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

[Kerry Winter]

'Our parents never left anyone behind. They were taken from us.'

 

[casesensitive]

That would be shooting himself in the foot, sources aren't going to continue to talk to you if you do something like that. And the sources aren't the story.

We are talking about a certain class of people here that probably generally expect everyone
"to come to them". It allows them a certain amount of deniability . They would want to be viewed as confirming what the police already knew, not "gossiping" about their own theories.

As long as KD doesn't reveal his sources, I don't think he would be shooting himself in the foot. His sources provide him with their knowledge and opinions for his articles and books, and it is obvious that he will relate their information in some form. He is a journalist on a case, not a police detective.

He had a reason for saying what he did about his sources, which left us with speculation as to the reasons why his sources won't volunteer info to LE, why LE won't re-interview them, and if he was just blowing his horn about how important he is to have people willing to talk to him and not LE. I don't think he is that egotistical, and I suspect he might be frustrated that LE haven't taken his sources info seriously. jmo

 

[casesensitive]

The Shermans don’t have the right to rewrite history. If my cousin went off the deep end and killed Honey..then, took his life as l believe....it’s simply the truth. Greenspan’s team of paid hacks mean nothing! If we can agree that the Sherman’s died suspiciously....why wasn’t there a full blown coroners inquest?
I was certain of one thing after spending 4 hours with lead detective B. Price....he’s a terrible poker player and l left 31 division at 1 in the morning 100% convinced of M/S.

When the coroner agrees with a double murder after all the facts are reviewed, (including the second autopsies) there is no need for a coroner's inquest. The first autopsies showed cause of death, but couldn't determine the manner of deaths, and that determination was made later.

You spent 4 hours with B. Price over three years ago, when LE thought that it was a M/S. I believe you are dead on thinking he thought it was M/S at that time. But further investigation has shown that TPS were wrong in their initial theory of M/S, and Price has moved on.

I think your obsession with Barry is clouding your judgement. It is a symptom of CPTSD that you have have shared with us, but I don't use that to invalidate your opinion. I am just trying to understand why you hold on to your belief that Barry killed Honey, despite the evidence of a double targeted murder.

 

[ldlager]

As long as KD doesn't reveal his sources, I don't think he would be shooting himself in the foot. His sources provide him with their knowledge and opinions for his articles and books, and it is obvious that he will relate their information in some form. He is a journalist on a case, not a police detective.

He had a reason for saying what he did about his sources, which left us with speculation as to the reasons why his sources won't volunteer info to LE, why LE won't re-interview them, and if he was just blowing his horn about how important he is to have people willing to talk to him and not LE. I don't think he is that egotistical, and I suspect he might be frustrated that LE haven't taken his sources info seriously. jmo[/QUOte

 

[ldlager]

I think it is entirely possible that people with information are not speaking to police because they are fearful for their safety, or they are concerned that the information they provide to LE will not remain private.

We are all aware that former police and homicide officers are currently engaged and were previously engaged by certain family members in this case. IMO, individuals who may have information may be fearful that these family members are being kept informed through information leaked by TPS to these former officers.

 

[casesensitive]

I think it is entirely possible that people with information are not speaking to police because they are fearful for their safety, or they are concerned that the information they provide to LE will not remain private.

We are all aware that former police and homicide officers are currently engaged and were previously engaged by certain family members in this case. IMO, individuals who may have information may be fearful that these family members are being kept informed through information leaked by TPS to these former officers.

KD didn't say that his sources were afraid, and gave the impression that they can't be bothered unless LE come to them. I know, it doesn't sound logical, and I can't figure out where KD was coming from with his remarks.

I didn't know that Tom Klatt, a retired TPS homicide hired by Greenspan is still on the case. I think Greenspan's team has shut down and I am not aware that anyone on the team is currently still engaged. Did I miss that?

 

[MistyWaters]

I noticed nothing said about anyone being fearful for their safety. And it doesn’t seem as if KD is suggesting anyone has held back critical information. Is TPS looking for theories or opinions? I’d say not, it’s evidence that will convict.

