In their presentations to the Court last month at the Cheeseman-Hennessey plea hearings, the Crown and the defense offered vastly differing interpretations of the Agreed Statement of Facts and the men’s role in aiding Roszko and the subsequent murders of four RCMP officers. These two excerpts, from the plea hearings on January 19 and 20, offer a glimpse into just how far apart the two sides were.

Excerpt from Provincial Crown D.A. Labrenz submission at the guilty plea hearing of Hennessey and Cheeseman, Edmonton January 19, 2009:

"…I’ll make the point directly and succinctly. James Roszko was only able to murder these four RCMP constables as a direct result of the aid provided by Shawn William Hennessey and Dennis Keegan Cheeseman. In its simplest terms, their combined actions in providing the Hennessey firearm to Roszko and subsequently transporting Roszko to the property where the ambush and murders would later take place is what enabled Roszko to commit this crime. James Roszko would never have committed these murders without the help of these two accused.
It can be fairly stated that Hennessey and Cheeseman made it possible for Roszko to repeatedly pull the trigger of that semi-automatic H&K. In that real sense the two accused might as well have been inside the Quonset pulling that trigger themselves.

"Mr. Hennessey and Mr. Cheeseman will have to live for the rest of their lives knowing that four valued members of society and four valued members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would be alive today, but for their effective combined assistance…"

Excerpt from Hennessey lawyer Darcy Depoe submission at the guilty plea hearing January 20, 2009:

"…Roszko arrived at the Hennnessey residence that night late in the evening uninvited. He is obviously angry and agitated. He is in possession of a loaded handgun. He had that gun in his hand at one point. He was there for the purpose of demanding a rifle from Hennessey and ammunition. He knew Hennessey had the rifle. Hennessey obviously is frightened and intimidated. At that point he didn’t feel like there was an option. He gave him the rifle and the ammunition.

"Look at the context. This is a rural residence; it’s the middle of the night. Mr. Hennessey is there with his wife and children. They had moved to another part of the house. He is faced with a man like Roszko behaving the way he was demanding a weapon.

"Now, Mr. Labrenz yesterday fairly concedes that there are elements of duress here. Duress requires that there be a threat. Certainly, there is at least an implied threat when someone is demanding something from you while armed with a weapon. There is an ‘or else’ that doesn’t need to be said. There is a reasonable basis for Mr. Hennessey to believe that that threat might be carried out…"