Summary

	18 year old Darren Huenemann of Saanich, British Columbia seemed
to be a model student, friend, son and grandson. His mother Sharon called
him the "perfect gentleman", as did most of the community around him.
When his grandmother Doris made out her will in 1989, she made it so her
daughter Sharon would receive half of her $4 million dollar estate, and
Darren the other half. At the same time Sharon updated her will to include
Darren as the beneficiary of her estate. If they ever came to harm and died,
he would be a very rich young man. In the fall of 1989, Darren Huenemann
decided that he wanted to be that very rich young man now.
	The book, Such A Good Boy: How A Pampered Son's Greed Led to
Murder, written by Lisa Hobbs Birnie, starts out with a profile of the
characters involved in the brutal tale. First is Doris Kryciak Leatherbarrow,
born in Calder, Saskatchewan in 1920. Doris grew up in poverty, the oldest
of seven children in the farming family. Doris was a good student when she
went to school, but quit at fifteen and worked at school. She married George
Artemenko, a shipyard worker, and became pregnant soon after. She gave
birth to Sharon Doreen in March of 1943. This daughter never knew her
father; George died in a fall at work three months after the birth of his child.
This left Doris alone and knowing that she needed to do something to
support her child. After the war, she landed a job with the newly formed
Unemployment Services in the Vancouver area, where she raised enough
money to complete one of her dreams: own her own dress shop. She married
again to Rene Leatherbarrow, and expanded her dress shop to a large
fashion warehouse with four stores.
	Next explained in the book is Sharon Doreen Leatherbarrow. She
grew up under a mother that was always working, and a father that was
usually away on business excursions. She learned how to manipulate her
mother using guilt to receive what her young heart desired. She married
three times: the second wedding yielding a son named Darren Charles, and
the third wedding to Ralph Huenemann lasted until her death. Sharon
usually lived off her mother's wealth, but was later put on the payroll by
Doris when Doris needed assistance in her work.
	The last character explained is Darren Charles Huenemann. He grew
up in almost constant attention from his mother and "beloved gran" Doris.
Birnie states, "By the time he was in the third grade he had learned the
rules... He had to be clean, polished, polite, under control, understanding,
and always very nice to other people." (Birnie, p 51) Darren interacted
differently with his peers at younger ages: he didn't engage in physical sport
often, but was popular due to is financial status. He became involved with a
group of role-players in the popular game "Dungeons and Dragons". Here he
let some of his true feelings loose: the desire to rebel, the violence and
rudeness he kept inside, and the tendencies he had to kill his grandmother
Doris.
	The book then turns to a chronological telling of the events, starting
with the drafting of the wills of Doris and Sharon. This seemed to be a
turning point for young Darren, who stepped up his ideas around his peers.
He confronted two of his friends, David Muir,  and Derik Lord, both 16
years old. These youths, although pleasant enough around their families, had
already dealt in illegal activities, smuggling lethal knives into Canada from a
post office box in Washington State. He promised them rewards for killing
his grandmother and mother. For David, a cabin in the woods, a new car and
about 100,000 dollars. For Derik, he would become Darren's bodyguard,
and also receive land and money for weapons. They agreed, and decided
after weeks of thinking over the problem that the easiest way to kill the pair
would be when Sharon visited Doris in nearby Tsawwassen. They would
break in, wait for the pair, then club them and slit their throats.
	Darren, in the meantime, had become delusional. He staged a play at
his school called "Caligula", a play about a Roman emperor who symbolizes
absolute freedom and consummate evil. He began to speak of ruling small
countries, and reveled his murderous plans to his girlfriend, Amanda
Cousins. She did not tell anyone about the plot, for she feared that Darren
would kill her as well.
	After a botched attempt two weeks before, Derik and David entered
the house of Doris Leatherbarrow on October 5th, 1990, stating they were
Darren's friends stopping by. Sharon put two more helpings of dinner into