I notice KD tends to give the impression he knows as much or more about this case than TPS. Ha, what he knows is only as reliable as the information he’s being told.

BBM

Volume IX - Kevin Donovan
“The only powers that I have are my ability to get people to talk, and my ability to figure things out. I have spoken recently to people who the police interviewed way back, and I’ve interviewed them in much more depth. These people are sources of mine and they have information that would be really helpful to the police, but they say, “Well the police have got to come to me.” These people have theories that are in line with what the police theories happen to be – they are not volunteering their opinions to the police - but they are talking to me.”

 

[deugirtni]

I get the impression that KD 'communicates' via his articles with people within TPS, perhaps those in higher echelons who he wouldn't really have access to otherwise. I believe that he has sources within the TPS, however they speak to him off the record, his unnamed sources whom he protects, and they may not be in a capacity to further a case.

KD declaring 'it was murder' in his article in January 2018, which purportedly spurred TPS to (finally) speak to the privately hired pathologist, was an example of this. KD could be wrong, but it seems he may have been able to push things forward by publishing his article.

It is often the case when the detective in charge of a case might have a tunnel-vision issue. I only know of very few cases in the scheme of things, and yet I have seen this come to light many times. If the lead detective doesn't feel something worthy of pursuing, chances are that the team is not going to pursue it, whatever it might be, and that has ended in evidence being lost along the way in some cases.

I feel like this interview might be a call-out to TPS to inform that more work can be done, more info can be obtained, if only they will do some re-interviewing. Maybe it will work, and maybe it won't. It would be terrible, imho, to be KD, and to feel like individuals are out there with information that could potentially help police solve or bring a case to justice, except police aren't acting on something, whatever it might be, for whatever reasons that may or may not make sense.

I follow another case which is years old, and still unsolved. A coroner's inquest was held (there has to be a reason to hold a coroner's inquest, not just whenever a crime is unsolved, imo), at which time it became clear that people did have information important to the case, but they had expected police to come to them. For whatever reason, they didn't want to take that step of officially contacting police themselves, possibly they believed police already had the same info from elsewhere. And so they waited, and then it became like the person felt their info was too old, and/or they might start second-guessing themselves. In some cases, the person said what they knew to others, even a police officer in a casual unofficial setting in one case. Things got screwed up and the information never got relayed to the officers looking after the case. People who 'heard something from someone' also might not want to be the one to contact police and tell them someone said something to them.. likely figuring it was better said by the source itself. The source may not even realize they hold valuable information that might only be a tiny piece of a puzzle that helps to make everything fit.

I think there are many reasons, some already mentioned in posts above, as to why people might not want to contact police. People are notorious for not wanting to get involved. I would think especially if their suspicions might be looked at unfavorably by someone they might care about in future, if it ever came out that they had said so, and they turned out to be wrong.

Jmo.

 

[ldlager]

KD didn't say that his sources were afraid, and gave the impression that they can't be bothered unless LE come to them. I know, it doesn't sound logical, and I can't figure out where KD was coming from with his remarks.

I didn't know that Tom Klatt, a retired TPS homicide hired by Greenspan is still on the case. I think Greenspan's team has shut down and I am not aware that anyone on the team is currently still engaged. Did I miss that?

Three things.
1) I think it is reasonable to assume that some people with valuable information that could potentially incriminate someone or damage someone's reputation could be fearful for their safety. After all, after the murders, it wasn't just the children who had personal security details, we know of others, including some employees of Apotex that also has security protection. The Sherman family, in their Court filings, continue to assert that they are concerned for their safety, given that the identity of the murderers is unknown.. I think it is reasonable that someone with some information on the case would be fearful too.
2) Klatt and others remain, I am sure, close ("old buddies") to certain members of the TPS and one can assume, possibly also in contact with certain family members.
3) Here is an excerpt from the recent KD article (RBBM):

