Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #14

[MistyWaters]

Another reason to remove wrist skin with a wide margin is to check for finger prints, after the autopsy and when you can take your time for a thorough examination.

If both/either were held by the wrists using any force, the perps may have inadvertently left finger prints (although I think they'd be gloved), todays science can do marvellous, almost unimaginable things.

They certainly would not have been buried with the wrist skin attached as its such an important area to examine.

Finger prints are amazing things, even after skin falls off, you can get imprints from the 'far side'.

Fingerprints, that’s very interesting!

With the Sherman autopsy, I’d bet my new snow boots that international expert opinion was also sought. A double homicide caused by strangulation with bodies posed in a suicide position is not an everyday occurrence in Canada. Much like some complex medical surgeries, due to the small size of our country we’re not quite world class in many areas and costs wouldn’t be a barrier to the Sherman family. I recall reading somewhere only 22 similar cases had ever occurred in the US.

 

[JDG]

OT but in reply to previous post

Canada is small, relatively speaking but we ARE world class.

In 1922, Banting and Best discovered Insulin in Toronto.

They got the Nobel Prize as it was the most important breakthrough in modern medical science.

Toronto General Hospital has been accredited as a world class hospital, the only one in Canada, I believe. Fourth best in the world according to Newsweek.

And, the Canadarm for NASA from the Canada Space Agency.

I could go on but I won't......

 

[MistyWaters]

OT but in reply to previous post

Canada is small, relatively speaking but we ARE world class.

In 1922, Banting and Best discovered Insulin in Toronto.

They got the Nobel Prize as it was the most important breakthrough in modern medical science.

Toronto General Hospital has been accredited as a world class hospital, the only one in Canada, I believe. Fourth best in the world according to Newsweek.

And, the Canadarm for NASA from the Canada Space Agency.

I could go on but I won't......

Oh no, I’m certainly not saying Canada’s not world class in anything. But much like any type of medical specialization, if the medical profession has never been involved in a certain set of circumstances, it’s very common to seek the support and advice of experts within their peer group. In Canada, fortunately, strangulation/double homicides posed as suicides are very rare, if not unheard of. Literature on the topic indicates there are experts on the topic and various studies have been undertaken in recognizing homicide indicators by various international experts. Seeking expert opinion from global peers becomes very easy in this digital age and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it was sought in this case.

If the prosecution cannot satisfy a judge or jury behind any doubt that it was medically proven a double homicide occurred, any future prosecution is at risk of failure. I can imagine a defence lawyer asking both Pickup or Chiasson the question “And tell us, how many previous autopsies have you completed where you’ve identified that two homicide victims each died from ligature neck compression with their bodies fastened by belts to a railing”. I bet the answer would be “none”.

ETA - What I get from the general theme of media reports is - Pickup was incapable (unqualified, inexperienced, not smart enough???) in determining the manner of death so Chiasson was paid (big $$$$$) by the Sherman family to conduct a 2nd autopsy and low and behold he comes up with a double homicide! Then for whatever reason (still not sure) almost overnight TPS changes their mind from M/S to double murder even though they’d totally bungled the death investigation.

What jury in their right mind would convict anybody if this is really how it went? Why aren’t people in Toronto and Ontario outraged or at least embarrassed over this extent of incompetence —- or maybe even corruption because that’s certainly what it eludes to? IMO they’re not because people have learned anonymous sourced stories published in the media are not always true. I think the storyline is downright ridiculous.

 

[dotr]

Interesting, a staged murder scene to make a statement, usually a defiant one.
If true in the Sherman case, would that be in defiance of H and BS, or the investigators? rbbm.
Death Scene Investigation from the Viewpoint of Forensic Medicine Expert | IntechOpen
''In many cases, the scene investigation is more important than the autopsy. A thorough and complete investigation commonly leads to the proper diagnosis of the cause and manner of death prior to an autopsy (Avis, 1993; Dix & Ernst, 1999).Why go to the scene? The purpose of having the forensic medicine expert attend the death scene is severalfold. By viewing the body in the context of its surroundings, the forensic medicine expert is better able to interpret certain findings at the autopsy such as a patterned imprint across the neck from collapsing onto an open vegetable drawer in a refrigerator.''

''The murderer may have intentionally altered the scene in an effort to mislead investigators or make a statement, usually a defiant one. A crime scene altered in this manner is said to have been staged''

.

 

[MistyWaters]

BBM - about unnamed sources pertaining to a 2nd autopsy or the theory of multiple killers, neither confirmed as factual by Greenspan.

“......That top pathologist is none other than Hospital for Sick Children’s Dr. David Chiasson, who is celebrated for his thoroughness, careful conclusions and privacy.

The questions for Chiasson are obviously ‘was this his conclusion and how likely would one of his reports be put in a position to be leaked out’ ahead of being given to police or the Sherman family who hired him to complete the second look?

“Dear Mr. Warmington: All inquiries concerning the Sherman matter are to be directed to Brian Greenspan. Regards, David Chiasson MD,” was his email to me.

Certainly Greenspan was very clear his team would act professionally.

“Any observations would be first shared with the Toronto Police,” said Greenspan, “We are not here to interfere with police but to support them.”

CBC has also spoken to an unnamed source about the Sherman case.

“Private investigators believe that the billionaire Toronto couple found dead at their home in December were murdered by multiple killers, a source with direct knowledge of the parallel probe into their mysterious deaths told CBC Toronto.”

Greenspan said both reports surprised him.

“Again, I have no idea where they are getting their information,” he said. “If it’s from one of our people — and we will find out — that person will be dropped from our team.”

“I highly doubt it’s from anyone on our team,” Greenspan added.

However, he would not confirm nor deny these reports, or any reports, that are based on unnamed sources. He said he feels the same way about such details allegedly coming from his group as he does “any information coming from unauthorized police sources.”....”
WARMINGTON: Billionaire Shermans slain by contract killers? | Toronto Sun

 

[dotr]

Some very interesting imo, articles at link..
How to solve a murder | The Guardian
rbbm. fwiw..
Leaving an invisible trail: how killers cover up their crimes
''Like many murderers, Miner focused on concealing physical clues like his DNA, the bodies and his own proximity to the crime scene. However, Thrasher says that physical evidence is only part of the equation.

“Increasingly, we’re beginning to look for behavioral evidence. We look for things like hate, anger, sexuality, lust, insecurity, entitlement,” he says. “We’re finding many times that behavioral evidence leads us to look for physical evidence in places that we might never have considered.”
Ultimately, as Miner’s case demonstrates, things like intention and tendencies might be as damning as fingerprints and hair.''

 

[ldlager]

BBM - about unnamed sources pertaining to a 2nd autopsy or the theory of multiple killers, neither confirmed as factual by Greenspan.

“......That top pathologist is none other than Hospital for Sick Children’s Dr. David Chiasson, who is celebrated for his thoroughness, careful conclusions and privacy.

The questions for Chiasson are obviously ‘was this his conclusion and how likely would one of his reports be put in a position to be leaked out’ ahead of being given to police or the Sherman family who hired him to complete the second look?

“Dear Mr. Warmington: All inquiries concerning the Sherman matter are to be directed to Brian Greenspan. Regards, David Chiasson MD,” was his email to me.

Certainly Greenspan was very clear his team would act professionally.

“Any observations would be first shared with the Toronto Police,” said Greenspan, “We are not here to interfere with police but to support them.”

CBC has also spoken to an unnamed source about the Sherman case.

“Private investigators believe that the billionaire Toronto couple found dead at their home in December were murdered by multiple killers, a source with direct knowledge of the parallel probe into their mysterious deaths told CBC Toronto.”

Greenspan said both reports surprised him.

“Again, I have no idea where they are getting their information,” he said. “If it’s from one of our people — and we will find out — that person will be dropped from our team.”

