You can believe what you want. Simple fact is that in those early days the family had no access to the crime scene, so how would they know that it wasn't a suicide? I'll tell you something from personal experience, family's first response to a suicide is denial. Always. I have also seen police declare a suicide as a death by misadventure simply to make the situation easier on the surviving family. Gomes will do whatever her superiors tell her to do. Time will tell if I am right or wrong, but I am willing to bet that this case is destined for the cold case files and I would be very surprised if we ever get another update on it.
You can believe what you want. Simple fact is that in those early days the family had no access to the crime scene, so how would they know that it wasn't a suicide? I'll tell you something from personal experience, family's first response to a suicide is denial. Always. I have also seen police declare a suicide as a death by misadventure simply to make the situation easier on the surviving family. Gomes will do whatever her superiors tell her to do. Time will tell if I am right or wrong, but I am willing to bet that this case is destined for the cold case files and I would be very surprised if we ever get another update on it.
Approx. 1 in 3 'coroners autopsies' are wrong, so if there is any question, its well worth paying for a second opinion. I was just reading up on that last night.
Both coroners would have seen the same injuries and no doubt came to the same/similar conclusions.
I'm going to have to go for a strong disagree with you on that one. From personal experience, family's response is definitely not always denial. I'm not sure why you would even think that. Surely you can imagine scenarios where a family is even expecting it to be a suicide because of depression, past attempts, etc. even if you've never witnessed that.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
You can also believe what you want, and maybe you're right that the case won't be solved, and maybe you're wrong. In any sense, it won't have anything to do with the family's decision to do a parallel investigation. Do many families faced with suicide respond with denial? Absolutely. But this case is very unique. I feel as though their response was out of fear that this case was not being investigated fairly and accurately. Thus prompting their public statement and their decision to hire private investigators. If we knew what the crime scene looked like, they had an idea as well. It was difficult for most of us to reconcile that it was a murder/suicide, and found it concerning to learn that TPS may have been treating it as such. Lastly, Gomes is the lead detective. She may have superiors, but they would not tell her to say something that wasn't true. Especially when it comes to the manner of death. Gomes, and her superiors, are confident that this is a double homicide based on the evidence. There's nothing else to it.You can believe what you want. Simple fact is that in those early days the family had no access to the crime scene, so how would they know that it wasn't a suicide? I'll tell you something from personal experience, family's first response to a suicide is denial. Always. I have also seen police declare a suicide as a death by misadventure simply to make the situation easier on the surviving family. Gomes will do whatever her superiors tell her to do. Time will tell if I am right or wrong, but I am willing to bet that this case is destined for the cold case files and I would be very surprised if we ever get another update on it.
Do you know what Tory discussed in that meeting? If he just wanted a status update, you'd think a phone call would suffice?
I was reviewing the case in my mind and here are some of the thoughts I came up with.
1) Two planned and distinct events took place, the murders and the staging of the bodies. Who wanted to have the bodies staged will point the perpetrator(s).
2) The scene appears to be neat and tidy, with no signs of emotional anger, and the dearth of forensic evidence (my assumption only) points to the likelihood of trained/professional/experts who were hired, committing the crime is high.
3) Since 'pros' are expensive, and the victims high profile I would expect the involvement of significant financial resources to finance this crime.
4) Law Enforcement likely have checked travel activity via Pearson airport after the Sherman deaths. I would be looking for individuals who had been in Canada a short time (few weeks at most), likely males, traveling alone, possibly arriving from different locales, and leaving for different locales.
5) Chances they would be males, 30-50 years of age, physically fit, and have a common language. Likely they would also be relatively fluent in English as well. I would cross reference individuals who meet that profile with the surveillance videos from the Sherman's neighbourhood.
6) The assailants had to arrive at the Sherman's from somewhere and leave the Sherman's. What mode of transport is crucial. Uber, Taxi, Rental Car? Private car? On foot? Work/Trades or Utility Truck? All of the Above? Any records or videos of people coming or going from area?
7) Being pros, the assailants, would be especially cognizant of the need to not be noticed coming or going, so the likelihood of disguises, misdirection, and other tradecraft may be high.
These are only my opinions and hunches.
Regarding #1- Do we in fact know that they were murdered and then staged? What I mean is, is it possible that they were strangled with the belts while they were attached to the railing? Perhaps the killer(s) leaned on/pushed down on their shoulders while they were attached to the railing until they suffocated. HS could have been alive when attached to the railing even though her blood was on the floor as previously published. Have I forgotten some evidence that would eliminate this possibility?
I agree with most of your other points, but I'm a little confused by these two statements as they seem to disagree with each other. If 1 in 3 autopsies reaches the wrong conclusion, then why would you assume that both coroners would have come to similar conclusions? In fact, mathematically, if the 1/3 statistic is true, there would be a 4/9 chance that two autopsies would result in different conclusions, one correct and one incorrect.
Some people still believe that the Ramseys didn't have anything to do with killing their kid. When you have that much money and power, pink can indeed be orange, especially if the only consequence is passing a suicide off as a murder that will never be solved. Nobody gets hurt, everybody wins.
To be clear, I am speaking about two events, the murder and the staging, not in a time or sequential event concept, but as two distinct objectives. The Sherman's death was one objective of the assailants, and the staging was another.
If you just wanted the Shermans dead, the staging was not necessary. I cannot comprehend that if the only objective was their death, the assailants would use the pool area railing, and the belts as the method.
Possibly the staging was intended to confuse the investigators into believing that it was a murder/suicide, but for the assailants to do that, would mean they were underestimating the TPS.
I believe the staging had a specific purpose, was planned well prior to the murders, took time and had significance for some individuals known to both the Shermans and the perpetrator(s).
It also means that somebody involved in the murders likely had access to the Sherman's home to do the planning.
Thanks for the clarification Windsor.
FWIW Im not at all sure that the TPS werent fooled by the staging.
The TPS might have been fooled for a little while, but the key missing piece of evidence for a murder/suicide scenario was the lack of a suicide note or similar explanation or suicidal behavior indicators on Barry's part prior to the deaths.
As I stated before, and I could be very wrong, I think the assailants did the staging for a specific reason, beyond fooling the police.
You can believe what you want. Simple fact is that in those early days the family had no access to the crime scene, so how would they know that it wasn't a suicide? I'll tell you something from personal experience, family's first response to a suicide is denial. Always. I have also seen police declare a suicide as a death by misadventure simply to make the situation easier on the surviving family. Gomes will do whatever her superiors tell her to do. Time will tell if I am right or wrong, but I am willing to bet that this case is destined for the cold case files and I would be very surprised if we ever get another update on it.
To be clear, I am speaking about two events, the murder and the staging, not in a time or sequential event concept, but as two distinct objectives. The Sherman's death was one objective of the assailants, and the staging was another.
If you just wanted the Shermans dead, the staging was not necessary. I cannot comprehend that if the only objective was their death, the assailants would use the pool area railing, and the belts as the method.
Possibly the staging was intended to confuse the investigators into believing that it was a murder/suicide, but for the assailants to do that, would mean they were underestimating the TPS.
I believe the staging had a specific purpose, was planned well prior to the murders, took time and had significance for some individuals known to both the Shermans and the perpetrator(s).
It also means that somebody involved in the murders likely had access to the Sherman's home to do the planning.
Yes, in the wayne Millard case the family wholeheartedly accepted the idea.I'm going to have to go for a strong disagree with you on that one. From personal experience, family's response is definitely not always denial. I'm not sure why you would even think that. Surely you can imagine scenarios where a family is even expecting it to be a suicide because of depression, past attempts, etc. even if you've never witnessed that.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk