We haven't seen the autopsy, but would a belt qualify a ligature? Scarf? My problem is that the autopsy was done very early in the investigation, if there had been obvious signs that BOTH were strangled with something very different than a belt, and that BOTH had obviously had their wrists bound, then why did they seemingly continue to investigate this as a M/S for about a month? This information would make it plainly clear that something quite different had happened, and LE should have announced it as a double murder within days. I speculate that the autopsy results aren't as definitive as you might think and that the coroner bought in to what Greenspan's pathologist was selling him.
I agree we are in the dark, not knowing the details of the neck injuries (which can help determine suicide vs murder) or the rulings on the MOD from the first autopsies. The first pathologist DID see indications that it might be a double murder. We don't know what his final report ruled as MOD, which was signed off by the chief forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Pollanen. We only know that Pollanem didn't rule the deaths as double murders. I suspect that the MOD was ruled as "undetermined". That could be enough ammo for the TPS to pursue the M/S theory, which they seemed to prematurely determine from the first few hours at the crime scene. If the MOD was ruled M/S, then the TPS were following that direction, and can't be blamed for how the investigation continued. But a M/M ruling doesn't jive with the cooperation shown later between the pathologists.
The first pathologist (Dr.Pickup) attended the second autopsies, and provided the "hired" pathologist (Dr. Chiasson) with crime scene photos. This certainly suggests that he wanted to be cooperative, and was genuinely interested in getting a second opinion from an experienced, highly regarded forensic pathologist. Chiasson has a stellar reputation in forensic pathology (former Ontario Chief of Pathology). Let's accept that as fact before you dismiss him as an inept old timer (he is still working) and that he sacrificed his life long career and reputation for $$$. Apparently the forensic experts (partnered with TPS) agreed with his findings and TPS accepted (had to) the forensic science.
Not only did TPS accept a M/M autopsy ruling, their six week investigation determined that the Sherman's were "targeted" for murder. That is a definitive statement that didn't have to be made public, and denotes that it is based on hard evidence. Do we believe that?
The only thing I truly trust is that the various and qualified forensic experts (not even including Chiasson) working on behalf of the LE directive have agreed that the Shermans were both murdered. We don't know the scientific reasons for their ruling, but this is the ultimate proof of M/M imo. I don't think that Dr. Chiasson can be bought and I think that it is beyond cynical to think the other forensic scientists can be bought.
Sources say Pickup saw indications that it might be a case of double murder. However, Pickup did not make that ruling. Neither Pickup or his boss, chief forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Pollanen, would discuss the case with the Star, citing provincial privacy rules.
How the investigation into the deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman turned from murder-suicide to double homicide | The Star
