CANADA Canada - Billionaire Couple Barry & Honey Sherman Murdered at Home, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #24

[Professor Moriarty]

That's interesting. But goes to show that whoever wants to be shown around is not guaranteed to be told about cameras unless they ask or are told. If they ask then they raise suspicions on themselves.

Surely, they only raise suspicions if there is a murder.

 

[INSP MORSE]

Surely, they only raise suspicions if there is a murder.

Yes of course. And how often are murders committed after asking if the cameras are in operation. None because no-one would be so stupid as to ask drawing attention to themselves, before returning and murdering someone.

 

[ldlager]

Yes of course. And how often are murders committed after asking if the cameras are in operation. None because no-one would be so stupid as to ask drawing attention to themselves, before returning and murdering someone.

If everyone here believes potential buyers and other visitors and contractors didn’t know or wouldn’t have asked if the cameras were operating, then who in fact actually knew? It surely can’t be more than say 20 people. Why has an arrest not been made if the pool of potential suspects is so small?

 

[INSP MORSE]

Family

If everyone here believes potential buyers and other visitors and contractors didn’t know or wouldn’t have asked if the cameras were operating, then who in fact actually knew? It surely can’t be more than say 20 people. Why has an arrest not been made if the pool of potential suspects is so small?

Family and maybe some work contractors.

They need supporting evidence to prosecute. You have to remember the TPS screwed up from the outset.

Remember the family hired private investigators and collected information through their own hotline which was separate from the TPS. Then AS put a stop to it and asked for any information they had gained to be shared with the TPS. We dont know if or how much of that sharing took place. It was JS who wanted to control things. It was AS that got the private Investigators on board not JS who would have you believe it was him. AS then put a stop to it. We do not know to what extent evidence may have been covered up by JS or what was or was not shared. It was AS that originally put up the reward money. Then JS jumped on board and raised it. For me it seems that AS suspected her brother and put a stop the their investigation knowing that JS was having too much control.

You need evidence to prosecute. The more you know who knows what then more control you have over covering up evidence creating misdirection. Thereby be tiny details thst sont mean much to the investigators but may mean a lot to someone like JS whom may have been the perpetrator.

The whole thing reeks of controlling behaviour. I have a masters in forensic psychology and have worked with many different people displaying different behaviours.

Notice you dont hear or see anything about Adam Paulin JS business partner. It's like there's been a sanitisation of any information regarding him. Wise move from perpetrators if you want to limit information.

 

[dotr]

dbm

 

[planet]

Yes of course. And how often are murders committed after asking if the cameras are in operation. None because no-one would be so stupid as to ask drawing attention to themselves, before returning and murdering someone.

I think it does the opposite: allows them to blend in. If I was a potential buyer of a pricey property, I would be asking about *all* the cameras, interior and exterior. My security matters.

I assume it's a very typical question for buyers of high-end properties. Someone who didn't ask might stand out.

 

[FromGermany1]

Wouldn't it be incautious to take over the security at my future new home just as the seller had installed it? If I as the buyer plan to install a different arrangement of security cameras than the seller had, I haven't to ask for infos. MOO

 

[INSP MORSE]

I think it does the opposite: allows them to blend in. If I was a potential buyer of a pricey property, I would be asking about *all* the cameras, interior and exterior. My security matters.

I assume it's a very typical question for buyers of high-end properties. Someone who didn't ask might stand out.

Any perpetrator to be sure when asking about cameras would have to specifically ask if any particular camera was not in operation if they intended to return and murder someone in front of it. That would draw attention.

 

[WINDSOR]

Any perpetrator to be sure when asking about cameras would have to specifically ask if any particular camera was not in operation if they intended to return and murder someone in front of it. That would draw attention.

Is is possible to disable a camera prior to it capturing your image?
If it possible, then I would think an experienced criminal would not have to enquire about camera's.
Their only concern would be to locate the camera's and disable them.

No suspicious questions, no leads for the investigators.

 

[INSP MORSE]

Is is possible to disable a camera prior to it capturing your image?
If it possible, then I would think an experienced criminal would not have to enquire about camera's.
Their only concern would be to locate the camera's and disable them.

No suspicious questions, no leads for the investigators.

This is a good point.

In that particular scenario where the perpetrator has camera technical knowledge which not everyone has but lets suppose this perpetrator does. Wouldnt they leave a trace when disabling the camera from the software. There would be some sort of time stamp or audit trail as to the time of disablement. Maybe even caught in camera as the camer is being disabled. The perpetrator would know all this would happen as they have the technical knowledge. If they didn't have technical knowledge then they are taking a huge risk.

However!

They dont know if the camera is definitely disabled because they didnt want to draw attention to themselves by asking the estate agent when being shown around the property. So when they turn up at the property because they dont know whether the camera is live or not they go through the process of disabling it anyway.

Surely TPS will have looked to see if there was any tampering of the camera and or it's software And looked at any audit trail?

I know TPS screwed up from the outset but I'm sure they would have looked at this.