Triple murder suspect in Sudbury admits to manslaughter, denies murder

A triple murder suspect in Sudbury admits he is guilty of manslaughter, but denies he meant to kill anyone in a fatal arson three years ago.

Liam Stinson is also charged with arson causing bodily harm, another charge he admits. The Crown and defence made their closing arguments Wednesday in Sudbury court after a trial that has lasted more than six weeks.

Jamie-Lynn Rose, Jasmine Somers and Guy Henri died following a fire at a townhouse on Bruce Avenue on April 11, 2021. One other person, David Cheff, was seriously injured.

Crown prosecutors had previously said they plan to prove that Stinson offered drugs to get two men to agree to firebomb the townhouse. It belonged to Cheff, who had been helping Stinson’s estranged girlfriend, Jamie-Lynn Rose.

Two men admitted to setting the fire using Molotov cocktails fashioned from empty Gatorade bottles. Both testified that Stinson agreed to give them fentanyl in exchange for setting the fire.

In her closing remarks, assistant Crown attorney Kaely Whillans said the evidence showed Stinson planned the fire, knew the victims would be home, high on drugs and asleep.

Considering the fire started at 4:40 a.m., Whillans said Stinson knew they would have no way of escaping.

“The residents were as vulnerable to fire as anyone could be,” she said.

They were high and cut off from the exits and Stinson “knew all of these things.”

Describing it as a “planned and deliberate murder,” Whillans said he wanted the victims severely injured or dead.

Text messages show Stinson was upset that Rose had ended their “toxic” relationship, she said. She had tried several times to leave in the previous months, but was manipulated by Stinson to return, Whillans said.

Three people died in the April 11, 2021, arson: Jasmine Marie-Claire Somers, left, Jamie-Lynn Lori-Lee Rose and Guy Armand Henri. (File)

Rose had finally left for good and moved into Cheff’s place, something that Stinson couldn’t stand. She had stolen drugs from Stinson, wouldn’t respond to his messages and was staying at another man’s residence.

So he tricked the two men into thinking nobody would be home and offered them drugs if they threw Molotov cocktails inside late at night.

Why would he use two Molotov cocktails if he just wanted to send a message? Whillans asked.

“It was meant to burn down a house, knowing there would people inside.”

“He is responsible for the death and bodily harm the residents suffered as a result,” Whillans added.

“You are to decide what he wanted to occur ... I suggest to you there is nothing else he could have wanted but their deaths.”

In his remarks, defence lawyer Joseph Wilkinson said the evidence shows his client is guilty of manslaughter – but not first- or second-degree murder.

“Just because he lived a lifestyle you may deplore, you must not reason that he is less worthy of protection from the law,” Wilkinson said.

Make a decision without bias

“You must judge the evidence in this case without bias.”

He laid out several reasons to acquit Stinson on murder charges. First, he said Stinson had no motive. While they had a bad relationship, Rose and Stinson exchanged texts not long before the fire that showed no animosity.

“Mr. Stinson had no reason to want (the victims) dead,” Wilkinson said, adding he didn’t even know one of them.

And there’s evidence that Rose willingly returned to Stinson’s place many times “completely voluntarily.”

While she had stolen drugs from him, it was not the first time and there was no evidence Stinson was particularly angry.

“The communications do not suggest Mr. Stinson was upset about the gram (of drugs).” He said.

'Makes no sense'

“The Crown’s theory makes no sense.”

He also argued that Stinson was so intoxicated that night, he couldn’t form the intent to kill anyone. He had been smoking crack cocaine and drinking all evening.

“Evidence of intoxication should raise serious doubt,” Wilkinson said.

He also argued that Stinson thought no one was home, because Rose had talked about going to Timmins. Stinson even offered to pay for her ticket in one text exchange. And Cheff had told him he was going to Timmins that weekend to see his kids – plans he later cancelled.

A more likely scenario, Wilkinson said, was that Stinson was wasted and asked the two men to set the fire without contemplating the consequences or having a motive, Wilkinson said.

• Download our app to get local alerts on your device
• Get the latest local updates right to your inbox

“Mr. Stinson made a stupid mistake” but did not intend to kill anyone, he said.

“You should find Mr. Stinson not guilty (of murder).”

The jury will receive their instructions from the judge Thursday morning before beginning deliberations on a verdict.