“I highly doubt it’s from anyone on our team,” Greenspan added.

However, he would not confirm nor deny these reports, or any reports, that are based on unnamed sources. He said he feels the same way about such details allegedly coming from his group as he does “any information coming from unauthorized police sources.”....”
WARMINGTON: Billionaire Shermans slain by contract killers? | Toronto Sun[/QUOTE

To quote Mr. Greenspan “...Any observations would be first shared with the Toronto Police,” said Greenspan, “We are not here to interfere with police but to support them...”
I recall the press conference that Greenspan held, along with a number of his hired PI’s and other consultants who were seated at an elevated table In dark suits in front of a room of reporters so that they would look authoritative- maybe even menacing?
In that presentation, Greenspan methodically catalogued and described what he and his group determined to be failings or shortcomings in the police investigation, and LE’s apparent sub par evidence collection efforts at the Sherman’s house. IMO this press conference was held in part to cast doubt on the veracity and quality of LE’s work on the case- for whatever reason.
I would hazard a bet that these “conclusions” were not shared with LE in advance of the Greenspan press conference, and in fact IIRC Chief Saunders hurriedly held his own press conference later that day and made vague, non specific comments defending the quality and thoroughness of his officers, their capabilities, and the thoroughness of their investigation (in fairness, one wouldn’t expect him to address items specifically in view of the ongoing investigation).
All that to say that I do not think that Greenspan and the TPS were necessarily “brothers in arms” in this case, and IMO some of Greenspan’s public comments are not consistent with “supporting the police”- whatever his publicly stated intentions.

 

[ldlager]

Incredibly, starting at 12.55 of the above recording, Greenspan makes the following statement (RB/UBM):
"... It was not until Jan 24, 2018 that the lead investigator from the TPS met with Dr Chiasson. It is our understanding that this discussion impacted and contributed to the belated public announcement by the TPS on January 26, 2018 that Barry and Honey Sherman were the victims of a targeted double homicide ..."

Could it be inferred from this statement that Dr Chiasson's findings and personal meeting with investigators actually DID convince the TPS to change its conclusion from M/S to M/M?
Could this single statement from Greenspan form the foundation for a potential defense in this crime, as MistyWaters so eloquently speculated on and pointed out earlier in this thread?

 

[dotr]

.

 

[MistyWaters]

Incredibly, starting at 12.55 of the above recording, Greenspan makes the following statement (RB/UBM):
"... It was not until Jan 24, 2018 that the lead investigator from the TPS met with Dr Chiasson. It is our understanding that this discussion impacted and contributed to the belated public announcement by the TPS on January 26, 2018 that Barry and Honey Sherman were the victims of a targeted double homicide ..."

Could it be inferred from this statement that Dr Chiasson's findings and personal meeting with investigators actually DID convince the TPS to change its conclusion from M/S to M/M?
Could this single statement from Greenspan form the foundation for a potential defense in this crime, as MistyWaters so eloquently speculated on and pointed out earlier in this thread?

I’d think it would depend on how it came to be “it is our understanding”.

 

[ldlager]

I’d think it would depend on how it came to be “it is our understanding”.

It is my impression that Mr. Greenspan is skilled at selecting and using the appropriate words.
He did not say that he inferred (ie deductive reasoning to reach a logical conclusion) or presumed that this discussion impacted the announcement by TPS. He said he understood that it did.
I interpret that to mean that he was told by someone- either his own team or the TPS- that this meeting influenced the decision and ultimate announcement of M/M.
But that's just my inference MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

On the topic of a Greenspan and unnamed sources, when KD was interviewed by Macleans it’s my understanding he didn’t interview JK nor JS and so we don’t know the source of those allegations.

But what really caught my eye is during this interview KD is that doesn’t deny his own sources may be guilty, instead he’s lays it out as if it’s equal to the other finger-pointing possibilities mentioned.

