Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #10

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was also reported that Honey had recently battled with throat cancer; you'd think that would've triggered a reminder to get a will created if for some reason there wasn't one till then.

I’d definitely think so too, and that includes also a directive regarding who would’ve be authorized to make health treatment decisions on her behalf, if she were unable to. That’s absolutely standard when facing any risk of terminal illness in advance.
 
If I had met with the Shermans just before their demise, I wouldn't be doing an 'interview' about it.

Why would I?

I would speak to the police and family members when asked but sure wouldnt be doing any interviews. AND only if MY lawyer thought it was a good idea.

How preposterous to think the architect should 'do an interview'; as if anything good could come from THAT!

I can think of a lot of reasons to NOT speak out.

Bad for business if one has no discretion, a big mouth never helped anything.

Negative attention being drawn to ones' business.

The public is NOT entitled, even if curious, about the details in a double murder case.

Etc, etc.
 
If I had met with the Shermans just before their demise, I wouldn't be doing an 'interview' about it.

Why would I?

I would speak to the police and family members when asked but sure wouldnt be doing any interviews. AND only if MY lawyer thought it was a good idea.

How preposterous to think the architect should 'do an interview'; as if anything good could come from THAT!

I can think of a lot of reasons to NOT speak out.

Bad for business if one has no discretion, a big mouth never helped anything.

Negative attention being drawn to ones' business.

The public is NOT entitled, even if curious, about the details in a double murder case.

Etc, etc.
There is no upside to speaking out. I’m sure the police would prefer one does not.

His entitlement to be paid for services rendered exists no matter what he does or how the meeting went.
 
If he told the truth and said Honey and Barry were happy and anxious to move forward with the project, what downside is there to that? I suggest that the meeting was anything but productive.

The likely downside is that the police have asked him to remain quiet and anonymous.

I explicitly said there was no upside. Please explain to me how the architect would benefit from speaking out?

Actually don’t, this is a stupid discussion.
 
Do I need to list all the influential people that have spoken to the press about the Shermans? Start with the Prime Minister and work your way down.

Sure, various public figures have spoken to the press, as opposed to others involved in business dealings directly with the Shermans around the time of the homicides - to include architects, realtors, housekeepers, or travel agents.

Anyone who hires services has the right to expect professional etiquette and that includes having the good sense not to blab to the media about interactions with their clients regardless of the circumstances.
 
A thought concerning HS's will or lack of a will.
Is it possible that HS simply gave it all away while she was still alive considering all the donations in recent years to various institutions and perhaps investment into the super grand house that never came to fruition ect.?
speculation, imo.

Meet the Canadian billionaire who's giving it all away
May 1, 2018
"Two weeks ago, an unusual crowd gathered at the Bacara, a tony beachfront resort and spa in Santa Barbara, Calif. – three dozen billionaires who had pledged to give away most of their money. However, many weren't quite sure how to do it.

So, as the rich and famous, including Ted Turner and Warren Buffett, looked on, a scruffy, unassuming guy who grew up playing hockey ("badly") in Montreal and pumping gas in Toronto offered some tips. Jeffrey Skoll is a dot-com legend – perhaps less famous for being rich than for how he got that way. As past president of eBay Inc., and its first full-time employee, he became a billionaire when the iconic online auction house went public in 1998, leaving three years later to put his new fortune – and creative energy – to good use.

He was at the Bacara not to discuss traditional philanthropy (billionaires know how to write cheques), but to outline something much more challenging: "impact investing" – channelling funds into projects that yield a tangible social benefit as well as financial returns.

It is also why he was in Ottawa on Friday, when he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada for his "commitment to social causes and innovative practice of philanthropy."

Mr. Skoll is the only Canadian among the 81 billionaires to sign The Giving Pledge in the two years since Bill Gates and Mr. Buffett called on the superrich to stop hoarding their wealth. He has already parted with half of his net worth, and expects 95 per cent to be gone when he is done."
 
A thought concerning HS's will or lack of a will.
Is it possible that HS simply gave it all away while she was still alive considering all the donations in recent years to various institutions and perhaps investment into the super grand house that never came to fruition ect.?
speculation, imo.

Meet the Canadian billionaire who's giving it all away
May 1, 2018
"Two weeks ago, an unusual crowd gathered at the Bacara, a tony beachfront resort and spa in Santa Barbara, Calif. – three dozen billionaires who had pledged to give away most of their money. However, many weren't quite sure how to do it.

So, as the rich and famous, including Ted Turner and Warren Buffett, looked on, a scruffy, unassuming guy who grew up playing hockey ("badly") in Montreal and pumping gas in Toronto offered some tips. Jeffrey Skoll is a dot-com legend – perhaps less famous for being rich than for how he got that way. As past president of eBay Inc., and its first full-time employee, he became a billionaire when the iconic online auction house went public in 1998, leaving three years later to put his new fortune – and creative energy – to good use.