"...With the Greenspan probe shelved by late 2019, Jonathon says he launched his own private investigation led by Robert Seiden a lawyer and former prosecutor from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office who now runs the U.S.-based company called Confidential Global Investigations. He says he hired Seiden because of Seiden’s personal history — he pursued a law career after his brother, an innocent bystander, was killed during a mob hit.
As part of his investigation team, Seiden has hired a former Toronto police homicide detective who has “good” relations with the Toronto force, Jonathon told me.
When Jonathon gets information, he says, he passes it on to the police. Recently, the lead detective on the Sherman case, Det. Sgt. Brandon Price, visited Jonathon to personally receive a package of information he said he has uncovered..."

Why would Seiden need to specifically hire a former TPS homicide detective with “good” relations with the Toronto force" unless they intended or hoped to use that "good relationship" for a specific purpose? He could have hired any investigator. IMO the purpose could be to obtain information from the TPS on the investigation. MOO

 

[dotr]

Three things.
1) I think it is reasonable to assume that some people with valuable information that could potentially incriminate someone or damage someone's reputation could be fearful for their safety. After all, after the murders, it wasn't just the children who had personal security details, we know of others, including some employees of Apotex that also has security protection. The Sherman family, in their Court filings, continue to assert that they are concerned for their safety, given that the identity of the murderers is unknown.. I think it is reasonable that someone with some information on the case would be fearful too.
2) Klatt and others remain, I am sure, close ("old buddies") to certain members of the TPS and one can assume, possibly also in contact with certain family members.
3) Here is an excerpt from the recent KD article (RBBM):

"...With the Greenspan probe shelved by late 2019, Jonathon says he launched his own private investigation led by Robert Seiden a lawyer and former prosecutor from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office who now runs the U.S.-based company called Confidential Global Investigations. He says he hired Seiden because of Seiden’s personal history — he pursued a law career after his brother, an innocent bystander, was killed during a mob hit.
As part of his investigation team, Seiden has hired a former Toronto police homicide detective who has “good” relations with the Toronto force, Jonathon told me.
When Jonathon gets information, he says, he passes it on to the police. Recently, the lead detective on the Sherman case, Det. Sgt. Brandon Price, visited Jonathon to personally receive a package of information he said he has uncovered..."

Why would Seiden need to specifically hire a former TPS homicide detective with “good” relations with the Toronto force" unless they intended or hoped to use that "good relationship" for a specific purpose? He could have hired any investigator. IMO the purpose could be to obtain information from the TPS on the investigation. MOO

Wondering also, if the reason that particular lawyer was hired by JS was because of the man's experience as the brother of a man who was inadvertently murdered by the mob.
Could that suggest JS fears ''mob'' involvement?
speculation, imo.

 

[MistyWaters]

The Shermans don’t have the right to rewrite history. If my cousin went off the deep end and killed Honey..then, took his life as l believe....it’s simply the truth. Greenspan’s team of paid hacks mean nothing! If we can agree that the Sherman’s died suspiciously....why wasn’t there a full blown coroners inquest?
I was certain of one thing after spending 4 hours with lead detective B. Price....he’s a terrible poker player and l left 31 division at 1 in the morning 100% convinced of M/S.

LE routinely refer to a death as “suspicious” prior to the Coroner/Medical Examiner completing the autopsy. There’s nothing suspicious about that as LE are not doctors nor medical professionals. Immediately and at a glance often it’s impossible to determine precisely how someone died. The word “suspicious” merely indicates a death investigation is underway, the circumstances of the death appear suspicious as opposed to a natural cause. It often requires weeks for a Coroner to conclude an autopsy and finalize the official report.

