Furthermore, even in the woeful saga of Mayerthorpe, there are some positive residual features. The creation of the Mayerthorpe Memorial Park is a wonderful, uplifting residuum of the tragedy.
Mayerthorpe’s present mayor, Doug McDermid, says, “The day we dedicated the park for the Fallen Four … the day when Prime Minister Harper spoke to us of our courage and determination was a turning point. From that day on, we stopped looking back and started to look forward.”
The park is truly place of honour where people from around the world can come to reflect on the sacrifice of the four slain Mounties.
Constable Steve Vigor’s bravery under fire is also worthy of the high honour he received. On February 29, 2008, he was summoned to Rideau Hall in Ottawa to meet Governor General Michaelle Jean who presented him with the Medal of Bravery, a tribute that is Canada’s third highest recognition for courage.
The substance of Vigor’s citation reads: “While another officer took cover in his car to call for assistance, Constable Vigor returned fire, hitting the suspect and forcing his retreat back into the Quonset. He maintained on watch until the arrival of backup. Tragically, four other RCMP officers had been ambushed and killed by the suspect, who later took his own life.”
As the Governor General awarded Vigor his medal, she quietly said to him, “Congratulations. You deserve this. It was a wonderful act of bravery.”
Steve says, “That was a very emotional moment for me … one that I will never forget. I’m just sorry that Garret Hoogestraat didn’t receive one, too. He deserves it. He protected me with our vehicle and while he was doing that, he could have easily been shot and killed by Roszko.”
From the Hennessey side of the ledger, it must be noted that Barry Hennessey’s constant love and concern for his son is an example of a father’s undying devotion to his child. He says he will not rest until his son is granted a trial. And it is through his resolute striving that he has found two high-profile lawyers who are willing to appeal Shawn’s and Dennis Cheeseman’s guilty pleas.
The bar for a successful appeal of a guilty plea is high. One of the few ways it can be overturned is to prove that these two men did not completely understand the essence and import of their guilty plea. And even if the guilty pleas are successfully appealed, Shawn and Dennis will face a trial where the evidence seems to be heavily weighted against them.
But Barry Hennessey is prepared and willing to attack one obstacle at a time. First he wants to have the lawyers deal with the pleas. If that is successful, he then will pursue their going to trial. No matter the odds against these two difficult endeavours, Barry says he and his wife, Sandy, will not give up.
Against all odds, it was Barry who managed to get his son and Dennis transferred from their original penitentiary placements. After the two men were sentenced, Correctional Services Canada (CSC) sent Shawn to the Saskatchewan Federal Penitentiary west of Prince Albert and Dennis to Stony Mountain in Manitoba.
Barry claimed their placement was a case of pure vindictiveness and persecution. He complained that it would be extremely difficult for those who loved Shawn to visit him. The long drive to Prince Albert and back would be extremely difficult, especially for Shawn’s wife and children. And for those who wanted to see Dennis, the drive to Stony Mountain north of Winnipeg would be almost impossible.
Both Shawn Hennessey and Dennis Cheeseman wrote letters to CSC appealing their “pen” placements.
Portions of Shawn’s letter read as follows:
My name is Shawn Hennessey. I am writing this letter because I am in strong disagreement with being pen placed out of province. To be sent out of province will make it extremely difficult for contact with my family. I am 29 years old, married with 2 small children. My wife will have to travel quite some distance for a visit witch [sic] will mean pulling the children from school to bring them along so they can see their father.
. I have spent 10 months in custody between the Edmonton and Red Deer Remand centers. I have been in no trouble whatsoever.
. I am in the process of appealing my sentence and not being in Alberta will complicate things. I will have limited access to my legal counsil [sic].
. The decision made to send us out of province may un-necessarily [sic] expose me to negative associations that may also hinder my rehabilitation. This appears to be unusual and by far unnecessary punishment that will violate CSC policy and your routine procedure for pen placement by housing us so far away from all of our support.
Mr. Cheeseman and myself have been cell mates while in custody in the Edmonton Remand Center. We have been a great source of support for one another and to split us up and send us to different penitentiaries will illuminate [sic] any further support we will be able to give each other.
I hope you reconsider your decision to send us out of province and consider Grand Casch [sic] or Bowden Institute for they are much closer.
Thank you.
Parts of Dennis Cheesman’s letter are presented below.
My name is Dennis Cheeseman … I’ve been in the Edmonton Remand Center for about 11 months now with no problems whatsoever. I am waiting to be shipped out now and hoping to be rehabilitated properly and fairly.
. My family, friends, legal council [sic] all support, even my appeal will be in Alberta. I have no criminal record besides this, as I’m not a repeating offender.
. Being out on bail, there was no problems. I stayed employed, followed all the conditions and rules. My probation officer had nothing bad to say about me. I’m wanting to work, take courses, finish my school, etc. So I thought that by sending me to Grand Cache or Bowden was a good start. But I’ve been told that might not be the case, that I could be going to out of province to Stoney [sic] Mountain. This means a number of things. I’m appealing and it will be difficult traveling back and fourth [sic]. I will have no visits at all. 0 [zero] - no family there, no legal council [sic] no community support at all. I know I will not handle Stoney Mountain very well, mentally, emotional, physically.