He was at the Bacara not to discuss traditional philanthropy (billionaires know how to write cheques), but to outline something much more challenging: "impact investing" – channelling funds into projects that yield a tangible social benefit as well as financial returns.

It is also why he was in Ottawa on Friday, when he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada for his "commitment to social causes and innovative practice of philanthropy."

Mr. Skoll is the only Canadian among the 81 billionaires to sign The Giving Pledge in the two years since Bill Gates and Mr. Buffett called on the superrich to stop hoarding their wealth. He has already parted with half of his net worth, and expects 95 per cent to be gone when he is done."

I doubt if she would have given it all away. She was alive and could see things while alive that could use her dollars.

Needs can come up all of the time.
 
The architect could have been the last person to see both the Shermans alive. Why you think that it is unnatural for him, or anyone on his behalf, to tell the public any gossip about his meeting with two murdered clients is beyond my understanding. Sorry, I'm not getting your drift Andrew.

..sorry, left out the word "not"..you think it is unnatural for him..to NOT tell the public. :)
 
The architect could have been the last person to see both the Shermans alive. Why you think that it is unnatural for him, or anyone on his behalf, to tell the public any gossip about his meeting with two murdered clients is beyond my understanding. Sorry, I'm not getting your drift Andrew.

Agreed. The desire to hear the architect’s gossip reminds me of how Wayne Millard’s death became a non-investigation. Talk to 3 or 4 people, so yeah he might’ve been depressed, started drinking again, possible financial issues with his new business ...that’s it, case closed, suicide.

I’d think all of us have learned from that recent bungled case that conclusions of manner of death involve undertaking a thorough analysis of both the crime scene and the autopsy of the victim.
 
Ah, so now the m/s theory has moved from Barry losing it in a sudden rage to a slow burning anger for several hours, is that it? And that’s because the architect is maintaining a professional silence.

Perhaps you’re forgetting almost one year ago the deaths were confirmed to have been a result of a targeted double homicide therefore TPS (nor the architect) do not require the public’s assistance in determining what occurred. Nor does Greenspan have reason to prove what is already known.

If you read back a few months ago you will find a post where I suggest that Honey's death was directly related to that meeting with the architect. I found it odd that it was at Barry's office, and wondered if Honey had blindsided him. I have also always maintained that Barry's reluctance to move to a new home at such an old age was the motivating factor. I will almost guarantee that meeting did not go smoothly. And I don't appreciate you trying to say that I am switching theories here because you couldn't be more wrong (yet again).
 
Agreed. The desire to hear the architect’s gossip reminds me of how Wayne Millard’s death became a non-investigation. Talk to 3 or 4 people, so yeah he might’ve been depressed, started drinking again, possible financial issues with his new business ...that’s it, case closed, suicide.

I’d think all of us have learned from that recent bungled case that conclusions of manner of death involve undertaking a thorough analysis of both the crime scene and the autopsy of the victim.

You like living under rock do you? How in the heck could you possibly not see the architect's information, to be anything but extremely important? This is the last person to see them alive.

But whatever. I guarantee that if they interviewed the reporter tomorrow and he said Barry was extremely angry at Honey, you'd just blow that off anyway. I know, six weeks worth of evidence.
 
Seeing the news that PG is stepping down, thought i would post this 2017 radio interview.
Paul Godfrey on the deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman - 640 Toronto - Omny.fm
Dec 18 2017
"Paul Godfrey on the deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman"
Paul Godfrey steps down as Postmedia CEO as company announces $1.4M loss | CBC News

Jan 10, 2019
"Paul Godfrey is stepping down as CEO of Postmedia Network Canada Corp. but will remain as executive chairman of the company, which owns the National Post, other newspapers and digital publications.

Andrew MacLeod, who has been Godfrey's second in command since 2016, becomes Postmedia's chief executive officer.

The announcements came as the owner of the National Post and other Canadian newspapers announced a $1.4 million net loss for the quarter ended. Nov. 30."


 
Kerry a question, did you anticipate these tapes were being provided to CBC to be publicly aired on the same 5th Estate documentary as your appearance, featuring the Sherman deaths? Otherwise why would they be handed over to CBC?
YES!!!
I believe it’s time l share this, since there hasn’t been a single media outlet l’ve told, including a promise from Matt Campbell, at Businessweek to print it.
A few days after the Sherman’s were found a VERY close friend attended an early annual Christmas party. I couldn’t attend.
During the party, a retired homicide detective approached her to tell her a number of things:
1. I’m not a suspect.
2. The police KNOW Barry killed Honey, then commited suicide.
3. Barry “ up” in two place. He killed Honey somewhere else in the house and she was already dead when he hung her. The scene was “cleaned up”. Barry wanted to make it look like a suicide pact.
4. The elaborate computerized security system monitored every window/door that opens and closes. Honey came home 1st: door opens/closes. Barry came home: door opens/closes. NOBODY came in/left. There wasn’t forced entry!
5. The Sherman’s are going to retain a high powered lawyer who will bring in his own team/conduct his own autopsy and forensics. The retired homicide detective will find evidence of intruder/murder.
6. The team hired by the Sherman’s will convince the TPS to change their initial theory of M/S to targeted murders. The police will go quiet.
7. The MOST important prediction he made: Although there will be total confusion on manner of the Sherman’s deaths: the chief coroner WON’T hold a formal inquest!!!
This case screams for a formal inquest which would easily determine M/S. There would be no evidence presented to show murders. This inquest MUST be avoided. There will be a cover-up because the family can’t accept the harsh truth.
Below are the reasons for an inquest taken directly from Ontario’s chief coroners website.
The Five Questions
There are five questions that must be answered when investigating a death:

