The Mayerthorpe Story

by Robert Knuckle

  55.HENNESSEY stopped briefly at Jessie ZASIEDKO’S house during the evening of March 2, 2005. HENNESSEY was seeing his brother-in-law, the accused Dennis Keegan CHEESEMAN (“CHEESEMAN”). HENNESSEY is married to CHEESMAN’S sister, Christine. HENNESSEY was apparently aware that CHEESEMAN was helping Jessie ZASIEDKO move. HENNESSEY asked CHEESEMAN to speak to him alone, and indicated that he needed CHEESEMAN’S help because there were RCMP officers at ROSZKO’S farm, and HENNESSEY was involved in the grow operation located on ROSZKO’S property. He further asked CHEESEMAN to get home as soon as he could. CHEESEMAN knew ROSZKO as he, like HENNESSEY, had done odd jobs from time to time for ROSZKO on ROSZKO’S property. These jobs involved menial labour such as the digging of holes for the planting of trees. CHEESEMAN, unlike HENNESSEY, had no involvement with respect to any of the illegal operations on the ROSZKO property.

  60.FIFIELD continued to watch the ROSZKO residence throughout the night. She could see vehicles driving in and out, and assumed that they were police vehicles based on what she had seen in the daylight. She also noted, at some point, that she saw lights on in ROSZKO’S trailer.

  61.When CHEESEMAN returned home to the rural residence he shared with his sister Christine and his brother-in-law, HENNESSEY, in the later evening hours of March 2, 2005, he found ROSZKO and HENNESSEY sitting at the kitchen table. It was evident to CHEESEMAN that Christine and her children were home. However, they were avoiding ROSZKO.

  62.ROSZKO had arrived at the residence with the Luger handgun in the waistband of his pants, and was seeking the rifle that HENNESSEY had been given by his grandfather, John HENNESSEY, a few years prior.

  63.HENNESSEY wiped the .300 Winchester Magnum down; he provided it to ROSZKO as well as a box of ammunition intended for use in that rifle.

  64.When CHEESEMAN viewed that situation, he took it upon himself to go downstairs and retrieve a white pillowcase and some gloves. CHEESEMAN then put on the gloves and stuck the HENNESSEY rifle in the pillowcase.

  65.It was clear to all present that ROSZKO was enraged at the police, and ROSZKO made comments to the effect that he intended to return to his property and burn down the Quonset that contained the illegal marijuana grow and chop shop operation.

  66.Both HENNESSEY and CHEESEMAN knew that armed confrontation with the police was a real possibility and that the situation was clearly trouble.

  67.ROSZKO decided that he would hide the sought after truck at CHAYKA’S residence, and the two accused agreed to follow him there in order to give him a ride back to his residence

  68.HENNESSEY asked CHEESEMAN to accompany him for support and comfort. Both men were intimidated and fearful of ROSZKO. They followed ROSZKO to CHAYKA’S residence in HENNESSEY’S Dodge Neon. During that trip of approximately a half an hour, the two accused were relatively quiet. When they arrived at the CHAYKA residence, they pulled over and waited near the highway while Roszko drove the white truck and parked it down the CHAYKA driveway. During this time period, the two accused discussed leaving ROSZKO there, however, decided not to act upon that plan. ROSZKO ultimately reappeared on foot carrying the HENNESSEY rifle, with the handgun still tucked into the waistband of his pants. CHEESEMAN exited from the front passenger seat, vacating the seat for ROSZKO. ROSZKO slid the rifle with the pillowcase into the back seat next to CHEESEMAN.

  69.During the trip from CHAYKA’S, CHEESEMAN and HENNESSEY did not converse with ROSZKO, but ROSZKO ranted and complained about the RCMP, and threatened to get even with them. He indicated that he was going to burn down the Quonset. CHEESEMAN described his rantings as “devil talk.”

  70.ROSZKO directed HENNESSEY to drive past the range road on which he lived, and to proceed to the next range road where his mother lived. He directed HENNESSEY to drive past his mother’s residence and to stop across the field from where the police were located. The two accused could see the lights from police cars that early morning of March 3, 2005, and ROSZKO paused to pull socks over the outside of the boots he was then wearing. ROSZKO grabbed the HENNESSEY rifle from the back seat and proceeded off in the direction of the police, sometime in the early morning hours of March 3, 2005, and most likely between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m.

