The Mayerthorpe Story: From Ambush to Aftermath

IT WASN’T LONG AFTER SENTENCING that the Hennesseys found two lawyers that agreed to appeal the severity of their punishments.

Hersh Wolch, a renowned trial lawyer from Calgary, offered to act for Shawn Hennessey. Peter Royal, an equally high-profile barrister from Edmonton, agreed to represent Dennis Cheeseman.

Wolch had established a stellar reputation across Canada. His successes in the criminal courts were numerous, but he was best known for helping to overturn two notorious wrongful convictions. One of those cases involved David Milgaard of Saskatchewan, who was released from prison after serving twenty-three years for a murder he didn’t commit. Wolch had also served on the legal team that helped clear Steven Truscott of charges that he raped and murdered a young girl in Ontario in 1959.

Initially, the legal team intended to appeal the boys’ sentences, but more recently, they have decided to forego that action and appeal their guilty pleas so they can proceed to trial.

Wolch told the Canadian Press, “I really question the conviction and I question the outcome.”

However, in the field of criminal law, it is commonly held that the appeal of a guilty plea is a legal manoeuvre that is rarely used and seldom successful.

In a telephone interview, Wolch told the author, “To appeal a guilty plea is tough . . . not impossible, but difficult.”

Elsewhere, the public reaction to the Hennessey and Cheeseman sentences has been divided.

There was a great deal of support for them in Barrhead, where the general consensus among the residents held that the punishment meted out by the court was too severe and vindictive.

The manager of a Barrhead restaurant maintains the two men were innocent. “They didn’t know what Roszko was going to do.”

A receptionist at a Barrhead motel claims that Hennessey was a nice, quiet, dedicated family man . . . and a hard worker. “The conviction was bogus,” she says. “They never should have gone down for it. They were guilty by association.”

People in that community thought of Hennessey and Cheeseman as two guys with a bad friend who were at the wrong place at the wrong time. The boys were guilty only of making a series of bad choices that led them to Roszko’s farm.

Mayerthorpe residents did not agree with that assessment. Generally they felt the court had done its job and meted out sentences appropriate to their crime.

Former mayor Albert Schalm says there were many people in Mayerthorpe who were hoping Hennessey and Cheeseman would get a stiff sentence.

A writer for the Mayerthorpe Freelancer conducted an informal survey in the town’s business section and, although many of those surveyed did not want to be identified publicly, most of them said they agreed with the sentences.

One woman in one of the grocery stores said, “They deserved what they got. They’ll have a long time in jail to consider the consequences of their actions.”

Another person commented, “I think that the two men were sentenced fairly by the court, but I feel badly for their families. There are parents, wives, and children involved. They have to go on living with the knowledge that their kinfolk participated in one of the worst crimes in Canadian history.”

A worker in a restaurant where the four dead Mounties had been regular customers said she feels sad. “We need to move on, but I still miss them. They were nice guys.”

Mayerthorpe’s Rev. Arnold Lotholz told the author that Hennessey and Cheeseman were definitely involved in some way. “They certainly bear some guilt.”

Anthony Gordon’s widow, Kim, says that with the appeal still pending, everything is still not over. “As far as their sentences . . . justice has been somewhat served. It’s hard to listen to them [the families] whining about their children are not going to see them for a long time. Because of their actions, my two children will never see Anthony. He [Shawn] should have thought of his children first . . . before getting himself involved.”

Anjila Steeves, Brock Myrol’s fiancé, told the writer: “No amount of time is ever enough. These were people’s lives they were playing with. My lifetime with Brock is gone. I didn’t want any of this to happen. It’s too hard on families, but there have to be consequences for doing what they did, or what is going to deter people from doing the same thing in the future?”

Kelly Johnston says, “The sentences are appropriate. They didn’t phone and they ruined countless other people’s lives. They had the ability to save somebody’s life and chose not to. They should be penalized . . . and face the consequences.

“I think they both should have received equal sentences. He [Cheeseman] suggested phoning, but suggesting and doing are two different things.”

In a letter to the editor in the Edmonton Journal dated January 24, 2009, a man from Red Deer wrote:

I praise the RCMP for their hard work and dedication in investigating the senseless massacre of four young Mounties on March 3, 2005 near Mayerthorpe.

