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

[fadedglitter]

I have to disagree that politicians ever get involved in criminal cases.

Police work with individual Crown Prosecutors, who take the case to trial when they have sufficient evidence. They are part of the Attorney General's office, headed by the Deputy AG, a bureacrat.

Crown Attorney's Office (Ontario) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

ETA: also, there is a strong culture of non-disclosure of evidence before a trial. No way would lawyers share details with anyone outside the case, especially not a politician.

Agreed. This would not ever happen.

 

[WINDSOR]

Agreed. This would not ever happen.

In this case specifically, the then Mayor of Toronto, John Tory, communicated with the Chief of the Toronto Police Services, regarding concerns the Sherman Family had about the case. Here is a Toronto Star Link

Did John Tory cross a line by talking to police about the Sherman investigation?

Under the Police Services Act, no board member is allowed to give orders or directions to any member of the police force, or direct the chief on day to day operations of the force.

www.thestar.com

You cannot be sure a who has or has not contacted the TPS in official or unofficial roles, so you cannot say it would never happen.

Law Enforcement serves the people, and Government represents the people, It only makes sense there would be communication and dialogue.

Finally, as further proof of authority. The Provincial Government is investigating all Police forces in Ontario based on the corruption scandal in the TPS. The Inspector General of Policing, is leading this review.
The Inspector General of Policing, is part of the provincial Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Here is a CBC link

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/inspector-general-toronto-police-investigation-9.7080546

So in summary, If the Provincial Government wanted to get involved in the Sherman Investigation, I believe they have the authority and power to do so. Saying that, I do believe the Provincial Government may not see any need to be involved at the present time.

 

[fadedglitter]

John Tory was immediately criticized for speaking to TPS to communicate the family’s concerns. You can read all about it in the story you linked.

 

[ldlager]

John Tory was immediately criticized for speaking to TPS to communicate the family’s concerns. You can read all about it in the story you linked.

Because he was actually a member of the Police Services Board at the time! Not because he was a politician. And he certainly wasn’t AG of Ontario.

 

[Bobbi Pearl]

To assume as you state, would be taking a massive gamble if you were about to murder someone in front today them. Having said that. If WM is the perpetrator then he didn't care about being seen. His face was covered and he wore plenty of clothing.

How would assuming cameras are operational working, recording be a gamble, I would try avoiding them

 

[Kerry Winter]

Does anyone know if a judge in Ontario or a Federal judge in Canada, or perhaps the Attorney General of Ontario has the authority to force TPS to allow another law enforcement agency to either take over this case, or to conduct an independent review of the actions of the TPS in the case? It seems to me that this needs to be done to progress this case, and to assess and opine whether TPS was negligent in its investigation of this case.

I’ve always found it most interesting that the Chief Coroner of Ontario never held a formal inquest into the deaths of my cousin Barry and Honey. Clearly there were conflicting autopsy reports with different forensic conclusions between the 2: the TPS followed the family lawyer Brian Greenspin’s. A hearing would have clearly established the cause of death with all evidence brought forward. The fact it never happened is puzzling.

 

[fadedglitter]

I’ve always found it most interesting that the Chief Coroner of Ontario never held a formal inquest into the deaths of my cousin Barry and Honey. Clearly there were conflicting autopsy reports with different forensic conclusions between the 2: the TPS followed the family lawyer Brian Greenspin’s. A hearing would have clearly established the cause of death with all evidence brought forward. The fact it never happened is puzzling.

Not puzzling at all. The Coroner’s Act sets out the purpose of an inquest:

31 (1) Where an inquest is held, it shall inquire into the circumstances of the death and determine,(a) who the deceased was;(b) how the deceased came to his or her death;(c) when the deceased came to his or her death;(d) where the deceased came to his or her death; and(e) by what means the deceased came to his or her death. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37, s. 31 (1).


The answers to these five questions don’t appear to be in doubt. Moreover, all of the information we have is that the two pathologists came to the same forensic conclusions.

