Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #11

[Deleted member 102539]

* double post video, sorry

 

[kiwi50]

I have no idea if its a cold case, but I’ve never ever come across a case where the police seem so disinterested in solving it. If there really is only one detective working on it it beggars belief.
Sure I live in a much smaller country, but if such a high profile couple were killed here, this would still be headline news, the media would be running with it virtually daily, the police would be appealing desperately for anything, lol would probably be showing grainy images of the mystery person seen going inside.

 

[MistyWaters]

Casesensitive, I don’t think Idsinga said “The case has had just about everything — except suspects”. I believe this is a Warmington comment- There are no quotation marks around this sentence in the article.

Now the report has been edited to suspects in custody.

“It is a huge investigation,” said Toronto Police Insp. Hank Idsinga.

The case has had just about everything — except suspects in custody.

“I am hopeful we will get to the point” where that changes, said Idsinga.
SATURDAY SCRAWLER: Fence erected around murdered billionaires’ home

 

[dotr]

Now the report has been edited to suspects in custody.

“It is a huge investigation,” said Toronto Police Insp. Hank Idsinga.

The case has had just about everything — except suspects in custody.

“I am hopeful we will get to the point” where that changes, said Idsinga.
SATURDAY SCRAWLER: Fence erected around murdered billionaires’ home

Thanks for the update and apologies to all for my part in that- looking back now, i see an errant quotation mark in my copy/paste of the original article.
BOLDED.
Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #11
“It is a huge investigation,” said Toronto Police Insp. Hank Idsinga."
The case has had just about everything — except suspects."

“I am hopeful we will get to the point” where that changes, said Idsinga.

 

[ldlager]

Now the report has been edited to suspects in custody.

“It is a huge investigation,” said Toronto Police Insp. Hank Idsinga.

The case has had just about everything — except suspects in custody.

“I am hopeful we will get to the point” where that changes, said Idsinga.
SATURDAY SCRAWLER: Fence erected around murdered billionaires’ home

I guess Warmington was afraid he was contradicting his earlier article where he inferred that he had knowledge that there were a number of suspects.

 

[deugirtni]

I guess Warmington was afraid he was contradicting his earlier article where he inferred that he had knowledge that there were a number of suspects.

Or possibly Idsinga corrected him?

 

[ldlager]

Or possibly Idsinga corrected him?

Clearly, Warmington reads this thread on WebSleuths....
So we are supposed to believe that Warmington has evidently AGAIN misquoted TPS or misrepresented what they told him? How hard can it be for Warmington to transcribe the words correctly?

 

[MistyWaters]

Clearly, Warmington reads this thread on WebSleuths....
So we are supposed to believe that Warmington has evidently AGAIN misquoted TPS or misrepresented what they told him? How hard can it be for Warmington to transcribe the words correctly?

I’d give this one to an editing mistake. We know the case has had suspects because KW admitted he was one.

“The case has had just about everything — except suspects (in custody)”.

 

[Satchie]

Clearly, Warmington reads this thread on WebSleuths....
So we are supposed to believe that Warmington has evidently AGAIN misquoted TPS or misrepresented what they told him? How hard can it be for Warmington to transcribe the words correctly?

He's good at expressing his opinions, but I don't think details are his strong point.

ETA, To be fair to Toronto journalists, there's hardly any left. IMO the few survivors are the ones who make a living from stirring up strong emotions in local readers.

 

[dotr]

Transatlantic Agency
"Chief Investigative Reporter at the Toronto Star and multiple award-winning journalist and bestselling author, Kevin Donovan’s true-crime narrative, THE BILLIONAIRE MURDERS: The Mysterious Deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman, investigating the violent deaths of the founder of one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies and his wife — their net worth has been estimated at $4.7 billion — which rocked the intersecting worlds of business, politics, and philanthropy. World rights sold to Diane Turbide at Penguin Random House Canada for October 2019 in a deal by Samantha Haywood and Jesse Finkelstein. Film television available, contact samantha@transatlanticagency.com."

 

[Sillybilly]

Conspiracy theory post are removed, along with all responses sprouting from them.

