Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #13

[WINDSOR]

Why in the world would art figures be buried? Is not the conventional way to deal with art, is to store it in a secure, temperature and environmentally controlled facility. Or is the term buried meant more in the context of hidden?

If the estate and the murders are connected as implied, a motive for the murders becomes clear, and that points to obvious suspects.

The TPS may have a motive and suspects, that however is not necessarily enough to lay charges and win in court.

 

[drama_farmer]

Why in the world would art figures be buried? Is not the conventional way to deal with art, is to store it in a secure, temperature and environmentally controlled facility. Or is the term buried meant more in the context of hidden?

If the estate and the murders are connected as implied, a motive for the murders becomes clear, and that points to obvious suspects.

The TPS may have a motive and suspects, that however is not necessarily enough to lay charges and win in court.

I recall seeing a photo of their home in the process of being torn down, and there appeared to be many items (from appliances to furniture) that were left in the home. Maybe the family was too heartbroken to enter the home following the murders, or maybe they didn't want the hassle of an estate sale or similar, or "strangers" getting their parents' used items. It's the first I've heard of "art" being demolished. Those types of items could have quite a bit of value (emotional or dollar wise). JMO IMO

 

[dalsglen]

I recall seeing a photo of their home in the process of being torn down, and there appeared to be many items (from appliances to furniture) that were left in the home. Maybe the family was too heartbroken to enter the home following the murders, or maybe they didn't want the hassle of an estate sale or similar, or "strangers" getting their parents' used items. It's the first I've heard of "art" being demolished. Those types of items could have quite a bit of value (emotional or dollar wise). JMO IMO

I remember that too. It was discussed on here how odd it was to see the sculptures etc still in the house.

 

[MistyWaters]

Well I’ll be the differing opinion, not that it’s really our right to judge. The Star once again leans toward tabloid reporting JMO.

While at the time the art was obviously meaningful to Barry and Honey and may’ve been a sentimental gift, I don’t know, but after the two were viciously and cruelly murdered the two upright figurines take on a definite macabre overtone. Much like the house that was demolished, who would want to proudly display this considering how the couple met their fate? Certainly not the children. Any art piece tends to lose all interest “as art” when it gets overshadowed as being a mere possession related to the owners’ tragic death. So I can understand why the family’s decision might’ve been it’s best put back to the trash, which originally it was created from anyway. The figurines are certainly not a tribute to their parents memory so I think destroying the two pieces was probably the most reasonable option. JMO

No disrespect intended toward the original artist but once any art piece is privately sold, it becomes the owners right to do with it whatever they deem appropriate.

(Interesting to notice, this photo just doesn’t happen to be paylocked...)

Barry and Honey Sherman’s bodies were found posed like the sculptures in their basement

 

[Arnie M]

In my opinion those so called "Art Sculptures" were grotesque and just plain ugly ..... I would bulldoze them too.

And as far as them resembling the pose of BS & HS ... I dont think so ..... hanging from the pool railing they would practically be sitting on the floor and legs most likely straight out front with Barry's crossed in a "relaxed fashion" (witness reports)..... likely just a foot over an ankle sort of thing .... those sculptures were like sitting in a chair with feet dangling vertical with one fully crossed foot over knee

 

[casesensitive]

In my opinion those so called "Art Sculptures" were grotesque and just plain ugly ..... I would bulldoze them too.

And as far as them resembling the pose of BS & HS ... I dont think so ..... hanging from the pool railing they would practically be sitting on the floor and legs most likely straight out front with Barry's crossed in a "relaxed fashion" (witness reports)..... likely just a foot over an ankle sort of thing .... those sculptures were like sitting in a chair with feet dangling vertical with one fully crossed foot over knee

I agree Arnie, but when thinking "outside of the box" which becomes necessary, and is a protocol used by homicide investigators when they don't have any evidence or clues of who the killer is or his motive...those sculptures could be considered as symbolic in the killer's staging of the bodies. They might be posed differently in relation to how the Sherman's bodies were actually arranged, but looking at the similarity is worthy in trying to understand the possible mind set of the killer's staging of the bodies. The killer would have to know the sculptures well to even make that kind of connection imo.

Kevin Donovan got the idea of the symbolism of the sculptures from our dotr and ran with it. LE wouldn't answer his question about the sculptures, which is not unexpected. I don't think there is a connection between the sculptures and the staging of the bodies. But thinking out side of the box is critical in solving many difficult cases.