I also read into the tone of KD’s response regarding his own sources that Greenspan pointed at a specific source, as if Greenspan was somehow able to recognize KD’s unnamed source and that’s the reason KD responds “who I don’t identify”.

And this is one of the reasons I don’t bite hook and sinker into everything KD writes - if he can’t stand behind the integrity and honesty of his unnamed sources what does that say?

BBM

Who killed Barry and Honey Sherman? A new book offers fascinating insights. - Macleans.ca
Q: The book also chronicles fractures after the Shermans’ deaths, including Honey’s sister being exiled from the family. You also write about how Jack Kay, Barry Sherman’s right hand at Apotex for 35 years and a trustee of the estate, was the subject of a rumour floated by Jonathon that he was somehow involved in the murders, and he was later kicked out of Apotex. Some of this is stranger than fiction.

A: Jack Kay was asked to come back to be in charge at Apotex. One year and one day after the murders, Jonathon Sherman and an Apotex executive ushered Kay out of the building. There’s no gold watch, no party. There’s mediation going on now because Kay was not offered anything after 35 years of service. It is the case that there is a lot of finger-pointing going on, as I report, where they initially blame Frank D’Angelo, then Jonathan says Jack Kay was involved. When Greenspan has written me, he says that my own sources, who I don’t identify, may be guilty as well. There’s a lot of finger-pointing.

 

[MistyWaters]

It is my impression that Mr. Greenspan is skilled at selecting and using the appropriate words.
He did not say that he inferred (ie deductive reasoning to reach a logical conclusion) or presumed that this discussion impacted the announcement by TPS. He said he understood that it did.
I interpret that to mean that he was told by someone- either his own team or the TPS- that this meeting influenced the decision and ultimate announcement of M/M.
But that's just my inference MOO

Or maybe since it was reported in the media as fact, it’s spoken as a sarcastic quip?

 

[ldlager]

On the topic of a Greenspan and unnamed sources, when KD was interviewed by Macleans it’s my understanding he didn’t interview JK nor JS and so we don’t know the source of those allegations.

But what really caught my eye is during this interview KD is that doesn’t deny his own sources may be guilty, instead he’s lays it out as if it’s equal to the other finger-pointing possibilities mentioned.

I also read into the tone of KD’s response regarding his own sources that Greenspan pointed at a specific source, as if Greenspan was somehow able to recognize KD’s unnamed source and that’s the reason KD responds “who I don’t identify”.

And this is one of the reasons I don’t bite hook and sinker into everything KD writes - if he can’t stand behind the integrity and honesty of his unnamed sources what does that say?

BBM

Who killed Barry and Honey Sherman? A new book offers fascinating insights. - Macleans.ca
Q: The book also chronicles fractures after the Shermans’ deaths, including Honey’s sister being exiled from the family. You also write about how Jack Kay, Barry Sherman’s right hand at Apotex for 35 years and a trustee of the estate, was the subject of a rumour floated by Jonathon that he was somehow involved in the murders, and he was later kicked out of Apotex. Some of this is stranger than fiction.

A: Jack Kay was asked to come back to be in charge at Apotex. One year and one day after the murders, Jonathon Sherman and an Apotex executive ushered Kay out of the building. There’s no gold watch, no party. There’s mediation going on now because Kay was not offered anything after 35 years of service. It is the case that there is a lot of finger-pointing going on, as I report, where they initially blame Frank D’Angelo, then Jonathan says Jack Kay was involved. When Greenspan has written me, he says that my own sources, who I don’t identify, may be guilty as well. There’s a lot of finger-pointing.

Could it be that Greenspan is deflecting, trying to shine the light on other "possible suspects? Perhaps he fears that one or more of his clients may in fact be a suspect, and consequently he finds himself with a potentially very big problem and/or dilemma? JMO

 

[deugirtni]

On the topic of a Greenspan and unnamed sources, when KD was interviewed by Macleans it’s my understanding he didn’t interview JK nor JS and so we don’t know the source of those allegations.

