Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is this a new piece of information and am I reading it correctly?
“ Detective B. Price’s reaction when told re. 6-9 hrs time of Honey’s death to Barry’s gave it away. “

It is being said that there was 6-9 hours between Honey’s murder and Barry’s? This puts a different light on the whole scenario doesn’t it?
The thing is.. this is backwards.. instead of the *detective* saying there was 6-9 hours in between the two deaths, it seems we are being told that an 'outsider' told the *detective* that it was 6-9 hours in between the two deaths.. and I'm pretty sure that any reaction on the part of a detective being 'informed' of such a detail, would surely be something more along the lines of.. 'hmm, and you know this HOW????'
 
Hostility, animosity, resentment...all typical emotions shared between plaintiffs and defendants involved in bitter civil suits I’d imagine. Barry may have had much the same thoughts as you!
Agreed, I'd say it's pretty common for someone who isn't getting their way, or sees something completely differently, to perhaps even half jokingly say something like, 'he's lost his marbles', 'he's going senile', 'he's really losing it', whatever.. about virtually anyone - a 'boss'/employer, coworker, spouse, offspring, whomever... but I would imagine *especially* between people involved in bitter civil suits.
 
When Barry sat down beside Kay, (his lawyer), he turned to her and asked, “why am l here?”
She replied, “now Barry, thst’s your cousin Kerry.”

Sorry, I’m not understanding how your example proves he’d lost his mind. An attorney was representing him, the civil suit was dismissed upon Summary Judgement prior to trial....so why would it be necessary that he attended each hearing? Might “why am I here?” be a reasonable question to ask ones lawyer if he felt his presence wasn’t required or necessary, was possibly even a waste of his time?

And a reply “now Barry, that’s your cousin Kerry” would better answer a question such as -

“Who’s that man in the green shirt sitting over there in the chair by the water jug?”
 
When Barry sat down beside Kay, (his lawyer), he turned to her and asked, “why am l here?”
She replied, “now Barry, thst’s your cousin Kerry.”
If she rolled her eyes while speaking to him as he would be a toddler, then I would believe, something wasn't quite right. :rolleyes:;)
But maybe, she hadn't to explain, who you are and only was searching for a polite start of the "examination".
 
Sorry, I’m not understanding how your example proves he’d lost his mind. An attorney was representing him, the civil suit was dismissed upon Summary Judgement prior to trial....so why would it be necessary that he attended each hearing? Might “why am I here?” be a reasonable question to ask ones lawyer if he felt his presence wasn’t required or necessary, was possibly even a waste of his time?

And a reply “now Barry, that’s your cousin Kerry” would better answer a question such as -

“Who’s that man in the green shirt sitting over there in the chair by the water jug?”
Also could have been an indignant, 'why am I here', when he is paying through the nose for lawyers to deal with this crap on his behalf... I'd want to know why my personal presence was necessary if it were me. I don't know who 'Kay' is, or how well she knew BS before that time, but sounds maybe like she's more the one that was losing it, in not 'getting' what was meant by the question in the first place?
 
Two legacies, one dark mystery: Toronto elite reeling after violent deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman

The contrast between Honey and Barry’s personalities was on display when a writer for Toronto Life magazine was profiling the couple in 2008. Barry refused interview requests, but Honey agreed to speak.

When a maid led the writer into the house for the appointment, Barry was standing in the kitchen in a bathrobe eating breakfast and reading the newspaper. “What are you doing here?” he asked, then returned to his reading until Honey arrived.

So, Barry liked to ask rhetorical questions and in fact needed no answer.
(When Barry sat down beside Kay, (his lawyer), he turned to her and asked, “why am l here?”)
 
Also could have been an indignant, 'why am I here', when he is paying through the nose for lawyers to deal with this crap on his behalf... I'd want to know why my personal presence was necessary if it were me. I don't know who 'Kay' is, or how well she knew BS before that time, but sounds maybe like she's more the one that was losing it, in not 'getting' what was meant by the question in the first place?

Yes, the answer to the question is confusing. And the lawsuit wasn’t filed by Kerry only.

Kerry, can you tell us the reason his lawyer might’ve required him to attend the particular hearing that you’re referencing? Additiomal context would be helpful in understanding your recollect.
 
Yes, the answer to the question is confusing. And the lawsuit wasn’t filed by Kerry only.

Kerry, can you tell us the reason his lawyer might’ve required him to attend the particular hearing that you’re referencing? Additiomal context would be helpful in understanding your recollect.
He was deposed.
 
The thing is.. this is backwards.. instead of the *detective* saying there was 6-9 hours in between the two deaths, it seems we are being told that an 'outsider' told the *detective* that it was 6-9 hours in between the two deaths.. and I'm pretty sure that any reaction on the part of a detective being 'informed' of such a detail, would surely be something more along the lines of.. 'hmm, and you know this HOW????'
YES.
 