 

[WINDSOR]

A case with similarities to the Shermans was the murder of Glen Davis. The perpetrator, Marshall Ross was caught and in jail serving 25 years. He now has now been charged with planning more murders. Glenn Davis's estate was suing Marshall Ross, for $3 million.

Man serving life for killing his wealthy Toronto godfather charged with counsel to commit murder

 

[Tobiano8th]

i didn't click through but i don't understand that "art figures buried" idea....... literal/figurative?... underground vault?

as per JS' comments about parents, it was a memorial service..... i've sat through memorial talks about "wonderful family man", knowing someone was a serial adulterer.

 

[Tobiano8th]

A case with similarities to the Shermans was the murder of Glen Davis. The perpetrator, Marshall Ross was caught and in jail serving 25 years. He now has now been charged with planning more murders. Glenn Davis's estate was suing Marshall Ross, for $3 million.

Man serving life for killing his wealthy Toronto godfather charged with counsel to commit murder

yup, glen davis WWF murder comes to mind........ son of nelson davis, very well known entrepeneur many years ago

 

[branmuffin]

Well I’ll be the differing opinion, not that it’s really our right to judge. The Star once again leans toward tabloid reporting JMO.

While at the time the art was obviously meaningful to Barry and Honey and may’ve been a sentimental gift, I don’t know, but after the two were viciously and cruelly murdered the two upright figurines take on a definite macabre overtone. Much like the house that was demolished, who would want to proudly display this considering how the couple met their fate? Certainly not the children. Any art piece tends to lose all interest “as art” when it gets overshadowed as being a mere possession related to the owners’ tragic death. So I can understand why the family’s decision might’ve been it’s best put back to the trash, which originally it was created from anyway. The figurines are certainly not a tribute to their parents memory so I think destroying the two pieces was probably the most reasonable option. JMO

No disrespect intended toward the original artist but once any art piece is privately sold, it becomes the owners right to do with it whatever they deem appropriate.

(Interesting to notice, this photo just doesn’t happen to be paylocked...)
View attachment 245307
Barry and Honey Sherman’s bodies were found posed like the sculptures in their basement

"No disrespect intended toward the original artist but once any art piece is privately sold, it becomes the owners right to do with it whatever they deem appropriate."

I don't think that statement is true. Artists hold the copyright on their artwork unless they specifically sign it over to the owner.

I remember an example of this situation many years ago in Toronto regarding the flock of Canada Geese artwork in the Eaton Centre. For the Christmas season the Centre wrapped red ribbons around each neck of the geese. The artist complained and even though the Eaton Centre bought the display they were not allowed to alter it's representation.

Snow v Eaton Centre Ltd - Wikipedia

So it's possible the artist could have stopped the Shermans from destroying the work. It's also possible the artist was not about to make a stink about it, considering the circumstances.

 

[dotr]

Maybe i misunderstood, but i thought "buried"meant that the art was placed in the ground and covered with earth, as opposed to being demolished. imo, speculation.

 

[branmuffin]

I agree Arnie, but when thinking "outside of the box" which becomes necessary, and is a protocol used by homicide investigators when they don't

Maybe i misunderstood, but i thought "buried"meant that the art was placed in the ground and covered with earth, as opposed to being demolished. imo, speculation.

My understanding is that the whole site was bulldozed and razed to the ground.

 

[deugirtni]

"No disrespect intended toward the original artist but once any art piece is privately sold, it becomes the owners right to do with it whatever they deem appropriate."

I don't think that statement is true. Artists hold the copyright on their artwork unless they specifically sign it over to the owner.

I remember an example of this situation many years ago in Toronto regarding the flock of Canada Geese artwork in the Eaton Centre. For the Christmas season the Centre wrapped red ribbons around each neck of the geese. The artist complained and even though the Eaton Centre bought the display they were not allowed to alter it's representation.

Snow v Eaton Centre Ltd - Wikipedia

So it's possible the artist could have stopped the Shermans from destroying the work. It's also possible the artist was not about to make a stink about it, considering the circumstances.

Would that apply to individuals who own pieces of art which are *not* on public display? See below. Also, IIRC, didn't HS purchase the sculptures after they *had* been on public display? So even if on public display, is the purchaser allowed to dispose of it, whether by selling it to someone else, or discarding it, or even changing it?