Shame on Shawn Hennessey and Dennis Cheeseman for their cowardly role in allowing James Roszko to commit his murderous rampage.

These men deserve the maximum penalty for their crime, and hopefully will use that time to atone for their actions.

Name withheld by the author.

On February 9, 2009, Joe McLaughlin, the managing editor of the Red Deer Advocate, wrote in part:

After the Mounties were murdered, Hennessey and Cheeseman didn’t act like they were innocent of any wrongdoing.

They lied about their whereabouts and activities. They denied assisting Roszko after police identified the rifle that Hennessey had given to Roszko as belonging to his grandfather.

It took 28 months and a $2-million police investigation before Hennessey and Cheeseman would admit the truth.

Now facing lengthy jail terms, they have a different version of the truth. Shocked by the severity of the sentences, they claim they were wrongfully convicted and plan to appeal.

Hennessey’s family blames his lawyer for misleading them into guilty pleas; they expected him to be home with them in time for Christmas

That would have been an affront to justice and to the families of the slain Mounties.

An editorial in the Barrhead Leader dated January 27, 2009 said that Hennessey’s and Cheeseman’s guilty plea was an admission by them that they had aided and abetted James Roszko, and any further speculation in that regard should be “laid to rest.” The reality is that these two men will go to jail based “purely on their own admission of guilt.”

A letter to the editor in that same issue reads as follows:

Dear Editor,

I wonder if the Hennessey/Cheeseman families and all their supporters are still proud of them? It’s really too bad they did not have the guts to maintain their innocence and go to trial where they would have received a life sentence like they deserve.

Name withheld by the author.

One week later, in that same newspaper, a relative of Shawn Hennessey wrote a response to that letter:

Dear Editor,

Mr. (name withheld) you need not wonder any longer — the Hennessey/Cheeseman families are still very proud of our boys. I cannot speak for all their supporters, but if all the people who have stopped me in the streets and all the phone calls I have received from across the province are any indication, there are still many out there.

I wish you had introduced yourself to us at the courthouse as I assume you must have attended court daily and heard both sides in order to make such a judgmental statement. It is people like you with your lynch mob mentality, combined with legal advice that stopped these boys from coming forward sooner.

I can only hope and pray that you never find yourself in the position of having an armed man show up at your door, waving a gun in your face, making demands and threatening your family because I fear your family would lose.

Name withheld.

The editorial in this issue said:

“Shawn Hennessey and Dennis Cheeseman are not going to prison for anything they’ve done. They are behind bars for what they didn’t do.”

It goes on to say that the two men didn’t “pull any triggers . . . didn’t know the size of the police contingent on Roszko’s property . . . and couldn’t have possibly known five men would die the following morning. But they didn’t make the phone call.”

The article concludes with the statement that “both Hennessey and Cheeseman can be relatively certain had they made even the smallest effort to signal the threat posed by Roszko they wouldn’t have been sentenced to a combined 27 years in prison last Friday.”

In an interview with Shawn’s mother, Sandy, in that issue of the Barrhead Leader, she is asked the question: “When you look back, is there something that you would have done or not done?”

Sandy Hennessey: “Well, I wish we had spoken out a lot sooner. But we were told by counsel not to speak. Don’t speak to the press. So we’re going by what Shawn’s attorneys had told us. And yeah, I really regret that.”

Question: “People want to know if Shawn was innocent, why did he plead guilty?”

Sandy Hennessey: “He pled guilty because he wanted the quickest way to get out from underneath all this. And he thought that by pleading guilty at this point, this was [saving time] going to court, waiting till spring, going through all that process you know, and he just thought it would speed up the process. Certainly not expecting fifteen years by any stretch of the imagination.”

Both Sandy and Barry Hennessey were very involved with their son’s case and supportive of him throughout the course of his legal problems. Barry was more publicly prominent and certainly much more vocal than his wife.

It appears that both of them were responsible or at least integrally involved with the formulation and circulation of an Internet newsletter under the banner The Friends and Family of Shawn Hennessey and Dennis Cheeseman.