What leads you to your understanding that KD had not interviewed JK by the time the quoted McLean's article came out?

 

[MistyWaters]

What leads you to your understanding that KD had not interviewed JK by the time the quoted McLean's article came out?

I don’t recall he was ever named as a source. But if he was I really doubt Greenspan was referring to him as the possible guilty party.

 

[MistyWaters]

Could it be that Greenspan is deflecting, trying to shine the light on other "possible suspects? Perhaps he fears that one or more of his clients may in fact be a suspect, and consequently he finds himself with a potentially very big problem and/or dilemma? JMO

The quote refers to Greenspan informing KD that one of his unnamed sources may be guilty. If that were so, the outcome seems obvious - information which KD has reported is not all true and furthermore it’s highly likely the intent of the guilty sources would be to misdirect blame toward innocent parties. As a reporter, he’s not liable as he’s protected by Freedom of the Press so he just writes about whatever his sources claim to know.

So I’m not following you - how does that connect to Greenspan finding himself with a potentially very big problem and/or dilemma?

Does it make any difference to us WHO is guilty as long as the person/s responsible is convicted? It doesn’t to me, it’s not like a sporting event (to quote Jeff Ashton). If KD has been able to interact with the guilty party and perhaps further the investigation, that’d be a great thing in my opinion.

 

[deugirtni]

I don’t recall he was ever named as a source. But if he was I really doubt Greenspan was referring to him as the possible guilty party.

Often KD does not identify his sources, but that does not mean they don't really exist, or that he makes stuff up. KD interviewed many people over the last 3 years and prior to publishing his book. If I were publicly reporting on a story and had spoken to many, I wouldn't give their names up either. It seems a rather sticky situation, imho, for people to speak to him/any reporter, while risking other things, such as possibly the disdain of certain family members, as an example.

from the quoted McLean's article:
Q: The book also chronicles fractures after the Shermans’ deaths, including Honey’s sister being exiled from the family. You also write about how Jack Kay, Barry Sherman’s right hand at Apotex for 35 years and a trustee of the estate, was the subject of a rumour floated by Jonathon that he was somehow involved in the murders, and he was later kicked out of Apotex. Some of this is stranger than fiction.

A: Jack Kay was asked to come back to be in charge at Apotex. One year and one day after the murders, Jonathon Sherman and an Apotex executive ushered Kay out of the building. There’s no gold watch, no party. There’s mediation going on now because Kay was not offered anything after 35 years of service. It is the case that there is a lot of finger-pointing going on, as I report, where they initially blame Frank D’Angelo, then Jonathan says Jack Kay was involved. When Greenspan has written me, he says that my own sources, who I don’t identify, may be guilty as well. There’s a lot of finger-pointing.

KD doesn't specify who exactly informed him about the finger-pointing from the family or part(s) thereof, however it seemed clear to me from his book that he had spoken directly with Mr. Kay.

Greenspan could have been referring to a number of people, such as FDA, or JK, or even KW for all we know. jmo.

 

[ldlager]

I don’t recall he was ever named as a source. But if he was I really doubt Greenspan was referring to him as the possible guilty party.[/

blank

 

[ldlager]

The quote refers to Greenspan informing KD that one of his unnamed sources may be guilty. If that were so, the outcome seems obvious - information which KD has reported is not all true and furthermore it’s highly likely the intent of the guilty sources would be to misdirect blame toward innocent parties. As a reporter, he’s not liable as he’s protected by Freedom of the Press so he just writes about whatever his sources claim to know.

So I’m not following you - how does that connect to Greenspan finding himself with a potentially very big problem and/or dilemma?

Does it make any difference to us WHO is guilty as long as the person/s responsible is convicted? It doesn’t to me, it’s not like a sporting event (to quote Jeff Ashton). If KD has been able to interact with the guilty party and perhaps further the investigation, that’d be a great thing in my opinion.

Agreed.