Websleuths is fact based, requiring links to substantiate whatever is stated as fact. Let's leave the conspiracy theories to the conspiracy websites.

Thanks.

 

[MistyWaters]

I was noticing a piece written by Greenspan recently in the news that had no connection to the Sherman murders whatsoever except that it was written by him. But it reminded me of his involvement in this case, hired by the family to lead the PI team, then his various comments made during his Press Conference announcing the $10 million dollar reward plus the leaks attributed to him or other team members.

Had I not been somewhat familiar with his reputation, pertaining to the Sherman case I think I’d have concluded he was somewhat of a backstreet bohunk attorney, a wanna-be trying to make a big name for himself by creating a power struggle with TPS, blaming them for an improper investigation, and planting the notion it was his team who was capable of solving the case except for the fact TPS was downright incompetent and refused to cooperate.

I’m still convinced during the press conference Greenspan intentionally put on a big show for a good reason. It was if he wrote a script mimicking somebody, saying what somebody wanted to hear. For exactly what reason I have no idea but I think there was one.

“Brian Greenspan is past president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, founding chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers and the recipient of an honorary doctor of laws from the Law Society of Ontario.”
Opinion: Did Jody Wilson-Raybould understand her role as attorney-general?

 

[ldlager]

I was noticing a piece written by Greenspan recently in the news that had no connection to the Sherman murders whatsoever except that it was written by him. But it reminded me of his involvement in this case, hired by the family to lead the PI team, then his various comments made during his Press Conference announcing the $10 million dollar reward plus the leaks attributed to him or other team members.

Had I not been somewhat familiar with his reputation, pertaining to the Sherman case I think I’d have concluded he was somewhat of a backstreet bohunk attorney, a wanna-be trying to make a big name for himself by creating a power struggle with TPS, blaming them for an improper investigation, and planting the notion it was his team who was capable of solving the case except for the fact TPS was downright incompetent and refused to cooperate.

I’m still convinced during the press conference Greenspan intentionally put on a big show for a good reason. It was if he wrote a script mimicking somebody, saying what somebody wanted to hear. For exactly what reason I have no idea but I think there was one.

“Brian Greenspan is past president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, founding chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers and the recipient of an honorary doctor of laws from the Law Society of Ontario.”
Opinion: Did Jody Wilson-Raybould understand her role as attorney-general?

He will always be the little brother IMO

 

[MistyWaters]

He will always be the little brother IMO

Yes but Brian’s list of notable clients is none too shabby either. Somewhere along the way he ought to have learned LE’s definition of “no forced entry”, I’d surely think.
Brian Greenspan - Wikipedia

While I do believe something unusual was up about that press conference, as a criminal defence attorney one thing that he pulled off that I think was absolutely brilliant was how he turned the tables. What that was - generally speaking - typically following any criminal charges are laid in any case the general public has a strong tendency to believe the perp is guilty the minute the case becomes headlined by the media. Then along comes the criminal defence attorney, often highly resented for his role, a villain sharing the lowly status with the accused who’s not immune to playing dirty tricks to try get his guilty client off scott free. He doesn’t care about justice, he’s just in it for the money, yada, yada. I’m not referring specifically to BG whatsoever. I’m only attempting to portray how the common public perception of criminal defence attorneys is often far from positive. In the above example of a trial, the police are the always perceived as the good guys because of course they put together the evidence facilitating the criminal charges and possible conviction. Even if the client is rightly and justly found not guilty, often people don’t really believe it.

Why I say BG turned the table regarding his role as the Sherman family attorney leading the PI team and as a criminal defence attorney — he portrayed himself and his team as the good guys and gave the impression TPS were utterly incompetent keystone cops. He created a total role reversal of public perception and turned the tables, which for the most part the media and general public lapped it up believing his words to be the gospel truth. I thought how he managed to pull that off was very interesting.....as a criminal defence attorney.