After the sentencing, it included an update that read:

Today’s events [the sentencing] changed our lives forever. Shawn and Dennis agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter because they were told that it would be the quickest route home to their families. Their choice was tough. They were also told that going against a very powerful machine with unlimited resources on first degree murder could possibly result in 4 X first degree murder charges which could result in 4 X 25 year sentences. Which may possibly mean that they could be behind bars for the rest of their natural lives. It appeared that the only option they had was to plead guilty to manslaughter and take that chance of receiving a lesser sentence so that they could come home to their families within the next couple of years. The choice they made was not easy for them to admit guilt to something they disagreed with.

Then as the 12 year and 15 year sentences were handed out we were all in total shock. Strange though as it was noted [sic] that day by the crown [sic] that they had insufficient evidence for a first degree murder conviction at trial.

All we ask is that the justice system look at this and give the boys the chance at a fair trial with all the evidence out in the open.

In regards to Shawn Hennessey and Dennis Cheeseman

We are asking that the Minister of Justice please release Shawn Hennessey and Dennis Cheeseman immediately from prison. These two men are presently serving 15 and 12 years for crimes they had no idea were going to happen. March 3, 2005 four police officers lost their lives in Mayerthorpe. The 2 men that are in prison had zero idea what James Roszko was about to do. He did the killings 10 hours after the boys dropped him off at his mother’s house. Shawn has never to this day said he heard this madman say he was going to hurt anyone. It took a several million dollar (Mr. Big Sting) to get a false confession from Dennis Cheeseman. These boys only walked in a courtroom to plea [sic] guilty to a manslaughter charge (even though they knew they were inocent [sic]) they would face life sentences for capital murder. They were told the crown would possibly give them the minimum sentence which could have them home within a year if they agreed to the agreed statement of facts and plea [sic] guilty of manslaughter. Later it was said by the crown that they had insufficient evidence against them on capital murder charges to get a conviction. Their council [sic] should of gone to trial, and all we all ask is these 2 boys get a fair day in court. Please release them and set a trial date. They now have lawyers they have faith in and that believe in them. Don’t let this matter get any further out of control than it already is. Please release them immediately.

The petition asks the reader to submit a name and an e-mail address, and then to answer yes or no to two questions:

Do you think they should get a chance at a trial?

Should they be released until a trial date can be set?

In a column on the same page beside the petition, there was a list of comments that included the following items:

•“Barry Hennessey told the CBC News that the two men shouldn’t have entered guilty pleas.”

•“I know the position he [Shawn] was in was very tough. I respect his decision . . . that decision was very difficult for him and I have to think I might have made the same decision,” Hennessey said.

•“Nobody agreed with him whatsoever. I don’t know a person who agreed with what happened to him, doing what he did. No friends, no family, nobody agreed to it.”

•“Obviously, we had run out of money and we didn’t know what way to turn . . . we spent every cent we had to try to help him through and he seen the pressure, and when the money was gone, it seemed like we didn’t have much more chance,” Hennessey said.

•“The choices were [to] roll the dice [and] do 25 years times four, or take a chance on telling people what everybody wants hear: that you’re guilty of something you didn’t do and take a chance on . . . maybe coming home in two to three years to raise your family.”

•“Shawn has never spoke to anybody about this but yet he’s sentenced to 15 years.” Hennessey said, “Nobody wanted to listen to Shawn’s story. Shawn tried to tell exactly what happened in that house and how it all took place and nobody wants to listen to him.”

•“His [Shawn’s] heart is broke, as well as the rest of our hearts are broke for everything that happened in Mayerthorpe,” Barry Hennessey, father of Shawn Hennessey, said.

Many of the above comments speak to Barry Hennessey’s dogged determined to free his son from prison. In this regard he is steadfast, relentless, intractable, and ultimately irrepressible for the love and devotion he has demonstrated for Shawn. During the course of Shawn’s legal problems he has been fearless in his defence.

But he can also be highly emotional, overly aggressive, and reckless in his pronouncements and accusations. In that regard, it seems he will say almost anything to inflame emotions or arouse a reaction. Many of his remarks have been over-the-top exaggerations, false generalizations, or out-and-out distortions.