  71.HENNESSEY and CHEESEMAN departed and drove directly home. CHEESEMAN suggested that they should call the police and warn them about ROSZKO, however, HENNESSEY discouraged that idea, and felt that ROSZKO would come after them should he evade police. Neither accused made such a phone call.

  The last article in the Agreed Statement of Facts states:

  Following an extensive RCMP investigation, the accused CHEESEMAN was arrested on July 7, 2007, and the accused HENNESSEY was arrested on July 8, 2007.

  After the entire document was read into the court, Judge Macklin asked the Crown, the defence counsels, and each of the accused if they agreed with the accuracy and veracity of the facts submitted.

  Everyone said they agreed.

  Furthermore, Shawn and Dennis each submitted written instructions to the effect that they agreed with the Agreed Statement of Facts. Each man’s submission was attached to his copy of the document.

  According to the Agreed Statement of Facts, it seems clear that the two accused knew there were police on Roszko’s property and they were aware that an armed confrontation, where Roszko intended to harm the police, was a real possibility.

  An article written in the Edmonton Journal after the guilty pleas were entered said: “Hennessey and Cheeseman now admit they supplied Roszko with a rifle, heard him talk about revenge against the RCMP, drove him close to his farm, dropped him off, and decided against warning the RCMP about the grave danger Roszko presented.”

  Further in the article: “Hennessey and Cheeseman’s families and friends had long stated they were innocent and didn’t help Roszko. In the statement of facts that Hennessey and Cheeseman confirmed were accurate, a different story emerged.”

  On the basis of the Agreed Statement of Facts, it appears to be irrefutable that Hennessey and Cheeseman were complicit in Roszko’s crime.

  After the guilty pleas were submitted, Shawn Hennessey addressed the court.

  Katherine O’Neill of the Globe and Mail reported that Shawn Hennessey made a tearful apology to the families of the slain Mounties. “I would like to apologize for my involvement in this tragic case,” he said. “In no way did I mean for any harm to come to anyone. I’m truly sorry.”

  Ms. O’Neill wrote that, “Family members of the fallen officers who packed the courthouse to watch the proceedings appeared unmoved by his act of contrition.”

  Dennis Cheeseman declined the judge’s offer to address the court.

  Outside the courtroom, Don Schiemann said that for him Hennessey’s apology was the most moving moment of the plea session. “Was he sorry that he got caught or sorry that he did it? I can’t look into his heart. I take his sorrow at face value and I forgive him.”

  When a reporter asked him if he forgives Cheeseman, Schiemann answered, “I haven’t heard anything from him yet.”

  The day after the accused entered their guilty pleas, family members of the deceased Mounties were invited to enter victim impact statements. It took hours for the thirteen impact statements to be incorporated into the record.

  As each person addressed the court, the sorrow and anguish in their voices made their painful declarations extremely moving.

  The following extracts of their statements are taken from Ryan Cormier’s articles in the Edmonton Journal.

  Anthony Gordon’s widow, Kim, said, “Anthony was robbed of seeing the birth of his second son, Anthony Ashton J. Gordon. He never got the chance to look upon his new son with pride and hold him close. Never heard his first cry, saw his first smile, or saw him take his first step. Anthony had the opportunity to be a good father and that was stolen from him. My two sons were robbed of knowing an amazing man.”

  Kelly Johnston spoke of her grief, saying, “When I lost my husband, I lost my purpose. When Leo’s heart stopped beating, so did mine. It breaks my hea
rt that Leo never got to see our wedding photos and we never got to go on our honeymoon.”

  Brock Myrol’s fiancée Anjila Steeves told of her desolation. “I am so lonely for Brock it hurts. I feel lost, like a leaf that has fallen from a tree and been tossed in the wind. He was the one person I would have turned to to get through something like this. Brock was the air I breathed, and without him I am suffocating.”

  Rev. Don Schiemann presented the court with a series of snapshots of his son Peter beginning when he was just a young tyke. He spoke of him as the ten-year-old boy who would stick licorice up his nose to gross out his little sister.

