Over the last two days in the Sudbury Superior Court trial of Liam Stinson, accused of arson and first-degree murder, the jury has heard from two witnesses: one, Darren McNamara, who faced cross-examination examination April 2, and another, who took the stand April 3.
And that’s about all Sudbury.com can publish about the latter, as the majority of the second witness's testimony can’t be made public until after the trial, by request of the Crown and by order of Superior Court Justice R. Dan Cornell.
A publication ban was put in place under court order on March 19 and not only covers the witnesses name, but any testimony details that might identify them.
The ban also covers two other witnesses: one who has yet to testify and one who took the stand March 28.
As for McNamara, he first took the stand on March 28, and continued April 2.
In his first day of testimony, McNamara, 63, told the court that Stinson had a “toxic” and “aggressive” relationship with one of the victims, Jamie-Lynn Rose, and that he witnessed two men leaving Stinson’s home on April 11, 2021, the night of the fatal fire.
McNamara testified that when sirens could be heard within 20 minutes of these men leaving, he left Stinson’s home with Stinson and another man, Junior, ending up at a local hotel.
McNamara testified there were three others at the hotel already. Then two other men arrived, one of whom he knew as “Jeremy,” but repeatedly said that wasn’t quite the right name, and they went to talk to Stinson.
“I heard the taller one say, ‘Where’s my stuff?’ His drugs,” clarified McNamara, and testified Stinson’s response was, “Don’t worry, I will pay you.”
Stinson’s defence attorney, Joseph Wilkinson, spent all of his April 3 cross-examination taking McNamara through transcripts of each police interview he had, pointing out perceived inconsistencies and asking why his testimony at trial had new information omitted in previous interviews.
Specifically, Wilkinson asked why McNamara testified at trial that he knew the two men who came to the hotel, but hadn’t previously mentioned that information to police; Wilkinson also challenged McNamara’s ability to hear the men demand payment.
Wilkinson asked if hearing stories from “the rumour mill” may have colored and changed his remembering of the events, adding details McNamara did not know about the night of the fire.
McNamara was unable to recall specific dates, unsure of the order he gave information to police from one interview to the next, and stated he had difficulty remembering people's names but “always knew faces”, which made it difficult to answer questions requiring him to identify others from memory.
At several points during his testimony, he slumped in his chair, closed his eyes slightly and appeared frustrated at the differences in testimony Wilkinson identified. McNamara often expressed disbelief when Wilkinson pointed to information that was not contained in the preliminary transcripts.
Wilkinson suggested McNamara hadn’t previously mentioned that he knew the men because he was making it up and “never witnessed it.”
“Are you kidding me?” McNamara replied. “I don’t know why that’s not in.”
Superior Court Justice R Dan Cornell asked McNamara which evidence was “adopting,” as his official version of events, what he testified to during the preliminary hearing, or during the trial.
“I’m standing by my trial evidence,” McNamara said.
Court resumed April 4. The witnesses testifying over the next two days are protected by a publication ban that prevents Sudbury.com from reporting their identities or any information that could lead to their identities being determined. As such, coverage of this trial will resume next week.
Jenny Lamothe is a reporter with Sudbury.com.