 

[Charlot123]

2017

Barry and Honey Sherman sued builders of North York home

After litigation against the house’s designers and builders, the Shermans recouped $2 million of the contracted amount to construct the home, according to a 2006 judgment.

www.thestar.com

''But they noticed problems with the home within months of moving in, in 1991, with Barry describing it as “a disaster.”
After litigation against the house’s designers and builders, they wound up recouping $2 million of the contracted amount to construct the home, according to a 2006 judgment.''

''They went on to sue at least five of the people and companies involved in the home’s design and construction, including Jack Winston Designs, Thomas Marzotto Architects and Ewing Construction.
All but two settled.
The remaining two defendants, 21 Degrees Heating and Air Conditioning and Walter Kenyon of Walter Kenyon Designs, had designed the home’s heating and air conditioning system.
The Shermans sued 21 Degrees and Kenyon for negligence related to the design of the HVAC system, and 21 Degrees for breach of contract.''

Just for my interest, does anyone know how many lawsuits has Barry filed in his lifetime? In the ballpark of?

 

[fadedglitter]

Just for my interest, does anyone know how many lawsuits has Barry filed in his lifetime? In the ballpark of?

Ballpark? Hundreds. Apotex was in the lawsuit business.

 

[Charlot123]

Ballpark? Hundreds. Apotex was in the lawsuit business.

Is it possible that someone got triggered, eventually? And attacked Barry at home because it was logistically easier? (The Shermans had no hired security and were not thinking of personal danger.)

I have been perusing through small “orphan” cases of assaults or abductions with deadly intentions (not all of them ended deadly). In too many, there is a combination of a highly incitable, dangerous offender, and the victim whose behavior might be objectively perceived as “critical, litigious or extremely irritating”.

I was always asking myself, who profited in Shermans’ case. Many did. But now I wonder if Barry simply stepped on one’s foot too many? Lawsuits are common in business world, but could Barry be also the person for whom lawsuits were the first step of any conflict resolution? Just a highly conflict-prone, difficult person who also did not notice the full level of danger in some of his adversaries?

 

[fadedglitter]

Is it possible that someone got triggered, eventually? And attacked Barry at home because it was logistically easier? (The Shermans had no hired security and were not thinking of personal danger.)

I have been perusing through small “orphan” cases of assaults or abductions with deadly intentions (not all of them ended deadly). In too many, there is a combination of a highly incitable, dangerous offender, and the victim whose behavior might be objectively perceived as “critical, litigious or extremely irritating”.

I was always asking myself, who profited in Shermans’ case. Many did. But now I wonder if Barry simply stepped on one’s foot too many? Lawsuits are common in business world, but could Barry be also the person for whom lawsuits were the first step of any conflict resolution? Just a highly conflict-prone, difficult person who also did not notice the full level of danger in some of his adversaries?

This is why people say there is a massive list of people with motive. I am skeptical of the Big Pharma theory, but underpinning it is the notion that litigation fills people with rage and makes them irrational. Even in the business context where litigants don’t have anything personally to lose, emotions can run high. Barry would pursue a case for decades just to prove his point, and he had bottomless access to lawyers to go after anyone, even his own cousins.

It is entirely plausible that one of those people became desperate and snapped. It might even be a person with only peripheral involvement in a lawsuit: not the respondent themselves but a potential witness who feared the disclosure of something that was highly significant to the murderer but minor or unremarkable to anyone else.

 

[WINDSOR]

It is quite natural to seek the motive of a crime, assuming that once you discover the motive you will discover the perpetrator(s).

Motives can help but are not necessary to solving crimes. Simplistically, the motive was, somebody wanted Sherman's dead. Why and for what reason or purpose is intellectually gratifying to know, but not that important to solving the who did it.