His most egregious assertion is that there is a vast legal conspiracy against Shawn — a cover-up that encompasses the RCMP, the courts, the Crown, the defence lawyers, and Correctional Services Canada. He claims that Correctional Services Canada was vindictive in initially assigning Shawn to a penitentiary placement in far-off Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

He says the judge at the sentencing was vicious, unreasonable, and lost his composure. He maintains his lawyers and the Crown were “together” — whatever that means.

Steve Vigor, the Mountie who shot James Roszko, says, “Barry Hennessey’s talk of a conspiracy is laughable. It’s an example of a society that does not accept consequences for their actions. The family feels justified for blaming others.”

Barry Hennessey does admit it was an error for his family to make up a story about the grandfather’s gun being stolen. “I agree 100 percent we shouldn’t have lied about the Winchester rifle being stolen.”

“Why would you give a guy who’s going to kill a policeman a gun registered in your grandfather’s name?”

His biggest complaint is that no one has heard Shawn’s side of the story — other than the police, of course.

2.Rozko was withdrawn and silent in the car and Dennis never heard him say anything. Barry says, “Dennis couldn’t hear Roszko say ‘nothing’ anyway because the car was old and rickety and they were driving mostly on bumpy, gravel roads.”

3.All along the way, Shawn was hoping they’d run into a police roadblock, or a police helicopter would hail them down from overhead.

6.Roszko took the Winchester rifle, which was in a pillowcase, out from the back seat so he could shoot the fuel tanks and burn down the Quonset hut.

7.Shawn didn’t see any police cars at Roszko’s farm. He saw only the light from his Quonset in his yard.

The problem with Shawn’s story (as told by Barry) is that the Agreed Statement of Facts that Shawn signed and confirmed before the court contradicts points number 1, 2, and 7, above.

Jim Guiry, a Professional Engineer, says that a fired bullet puncturing a gas tank or diesel tank will not cause it to ignite. The sparks from a bullet hitting a metal gas tank will only ignite the gas fumes. Both of those conditions might have been possible.

But Guiry says, “When the gas or diesel tank exploded, it would project a wild spray of burning globs into the air in all directions.”

Roszko’s gas/diesel tanks were at least thirty yards away from the Quonset hut, which was constructed of steel. Guiry states that the chances of these globs of burning fluid igniting a steel Quonset hut range from minimal to impossible. He insists that the suggestion that this would happen is extremely unlikely.

It doesn’t matter whether Roszko said he could do it or that Shawn claimed he said that. Both of them were knowledgeable in mechanical and technical matters. Surely Shawn knew that burning down the Quonset hut with rifle fire was virtually impossible.

Barry says, “Because they didn’t think anything was going to happen other than Roszko was going to shoot at the fuel tanks and blow them up.”

Yet Cheeseman suggested to Shawn they should call the police. But Shawn declined his suggestion.

Why did Dennis Cheeseman admit to all the items on the Agreed Statement of Facts?

Barry explains: “Because he was confused. He’s all mixed up. He was for starters and the sting really screwed him up. He thought he had caused Mounties to die. Dennis should have been sent to a psychologist. He was petrified. He thought the sting gang was the Mafia and he was afraid they were going to kill him.”

But Dennis voluntarily said the very same things to his boss, Brad McNish. What’s more, Dennis’s statements to McNish appear to vindicate the integrity of the Mr. Big Sting.

Why did Shawn tell the judge he agreed to all the Agreed Statement of Facts, and why did he sign it and the instructions attached to them, thereby legally agreeing to them?

Barry says, “He signed under pressure. The lawyers convinced him to sign. He didn’t care. He said that he’d sign anything. He said, ‘I’ll sign that I’m a child molester if I can get out this year.’ He would have signed anything to get himself out of jail in a reasonable period of time.”

Barry: “Because our lawyers, Ed O’Neill and D’Arcy DePoe, told us not to say anything to the police. We were told to give them the lawyers’ business cards and refer the police to them. In fifteen conversations with the police, Shawn told them over and over to see my lawyer. The cops didn’t like it.”

Several of Barry’s claims seem to impugn D’Arcy DePoe and they need to be addressed.