the microwave. Derik and David then struck the two with their concealed
crowbars, and used kitchen knives to slit their throats. They overturned
furniture and emptied drawers in an attempt to make it look like a botched
break and enter. Darren and Amanda picked them up after their ferry ride,
and Darren drove his friends home, then returned to his house to "wait for
his mother's return".
	The police had other suspects, such as business associates, but Darren
had the motive of greed and so they asked around in his circle of friends,
including Lords, Muir and Cousins. Darren hired lawyers for the three
youths, which fueled the suspicions. Then, after a period of questioning, the
police made a move. They moved on David Muir, finding inconsistencies in
his stories. David cracked; he gave a full confession. However, this was not
admissible evidence, but it confirmed the fears of the investigators that
Darren had brutal planned the whole thing. They then went to Amanda, who
also gave her account on the night of the murders in exchange for Crown
Witness status. This was the evidence the police needed. They arrested Muir,
Lords and Heunemann for first degree murder.
	While Heunemann could be tried in an adult court since he was 18,
the other two boys were only 16, which meant a hearing to see if they should
be lifted to adult court as well. Issues here included the reform possibilities
of the two, their mental health, the harshness of adult prisons, and the
severity of the brutal slayings. It was concluded that both should be tried in
an adult court, and that no protection from the Young Offenders Act should
be offered. 
	In the Heunemann trial, the crown lawyer Sean Madigan knew that
reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence would be his obstacles, and
that defense lawyer Chris Considine would use these tactics and clauses to
win his case. Pictures of the victims, character witnesses against Darren and
a few of Darren's friends from "Dungeons & Dragons" game sessions were
the prosecution's tools to try to convict Darren. Darren's friends all testified
that he had been known to say that he wanted to "snap [his] gran's neck".
Amanda Cousins testified that Darren had shared his plans with her all
along. Defense lawyer's attacked her credibility, citing that she had lied to
police numerous times during questioning, and that her testimony was a way
of revenge against Darren for ending their relationship. In their final
arguments, both the Crown and the defense used elements of Amanda's
testimony to strengthen their case.
	The jury, after only three hours after retiring, decided to believe
Amanda Cousins and delivered a guilty verdict on both counts of murder
against Darren Huenemann. The judge sentenced Darren to imprisonment
for life without eligibility for parole for 25 years. At this, Darren
Heunemann, calm throughout the trial, dropped his mask, and cursed the
judge, the court, and the world.
	In the cases of Muir and Lord, the same elements, presumption of
innocence and reasonable doubt, were used by the defense to try to acquit
their clients. For Lord, he also had a statement by his mother, Elouise Lord,
claiming that Derik was home for the evening on October 5, 1990. The
Crown drew upon Amanda Cousins's testimony again to describe the events
of that evening, as well as two young eye witnesses that placed the pair in
the neighbourhood that night. The taxi driver who drove the pair to the
neighbourhood, who had identified the pair at the first hearing, not wasn't so
sure about the pair, vaguely remembering the youths. The defense jumped
on this, hoping to raise doubt in the jury. Curiously enough, the defense for
Muir offered no evidence for their client, only using the presumption of
innocence in the closing arguments. The jury did not know of the confession,
since it was unadmissable by law, but the evidence was still overwhelming. 
	The jury, after a night and morning of deliberation, returned guilty
verdicts for both boys. They asked, however, that the boys be afforded some
protection by the Young Offenders Act, in that they be eligible for parole
earlier than the usual 25 years. The judge sentenced the two to life
imprisonment with parole available after 10 years of their sentence.
	The last two convictions, after the Lord family's appeal was turned
down by the Appeal Court of British Columbia, were the end of the brutal
tale. Birnie then makes the comment, "As they walk out of the courtroom... it
is clear the schoolboys have gone forever and hard-time inmates... are fast
emerging." (Birnie, p 268)