For a moment let us suppose the Walking Man, was the sole assailant. If he was hired by someone, or had his own reasons for wanting the Sherman's dead does make much difference at this point to identifying who he is. Until we know who he is, this crime will not be solved.

Since the Walking Man has not been publicly identified, chances are are slim at this point in time he will ever be, unless someone comes forward and talks to the Police. Sadly the $35 million reward has not brought forward valid information.



MOO

 

[FromGermany1]

It is quite natural to seek the motive of a crime, assuming that once you discover the motive you will discover the perpetrator(s).

Motives can help but are not necessary to solving crimes. Simplistically, the motive was, somebody wanted Sherman's dead. Why and for what reason or purpose is intellectually gratifying to know, but not that important to solving the who did it.

For a moment let us suppose the Walking Man, was the sole assailant. If he was hired by someone, or had his own reasons for wanting the Sherman's dead does make much difference at this point to identifying who he is. Until we know who he is, this crime will not be solved.

Since the Walking Man has not been publicly identified, chances are are slim at this point in time he will ever be, unless someone comes forward and talks to the Police. Sadly the $35 million reward has not brought forward valid information.



MOO

I can't imagine, the TPS would accept a tip, which wouldn't point in their own suspected direction. MOO

 

[fadedglitter]

I can't imagine, the TPS would accept a tip, which wouldn't point in their own suspected direction. MOO

That scenario makes the case fall apart in court when defense counsel reveals that TPS had evidence pointing toward someone else and failed to investigate or even accept the tip.

Cops have to act on tips. This is one of the reasons they’re not fond of rewards: a slew of low-quality tips swamps investigative resources that could be directed to more promising areas.

 

[ldlager]

Is it possible that someone got triggered, eventually? And attacked Barry at home because it was logistically easier? (The Shermans had no hired security and were not thinking of personal danger.)

I have been perusing through small “orphan” cases of assaults or abductions with deadly intentions (not all of them ended deadly). In too many, there is a combination of a highly incitable, dangerous offender, and the victim whose behavior might be objectively perceived as “critical, litigious or extremely irritating”.

I was always asking myself, who profited in Shermans’ case. Many did. But now I wonder if Barry simply stepped on one’s foot too many? Lawsuits are common in business world, but could Barry be also the person for whom lawsuits were the first step of any conflict resolution? Just a highly conflict-prone, difficult person who also did not notice the full level of danger in some of his adversaries?

“….I was always asking myself, who profited in Shermans’ case..”

IMO, based on the known specific people that have been consistently and repeatedly discussed on these threads for 8 years, there are, IMO only 4 groups of people (a total of 10 people) who would have, could have, or THOUGHT they would or could, profit or benefit from the murders of BOTH BS and HS. A very small number of people. IMO, the fact that none of these 10 individuals have been cleared as suspects by LE is telling. MOO

 

[Charlot123]

“….I was always asking myself, who profited in Shermans’ case..”

IMO, based on the known specific people that have been consistently and repeatedly discussed on these threads for 8 years, there are, IMO only 4 groups of people (a total of 10 people) who would have, could have, or THOUGHT they would or could, profit or benefit from the murders of BOTH BS and HS. A very small number of people. IMO, the fact that none of these 10 individuals have been cleared as suspects by LE is telling. MOO

Looking at it from another angle...

Only one out of four groups and very likely, 1/10 people is involved.

9 other people are living under a certain spell.

Is it possible that neither of these people is involved.

Haven't we seen it?

Delphi case should be ideal example.

Current case that US media is actively covering will likely end up with totally different culprits than initially discussed. Although no one is cleared yet.

I don't know whether Toronto police is: 1) not too active; 2) has certain barriers because it is a high-profile case; 3) very likely, is overwhelmed by daily crimes and, to be frankly, not too incentivized to work at this case because "Apotex stays, and life goes on" or 4) the case is a complex maze with too many connections to ever solve.

So perhaps, we are just a tiny group interested in this mysterious case.

