Closing arguments complete at trial of man charged in connection with plotting fatal fire at Sudbury townhouse

Closing arguments in a high profile murder trial in Sudbury are complete with the lawyer for the accused, Liam Stinson, 27, contending the jury has the evidence to find his client guilty of three counts of manslaughter and one count of arson causing bodily harm, but not first or second-degree murder.

Joseph Wilkinson asked the jurors to set aside their potential disdain for Stinson as a drug dealer and their sadness over the senseless deaths of Jamie-Lynn Rose, Guy (Popkorn) Henri and Jasmine Somers, and to use their reason and logic in delivering a manslaughter verdict.

The three residents of a Bruce Avenue townhouse died in a deliberately set fire the morning of April 11, 2021.

A fourth man, David Cheff, was seriously injured when he jumped from a second storey window to escape the flames.

"You may not like Liam Stinson." said Wilkinson. "He dealt in fentanyl which is a scourge of our communities, and he treated Jamie poorly during their on-and-off-again relationship, but don't let understandable human reactions influence you."

Wilkinson said Stinson concedes he encouraged two customers of his who were drug addicts to set the fire, and that he was party to the unlawful act that caused the three deaths.

But Wilkinson argued that the Crown has not proven that Stinson intended to kill or intended to cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause death.

The lawyer outlined five points that he argued proves Stinson can't be found guilty of the three counts of first-degree murder he is facing.

Defence argues Stinson had no animosity towards those killed in fire

Wilkinson said the prosecutors did not provide sufficient evidence of a motive, and noted Stinson was intoxicated by crack and alcohol and unable to form a clear intention or understand the consequences of his actions.

He went on to say the evidence shows Stinson didn't believe anyone was home at the townhouse the night of the fire, that his arrangement with the two men who set the fire was not to hurt or kill anyone, and that his actions after the fire show he did not intend to harm anyone.

Much of the defence theory is in stark contrast to the Crown's case.

As for motive, assistant crown attorney Kaely Whillans depicted a stormy relationship in which Rose left Stinson several times and even stole drugs from him, but that he would constantly manipulate her to return to him, except in the week before the fire was set.

"The history of this fire began 10 months prior, at the beginning of the relationship between Liam Stinson and Jamie-Lynn Rose," said assistant crown Kaely Whillans. "Months of pent-up hostility and frustration underpinned the plan."

She argued Stinson saw an opportunity to manipulate two drug addicts to set fire to the Cheff townhouse where Rose was living, without getting his own hands dirty.

Prosecutor depicts Stinson as manipulator

Defence lawyer,Wilkinson said that discordance in the relationship between Jamie-Lynn Rose and Stinson was typical and there was no evidence Stinson was controlling or had any reason to wish her dead.

He discounted a text that Rose's mother testified she saw in which Stinson threatened to kill Rose if she didn't return to his Sudbury apartment, as outdated, and used by Rose as an excuse not to return home to Timmins.

Wilkinson says there's no reason Stinson would want to harm Rose and certainly had no animosity towards David Cheff and Guy Henri, fellow drug dealers who would help each other fill customers' orders.

Prosecutors referred to evidence from security cameras at a convenience store and a hotel that Stinson and his friends visited while the fire was burning to counter that argument.

Whillans described Stinson as moving in a surefooted manner, calmly and in control, through the aisles of the store.

Later, he's shown at the hotel, joking and flirtatiously pushing a woman he met there

"I suggest what you see is someone in complete presence of mind," she said. "Not someone who is panicking, paranoid or has no idea what they are doing."

"I suggest what you see is someone in complete presence of mind"​​​​​- Assistant crown attorney Kaely Whillans

Both sides used evidence about texts and communications between Rose and Stinson and Henri to support different arguments.

Wilkinson says they support the theory that Stinson didn't think anyone was at the townhouse that night, interpreting a lack of response to mean the residents had gone out or left town.

Prosecutors say the texts put the residents in the townhouse hours before fire.

But Wilkinson told the jury that Stinson had no arrangement with anyone to hurt or kill anyone else, and that evidence suggests Stinson made a stupid mistake while he was intoxicated and did not turn his mind to the serious consequences of asking two people to set the fire.

Prosecutor Whillans asked the jury to consider what Stinson intended to happen.

She said Stinson instructed two Molotov cocktails be sent to help set the fire.

Stinson's post-fire behaviour examined

"You can ask yourself why there was a need for two when all you were doing was trying to send a message," she said. "What else could he possibly have meant?"

As for Stinson's behaviour after the fire, Whillans said evidence shows Stinson used his phone to search "Sudbury" and "Sudbury fire" obsessively but doesn't text Rose or Henri to see if they are safe despite knowing a fire had occurred.

At 10:35 am, he sees the first media report about multiple fatalities in the fire.

Wilkinson said that Stinson wouldn't have persistently searched for information if he expected that people had been hurt or killed.

Wilkinson pointed out that Stinson told his former partner the next day that he had done something stupid while he was drunk and high and was trying to contact Rose at the hospital.

He said Stinson was clearly regretful about the outcome of the fire.

Justice Dan Cornell will instruct the jury Thursday morning on many of the complicated legal points of this case.

He told them they would then be sequestered until they determine their verdict.