  With a quiver in his voice, he said, “March 3, 2005 was like having one’s arm torn off. The pain is beyond words. Over time, the pain has subsided, the wound has healed, but there will always be the telltale scar tissue. The limb is always missed.

  “I struggle to understand the incredible evil that would lead a man to end the lives of four others in such a brutal and heartless manner. For me, this is not an academic question. It hits home and it hits hard.”

  As Hennessey and Cheeseman sat dejectedly with their heads down, the mothers of Leo Johnston, Anthony Gordon, and both parents of Brock Myrol offered their poignant comments about the excruciating pain they endured with the loss of their beloved sons.

  Colleen Myrol’s comments were particularly touching. “My grief is every day, every night, every morning, every moment. It is every breath I take. I feel like my heart has been ripped out of my chest. My world is shattered. I am completely broken.”

  Crown prosecutor Dave Labrenz told the court, “James Roszko was only able to murder these four police officers as a direct result of the aid of Shawn Hennessey and Dennis Cheeseman. James Roszko never would have been able to commit these murders without their assistance.”

  He claimed the two guilty men acted selfishly, claiming they abetted Roszko in his crime because of their involvement with him in his the marijuana grow-op. He asked the judge to sentence the two accused to ten to fifteen years.

  Labrenz argued they had the chance to prevent the murders with one phone call.

  David Staples of Canwest News Service reported that both defence lawyers pleaded for mercy. Cheeseman’s lawyer, Peter Northcott, argued for a four-year sentence, the minimum allowed for manslaughter.

  Northcott said, “Taking into account time served, that should be cut to three years.”

  He claimed that Cheeseman’s was a markedly different situation (from Hennessey’s). “When Mr. Cheeseman got involved with Mr. Roszko, Mr. Hennessey had already handed over the rifle. All that Mr. Cheeseman knew was that Mr. Roszko was planning to burn down a Quonset hut. “He was never in control of the situation, nor was he part of any of Mr. Roszko’s plans.”

  Staples’s article stated that D’Arcy DePoe, Hennessey’s lawyer, told the court that neither of the accused were the ones who shot the four police officers.

  DePoe claimed that no one here (in the courtroom) gave Roszko a gun for the purpose of shooting someone. “These men didn’t want this thing to happen.

  “When Roszko came to Hennessey’s house, just hours after the RCMP got onto his farm, he arrived uninvited and angry. Roszko’s Luger pistol was in the waistband of his pants, but he had his gun in his hand at one point.”

  DePoe went on to say that Roszko was there for the purpose of demanding a rifle and ammunition, and that Shawn didn’t feel he had any option, so he gave him the gun.

  DePoe asked that his client receive a term of five years’ incarceration. He argued, “Taking into account time served, that should be cut to three years.”

  Over one hundred letters were submitted in support of Hennessey’s character. In them he was described as being trustworthy, reliable, and a hard-working father of two little girls.

  DePoe told the judge, “Many people think very highly of him and they still do, despite where he is today.”

  Judge Macklin said he would hand down the sentences for the two convicted men in seven to ten days.

  Corporal Wayne Oakes agreed with the manslaughter convictions, saying, “For law enforcement, for the people that worked with the fallen four, the people that knew them, the people who continue to stand beside them … they will see that justice was served today.”

  After these court sessions were concluded, the Canadian Press reported that Barry Hennessey was concerned that one of the tapes played at the preliminary hearing might unfairly influence Judge Macklin’s determination of Shawn’s and Dennis’s sentences.

  All the evidence from the preliminary hearing had been sealed. But when Hennessey and Cheeseman pleaded guilty, that evidence was unsealed and released to the general public.

  The particular tape that Barry Hennessey was referring to is a recorded confession that Dennis Cheeseman had made to an RCMP operative during the Project Kourage sting.

  This recording was neither played nor cited during sentencing arguments. But now that it was available for scrutiny, Barry feared Judge Macklin would use it to determine “the boys’” sentences. “You think the judge won’t hear this?” Barry Hennessey complained. “It’s not fair. It is not right that they released all of this.”