The case is often seen as an important precedent for artists' control of their works that are in public. The bottom line, legally, is that you can't go changing them, even if you commissioned them or own the space they're installed in.

High-art issues go local

 

[dotr]

Not endorsing, just cannot recall this tweet by JW of the Toronto Sun, includes very short video. Who was the NY doctor? fwiw..
Joe Warmington on Twitter
4:15 PM · Dec 13, 2019
''Is a link possible between a New York City doctors strange “suicide” that looks more like a murder and the weird slaying of the Shermans that was also staged as a potential suicide - asks a friend of the billionaires? Both tried to help the people of Haiti. Now they are all dead''

 

[branmuffin]

Would that apply to individuals who own pieces of art which are *not* on public display? See below. Also, IIRC, didn't HS purchase the sculptures after they *had* been on public display? So even if on public display, is the purchaser allowed to dispose of it, whether by selling it to someone else, or discarding it, or even changing it?

The case is often seen as an important precedent for artists' control of their works that are in public. The bottom line, legally, is that you can't go changing them, even if you commissioned them or own the space they're installed in.

High-art issues go local

Not sure about work not on public display. Here's a piece on copyright law. It gets murky if the artist isn't well known. It's strangely worded sometimes, so I don't know if it's been translated although it seems to be from the US.

Who Really Owns The Art: Creator or Buyer | Artrepreneur

 

[MistyWaters]

Not sure about work not on public display. Here's a piece on copyright law. It gets murky if the artist isn't well known. It's strangely worded sometimes, so I don't know if it's been translated although it seems to be from the US.

Who Really Owns The Art: Creator or Buyer | Artrepreneur

I don’t think copyright law has any bearing on the beneficiaries apparently deciding to bury the two figurines.

If you think it does, kindly explain your reasoning.

 

[branmuffin]

I don’t think copyright law has any bearing on the beneficiaries apparently deciding to bury the two figurines.

If you think it does, kindly explain your reasoning.

<modsnip: removed personalizing comment>It states that an artist still retains copyright of the artwork even after it's sold. Just like the artist who created Flight Stop was still entitled to retain the integrity of the work, an artist could stop any manipulation or change to the piece' integrity. I presume that would include destruction. That's not to say that an artwork in a private collection by a lesser known artist would be privy to the destruction.

<modsnip: removed personalizing comment>It was in response to your generalization that artwork, once bought, is at the mercy of the owner, which according to copyright law is inaccurate.

 

[MistyWaters]

<modsnip: removed personalizing comment>It states that an artist still retains copyright of the artwork even after it's sold. Just like the artist who created Flight Stop was still entitled to retain the integrity of the work, an artist could stop any manipulation or change to the piece' integrity. I presume that would include destruction. That's not to say that an artwork in a private collection by a lesser known artist would be privy to the destruction.

<modsnip: removed personalizing comment>It was in response to your generalization that artwork, once bought, is at the mercy of the owner, which according to copyright law is inaccurate.

If you got that the Sherman’s could replicate, alter or reproduce (ie copyright law) the figurines from my comment, that wasn’t my intention as that’s another topic entirely which has no bearing on this case. My post regarded the media report about the burial of the figurines. If you believe the family may’ve buried the figurines illegally, I think that’s also beyond the scope of this thread to determine.

 

[Tobiano8th]

Bingo.

Not endorsing, just cannot recall this tweet by JW of the Toronto Sun, includes very short video. Who was the NY doctor? fwiw..
Joe Warmington on Twitter
4:15 PM · Dec 13, 2019
''Is a link possible between a New York City doctors strange “suicide” that looks more like a murder and the weird slaying of the Shermans that was also staged as a potential suicide - asks a friend of the billionaires? Both tried to help the people of Haiti. Now they are all dead''

i thought people got banned for this type of talk. i didn't agree with it........ \

the doctors suicide was very strange to me...... but to link this to haiti, the sherman's murder (looked like suicide and "you know who" (which worthington and this poster didn't do) seems to me to be way too much.

i do think the whole concept of where and who apotex sells drugs to is something that the police should have considered. like selling into foreign countries through strange intermediaries.. russia and eastern europe is so obvious (not that i know they sold there)

 

[Swirlz]

I am quoted above but I don't think I've ever responded to this thread.

As a completely irrelevant aside; I have a cousin named Honey.