CANADA Canada - Billionaire Couple Barry & Honey Sherman Murdered at Home, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #23

[Kerry Winter]

I agree, it is distressing to know that we are approaching the 7 year mark since these murders were committed and there seems to be little to no progress being made in solving them and no status update or appeal for help from TPS, and no news from KD. It seems the only people Keeping this case at the top of mind are the ten or so regular posters here.
I fear that TPS has speculation or a theory on what happened, but little tangible evidence. Not knowing where else to turn, they choose to stay silent. I hope I am wrong.

And, the Greenspan circus is no longer in town!

 

[Lexiintoronto]

And, the Greenspan circus is no longer in town!

Greenspan is still in T.O.

I wonder what the team discovered.

 

[WINDSOR]

Greenspan is still in T.O.

I wonder what the team discovered.

The private investigation team, lead by Greenspan and funded by the Sherman children, appears to have discovered nothing of significance. The hope that their investigation would lead to identifying Persons of Interest, or to charges being laid was never realized.

Some people believed that the TPS investigation was so 'botched' that law enforcement would never solve the crime, and a fresh, independent team of investigators was required.

This private team, ended their work with no visible results.

MOO

 

[ldlager]

The private investigation team, lead by Greenspan and funded by the Sherman children, appears to have discovered nothing of significance. The hope that their investigation would lead to identifying Persons of Interest, or to charges being laid was never realized.

Some people believed that the TPS investigation was so 'botched' that law enforcement would never solve the crime, and a fresh, independent team of investigators was required.

This private team, ended their work with no visible results.

MOO

Given that the children hired Greenspan, and Greenspan in turn engaged the PI’s, does anyone know if the PI’s would be bound by the same confidentiality and privilege obligations as the lawyer that engaged them?

 

[fadedglitter]

The only privately engaged expert who appears to have had any influence on the investigation was the pathologist who determined it was a double murder. Had the Sherman children turned this information over to the police at the time, it might have saved investigators from weeks of chasing down questions about why Barry might have killed himself. Instead the police learned this from the newspaper.

 

[WINDSOR]

Given that the children hired Greenspan, and Greenspan in turn engaged the PI’s, does anyone know if the PI’s would be bound by the same confidentiality and privilege obligations as the lawyer that engaged them?

Excellent question. Not being a lawyer, I do believe anything and everything discussed between a lawyer and his client is protected. Hypothetically, the PI tells the lawyer 'such and such', the lawyer then tells his client, then that information is protected. The PI working as a an agent of the lawyer, I think logically would be protected as well, but I am not positive.

Wild Hypothesis. If somebody had some involvement with the crime, either directly or indirectly, they might hire a private investigation team, which could provide some useful information for the defense at a potential future trial.
Since the private investigation team had a tip line as well, it could be a useful overview of the Police investigation and the progress being made.

Question for the legal minds out there. You are a lawyer doing a private investigation work for your client Bill Jones. You get a call on the tip line, that says Bill Jones, your client did the crime and there is video proof that you can purchase. Do you buy the video? As a lawyer do you have to tell the Police?

MOO

 

[dotr]

Top of my head thought inspired by a link posted in the thread for the recently murdered woman from Markham and the search for a suspect in Hong Kong..
Would this mean, that if by chance, China happened to be one of the places where LE was seeking more info, they might not receive it? imo, speculation. fwiw
rbbm

Canada-Hong Kong relations

www.international.gc.ca

'When the People’s Republic of China imposed a National Security Law (NSL) in 2020, Canada expressed concern that this would lead to an erosion of respect for human rights and universal freedoms. Canada suspended its extradition agreement with Hong Kong, imposed export control measures, updated Global Affairs Canada’s travel advice and issued an advisory for Hong Kong, and launched new proactive immigration measures for Hong Kong residents.'

https://www.thestar.com › News › Canada
''Oct 27, 2022 — Toronto homicide detectives believe information in five countries may hold the key to who killed Barry and Honey Sherman, a Toronto court has heard.''

