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.
Tom Tweedie, a retired physician living in Ancaster, Ontario, had this to say:
“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.
“In hindsight Hennessey said he should have tackled the man and subdued him.
“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 cooperation and bonding. No. They did it out of fear.
“The police told them plead guilty and we’ll take it easy on you.”
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.”
In Dunn’s opinion, “Very little came from the police.”
Andy Garlatti, a retired accountant with Chrysler Canada commented: “Fifteen years is a bit much.
“Why didn’t they make a better effort to present the prosecution’s case?
“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.
And that is a reasonable approach.
The issue remains: Was the judicial process fair or unfair?
That is the burning question.
11 | In Memoriam
DURING THE WEEK OF THE FOUR funerals and the National Memorial Service in Edmonton in March 2005, Margaret Thibault spent time on the chartered funeral buses
and at home thinking about what could be done to honour the four slain police officers.
As the Coordinator of Victims’ Services for the areas of Mayerthorpe and Whitecourt, she had maintained an office in the Mayerthorpe Detachment. Although her job was to assist and support victims and witnesses of crime, Margaret was in daily contact with the RCMP in one detachment or the other. Over the years she had come to know all the members in both places and was a close friend to many of them — including some of those who died … and their families. And during the investigation after the murders, she proved to be a tower of strength for all the members working out of Mayerthorpe.
Corporal Wayne Oakes says, “She was tremendously helpful. She’s an absolutely wonderful woman.”
Margaret was well aware that the pain and grief in the two communities was almost unbearable. Residents of both towns deeply mourned the loss of the four good young men who had been their neighbours and their friends.
Many Mayerthorpe residents were also concerned that the name of their community would forever be tied to one of the worst mass murders ever to occur in Canada.
Margaret says, “I knew we had to take that heavy grief and turn it into something positive.”
She began sharing her thoughts with several members of the community.
One of them was Jurgen Preugschas, a local farmer who was very active in the Mayerthorpe Kinsmen and other community projects. More than just a farmer, Jurgen was an entrepreneur who owned and ran an enormous pork operation on his 3,000-acre spread southwest of town. Annually, he and his son Niko marketed some 20,000 hogs on three different farm lots. They leased one-third of their acreage for custom grazing and cropped the remaining land in barley, wheat, and canola.
Jurgen was a former chairman of Alberta Pork and in 2008 went on to become president of the Canadian Pork Council. In this position, he retains an office in Ottawa and travels around the world representing Canadian interests in his specialized field.
“I knew most of the members in the Mayerthorpe Detachment … and I was friends with a couple of the boys who were killed. It was an awful thing that happened.
“Margaret and I are good friends. We got together shortly after the tragedy occurred and talked about doing something to honour these four members.”
Margaret recalls, “At first we had no real vision … we hadn’t sorted out our thoughts. But I knew we had to take that heavy grief in the community and make something positive out of a very negative situation.
“Our little town had been thrust on centre stage for all the wrong reasons of a horrible tragedy. But that’s not who we are, and I didn’t want us to be remembered for that.”
Another person that Margaret contacted was Colette McKillop, a very active member of the Mayerthorpe community who owned and operated Grigg Insurance, a family business that had been handed down to her through three generations since 1947.
Colette and Charlotte Arthur were the two residents who made up the red and white ribbons that were distributed around town immediately after the tragedy had taken place.
Margaret Thibault says, “People from all over were sending money in cards and letters … to the town office, to the detachment office, to ‘K’ Division Headquarters in Edmonton. Many of them were addressed only to ‘The Town of Mayerthorpe.’ Most of the envelopes contained either five or ten dollars. But lots of people sent more than that. A few contained cheques for one thousand dollars or more.
“The cards and letters came from all across Canada … from every province, the north, the Northwest Territories, the United States, England, Ireland, Scotland. I distinctly recall one letter coming from Sweden. They came from people in all walks of life … including children.
“The money in those envelopes specifically addressed to the families of the four was given to ‘K’ Division for the family fund. Other non-specific or general donations were banked in a special account under the Victims’ Services umbrella.”
Colette recalls, “People were driving into town off the highway wanting to donate to a fund. It was as if they were expecting us to do something special.”
After some preliminary discussions with Jurgen and Colette, Margaret decided to call a meeting. She issued invitations to those two, and to Jim Martin and Joe Sangster of the RCMP, delegates from local businesses, plus government representatives from Mayerthorpe and area, Lac Ste. Anne County, the province of Alberta, and the government of Canada.
