Skip to content

Alleged murderer takes stand at Yorkton's Court of Queen Bench

After nearly two weeks of Crown evidence in the trial of Jaycee Mildenberger for the 2009 murder of Gwenda Gregory in Usherville, the accused has taken the stand in his own defence.
Jaycee Mildenberger
Jaycee Mildenberger leaves Yorkton's Court of Queen's Bench during a lunch adjournment June 17.

After nearly two weeks of Crown evidence in the trial of Jaycee Mildenberger for the 2009 murder of Gwenda Gregory in Usherville, the accused has taken the stand in his own defence.

The prosecution rested on Thursday morning following the viewing of a gruelling six-and-a-half hour confession video taken June 8, 2012 at RCMP “F” Division (Saskatchewan) headquarters in Regina.

****

Readers are cautioned that everything that follows has not yet been proven in a court of law. The names and ranks of undercover operatives have been changed pursuant to a publication ban issued to protect their identities. The exceptions are Sgt. Eric Lane and Staff Sgt. Murray Chamberlin, who are not undercover operatives.

The Crown rests

Testifying in court on the content of the video was Sgt. Eric Lane, who conducted most of the post-arrest interview. For the majority of the video, Mildenberger refuses to talk to Lane and another officer who joins later.

Over the course of the interview, Lane slowly reveals the evidence police relied on to make the case imploring Mildenberger to fill in the last piece of the puzzle, why he allegedly did it. He talks about serial killers such as Robert Picton and Clifford Olson saying Mildenberger is not like them, that he owes it to his wife and family to come clean. He repeatedly tells Mildenberger police have enough evidence to convict, they just need to know the motive.

At one point Lane gives Mildenberger a picture of the victim to appeal to his conscience.

Eventually, after seeing a clip of a video previously presented to the jury taken June 5, 2012 at a warehouse in Winnipeg during which an undercover operative posing as a crime boss elicits Mildenberger’s first confession with a promise to fix his predicament, the accused breaks down and gives a confession virtually identical to the first one.

The only difference in the second confession was a detail about a sexual component to the crime.

For the full, alleged details of the crime please see “Mildenberger murder trial begins,” Yorkton This Week, June 10, 2015.

Saskatoon defence attorney Brian Pfefferle’s cross-examination of Lane suggested the direction of the defence to come implying that the officers intimidated Mildenberger into the confession by making him fear for his family.

At no time during the interview did the officers tell the accused that the people he had been working for and hanging around with between November 2011 and June 2012 were undercover cops.

Pfefferle directly asked Lane if the purpose of holding back that information was to intimidate Mildenberger by making him think the supposed gangsters may go after his family. The witness answered no.

Pfefferle also spent some time cross-examining Lane on the issue of implying during the interview that police had physical evidence that does not exist.

Case for the defence

After the Crown rested its case, Pfefferle started attempting to sow the seeds of reasonable doubt with a brief opening statement. The murder of Gwenda Gregory, he said, changed a lot of lives, not the least of which was that of his client.

The defence attorney painted a picture for the jury of a grieving friend and neighbour ultimately ostracized by his community because of unfounded suspicions.

For two years, he said, his client was isolated, friendless, but that all changed in November 2011 when he met an undercover police officer posing as an employee of a merchandise broker.

“Matt,” as he was known to Mildenberger, represented to the accused a chance to feel young again, have real friends, respect, fun and some easy money, Pfefferle said.

There were no catches, the defence attorney continued, except you don’t lie to the boss, another undercover operative going by the name John.

Mildenberger never lied to John, Pfefferle concluded,

On Thursday afternoon, the defence called Jaycee Mildenberger to the stand. Under questioning by defence co-counsel Scott Hopley, the defendant told a story virtually identical to the one presented by the Crown.

For full details of the crime boss operation that led to Mildenberger’s arrest, please see “Crown presents Mr. Big case at Trial,” Yorkton This Week, June 17, 2015.

In Mildenberger’s version, however, the two confessions were lies.

Why did he agree to meet with Mr. Big then, Hopley asked. Mildenberger testified he wanted to know what the police had on him. The undercover team had previously established that John’s uncles had connections who could find these things out.

How then did he know about all the details that he would be able to make up a story that was consistent with the evidence, Hopley asked. Everybody in Usherville knew, Mildenberger testified.

Why would he add details such as punching Gregory in the chest, Hopley asked. One of the neighbours who had been in the house before police arrived had told Mildenberger about a large bruise, he said, he had to make it look believable for Mr. Big.

Why confess at all, Hopley continued. Mildenberger said Mr. Big had made it clear the accused was going to jail whether he did it or not. He wanted Mr. Big’s help so he told the supposed gangster what he wanted to hear.

The big problem for the defence, though, is the alleged murder weapon. How did the defendant know where the knife was?

Mildenberger testified the knife was one he had found a couple of years before Gregory’s murder. He had kept the knife in his snowmobile thinking it might come in handy. It did, Mildenberger said, when he got some cords wrapped up in the treads of the snowmobile and used the knife to cut them loose. That is when he realized it was a poor blade and chucked it into the woods.

What about the other confession, though?

Mildenberger explained that he wasn’t going to say anything until Lane showed him a picture of John and Mr. Big and was told police were talking to them as well.

“I was scared to death something was going to happen to my family,” Mildenberger told the jury.

Hopley concluded by asking a couple of direct questions.

“Did you sexually assault Gwen Gregory,” he asked.

“No,” Mildenberger said.

“Did you kill Gwen Gregory?”

“No.”

Cross

Crown prosecutor Andrew Wyatt spent all day Friday and Monday morning preparing for his cross-examination of Mildenberger by playing for the jury three interviews with Mildenberger from shortly after the murder on March 10, March 17 and July 1, 2009.

In the last one, Staff Sgt. Murray Chamberlin makes Mildenberger go over his story again and again ostensibly digging for any minor details that might move the investigation forward.

Finally, Chamberlin says he has not heard anything that rules Mildenberger out as a suspect, that he needs something conclusive to eliminate him.

He tells the suspect that the investigation suggests and that he has no doubt Mildenberger went to Gregory’s house that night. He says a neighbour could have all kinds of legitimate reasons for going over, from checking in on a friend to having an extramarital affair.

He says he understands why someone wouldn’t want to admit that even if they had nothing to do with the murder.

Throughout, Mildenberger maintains he did not go to the Gregory house that day.

Ultimately Chamberlin suggests the only way to break the stalemate is for Mildenberger to take a polygraph test. The suspect readily agrees and signs a release form.

On cross-examination, Wyatt compared testimony Mildenberger gave last week about being afraid of Chamberlin with the video, which shows the staff sergeant being very polite and calm.

Mildenberger claimed that once outside Chamberlin aggressively stated that Mildenberger was his number one suspect and that he was going to get him no matter what it took.

Why would he all-of-a-sudden change his demeanor, Wyatt asked.

“There’s no camera outside,” Mildenberger said.

The prosecutor also questioned why in the video taken four months after the murder his memory of doing laundry on the night of the murder was unclear, saying “I think I did some laundry” but last week, more than six years later, he was very certain he did laundry.

“That’s just the way I talk,” Mildenberger answered, saying he was quite clear back then.

As of press deadline, Wyatt was still cross-examining the witness.