Did anyone where he works mention that Barry was losong his mind?
Quite the read, but presently just pointing out that BS has also played the " nut card". imo, speculation, rbbm.
The Nancy Olivieri Affair | pg. 5

"By now the Olivieri story had been picked up by the international media. An item on 60 Minutes proved to be embarrassing for Apotex’s CEO, Barry Sherman. In an interview with journalist Leslie Stahl, he muttered that Olivieri was “nuts.” Off the record, he’d been saying that to others for some time. (It’s a useful ploy. How is one to challenge such a statement?) When he asked Stahl to delete his comment, she told him, “You know, we’re reporters. We’re not your pals.” The item on 60 Minutes, though brief, succeeded in making the nature of the controversy clear.

On the other hand, two CBC television documentaries in early 2000, one hosted by Wendy Mesley and the other by Hanah Gartner, broadcast within days of one another, revealed little understanding of the issue. In the first, Wendy Mesley, an all-too-familiar “gotcha” look on her face, asked a public relations woman at HSC, “Were you surprised that basically a lab researcher, someone who spends all her time in a lab, is getting so much attention?” Implicit was the idea that what Olivieri was about was getting face time. Gartner’s item was entitled, “When Science Takes Sides.” Her story was about a stubborn scientist in a battle with reasonable scientists. Nowhere in either program was Gideon Koren or Rob Prichard mentioned. Barry Sherman went unchallenged when he told Gartner that no other clinician in the world agreed with Olivieri."
 
Sorry, I’m not understanding how your example proves he’d lost his mind. An attorney was representing him, the civil suit was dismissed upon Summary Judgement prior to trial....so why would it be necessary that he attended each hearing? Might “why am I here?” be a reasonable question to ask ones lawyer if he felt his presence wasn’t required or necessary, was possibly even a waste of his time?

And a reply “now Barry, that’s your cousin Kerry” would better answer a question such as -

“Who’s that man in the green shirt sitting over there in the chair by the water jug?”

My thoughts on why BS would ask 'why am I here' have to do with the amount of litigation he was involved in.

BS seemed to have multiple law suits going at the same time, sued pretty much everyone he came across and was involved with the Winter family as well.

I wonder if, as a busy man, he was asking 'which case are we dealing with today'.

I would think the last thing BS would be is confused by the court system, as he spent so much time dealing with lawsuits.

Or, as Misty Waters and others have said, he wondered why he had to be present.
 
He was deposed.

You’re asking us to believe you personally observed indications that BS was mentally incompetent to such a degree that he didn’t know why he was in a courtroom and so his lawyer had to remind him who you were...but then he proceeded to provide sworn testimony under oath without either the judge or his attorney requesting that his mental ability be assessed first?

I don’t know, maybe we’ve entered a parallel universe but I just can’t go there because shortly after that your civil suit was dismissed by the judge as “wishful thinking and beyond fanciful”. That ruling proves to me that BS must’ve aptly and competently defended his position whenever he was deposed.
 
He was deposed.

Many of us here on WS have been deposed in small cases and in big cases. I do not feel that the question BS asked “why am I here?” Was in anyway a sign that he had “lost his mind” during his deposition testimony.

A deposition is such an unwelcomed experience having to answer the most boring questions. And depending on the opposing Attorney a deposition can take hours.

Most of them aren’t even before a judge just the attorneys and the court recorder.
If I personally were deposed as many times as BS was during all his many lawsuits, I’d be wondering why I was there too. Especially if I felt the case was a waste of my time.

Also if I were on the opposing side I’d probably be saying “he’s lost his mind” because his testimony was not in line with my own testimony. So all I can see here is the normal statements made during a lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
Confirmed by The Toronto Star’s Kevin Donovan when we met.

Just to mention something I noticed... earlier you stated that you believe the deaths occured 6-9 hours apart.

And then Donovan was your source for “there wasn’t a cut, bruise, scratch, any defensive injury on Barry!” When you met, I presume you were interviewed (see below)? He questioned you about information from his source who claimed the deaths occurred anywhere between Wed night and Thurs afternooon, a broad window of about 20 hours. No way could a precise 6-9 hours before/after one another be determined within an extended period of 20 hours.

You believe Donovan’s source regarding the condition of the body but then discount the wide ranging timeline? The question would be - how credible was his source?

BBM

“.....The Star took Winter through his days in mid-December, around the time that the Shermans likely died. They were last seen late in the afternoon of Dec. 13.

Winter said that night, he attended the 12-step program. He has been clean and sober, he says, for six years. He said he then went home and watched on episode of the Peaky Blinders television show on Netflix, and went to bed. “I probably spoke to my girlfriend long distance.”

The next day, Thursday, Winter said he got up at 6:15 a.m., showered, shaved and headed to his job as a construction supervisor for six custom homes being built north of the city, at Yonge Street and Highway 7.

According to sources close to the case, the Shermans were likely killed between Wednesday night and late Thursday afternoon.

“Absolutely I could not go AWOL (at work) because we are in regular contact through text, email or sometimes phone calls. There’s no way between six in the morning on Thursday and six in the evening on Thursday, I’ve got a full alibi . . . with many different trades seeing me in and out of houses.”.....”

'I had absolutely nothing to do with it,' Barry Sherman's cousin says | The Star
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
1,580
Total visitors
1,669

Forum statistics

Threads
589,172
Messages
17,915,119
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top