. You are uneccessarily [sic] exposing me to a lot of bad associations in a place that has a bad reputation for violence and gangs.
. If you send us out of province, then it’s not right and it violates CSC policy and routine procedures for placement.
. Please reconsider this decision for you need to take proper steps when dealing with our lives to get rehabilitated. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Their parole officer, Jay West, who had assessed Shawn and Dennis, agreed with their requests and supported them. West wrote a letter to CSC that spoke against their placements. He argued that because the two were first-time offenders who appeared to be naïve, they would be susceptible to the wiles of more hardened criminals in these prisons. West indicated that he had recommended the two men be kept together in a lower security prison in Alberta.
Barry Hennessey got involved, too. He called CSC in Ottawa and told the secretary who answered the phone that he wanted to speak to someone at the “top of the ladder … somebody who makes the decisions.”
She referred Barry to Paul Urmson, who was in charge of CSC’s Western region.
Barry sent Urmson an e-mail complaining that CSC was violating their own placement policies to persecute Shawn and Dennis. Barry argued, “These boys need support from their communities and family’s [sic] more than ever now. Please send them back to Alberta for the remainder of their assessments before they lose their mental states.”
Elsewhere in the e-mail he stated: “If everything is done according to CSC’s policies, this should be no issue.”
Two days after Barry’s phone call, Urmson phoned Barry and told him he had received his letter. According to Barry, Urmson said, “I’ve made the decision to reverse their placement decision back to Alberta where they belong.”
When Barry heard that, he began to cry. He thanked Urmson and told him, “I don’t know what to say — I’m so happy.”
Barry told the author, “I’ll never forget that day as l
ong as I live.”
After that, Shawn phoned his father from the Prince Albert penitentiary and said, “Dad, what did you do? You pulled it off! I’m going to Grand Cache.”
Four days later, Shawn was transferred to the penitentiary at Grand Cache, west of Edmonton near the B.C. border. Dennis was sent to Drumheller, south and east of Red Deer. So it appears that the boys’ letters and Barry’s persistence and determination had paid off.
On June 19, 2009, David Staples wrote a story in the Edmonton Journal revealing that Dennis Cheeseman may have been sexually molested by James Roszko at a time prior to the Mountie murders. Such an accusation was contained in a letter that Barry Hennessey wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Barry Hennessey had told me about this sexual exploitation during one of my earlier interviews with him but, in deference to Dennis Cheeseman’s feelings, he did not want me to include the information in this book.
Apparently, he has now changed his mind about going public with it. Barry seems to think this revelation will have a significant impact with regard to Dennis’s and Shawn’s possible future trial.
Neither the Prime Minister’s Office nor Alberta Justice Minister Alison Redford would comment on Barry’s latest revelation, because the two men’s criminal appeals are now being considered by the court.
Kelly Johnston doesn’t think this new information should change anything at all. David Staples quotes her as saying that her heart goes out to Cheeseman if he was in fact sexually assaulted by Roszko, but she feels that Cheeseman and Hennessey are still criminally responsible for assisting in the mass murder.
“They are victims of their own poor judgment … I understand they were afraid, even terrified, but all it takes is you go and you tell the police your story.
“I don’t have sympathy for anybody, or for anybody’s reasoning and fear, that prevented them from saving my husband when it was so simple to do … Roszko might have pulled the trigger, but they enabled him … the blood is on their hands.”
Whether or not Barry Hennessey’s new information will prove to be significant or even relevent remains to be determined.
The only element of government business that remains in the Mayerthorpe story is a mandatory provincial fatality inquest. That can only take place after all the appeals (and the possible subsequent trial) are completed.
As a conclusion to this book, I must add that the tragedy at Mayerthorpe has focused on a problem that continues to linger across Canada: There are violent, lawless, antisocial people like James Roszko who present a menace in many communities across the country. But these angry misfits seldom do enough to be imprisoned and even when they are jailed, they don’t stay there very long. Within weeks or months, they return to their communities more abusive and perverted than they were before they were sent away.
After researching and writing about James Roszko, it seems to me that our country needs a special designation for people like him who do not qualify for “dangerous offender” status. I believe we need another classification for repeat criminals like him — a status that might be termed “serious offender.”
Under this designation, our police would be granted an open-ended warrant that would allow them, for a stipulated but extended period of time, to search a serious offender’s property without warning. And any violations of the law detected by these warrants would lead a serious offender to lengthy terms of incarceration.
Just think what this might have meant in Roszko’s case. The police might have found his assault rifle that killed the four police officers. The authorities certainly would have discovered his marijuana grow-op and his chop shop.
As a serious offender, these operations would have kept him off the streets for a long time. And when he did get out, he’d continue to be classified as a serious offender and thereby subject to further searches and a step closer to being designated a “dangerous offender.”
Then again, such a draconian measure as I have suggested would have to pass the challenge of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would also have to withstand an onslaught of legal challenges from our civil libertarians, most of whom do not have to live among the likes of repeat criminals like James Roszko.
