APOTEX: Barry and Honey Sherman murders

. 

Toronto police are now certain of the what and the how: Barry and Honey Sherman were indeed murdered, strangled to death in a “targeted” attack. Who wanted them gone—and why—is the mystery that remains.

Ver:

APOTEX: Barry Sherman, fundador, hallado muerto en circunstancias «sospechosas» ...

 

By Friday afternoon—when police officially confirmed at a press conference that the billionaire couple had been slain, ending six weeks of confusion over their shocking demise—detectives had already interviewed 127 people (and counting), seized nearly 150 items for forensic analysis, and amassed 2,000 hours of surveillance footage from home and commercial security cameras near the crime scene. All told, 348 “investigative actions” connected to the file have been assigned and vigorously pursued.

“Facts guide our focus,” said Detective Sergeant Susan Gomes, the veteran homicide cop leading the Sherman probe. “Conjecture and speculation have no place.”

Gomes went on to tell reporters that her team has executed (or is in the process of executing) close to 20 judicial authorizations, including search warrants. Then, reading from her prepared remarks, she said this: “Legal complexities in some executions have been challenging given the litigious nature of Barry Sherman’s businesses, in particular the search and seizure of electronics in Barry Sherman’s workspace at Apotex.”

From someone professing zero tolerance for speculation, it was a striking remark.

Was the officer suggesting that Sherman’s pharmaceutical company is somehow being uncooperative with police? Had Apotex—notoriously litigious, as Gomes accurately highlighted—gone to court to contest one of the search warrants? Why else would investigators be having such a hard time seizing electronic files from Sherman’s office?

“Let me be clear,” Jordan Berman, a company spokesman, told Maclean’s in an email. “Apotex has, and continues to fully cooperate with the Toronto Police Service in their investigation, and has offered its full support. At no time have we refused or challenged any authorizations.”
.../... 

That detectives are anxious to pore through Barry Sherman’s electronic communications is hardly surprising. Now that police are sure they’re dealing with a double homicide—and busy compiling a list of adversaries who might have wanted the couple dead—Sherman’s computer files could very well contain the case-breaking clue. Which begs the next obvious question: What if that clue is hiding in a privileged record, shielded from police because it’s considered solicitor-client communication? ...
(Más)
Michael Friscolanti can be reached at michael.friscolanti@macleans.rogers.com