In total, she asked fourteen people to attend.
The first meeting was held on April 1, 2005, in the back meeting room of Shorty’s Restaurant just off “Main Street” in Mayerthorpe.
“We did a lot of brainstorming … the objective was to determine how could we best remember those who died,” Colette recalls.
Margaret says, “We discussed what we could do … what we should do to remember the boys properly. We wanted to find something that would address their honour and their bravery … something beyond the horror of the tragedy we had witnessed. We wanted to erase the horror, the dark side of the episode, and the sad memory of the event.
“In the give-and-take of that meeting, I saw the best qualities of people come out. There was such goodness in those around the table. Their motivation was very clear. You could see they were thinking: ‘Four wonderful young men are dead. We can’t let that be the end of it.’
“They all wanted to take steps to keep their memory … their goodness alive in a positive way … and always with dignity.”
Colette agrees. “Sometimes when you get people together, their egos can get in the way and they become difficult. But there was none of that in our meeting. They were all totally unselfish and cooperative. It was absolutely a dream working with all of them. And it was wonderful to be a part of it.”
Margaret makes it clear: “We also wanted to protect the good name of our community. We said from the start we would not be defined nor defeated by the shootings.”
When the meeting ended, everyone went away to think about the best way to achieve this goal. The next meeting was scheduled for May 6.
The first order of business at this gathering was to elect an executive. The positions were filled as follows:
President – Margaret Thibault
Vice-President – Constable Joe Sangster
Secretary – Colette McKillop
Treasurer – Charlotte Arthur and Hendrickson Black Accounting
The assembly adopted an official name for their group: The Fallen Four Memorial Society.
Then a discussion ensued in which members of the Society put forth their suggestions for ways to remember the fallen four.
Some liked the idea of a perennial garden, others wanted to plant four trees in a designated area, someone suggested they commission individual busts of the fallen four to be displayed in a building close to the detachment office.
It was soon decided that whatever the society did, they wanted the commemoration to stand alone. They didn’t want it housed in an arena or in a new swimming pool, or at the town hall, or even in the RCMP detachment building. The focus was to be on the fallen four alone.
And the committee wanted the commemoration to be in an open area that was accessible to everyone. They didn’t want it tucked away in a location that was difficult to find or a site to which it would be awkward to gain entry.
Prior to the fourth meeting, Margaret’s son Tony, who is an artist, conceived the idea of a park. He drew a design that showed a circular area with four statues of Mounties standing around the circumference of the circle in various poses. The four different poses represented the individuality each fallen officer had in life.
Margaret Thibault, Sgt. Jim Martin, and Colette McKillop in the Fallen Four Memorial office at Mayerthorpe, May 2009. (The Fallen Four Memorial Society)
Margaret liked his concept. With more discussion, they came up with the idea of having one more statue in the middle of the circle to honour all the police officers across the country who have died in the line of du
ty.
She brought Tony’s drawing to the next meeting.
The group liked the idea of having bronze statues raised in a public park to honour the fallen four.
“We loved the idea right away,” says Colette. “We knew right away it was perfect. It was a place everybody could use and appreciate … not only members of our community but people from outside, too. It would be a positive place for people to come and visit.
“We had received so many gifts and cards and letters. They showed us that it wasn’t just our little town that was suffering. All those items we received were symbolic of how Canadians felt about the RCMP and were sent to demonstrate they were sharing in our grief. With these statues, people could come and see what their thoughtfulness had created.
“They all could share in the park.”
Jurgen Preugschas, whose business travels had taken him around the world, was very much in support of raising the statues. “In various countries, I had seen statues of people erected to commemorate unfortunate circumstances.
“I felt in our small town the RCMP were important and I wanted to show our respect by honouring them for what they gave our country and our community.
“One hundred years from now, people can come and see what these four men did … and remember their sacrifice.
“As the years go by, their deaths will not have been in vain.”
So the basic idea was immediately accepted. After that, the concept needed to be refined and detailed, and an appropriate property needed to be acquired for the park. The committee looked at several locations, but none of them were deemed to be entirely satisfactory.
Finally, Jurgen, who had let it be known that the society was looking for a property, was approached by his friend Gil Greenwood, who owned a couple of empty commercial lots around town. One of them, a six-acre parcel, was adjacent to the RCMP detachment office. Greenwood agreed to sell the land to the society for a modest price, and the purchase was made in July 2005.
The Mayerthorpe Story Page 22