D’Arcy DePoe, fifty-six, is a highly respected and successful criminal lawyer. After graduating in law from Dalhousie University, he came to Alberta and has been practising criminal law there since 1981.

Although he has been attacked in the media by Barry Hennessey, DePoe has not responded to any of Hennessey’s vilification. Prior to this book’s being published, DePoe maintained his silence — especially in the media. But he feels he’s been repeatedly slandered by Barry Hennessey and is now prepared to speak to the author.

His reply to Barry’s last point about Shawn’s remaining silent with the police is as follows:

“It is my standard advice to a client I am defending not to talk to the police. First of all, it gives the police an opportunity to acquire information with which they can convict you. Secondly, you don’t know what they know and they can induce you to admit to evidence they might not have or confirm suspicions about which they are unsure.

“If you have a story to tell, tell it to a judge or a jury. And only do that after you have reviewed all the Crown’s evidence, received legal advice, and been properly prepared to testify and to be cross-examined.”

In fact, all of Shawn’s interviews with the police took place before Mr. O’Neill was retained. Mr. DePoe spoke to Shawn for the first time in October of 2005. So Shawn, on his own, chose to speak to the police. And in so doing, he had every opportunity to tell them his side of the story, but unfortunately he chose to lie to them.

On March 9, 2005, the RCMP came to Shawn and asked about his involvement with James Roszko on the day and night of March 2, 2005. Shawn denied he’d had anything to do with Roszko on that day or night.

Two days later, on March 11, after the Mounties discovered the list of Roszko’s cell phone calls, the same officer went back to see Shawn. This time he asked him about Roszko’s cell phone calls to Kal Tire and to his “bag” phone.

This time, Shawn said “he guessed” he did talk to Roszko. He said that was the case because the bailiffs wanted to repossess Roszko’s vehicle and he was asking to store it at Shawn’s house. Shawn told the investigator that he refused to let Roszko do that.

The RCMP investigation continued for almost a month and then another Mountie came back to see Shawn for a third interview on April 5, 2005.

On this occasion, the investigator had a lengthy conversation with Shawn about his relationship with Roszko. He asked whether or not Shawn had had any contacts with Roszko the afternoon before the day of the murders, or on the evening before the murders, or early the next morning.

Shawn denied seeing Roszko that day or night. He denied that Roszko had come to his place. He denied that he drove Roszko to his farm. Shawn not only lied about those instances but he made the fatal error of creating his own false alibi.

Shawn told the RCMP officer that he came home from work, had supper, played with the kids, and put them to bed. Then he and Christine watched TV and went to bed because he had a work-related conference the next morning in Edmonton.

The investigator asked Shawn if he would swear to that on a bible and Shawn answered, “Absolutely.” Yet in the deposition of that interview, there are approximately two dozen proven lies.

Shortly after Shawn’s third interview, the same investigator who had spoken to Shawn on April 5 interviewed Christine Hennessey. She wove the same identical alibi as her husband had previously spun. After hearing Christine’s story, it was obvious to the police that the identical alibi had been concocted between them.

A false alibi or any false statement by an accused is very problematic when the Crown puts it before a jury. It can totally destroy the credibility of the accused, and a jury will often take it to infer guilt.

One is then left to wonder how any lawyer would defend Hennessey and Cheeseman in court. After all of Shawn’s lies and his false alibi, and Cheeseman’s numerous admissions of guilt to both McNish and to Mr. Big, what jury would believe them? What would the defence be?

Nevertheless, Barry Hennessey told the media that when their money ran out, their lawyer lost interest in the case. “The lawyers were our biggest problem,” he said. “When we ran out of money, the lawyers convinced him to sign.”

D’Arcy DePoe denies this allegation. He considers it to be not only defamatory but ridiculous.

“My interest didn’t change a whit when their money ran out. Their money ran out before the preliminary hearing, yet we carried on without a nickel from them in my trust account. Months later, Shawn applied for legal aid coverage and got it. I applied to get extra coverage and was granted 500 extra hours on top of what the Tariff allows.

“This may be the biggest case I’ve ever worked on. I have eighty large binders of discovery, plus dozens of CDs, tapes, and wiretaps that I had to examine. We needed those 500 extra hours to adequately defend the accused at trial.

