I have written on some of the more curious characters in the Sherman murder probe. Of course, there are many characters of intrigue in this case to choose from. Of the investigators on the file, Det. Sergeant Brandon Price bubbles to the top of that list (can you imagine if he cracks this case?), but on reflection so to does the American, former FBI agent Brad Garret.
He goes by Dr Death for a reason. The proof emerges in this excerpt from a 2007 profile in Washingtonian:
“He’s best known for cracking a 1993 CIA murder case. A gunman approached cars waiting to enter CIA headquarters one morning that January. He shot five people and killed two, then vanished. It took Garrett four years to find Mir Aimal Kansi in Pakistan. Garrett is one of only a few US lawmen to hunt down, capture, and help prosecute a terrorist. Kansi asked him to witness his execution in 2002.”
Garret serves as a bit of a breath of fresh air delivered at the outset, but also, possibly more importantly, late in the game.
Garret is no nonsense. Analytical is the word that really comes to mind on review of his work. Retained originally by CTV News shortly after the murders, he went on to be featured prominently in Kevin Donovan’s excellent four-part docuseries entitled Billionaire Murders.
Much like Donovan, Garrett has some takes worth well, taking seriously.
The original interview, or one of them if there are others, was completed with CTV after the autopsies but before the memorial. It does indeed stand out to me as one interesting bit of tape.
Here’s part of an exchange between the CTV host and Garret, with him obviously providing the answers.
Q: What are investigators looking for?
A: Well, they’re clearly looking for the link between the bad guy or bad guys and this couple. Now, having said that, I’m going to be surprised if it’s not somebody in a known circle of associates or friends. I mean, if you look at the type of homicide that’s occurred and what’s been described, at least in the media, is that these bodies were actually sort of displayed, hanging. Now, that sets up a whole different dynamic of what the bad guy is trying to tell the rest of us as to why they were killed and to actually make sort of a statement about it. So that’s going to play into, potentially, who you’re looking for.
He goes on to ponder about maybe something in between as to what happened and why, but he places particular weight on the actual nature of the killings and staging.
Garret makes a unique point that hasn’t received the fevered attention of other theories: “The real key is going to be the following: it’s going to be friends, associates, business situations, etc., around one, or in particular Mr. Sherman. This didn’t happen just because somebody is upset. This happened for a reason. This is sort of a payback on something that occurred and that’s where the police, they have to get to whatever that is.”
The tape is admittedly outdated but this interview was just days after the murders, remember. Some of the commentary shows that fact. His guess that multiple people were involved was before we had knowledge of the walking man and the supposed surveillance coverage police had around the Sherman estate. He also muses that sure, a mastermind could have arranged for someone else to actually kill the couple, but only when pressured by the interviewer does he cede that ground.
The more updated take Garret gives us is in Donovan’s Crave series. There he suggests more on the psychological needs that were served that night on the part of whoever killed the couple. He also stakes his claim: actually, this was not likely to have been a contract killing.
Garret comes with some degree of objectivity in a case where that ideal has eroded most of all for most involved. He’s relatively impartial - other interviews on hot potato political topics like Trump really demonstrate his rationality and thoroughness as a commentator.
Of course, we don’t know what happened based on his comments. And none of the assertions are based in 100% fact or understanding, but they are very educated guesses. Perhaps the most educated of anyone involved in analysis of the probe. And his position has changed rationally with the facts of the case. He’s also not in the bubble many following the case are in and seems to take a fair minded view on basically all points of view, again in relation to a rational understanding of the public facts as they are not what they could be.
The key takeaway for me is that there really ought to be more focus and open-mindedness in this case as to the nature of the crime itself and therefore who is likely to be involved. A lot was shown off that night and some of it seems simply too personal to believe at times.
The CBC, a media company that I absolutely take to task in my upcoming long form piece on Sherman, is about as disgraced as a news organization can be in terms of presenting and commenting on the case. Such a shame given some of the memorable features of the podcast. Of all the mistakes and babble in that podcast, the assertion that every theory had money as a common denominator rests near the top of the pile.
Garret’s analysis is not to be missed and speaks credibly to an alternative view very much worth considering.
I keep referencing the Garland case. I maintain fidelity to at least considering that sort of a crime here. One that targeted both Honey and Barry Sherman, for keeps.
Today’s Anthem