Example - “suspicious”
https://northernontario.ctvnews.ca/elderly-man-focus-of-suspicious-death-investigation-in-sudbury-1.524583

The Sherman case didn’t meet any of the criteria for which a Coroner’s Inquest would be called, such as a questionable death in a govt institution. The primary purpose of Inquests in Canada is to recommend regulations or guidelines to prevent future deaths from occurring in a similar manner. It’s definitely not held for five laypersons to vote on whether or not a deceased individual was murdered.
Inquests | Ministry of the Solicitor General

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

RSBM

Exactly. I think this case has seen too many self-appointed 'insiders' asserting they know the truth about things they can't possibly know, beginning with the alleged leak from TPS to the Sun on the day after the bodies were found.

That's the thing about an unsolved crime, it gives people the opportunity to claim they know what happened, to a credulous public.

I recognize misinformation when I see it, because the assertions are about alleged facts that the misinformer can't know, such as what really happened and what other people think.

The only true information someone can share is "I know x and y because I was there and saw/heard it, and I believe z but don't actually know whether z is true or not, but here's why it's in my self-interest to believe it". And most importantly: "Here's why it's in my self-interest to get other people to believe it".

What you wrote perfectly describes the basis of various theories and opinions surrounding this case. Reflecting on that, TPS has in fact released absolutely no information regarding evidence pointing towards any potential suspect/s -

BBM

“The only true information someone can share is "I know x and y because I was there and saw/heard it, and I believe z but don't actually know whether z is true or not, but here's why it's in my self-interest to believe it". And most importantly: "Here's why it's in my self-interest to get other people to believe it".”

I’m often reminded of two Oland trials, the first conviction by a jury likely based on opinion, and the second trial resulting in acquittal by a judge due to lack of evidence, enough to create doubt.

 

[deugirtni]

LE routinely refer to a death as “suspicious” prior to the Coroner/Medical Examiner completing the autopsy. There’s nothing suspicious about that as LE are not doctors nor medical professionals. Immediately and at a glance often it’s impossible to determine precisely how someone died. The word “suspicious” merely indicates a death investigation is underway, the circumstances of the death appear suspicious as opposed to a natural cause. It often requires weeks for a Coroner to conclude an autopsy and finalize the official report.

Example - “suspicious”
https://northernontario.ctvnews.ca/elderly-man-focus-of-suspicious-death-investigation-in-sudbury-1.524583

The Sherman case didn’t meet any of the criteria for which a Coroner’s Inquest would be called, such as a questionable death in a govt institution. The primary purpose of Inquests in Canada is to recommend regulations or guidelines to prevent future deaths from occurring in a similar manner. It’s definitely not held for five laypersons to vote on whether or not a deceased individual was murdered.
Inquests | Ministry of the Solicitor General

JMO

Just wanted to say that I think when police say it was a 'suspicious death' they are looking at, in addition to not looking like 'natural causes', it also doesn't look like a death such as suicide. From when I have seen it used, it seems to be used in the context of police thinking it looks like something was done to the deceased to make him/her become deceased. jmo. Anyway, also wanted to note that I followed up on the case quoted above, and there was an arrest already made for the murder of that 'suspicious death'.. a 40 year old woman, and a bit younger man as 'accessory'.

 

[MistyWaters]

Just wanted to say that I think when police say it was a 'suspicious death' they are looking at, in addition to not looking like 'natural causes', it also doesn't look like a death such as suicide. From when I have seen it used, it seems to be used in the context of police thinking it looks like something was done to the deceased to make him/her become deceased. jmo. Anyway, also wanted to note that I followed up on the case quoted above, and there was an arrest already made for the murder of that 'suspicious death'.. a 40 year old woman, and a bit younger man as 'accessory'.

Yes when a death is announced as suspicious it often indicates there’s an indication of criminality. However until the death investigation takes place and the autopsy is completed there’s no absolute certainty. But murder charges can be laid for suspicious deaths while the exact cause is still being determined even though the manner of death is known to be homicide.

Google “suspicious” and “homicide” - homicide investigations are often underway regarding suspicious deaths for that same reason, as occurred in the Sherman case when the homicide division took over on the 2nd day iirc.