“So I certainly deny Barry Hennessey’s accusations. I defended Shawn Hennessey in good faith and to the best of my ability without regard for the remuneration I would receive at the end of the day.”

DePoe says that Barry Hennessey is a very difficult person to deal with. “There is no reasoning with the man. Barry hears what he wants to hear. And no matter what he was told about the law or the evidence it simply didn’t sink in.

On one occasion, Barry came to speak to DePoe about Dennis Cheeseman’s being depressed and contemplating suicide. His comments and questions to DePoe in this regard were not based on any concern about Dennis. They were, however, so outrageously offensive that DePoe immediately terminated their conversation. “I was so shocked, I put him out of my office.”

DePoe says, “By mid-2008, I was no longer prepared to speak to him because it was a waste of my time trying to talk to him.

“The Hennesseys’ complaints are based on the severity of sentence Shawn received. It was higher than I expected. I thought something in the range of eight years would be fair. But I told them in a worst-case scenario the judge might decide to give Shawn the top of the range that the Crown had asked for.

Barry Hennessey told the media that the sentences were ridiculous. “I just don’t understand the sentences they received. They got more time than Karla Homolka.³ It’s just a no-brainer.”

The “Mr. Big” sting is another issue that Barry Hennessey assails. He contends that in 40 to 60 percent of the cases where this sting has been used, the end results are wrongful convictions. The range of the percentage of cases that Barry quotes is so broad it defies credibility.

In any case, RCMP Cpl. Wayne Oakes disagrees with Mr. Hennessey. He says that as of 2008, the Mr. Big sting has been used across the country over 350 times. In seventy-five percent of those operations, success has been achieved by either clearing or charging a suspect. In the cases prosecuted, ninety-five percent have resulted in convictions.

The Canadian Press notes that the RCMP has been using Mr. Big sting operations since the 1980s. The evidence from Mr. Big stings is admissible in Canadian courts, but it is not admissible in the United States or Great Britain.

Lawyer David Brodsky, who is part of the Toronto-based Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, states that stings are not used in those two countries because of the potential for false statements. He says, “They don’t use it because they know it is so effective they will get a statement in every case. But they won’t necessarily be getting the truth.”

In the Red Deer Advocate, Lee Giles wrote an article entitled, “Let’s Outlaw Mr. Big Stings.” In it he claims, “There is no need for our law enforcement officials to engage in questionable conduct to uphold the rule of law.”

In part of his piece, Giles writes, “The suspect is often told — by pretend gang members — he will only be allowed to participate in future lucrative crimes if he confesses to past misdeeds, such as murder. Not surprisingly, with a potential king’s ransom in the offing, many suspects are quick to confess — whether or not they are guilty.”

He quotes John Cotter of the Canadian Press as saying in part, “. . . there is some concern that Mr. Big tactics could lead to false confessions that could send an innocent man to jail.”

Steve Cormack, writing in the RCMP Vet’s Net, replies to Lee Giles’s article:

“As I sit down to write this letter, I am literally trembling in anger. The ‘Mr. Big’ undercover technique has led to literally hundreds of successful conclusions to homicide investigations that would have otherwise gone unsolved.

“They are . . . a legitimate investigative tool that has withstood legal challenges up to the Supreme Court of Canada. . . . The proper application of this technique is not, as Giles states ‘questionable conduct.’ It is an innovative and proper investigative method.”

Criminologist Rob Gordon of Simon Fraser University states that Mr. Big operations are an effective law enforcement strategy to glean intelligence and information about crimes. He says the challenge is to ensure that statements from such operations are accurate and admissible in criminal cases.

Gordon maintains, “As an investigative tool it is very effective. If you go the next step and try to use it as evidence it gets wobbly. People get caught up in the activity that they are alleged to be involved in.”

Another writer who opposes stings claims they can be a form of brainwashing. He says they can play to a subject’s ego. Men brag and make up stories of how dangerous they are. Consequently, some of the evidence garnered from a sting can be as believable as a drunk in a bar bragging about his fantastical sexual exploits.