Sherman murder detectives obtain evidence from outside Canada, police say

A foreign country has surrendered “evidence” to Toronto homicide detectives probing the targeted murders of billionaires Barry and Honey Sherman, police documents filed in court reveal.

www.toronto.com

2023
''In Detective Yim’s most recent affidavit, filed last week, he reveals that police have in 2020 obtained information using an MLAT — a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. An MLAT, Yim explains in the affidavit, is a “request for evidence located in a foreign jurisdiction.” Canada has an MLAT treaty with 35 countries. The police will not say which country they obtained evidence from or what the evidence was. Police have said they obtained the information on May 5, 2020.''

''Yim has also revealed that homicide detectives received information from two production orders and one search warrant served somewhere in Canada between Sept. 4 and Oct. 9 of this year. Previously, the last time police swore out a warrant or production order and obtained information was on July 2, 2019, well over a year ago.''

 

[Kerry Winter]

Today’s text exchange with K. Donovan:

 

[fadedglitter]

Kerry, whatever the court unseals will be available to you and everyone else at the courthouse. No need to attend with Donovan.

 

[WINDSOR]

Besides his opinion on what happened, has KW provided any evidence to the TPS that proves his theory?
How about some witnesses or video. KW may be 100% correct, but without proof, it is meaningless supposition.

Because the TPS has not charged anybody, it does not follow Barry did it.

MOO

 

[ldlager]

Besides his opinion on what happened, has KW provided any evidence to the TPS that proves his theory?
How about some witnesses or video. KW may be 100% correct, but without proof, it is meaningless supposition.

Because the TPS has not charged anybody, it does not follow Barry did it.

MOO

KW consistently infers and in fact states that TPS are lying when they state that the Sherman’s were murdered. He doesn’t even state this is his opinion, he states it as fact. How and why is this allowed by the monitors on this site?

 

[Lexiintoronto]

KW consistently infers and in fact states that TPS are lying when they state that the Sherman’s were murdered. He doesn’t even state this is his opinion, he states it as fact. How and why is this allowed by the monitors on this site?

I’m not a mod, but I think it’s because he’s a verified insider. He doesn’t have to back up his claims the way that we are expected to.

That doesn’t mean what he says isn’t subject to scrutiny. We can call him on unsubstantiated claims. Kerry and I have had big disagreements here.

The m/s theory was only entertained by the police early in the investigation. But they also thought it could be a possible double homicide. When the pathology results and other evidence came back they knew it was a double-homicide. To believe otherwise is a willful denial of the facts of the case. Barry is a victim, and never physically hurt anyone in his life. Especially Honey.

 

[dotr]

Sep 3 2024!
By Kevin DonovanChief Investigative Reporter

‘You have been abusive to me for over 40 years’: Did Barry and Honey Sherman’s toxic emails lead police to believe murder-suicide?

Toronto police discovered emails between Barry and Honey Sherman where Barry accused Honey of being abusive to both him and their children for decades

www.thestar.com

 

[JDG]

Excellent question. Not being a lawyer, I do believe anything and everything discussed between a lawyer and his client is protected. Hypothetically, the PI tells the lawyer 'such and such', the lawyer then tells his client, then that information is protected. The PI working as a an agent of the lawyer, I think logically would be protected as well, but I am not positive.

Wild Hypothesis. If somebody had some involvement with the crime, either directly or indirectly, they might hire a private investigation team, which could provide some useful information for the defense at a potential future trial.
Since the private investigation team had a tip line as well, it could be a useful overview of the Police investigation and the progress being made.

Question for the legal minds out there. You are a lawyer doing a private investigation work for your client Bill Jones. You get a call on the tip line, that says Bill Jones, your client did the crime and there is video proof that you can purchase. Do you buy the video? As a lawyer do you have to tell the Police?

MOO

Yes you do have to tell the police about incriminating evidence that you have, as a lawyer.

That ‘rule’ was passed by the LSUC in 2016 after Ken Murray (Paul Bernardo’s first defence attorney) held onto video tapes taken from their home and kept them for, IIRC, 17 months.

Those video tapes showed the murders of Kristen French and Lesley Mahaffy.

This is my understanding as a non lawyer.

Hope it helps but it’s all online for your perusal.

 

[FPoulet]

Yes you do have to tell the police about incriminating evidence that you have, as a lawyer.

That ‘rule’ was passed by the LSUC in 2016 after Ken Murray (Paul Bernardo’s first defence attorney) held onto video tapes taken from their home and kept them for, IIRC, 17 months.