Analysis

	Lisa Hobbs Birnie is a career journalist and has written other books
such as I Saw Red China; India, India; Love And Liberation; Running
Towards Life; and A Rock And A Hard Place. Prior to living in Canada, she
worked as a reporter in her Native Australia, then in England, and in the
United States. She now lives on an offshore island in British Columbia,
where she studies cases and other stories.
	In Birnie's attempt to capture the elements of the case and deliver
them without bias and with integrity, one can see she has succeeded in most
areas. She used perspectives from almost every angle, and combined them
with equal criticism and judgment.
	The book is divided into logical parts, each outlining a certain aspect
of the case, such as profiles of the main players, the outline of the plan, and
the separate trials. However, save mentioning the people who said certain
statements, she does not reference the trial at all or any other books with a
reference page. However, it does state that she spent "countless hours at the
hearings and trials" in the cover notes of the book, therefore this shows she
have first-person experience of the case.
	Lisa Hobbs Birnie doesn't really argue the case. She only relates the
facts as she saw them. However, she does make a few points of interest. She
seems to disagree with certain aspects of the Young Offenders Act, stating, "
it's the judge's assessment of the mind-state of the offender that can result in
either a treatment-orientated three-year slap on the wrist, or 25 years... as a
lifer." (Birnie, p 180) This may show that Birnie feels that the Act is too
lenient on the more serious crimes. Also, she shows her ideals on
psychiatrists and psychologists, stating they work in a "grey area", while law
students, lawyers and experts live in only in black and white. This can cause
great rifts in a courtroom; with lawyers wanting a "yes or no", while the
psychologist can only give "maybes". (Birnie, 182)
	In a similar case, Steve Wayne Benson, son of the wealthy Benson
family who accumulated wealth in the Tobacco Industry. He too, was
shielded, protected and dominated by his powerful family. (Leyton, p 59) He
planted bombs inside his parents van and destroyed them himself. The
difference in the case is that the accused was older, all of 34 years. The
motive, and the delusions, are the same. Greed, and the idea that the money
will give him ultimate power. (Leyton, pp 40-43) He was sentenced to life
imprisonment without any chance of parole, mostly because of his age and
his unrepentant attitude. (Leyton, p 83) Another case is the one of the
Japanese son Sawanoi who butchered his parents because they didn't agree
with him. The youth was there, he was only 12 when he committed the
crime and would serve very little time inn Canada because of the Young
Offenders Act. However the Japanese courts put him into a mental asylum
indefinitely because of his mental state. (Leyton, 251) The motive to kill was
not the same as the Huenemann or the Benson murders.
	The contribution of the Huenemann, Lord and Muir cases relate to the
Young Offenders Act. The fact that Lord and Muir were raised to an adult
court instead of a youth court. This probably happened partly because of
public pressure of the community to see justice done. Also, the life
convictions, with no parole until 10 years were done, was a harsh
punishment for the 16 year olds, however it showed that the court was not
going to be lenient for just a heinous crime. This may set a precedent for
other courts to use the full extent of their power to deliver a jurisprudent
sentence, one of justice and fairness. Also a power sentence will show that
the youth, knowing exactly what they were doing, are not above the law in
their rights. Huenemann's money and influence also was shown to be
ineffective in his attempts to become above the law. Finally, this case gives
an example of the motive of greed, purely and as evil as it gets.
	
Conclusions

	This case shows that pampering a child, showering him with wealth,
and flaunting the idea that "it will all be his someday", is a formula for
disaster. The child does not have a chance to develop his own personality,
therefore puts up "masks" and his real personality broods and grows to
resent his elders.
	The book, Such A Good Boy: How A Pampered Son's Greed Led To
Murder, written by Lisa Hobbs Birnie, is a well written case review, with
very little bias or contrary opinion. It strictly relates the facts in almost every
aspect. This would be a good book for a senior law class to read and relate
their ideas on the evidence, the judgment, and the inside of the criminal
mind of Darren Huenemann.