.

The real bombshell comes later in the report.

Detective Struk, lead investigator on the case at the time of the initial investigation, said that during the police investigation the doorman of the building where Kathie Durst had an apartment in New York City, told police that he had seen her returning to the apartment the night she is now assumed to have gone missing, after having left her husband, Robert Durst, at their home in New Salem.

However, in a subsequent interview with Ed Wright, the private investigator working for Robert Durst's attorney, the doorman said that he had not seen Kathie Durst on the night in question.

Struk says, "He would have been the guy to bring her up (to her 16th floor apartment) and if he didn't see her, she wasn't there."

This information, obtained by a private investigator, a former police detective of some stature, who knew the police and who was liked by the police and who could get information that was theoretically unavailable (according to Robert Durst), was not shared with the NYPD.

According to Detective Struk, the Durst family just backed further away from the investigation.

Thus far, in the case of the Sherman family deaths, there are no substantive similarities with the Durst case, but many of the elements of the framework within which the investigation of what happened to Barry and Honey Sherman will take place are strikingly similar to elements of the framework of the investigation of the disappearance of Kathie Durst. To my mind this is more than a little disturbing.

Kathie Durst is still missing.
edit on 29-12-2017 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 08:52 PM
The Toronto Star tells us that,

A private investigative firm, led by a well-respected, retired Toronto police homicide detective who touts “discretion” and “definitive final conclusions” for his clients has been retained by the family of Barry and Honey Sherman to probe the couple’s deaths.

Klatt Investigations is led by Tom Klatt, who spent 14 years in homicide, drug, and intelligence bureaus with the Toronto Police Service before his retirement in 1998, according to his website. He went on to co-found a different private investigative firm before launching his own outfit in 2015.

We know that the Sherman family have expressed concern about the press being given details of the police investigation before the family were informed of them.

In view of what happened in the investigation of the disappearance of Kathie Durst, it is reasonable to ask,

"Was Tom Klatt hired only to investigate the deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman, as stated by Sherman family attorney Brian Greenspan, or, . . . was he also hired to investigate the police investigation of those deaths and if possible set up a back channel of communication between the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department and the Sherman family, so that the Sherman family would receive information about the case before the press did and possibly receive information from the police that was, in Robert Durst's expression theoretically unavailable?"

This latter case would be a serious problem for the police department.

edit on 29-12-2017 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 08:55 PM

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: MindBodySpiritComplex

Hubris is always followed by nemesis.

Had to look the word hubris up. I didnt know what it meant.

hubris: exaggerated pride or self-confidence


posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 09:24 PM
The hiring of a criminal defense attorney suggests that the Sherman family are guarding against the possibility that the person responsible for the deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman, might be a family member. It is reasonable to assume some degree of acknowledgement of that possibility, within the family.

We (and they) have been told that there was no forced entry into the house. No suicide note was found. Holiday plans and other events in the family were coming up. A scene of suicide, very possibly had been staged. We have been told in the press that the family themselves have rejected murder/suicide as an explanation for the deaths.
edit on 29-12-2017 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

<< 1  2   >>

log in