 

[ldlager]

Yes but Brian’s list of notable clients is none too shabby either. Somewhere along the way he ought to have learned LE’s definition of “no forced entry”, I’d surely think.
Brian Greenspan - Wikipedia

While I do believe something unusual was up about that press conference, as a criminal defence attorney one thing that he pulled off that I think was absolutely brilliant was how he turned the tables. What that was - generally speaking - typically following any criminal charges are laid in any case the general public has a strong tendency to believe the perp is guilty the minute the case becomes headlined by the media. Then along comes the criminal defence attorney, often highly resented for his role, a villain sharing the lowly status with the accused who’s not immune to playing dirty tricks to try get his guilty client off scott free. He doesn’t care about justice, he’s just in it for the money, yada, yada. I’m not referring specifically to BG whatsoever. I’m only attempting to portray how the common public perception of criminal defence attorneys is often far from positive. In the above example of a trial, the police are the always perceived as the good guys because of course they put together the evidence facilitating the criminal charges and possible conviction. Even if the client is rightly and justly found not guilty, often people don’t really believe it.

Why I say BG turned the table regarding his role as the Sherman family attorney leading the PI team and as a criminal defence attorney — he portrayed himself and his team as the good guys and gave the impression TPS were utterly incompetent keystone cops. He created a total role reversal of public perception and turned the tables, which for the most part the media and general public lapped it up believing his words to be the gospel truth. I thought how he managed to pull that off was very interesting.....as a criminal defence attorney.

He is an experienced criminal defence attorney, and consequently he may well have been defending or positioning a potential defence that would support or create reasonable doubt as to TPS’ potential case against his client(s). Would you agree this is possible in this case Misty?

 

[MistyWaters]

He is an experienced criminal defence attorney, and consequently he may well have been defending or positioning a potential defence that would support or create reasonable doubt as to TPS’ potential case against his client(s). Would you agree this is possible in this case Misty?

That would certainly be a huge shocker, wouldn’t it - if Greenspan worked for the family and then completely turned colours and went in to defend the accused. Because then one would question who’s interests was he representing throughout this time. But I really don’t think that would ever occur as it would be a major ethical violation.

But you are echoing my thoughts, how his press conference was very similar the type of adversarial arguments a criminal defence attorney might make during a criminal trial to create reasonable doubt. Instead, because the Sherman family hired him and because TPS is tasked with crime solving, one would expect they’re unified in their objective to solve the homicide.....remembering it’s Greenspan who is a pro in the art of showmanship.

 

[ldlager]

That would certainly be a huge shocker, wouldn’t it - if Greenspan worked for the family and then completely turned colours and went in to defend the accused. Because then one would question who’s interests was he representing throughout this time. But I really don’t think that would ever occur as it would be a major ethical violation.

But you are echoing my thoughts, how his press conference was very similar the type of adversarial arguments a criminal defence attorney might make during a criminal trial to create reasonable doubt. Instead, because the Sherman family hired him and because TPS is tasked with crime solving, one would expect they’re unified in their objective to solve the homicide.....remembering it’s Greenspan who is a pro in the art of showmanship.

Misty I think you misunderstood what I was speculating about. What if one or more of his current client(s) is/are the leading TPS suspect(s)? Would that explain his approach to the press conference, and why TPS is evidently not sharing information with him and his team? Jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

Misty I think you misunderstood what I was speculating about. What if one or more of his current client(s) is/are the leading TPS suspect(s)? Would that explain his approach to the press conference, and why TPS is evidently not sharing information with him and his team? Jmo

Oh sorry, I get it now. For sure, yikes, that would be a big mess. Even just the potential for that situation to occur would certainly support TPS’s outright refusal to share investigative information with Greenspan and the PI team. In that hypothetical example, that’d be a supreme conflict of interest but indeed, the risk is there.

I must admit, I thought his complaints over the lack of cooperation by TPS to conduct a joint investigation was quite ballsy, almost to the point of imagining other criminal defence attorneys chuckling while rolling their eyes. Sure, any PI team has the opportunity to support a criminal investigation by providing tips and leads but the information flow is always going to be slanted in one direction and that’s toward the police force.

 

[dotr]

Best defense is a good offense?

 

[ldlager]

Best defense is a good offense?

Well put DOTR!