 

[deugirtni]

The Shermans don’t have the right to rewrite history. If my cousin went off the deep end and killed Honey..then, took his life as l believe....it’s simply the truth. Greenspan’s team of paid hacks mean nothing! If we can agree that the Sherman’s died suspiciously....why wasn’t there a full blown coroners inquest?
I was certain of one thing after spending 4 hours with lead detective B. Price....he’s a terrible poker player and l left 31 division at 1 in the morning 100% convinced of M/S.

With respect, the same goes the other way - if the couple were murdered, it's simply the truth, and no one has the right to rewrite history. I guess we will all have to wait and see.

And

Did it ever occur to you that Detective Price might be the best poker player ever, by perhaps playing along with the M/S possibility? Perhaps feigning how what was said to him by certain individuals made sense, etc., when in fact he was thinking the opposite?

 

[ldlager]

Wondering also, if the reason that particular lawyer was hired by JS was because of the man's experience as the brother of a man who was inadvertently murdered by the mob.
Could that suggest JS fears ''mob'' involvement?
speculation, imo.

Or murdered in error ("inadvertently")?

 

[dotr]

Or murdered in error ("inadvertently")?

That was my ''softer'' word for murder, but in the end- a rose is still a rose, imo.

 

[MistyWaters]

With respect, the same goes the other way - if the couple were murdered, it's simply the truth, and no one has the right to rewrite history. I guess we will all have to wait and see.

And

Did it ever occur to you that Detective Price might be the best poker player ever, by perhaps playing along with the M/S possibility? Perhaps feigning how what was said to him by certain individuals made sense, etc., when in fact he was thinking the opposite?

Good point. Investigators are legally allowed to bluff in order to further an investigation. Allowing an anonymous leak to the media regarding m/s even if TPS suspected the homicides were staged also falls within that same parameter IMO.

Can The Police Lie To Me? | The Defence Group
“....When police are investigating a crime, they are permitted to use whatever tactics they have at their disposal within the limits of the law. In the course of an interrogation, or “interview” as police prefer to call it, they will often try various approaches to persuade a suspect to confess, or at least to provide them with inculpatory information they can to seek a conviction. A good investigator will also be a seasoned performer in the art of the “bluff”, in order to persuade the suspect that silence is futile....

....How far the police are allowed to go in telling lies to a suspect is an issue left to the courts. But the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly made it clear that in investigating crime, police will be given wide latitude to engage in tactics that might not be acceptable at a dinner party or a company baseball game.....”

 

[ldlager]

Good point. Investigators are legally allowed to bluff in order to further an investigation. Allowing an anonymous leak to the media regarding m/s even if TPS suspected the homicides were staged also falls within that same parameter IMO.

Can The Police Lie To Me? | The Defence Group
“....When police are investigating a crime, they are permitted to use whatever tactics they have at their disposal within the limits of the law. In the course of an interrogation, or “interview” as police prefer to call it, they will often try various approaches to persuade a suspect to confess, or at least to provide them with inculpatory information they can to seek a conviction. A good investigator will also be a seasoned performer in the art of the “bluff”, in order to persuade the suspect that silence is futile....

....How far the police are allowed to go in telling lies to a suspect is an issue left to the courts. But the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly made it clear that in investigating crime, police will be given wide latitude to engage in tactics that might not be acceptable at a dinner party or a company baseball game.....”

If its true that they bluffed/fabricated/lied, is it any wonder that certain people may be holding back information from them?

 

[deugirtni]

If its true that they bluffed/fabricated/lied, is it any wonder that certain people may be holding back information from them?

Police aren't really supposed to be showing their hand to witnesses and telling them facts of a given case. I would think it is more 'suspects' that police may 'lie' to, in order to snag a confession or something. It's also possible for people to play along without saying much, and just give the impression that they're in agreement with whatever the other person might be saying. If people care about the Shermans, I'm sure they wouldn't hold back information that could be helpful. I'm thinking they just don't understand that it's possible some of their info might be useful even if it doesn't seem so to themselves. Anyone that is 'holding back information' - wouldn't that make them look guilty, as if they are hiding something?