  Is this an example of Barry Hennessey’s unschooled naiveté or an illustration of his subtle appreciation for the law?

  On the surface, it appears to be the former, but in reality it could very well be the latter.

  In this regard, Ken Johnson, an experienced trial lawyer from Port Elgin, Ontario, has expressed the opinion that Barry is probably correct. Insofar as Cheeseman’s taped confession was not cited by the Crown in his arguments for sentencing, it is not the judge’s prerogative to go looking for extraneous evidence relative to sentencing.

  Ira Greenspoon, a Toronto lawyer, agrees with Johnson. He says the evidence in the preliminary hearing goes to guilt or innocence. Once a conviction is registered, evidence from the preliminary hearing is not relevant to determining the sentence.

  In Judge Macklin’s lengthy Reasons for Judgment (see Appendix B), he makes no reference to the taped confession in his determination of Hennessey’s and Cheeseman’s sentences.

  As the day for sentencing drew near, there was a lot of commentary and speculation in the media about the penalty the boys deserved and the prison terms they would receive.

  Barry Hennessey clearly was anxious about the boys’ sentences too, and decided to have his say.

  The day before the sentencing, in an interview with QR77’s Dave Rutherford, Barry argued that as far as he was concerned the whole situation is unfair. “I don’t think it’s quite fair that nobody knows the real story. Tomorrow, the boys are being sentenced and all this [commentary] is coming out on the radio. I truly believe that this is a misfit of justice.”

  Barry claimed that the boys pled guilty to manslaughter because they feared spending the rest of their lives in prison for murder. “They pled guilty because they were told that if they didn’t, they’d spend the rest of their living days in jail. They were fearmongered into it.”

  On Friday, January 30, Judge Macklin delivered his decision to a huge gallery that was packed in the courtroom with people standing in some of the aisles.

  After making lengthy preliminary remarks and reading from his written document that detailed his reasons for judgment, he sentenced Shawn Hennessey to fifteen years in prison, and Dennis Cheeseman to twelve years. Macklin indicated their time would be reduced by approximately five years because of their time served and because the two had pled guilty instead of opting for trial.

  He verbally chastised the two offenders, saying: “They let themselves down and their families.

  “They let down four RCMP constables who put their lives at risk.

  “They let down the communities where the officers lived, worked, and served. They let down the country the officers unselfishly agreed to serve and where the offenders are privileged to live under the rule of law.

  “These four men were Canadian heroes and forever
will be remembered as such.”

  Sketch of Dennis Cheeseman and Shawn Hennessey awaiting their sentences, January 30, 2009. (Illustration by Stephen Coffey for the Barrhead Leader)

  In support of his decision, Judge Macklin distributed his twenty-four-page document entitled Reasons for Judgment, in which he

  i) Cited the facts of the case

  ii) Analyzed his reasoning for the sentences

  iii) Listed eleven similar cases and the sentences rendered

  iv) Presented what he termed Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

  v) Commented on the Victim Impact Statements

  vi) Demonstrated the calculation of the sentences

  vii) Commented on the effect of the guilty plea

  viii) Gave credit for time served

  ix) Gave credit for time on bail

  x) Discussed their eligibility for parole

  xi) Offered his conclusions

  Some of his most crucial sentences in the document read as follows:

  •Each of the two accused pled guilty voluntarily.

  •I was not bound by any agreement made between either of the accused and the Crown.

  •It was clear to all present that Roszko was enraged at the police.

  •Both Hennessey and Cheeseman knew that armed confrontation with the police was a real possibility.

  •Cheeseman suggested that they should call the police and warn them about Roszko; however, Hennessey discouraged that idea.

  •The sentences imposed on the two offenders must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

  •Mr. Hennessey and Mr. Cheeseman were parties to Roszko’s murders.

  •Both Mr. Hennessey and Mr. Cheeseman say they were fearful of and intimidated by Roszko, who was known to be volatile. However, there is no evidence of any overt threats to either of them.

  •Mr. Hennessey had to know that Roszko, in his enraged and heavily armed state, was a serious danger to the police officers who were already on his property.

  •There was no good reason not to alert the police to danger.