Sherman Murders: The Staging

DALL·E/OpenAI

After my last post, a knowledgeable reader asked a very incisive question, indeed:

“I hope you can give us your views about what the crime scene and murders might say about the killer or killers.”

I should add that I’m not exercising any professional judgment or clinical opinions. These are merely my own musings, based on various potentials. Like everyone else, it’s all just so perplexing and mystifying to me. That I think, is the core of the interest, shall we say. Now, let’s go.

---

As every attuned follower of the Sherman case will know, we wade in deep and mysterious waters these days. Few new developments emerge in this vast ocean, and yet the questions keep on presenting themselves to us from the shadows.

My initial instinct here is to jump to Brad Garret’s early and later analysis of the Sherman murders. To me, his take is supremely logical and not biased by some of the other case information (especially the early interview which I keep going back to). It’s a cold analysis of the crime and again, the known facts. Let’s talk more about that and the voiced opinions of others publicly commenting on this case.

Starting with Garret, he leaves a lot of options open in one of his first interviews shortly after the bodies were discovered as well as later in the Crave Documentary. For one, he floats the idea of a conversation having happened in the basement. He suggests that the bindings were about control, and further suggests that if Barry was walked into the pool room scene, and his wife, this was done with intentionality. In the CTV interview earlier on, he actually distinguishes between someone being upset, and someone executing payback on something that occurred, as he put it. He endorses the latter, unpacking the crime scene and what we know did happen in its totality to bolster his case.

---

He posits some other questions worth pondering as well, rightly asking whether the killer had attempted to retrieve information from the couple or not before murdering them in cold blood. This is an interesting question, most especially because of all of the secrecy around the will details and that pesky December 13th 9:01 pm lawyer call.

If the killer did try to pry information from the couple, we might assume this lines up with a financial motive. Would there be information the killer wanted other than that related to succession or to money? Money really isn’t that useful when you live in a jail cell. It’s at least far less important and useful there. Ergo, the importance of not getting caught.

This calls to mind, once again, the nature of the crime itself and the nature of the cold-blooded act. Why take so many undue risks if the motive was ultimately financial? Why parade around all three levels of the sprawling estate? Why strangle the couple? Why handle the bodies so closely so much? These are all actions that steadily increase the risk of leaving DNA behind, spending more much time in the home than necessary, leaving behind other clues, making more decisions and risking more mistakes, etc. More than that, does the crime and the actions taken really dovetail with someone wading through cash, both now and then? I am skeptical.

All that to say, there is an identifiable incongruence between such financial theories and the facts of the crime itself. Of course, subterfuge is on the table, but it occurs to me there was already enough of that baked in the cake. Chaos was erupting around the Shermans financially, legally, and, personally leading up to the murders. On that point, much is made of the will - but it could also be a red herring in the case. This isn’t talked about much as a possibility. Since news broke on the amendments, most people automatically and lazily go on to think that the amendments and the lawyer call were, oh so obviously, related to and even important in solving the case.

The sale of the house could logically motivate other reflections and the handling of other estate business. It drew attention to the couple in the press. But, it is also theorized that Barry was about to gift an ungodly sum of money to Honey, and further that this is one key to the crime. Still, do we even have a supposed and credible timeline for the gift? Would it not have been in Barry’s will first? Of course, if this is the right view to take, perhaps they were to be completed in tandem and were pending settlements. The speculation, and timing of the construction of Honey’s new home, and everything else here seems compelling, but do we have anything concrete linking any of this to the timing of the murders or even the murders more generally?

---

Alright, back to the meaning behind the act. More and more, I do lend credence to a potential for a Garland-esque crime. A longstanding brewing grudge pushed over the edge into action by the estate sale and the unique opportunity it delivered. I don’t think Barry’s resistance to security was well known to the public, but it may well have been at Apotex and in other social circles around Sherman. On top of this, the house schematics were public and some of the showings and the people therein are left publicly unaccounted for to this day.

But as is always the way in this perplexing and frustrating case, caveats are necessary. We simply don’t know what police know. They have tightened the ship as I’ve said before. Remember, the walking man existed for 48 months, give or take, but only in the minds of the police officers involved in the probe. No leaks, not even to Donovan or the well-connected Joe Warmington.

To Garret’s view above though, add Cairns’.

Dr Jim Cairns, former deputy chief coroner, province of Ontario, is deeply knowledgeable of the case and investigation. In the Crave documentary, Cairns leans into the professional killer theory. I have to say that it was one of the least compelling points made. Garret offers his opinion that this was unlikely to have been a contract killing. I tend to favor Garret’s view here, maybe because it wanders beyond the medical (where Jim Cairns has few equals) and into the psychological (Dr Death).

And Donovan theorizes as well, moving more towards Garret’s interpterion of the bindings, and of what may likely have happened. Both advance a scenario consistent with the killer’s ultimate psychological torture of Barry as a real possibility. How does this dovetail with the various financial theories posed? Who knows?

Donovan makes a simple but still brilliant point on the bindings, by the way: “A whole bunch of questions arise from that.” Much like Garret’s control theory, this does seem compelling. Add to it the possibility of ankle restraints (given Barry’s positioning) and the compelling narrative continues.

On the point related to how Barry was found and what that might mean I am of many minds. I’m not so sure its absolutely relevant or related in a real way to the motivation behind the murders or how the couple, as individuals, were perceived by the killer. Of course, this is another area where subterfuge may lurk, it is true. Hitchens may have termed this an example of a pretty final judgment and it feels that way, as in real.

I’ll likely have more to say on this whole part of the case, but for now I’ll share some thoughts.

I tend to gravitate toward doubling down on the incongruence between the financial or estate-related theories (they are multiplying) and what the killer actually did and how. The lack of any rational risk mitigation stands out. Risk of not being able to use the gained capital makes it all so estranged as a plausible theory. Why do all that?

To me, either the above incongruence is too good to be true or this went beyond planning, crossing the ugly border into Hollywood level mastermind-ism. That latter sort of a theory seems to have decreased coherence in light of Campbell’s recent and great article.

Back to Garret because again, he brings a lot to the table. Watching his analysis in the Crave documentary is a must. He takes the audience through the actions of the killer that night, opening a window into their mind’s eye in a singular way. He also asks an important and concrete question in the Crave documentary: “One thing you always have to focus on is: what logically makes sense in a case?” He goes on to detail the steps of the crime from start to finish. Garret’s logical sequence of thought makes him reputable. Dr Death, no doubt.

In essence, he argues in favor of something more personal than money.

And on that point, we should remember that revenge can be enjoyed, even from a jail cell.

---

Postscript

An error in the previous post flagged by a reader related to use of the front door. It is addressed in the comment section, and there is some other great discussion there as well. Feel free to add.

Postscript Two (post-postscript)

I don’t want to abuse my title too much by wading into only the relatively abstract. As it relates to the statues? Maybe. Maybe, I can see it. It’s similar enough to arouse suspicion, no doubt. At least that is how I’ve come to reason a view on the topic. But as to why, if the staging was indeed related to the statues, who knows? To me, the act is most palpable on the morning the bodies were discovered. The shock and awe of it all, if you will. A final poke in the eye of the victims is what Garret calls some of these eerie details.

Postscript Three (post-post-postscript)

In the documentary, smart questions and foundations are established. Who would want to do this to them? Who would want to do this?

---