Others in support of stings claim that the burden of proof is now so high that the police have had to become more and more creative when it comes to collecting evidence or getting confessions. They do admit, however, that it is important to have checks and balances to ensure the evidence, and admissions are confirmed as true. They conclude that there is no problem with stings as long as due diligence is maintained in assessing their veracity.

In a letter to the Red Deer Advocate, Brian Lowe comments about the sting that caught the two men who were complicit in the Mayerthorpe murders. Under the headline “Bleeding hearts oppose Mr. Big stings,” he wrote: “The RCMP got their men through a sting — men that would otherwise still be roaming free and unknown to the public.”

Lowe ends his letter by stating: “My hat’s off to the RCMP. They got their men — too bad not before four of their own were murdered.”

The public debate about the use of the Mr. Big sting against Shawn Hennessey remains controversial and unresolved.

Another somewhat contentious component in the Shawn Hennessey saga emanates from a one-hour segment of the CBC’S Fifth Estate that was broadcast on February 4, 2009.

In that program, the host, Linden MacIntyre, interviewed Shawn Hennessey and his wife, Christine, the day prior to Shawn’s going to court to enter his guilty plea to manslaughter.

It has been said of the CBC that they have never met a cop they liked. Whether or not that is a fair imputation, the program seemed to be moderately unbalanced in favour of the accused.

In that interview, Shawn and Christine Hennessey claimed that Roszko had a pistol in his waistband and posed a real threat to them and their family if Shawn refused to help him hide his truck from the police.

During the taping, the Hennesseys appeared to be a nice young couple that was being treated unfairly by the justice system.

Shawn stated that he was going to plead guilty to manslaughter because it was the easiest course for him to take.

“I believe this is the way to go,” he said. “Put this behind me and move on with life and be at home with my family. They mean the world to me. I just can’t risk a life sentence. I don’t know. I have no faith in the justice system.”

The major problem with the interview is that parts of the story that Shawn Hennessey related to Linden MacIntyre absolutely contradict his already signed admissions in the Agreed Statement of Facts. And this was the document that was slated to be entered into the court records the next day after his interview on the Fifth Estate.

Several Canadians from various walks of life were invited to watch a tape of that show and submit their reactions to the author. Almost all of them felt that although Shawn Hennessey bore some responsibility for his actions in this tragedy, it seemed that he had received unfair treatment by the police and the courts.

From Shawn’s performance on the Fifth Estate, they judged him to be a good and decent husband and the father of two little girls, who was railroaded into a long prison term by an unfair justice system.

“My reaction to the program was that I felt some empathy for Hennessey being forced to go with Roszko, but he still had a responsibility to phone the police.

“It’s a sad situation . . . not knowing what Roszko would do but knowing he was going to do something bad. Still, they went ahead and drove him out to his farm.

“I think Hennessey is remorseful and sorry that it ever happened. I had empathy for a young husband and wife in a horrible mess. But the bottom line is they were responsible. When someone is threatened with a gun you can understand their problem. But he should have gone ahead and called the cops.”

Tom’s wife, Barbara, a retired teacher, says, “Yes, I had empathy for him, too. He had no idea he was aiding and abetting a murderer . . . a guy who is off his rocker. It was one of those things where he had a moment to make a choice. And then it turned out, ‘Oh my God. What have I done?’

“I also had the uneasy feeling that their excuses were a bit phony. And they never admitted that calling the police was an option.”

Tom Tweedie also questioned Hennessey’s character. “Because he did muck around selling dope, it made me wonder whether he was a person on the other side of the law. He didn’t seem to have the mindset that told him this is really bad. He had kind of a macho . . . almost criminal . . . attitude.

“He saw the lights, and there was Roszko crossing the field with a powerful gun in his hands. I mean, why didn’t he phone the police? Why the hell didn’t he call the police?

“Maybe he was worried about being implicated in the marijuana . . . in the trafficking.”

A retired teacher from southwestern Ontario who wishes to remain anonymous watched the Fifth Estate program and was disturbed by what he saw.

“I saw a couple anguishing. A young husband and father of two young children. The impression I got was that he [Hennessey] turned over the gun to Roszko out of fear. He and his wife were both afraid if Roszko ever came back, their family would be wiped out. They were living in the same community with the guy.