Those video tapes showed the murders of Kristen French and Lesley Mahaffy.

This is my understanding as a non lawyer.

Hope it helps but it’s all online for your perusal.

Here is an excerpt of information about the rule from the LSO’s website:

Incriminating physical evidence​

Lawyers and paralegals are not required to help authorities gather evidence of a crime, but they cannot impede an investigation or advise anyone else to do so. Concealing evidence of a crime and obstructing justice is a criminal offence.

Licensees who take possession of incriminating physical evidence must not obstruct or attempt to obstruct the course of justice by concealing, destroying, or altering that evidence. A licensee who becomes aware of the existence of incriminating physical evidence but declines to take possession of it must not counsel or participate in its concealment, destruction, or alteration.

What is physical evidence?​

Physical evidence includes documents, electronic information, objects, or substances relevant to a crime, criminal investigation, or a criminal prosecution. It does not matter if the evidence would be admissible before a court or if there are existing criminal charges.

Physical evidence does not include documents or communications that are privileged or that the licensee reasonably believes are otherwise available to the authorities.

What is incriminating evidence?​

Evidence tending to establish the innocence of a client, such as evidence relevant to an alibi, is not incriminating. However, a licensee must be very careful when assessing whether evidence is in fact exculpatory. Concealing, destroying, or altering evidence that is both incriminating and exculpatory may result in a breach of a licensee's professional obligations and expose a licensee to criminal charges.

Best practice tip: Licensees should be cautious before accepting any physical evidence from a client. Licensees are never required to take possession of incriminating physical evidence or to disclose the existence of evidence outside of their control. Possession of illegal things could constitute a criminal offense.

Emphasis (bold) added — it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence about what might have happened to any such evidence identified.

Source: Incriminating physical evidence - Lawyer | Law Society of Ontario

 

[FPoulet]

Re: the Star article, I think it’s sad that this information about the Shermans’ issues is being made public. This might explain why Honey was in contact with Torkin Manes (who practice family law). Was a separation coming? Did the kids know this? Separation would have most likely left Honey with a lot more than $500 million. She likely would have theoretically been transferred roughly half the accumulated wealth between the two of them, to control as she wished, by way of propety equalization, unless they agreed otherwise.

 

[ldlager]

Yes you do have to tell the police about incriminating evidence that you have, as a lawyer.

That ‘rule’ was passed by the LSUC in 2016 after Ken Murray (Paul Bernardo’s first defence attorney) held onto video tapes taken from their home and kept them for, IIRC, 17 months.

Those video tapes showed the murders of Kristen French and Lesley Mahaffy.

This is my understanding as a non lawyer.

Hope it helps but it’s all online for your perusal.

Thanks for the info.
My original question related to the obligations of the PI team. Do they have to disclose potential evidence to either the lawyer that engaged them; or to the police?

 

[JDG]

Re: the Star article, I think it’s sad that this information about the Shermans’ issues is being made public. This might explain why Honey was in contact with Torkin Manes (who practice family law). Was a separation coming? Did the kids know this? Separation would have most likely left Honey with a lot more than $500 million. She likely would have theoretically been transferred roughly half the accumulated wealth between the two of them, to control as she wished, by way of propety equalization, unless they agreed otherwise.

I believe Honey (possibly Barry too) had been to a family lawyer to amend a will ? after the birth of a new grandchild.

If Torkin Manes is at Yonge/St Clair, it is probably him she saw.

 

[JDG]

Thanks for the info.
My original question related to the obligations of the PI team. Do they have to disclose potential evidence to either the lawyer that engaged them; or to the police?

No idea about PI obligations. Might be online somewhere.

 

[FPoulet]

Thanks for the info.
My original question related to the obligations of the PI team. Do they have to disclose potential evidence to either the lawyer that engaged them; or to the police?

It is a good question. If hired by the lawyers their work might be covered by the same principles. I don’t know if there is a specific obligation on PIs or even people generally on this issue.

There is more guidance about the lawyer’s role here:

Chapter 5 | Law Society of Ontario

SECTION 5.1 THE LAWYER AS ADVOCATE Advocacy 5.1-1 When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client resolutely and honorably within the limits of the law while treating the tribunal with candor, fairness

lso.ca