Be that as it may, we have now come to the end of this narrative of the “Mayerthorpe” story. There may be still more to come, but as it now stands, it is surely one of the most violent, lengthy, and complex tales of crime and punishment in the annals of Canadian history.
13 | Addendum
IN SEPTEMBER 2010, a three-judge panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the twelve-year sentence for Shawn Hennessey and denied him leave to appeal his sentence to the Supreme Court of Canada.
This same panel, in a two-to-one split decision, also upheld the nine-year sentence for Dennis Cheeseman. However, he was given leave to appeal his sentence to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Justice Jean Cote, writing for the majority of the panel, commented: “Apart from treason in wartime, killing police officers is probably the most serious crime in Canada.”
He added, “Four peace officers were ambushed and deliberately slain in cold blood with a firearm. It is the worst such crime in Canada’s long history.”
In essence, Justice Cote agreed with the original sentencing judge who had ruled that, although Hennessey and Cheeseman were not present at the murders and did not concoct a plan to kill the police, they were found to be parties to Roszko’s crimes.
The original judge had asserted that their actions in giving Roszko a rifle and ammunition and a ride back to his farm were particularly aggravating factors — especially since they knew that the police were at Roszko’s farm, and Roszko had ranted and threatened to get even with the police while they were driving him home.
The judge also had faulted both Hennessey and Cheeseman for their failure to call the authorities and warn them about the danger of a potential slaughter of police at Roszko’s farm.
Although the length of the two men’s sentences were upheld by the appeal tribunal, it’s worthy to note that, because of Canada’s parole regulations, Dennis Cheeseman is eligible for full parole in June 2011. Shawn Hennessey is eligible in 2012.
In January and February of 2011, a mandatory Alberta fatality inquiry was convened in the courthouse at Stony Plain to examine the pertinent aspects of the Mayerthorpe police murders. No significant information was introduced at this inquiry that is at variance with the facts reported in this book.
APPENDIX A
Agreed Statement of Facts
Docket No. 070845441Q1
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON
Between:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
SHAWN WILLIAM HENNESSEY and DENNIS KEEGAN CHEESEMAN
Accused
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.On March 2, 2005 bailiff, Rob PERRY (“PERRY”), set out to execute a warrant authorizing the seizure on behalf of Kentwood Ford of a 2005 Ford F350 Super duty pickup truck, white in colour, Vehicle Identification Number 1FTWW31P55EA94067.
2.Based on information he received regarding the person identified in the warrant, James Michael ROSZKO (“ROSZKO”), PERRY decided to bring a partner, Mark HNATIW (“HNATIW”), along.
3.On March 2, 2005 at approximately 3:00 p.m., PERRY and HNATIW arrived at N.E. 18 – 58 – 7 W5th meridian, County of Lac St. Anne, near MAYERTHORPE, Alberta. This property is one of three quarter-sections owned by Warren and Stephanie FIFIELD. ROSZKO, Stephanie FIFIELD’s son, occupied a mobile home on this property.
4.The bailiffs observed a man standing outside of the man-door of a Quonset hut located on the property. Based on the photographs of ROSZKO seen later, the bailiffs believe this individual was ROSZKO. As they did not immediately see the vehicle in question, they proceeded to drive past the entrance to the property to get a more complete view of the property.
5.The bailiffs performed a U-turn and returned to the
driveway of the property. They observed a locked steel gate across the entrance to the property, a second gate and chain-link fence further up the driveway, as well as a metal Quonset and a mobile home on the property. They saw a new white Ford truck parked near the trailer that they suspected was the vehicle they were there to seize.
6.As they returned, they observed ROSZKO enter the Quonset through the pedestrian door and close it. The bailiffs honked their horn to get ROSZKO’s attention. Shortly thereafter two large dogs, one believed to be a Rottweiler, appeared from the opposite end of the Quonset and ran toward them barking and growling.
7.The bailiffs decided to call the Mayerthorpe Detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) for assistance. They spoke with Corporal Jim MARTIN (“Cpl. MARTIN), who advised them not to enter the property until the RCMP arrived.
8.Prior to the arrival of the police, the white pick up truck parked near the trailer was started and initially was driven towards the bailiffs at the gate, however, it veered off and travelled south across country. Both bailiffs observed the vehicle to stop at one point. ROSZKO disembarked from the truck and appeared to be opening a gate, drove forward, disembarked on further time to close the gate and appeared to be digging in the snow. He then drove across the field and out of sight.
9.The bailiffs suspected that the departed truck was the one that they were there to seize.
10.PERRY directed HNATIW to contact the Mayerthorpe RCMP to advise that the suspect vehicle was being driven off of the property.
11.The police investigation would subsequently determine that the truck ROSZKO departed in was the subject of the civil enforcement order.
12.At approximately 3:40 p.m., Cpl, MARTIN and Constable Peter SCHIEMANN (“Cst. SCHIEMANN”) arrived at the ROSZKO property. After speaking with the bailiffs, they departed to search the surrounding roads for ROSZKO and the white pickup truck. Constable Julie LETAL (“Cst. LETAL”) arrived and assisted the bailiffs in getting through the first locked gate.
The Mayerthorpe Story Page 25