  • Who was the deceased?
  • Where did the death occur?
  • When did the death occur?
  • How did the death occur (i.e. the medical cause)?
  • By what means did the death occur?(i.e. the classification or manner of death: natural, suicide, accident, homicide or undetermined)
I believe something went down at their last meeting at Apotex with the builder J. Brennan. An argument or major disagreement that became very heated. This fight continued at 50 Old Colony....my cousin was finally pushed over the edge and in a rage struck Honey. Again, Barry had a very explosive temper.
The Sherman’s personal body trainer is my brother’s best friends wife. She told my brother that “Barry was unbelievably strong for his age”.
*** From a reliable reporter who works for a major Toronto paper: the police were 85% sure it was M/S after less than 4 hours in the house. He totally believes there’s a cover-up, but cannot run a story questioning the integrity of the TPS....his contacts within the force will completely dry up and the threat of losing his job. Yes: Barry had friends in high places, including the media that are going along with Gomes/Price’s flip/flop and aren’t questioning nor suggesting.
Bottom line: there hasn’t been a single shred of evidence by the TPS or Greenspin to suggest a targeted double murder.
Again, this case screams for a formal coroners inquest to determin the cause of deaths!!!!
It wasn’t: WHY?!?!

*** There you have it. Again, nobody will collect the 10 million. There won’t be an arrest.
 
An inquest wasn’t called, why?

How about because the circumstances didn’t meet the criteria because the coroner determined the manner of deaths was double homicide, entirely within the scope of their responsibility.

*****
When is an Inquest called?
Mandatory inquests are held when:

  • a death occurs on the job at a construction site, mine, pit or quarry
  • a death occurs while a person is in custody or being detained (unless, in some circumstances, a death investigation determines the death occurred from natural causes in which case the inquest is discretionary)
    • a death occurs due to an injury sustained or other event that occurred in custody, or when the use of force of a police officer, special constable, auxiliary member of a police force or First Nations Constable is the cause of death
  • a death of a child is a result of a criminal act of a person who has custody of the child, if certain circumstances are met
  • a death of a person occurs while being physically restrained and detained in a psychiatric facility, hospital, or secure treatment program.
Discretionary inquests may be held when:

  • the coroner determines that enough information is known from death investigation to support an inquest
  • the coroner decides that it is desirable for the public to have an open and full hearing of the circumstance of a death
  • if the coroner believes a jury could make useful recommendations to prevent further deaths
A relative of a deceased may request an inquest by submitting a request in writing to the investigating coroner. The request will be presented to the Regional Supervising Coroners management team to determine whether an inquest should be conducted.

There is no time limit between the date of death and the convening of an inquest.

An inquest is NOT an adversarial process. It is also neither a trial, nor a process for discovery. It is not a royal commission, a campaign or crusade directed by personal or philosophical agendas. An inquest is an inquisitorial process designed to focus public attention on the circumstances of a death. It is to be a dispassionate public examination into the facts and all participants have a responsibility to conduct themselves with dignity and respect. Appropriate behaviour, dress, and demeanour will be expected of participants, the media, and others attending an inquest.
Inquests | Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
 
More on inquests.

BBM

Message from the Chief Coroner
Historically, coroner’s inquests are one part of the Office of the Chief Coroner’s work that resonates most with the public, likely because they are held in the public realm and are an opportunity to learn more about the circumstances of death with an intention to prevent similar deaths in the future. There have been many inquest recommendations over the years that have resulted in social change to advance public safety such as road safety and how police and the courts handle incidents of domestic violence. While there is a strong case for the benefits of inquests, there are also a number of other ways that death investigations can yield public safety recommendations. The Office of the Chief Coroner also has death review committees that look at specific types of deaths and like inquests, may provide recommendations to governments, agencies and others. Sometimes, recommendations may stem from death investigations themselves if during the course of an investigation it is clear that steps can be taken to help avoid future deaths.
Report on 2015 Inquests | Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
104
Guests online
3,858
Total visitors
3,962

Forum statistics

Threads
591,442
Messages
17,951,861
Members
228,504
Latest member
mj175
Back
Top