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.”
And he does ask several reasonable questions.
“Why would you give a guy who’s going to kill a policeman a gun registered in your grandfather’s name?”
“Why did Roszko get two hicks to drive him if he was going to kill cops?”
“Why would he tell Shawn and Dennis what he was going to do?”
Barry claims, “It makes no sense.”
His biggest complaint is that no one has heard Shawn’s side of the story — other than the police, of course.
So the author asked him to tell Shawn’s side of the story.
This is what he said:
1.The boys never knew Roszko was going to kill any cops.
2.Rozko was withdrawn and silent in the car and Dennis never heard him say anything.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.
4.They dropped Roszko off one hundred yards from his mother’s driveway.
5.When Roszko got out of Shawn’s car, he pulled socks over his boots.
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.
And the story about burning down the Quonset hut makes no sense.
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.
Beyond Shawn’s story, there are other glaring questions.
Why didn’t they call the police that morning?
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.”
Why didn’t Shawn co-operate with the RCMP during their investigation?
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.”
D’Arcy Depoe at a speaking engagement, Jasper, Alberta, February 2009.
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 R
oszko 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.
“I could not reason with him or explain anything to him.”
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.
“I did recommend a sentence appeal.”
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.”
He claims that to impress Mr. Big, they will say things that are not true.
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 lett
er 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.
The Mayerthorpe Story Page 21