But I just asked AI if Barry Sherman was more litigious than average businessman

Answer:

"Barry Sherman, founder of Apotex, was considered exceptionally litigious, with experts describing his firm as potentially the most litigious in Canada and possibly overall.

Apotex filed an estimated 1,200 cases against the government in Federal Court, often challenging regulations, patents, and competitors, which cost taxpayers millions in legal fees.

Key details regarding his litigious nature include:

Aggressive Tactics: Sherman, through Apotex, frequently utilized the legal system to challenge pharmaceutical patents and government regulations.

Personal Disputes: Beyond corporate litigation, he engaged in long-running personal battles, including a decade-long lawsuit with his cousins over a claimed stake in his company.

Industry Impact: His approach, which some critics labeled unethical, was seen as a primary driver for high generic drug prices in Canada.

Reputation: Critics described him as a tough, sometimes "deplorable" operator who used litigation to eliminate competition and protect his market position."

MOO: while 10 people are not cleared, at best, one might be guilty. Or no one, with Barry's 1200 lawsuits. Too many people to be angry with him.

 

[ldlager]

Looking at it from another angle...

Only one out of four groups and very likely, 1/10 people is involved.

9 other people are living under a certain spell.

Is it possible that neither of these people is involved.

Haven't we seen it?

Delphi case should be ideal example.

Current case that US media is actively covering will likely end up with totally different culprits than initially discussed. Although no one is cleared yet.

I don't know whether Toronto police is: 1) not too active; 2) has certain barriers because it is a high-profile case; 3) very likely, is overwhelmed by daily crimes and, to be frankly, not too incentivized to work at this case because "Apotex stays, and life goes on" or 4) the case is a complex maze with too many connections to ever solve.

So perhaps, we are just a tiny group interested in this mysterious case.

But I just asked AI if Barry Sherman was more litigious than average businessman

Answer:

"Barry Sherman, founder of Apotex, was considered exceptionally litigious, with experts describing his firm as potentially the most litigious in Canada and possibly overall.

Apotex filed an estimated 1,200 cases against the government in Federal Court, often challenging regulations, patents, and competitors, which cost taxpayers millions in legal fees.

Key details regarding his litigious nature include:

Aggressive Tactics: Sherman, through Apotex, frequently utilized the legal system to challenge pharmaceutical patents and government regulations.

Personal Disputes: Beyond corporate litigation, he engaged in long-running personal battles, including a decade-long lawsuit with his cousins over a claimed stake in his company.

Industry Impact: His approach, which some critics labeled unethical, was seen as a primary driver for high generic drug prices in Canada.

Reputation: Critics described him as a tough, sometimes "deplorable" operator who used litigation to eliminate competition and protect his market position."

MOO: while 10 people are not cleared, at best, one might be guilty. Or no one, with Barry's 1200 lawsuits. Too many people to be angry with him.

Perhaps. But I almost completely discount a competitor murdering BS. And I see no reason for a competitor to murder HS.
My point was, there are only about ten individials that have been discussed regularly on this Board that could be seen as potentially benefitting from these double murders. Of course, an infinite number of outsiders could also be involved. But my hunch is that the guilty party is among the ten.

 

[Charlot123]

Perhaps. But I almost completely discount a competitor murdering BS. And I see no reason for a competitor to murder HS.
My point was, there are only about ten individials that have been discussed regularly on this Board that could be seen as potentially benefitting from these double murders. Of course, an infinite number of outsiders could also be involved. But my hunch is that the guilty party is among the ten.

Most likely you are right. And, least of all do I want my post to be seen as victim blaming. But if Barry was close to Guinness Book of Records in the sheer amount of litigations, someone could have broken down. Probably not the best person either, with certain personal traits typical for a criminal.

You know, it is like a “road rage day” on a big scale. One person habitually doesn’t care about others on the road, or even gets some rush from breaking the rules, until one day he crosses paths with someone exceptionally angry.

One wonders if the case is ever solved.