“He was a family man with children. They seemed like good people. I think the authorities are looking for a scapegoat. They have to punish somebody.

“Manslaughter normally gets ten years. He got fifteen and his partner got twelve.

“They [the police] figure we can’t do anything about Roszko; he’s dead . . . so punish an accomplice. There’s a difference between being an accomplice and aiding and abetting someone out of fear. An accomplice carries the connotation of co-operation and bonding. No. They did it out of fear.

When it was pointed out to this viewer that it’s the Crown that makes and/or accepts plea-bargains, he replied, “Crown and police are in the same bag. The Hennesseys were the picture of innocence. Why would he just give a gun to a psycho?”

Bill Fowler, a retired McMaster University professor, thought that Hennessey seemed like a confused kid. “He had conflicting sides to him. He kept saying could have, should have, if it happened again . . . it’s too late for that now.”

Fowler emphasized one very discerning observation: “From what I saw on the program, he had everything covered. Why did he plead guilty? I’m wondering why anyone advised him to plead guilty? He didn’t do anything.”

Glenn Dowell, a business executive residing in Dundas, Ontario, said that the interviewer seemed to lead the conversation towards Hennessey’s innocence. “But I still was left to wonder why Hennessey didn’t call the police. And afterwards, he lied to the police. He should have come forward.”

Carl MacLeod, a retired RCMP Staff Sergeant and one-time commander of the Joint Forces Unit in Hamilton, Ontario, said: “Linden MacIntyre was very soft on Hennessey. Hennessey did a lot of lying and equivocating during the interview. His attitude betrays the guilty mind. After Roszko threatened Hennessey and his family, a regular John Doe would have gone to police immediately.

“In my opinion, Hennessey did the Fifth Estate interview for free publicity, public sympathy, and an early release on his sentence.”

Peter Dunn, a retired municipal director, made the observation: “At the end of the program, I thought that the two men were set up by the RCMP. However, I felt that I was brought to that conclusion by program design. The interviewer led some of the statements made by the man and his wife and summed up their comments with more concrete statements than they had made.

“Further, I thought the technique of introducing an idea that would be later enlarged on was done in such a way so as to bring about a conclusion sought by the Fifth Estate.”

Andy Garlatti, a retired accountant with Chrysler Canada commented: “Fifteen years is a bit much.

“I’d have to hear the Mounties’ side of the story. But if Hennessey is lying on camera, he’s guilty.”

Bobbi-Lee Keermaa, a certified dental assistant from Hamilton, Ontario, watched the show and volunteered her opinion to the author: “I thought he was innocent. He seemed so nice. The poor guy, he didn’t do anything. And his wife was in such pain. I felt bad for them.”

At the time that all these people watched the program, none of them — including retired Staff Sergeant Carl MacLeod — were aware of what was contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts. Consequently, they didn’t know that Hennessey was making statements on the Fifth Estate that flatly contradicted what he had signed and what he was prepared to admit the next day in court.

Readers of this book are left to ask themselves why Hennessey would do that. Their answer should help them draw their own conclusions about Shawn Hennessey’s guilt or innocence.

Moreover, Linden MacIntyre had fourteen days between the time of the program’s taping and the date it went to air to edit the tape and add either voice-over comments or on-camera appearances to point out the inconsistencies in Shawn Hennessey’s televised statements versus the Agreed Statement of Facts.

His decision not to do this left the viewing audience with an unbalanced presentation of Shawn Hennessey’s story.

Linden MacIntyre’s response to this observation is that he deduced from pre-interview conversations that they (the Hennesseys) were profoundly uncomfortable with the “facts” (Agreed Statement of Facts) as defined by his lawyers — because these facts didn’t accurately represent the coercive nature of Roszko’s behaviour when he showed up at the Hennesseys’ on the night of March 2. They (the Hennesseys) also felt that the facts misrepresented a lot of what Roszko had said to them — especially about his intention to harm policemen.

MacIntyre emphasizes, “My piece was not intended to be the final record but just another element.”

The meaning gleaned from this comment is that this interview was intended to be another part of the puzzle of whether or not Shawn Hennessey was dealt with fairly or unfairly.