Loretta Saunders' killer denied day parole

One of Loretta Saunders’ killers, who taunted her boyfriend into committing the Halifax murder by challenging his masculinity, has been denied day parole because she wasn’t taking responsibility or showing remorse for her role in the slaying of the young Inuit student from Labrador seven years ago. 

Victoria Lea Henneberry, 35, is serving a life sentence for the second-degree murder of Saunders in February 2014. Henneberry and her boyfriend, Blake Leggette, were subletting a room in Saunders’ Cowie Hill Road apartment when the couple killed the Saint Mary’s University student, who was pregnant, after she came to collect their rent. 

“At today's hearing the board spoke with you about your inconsistent acceptance of responsibility and your reported lack of remorse,” says the new decision denying Henneberry day parole. 

“You stated that you now accept full responsibility and acknowledge that you played a significant role in the victim's murder. You agreed that you taunted your co-accused, and your challenge to his masculinity was very much a contributing factor to his actions. While you indicated that you regret these words you also claimed not to have lured the victim as was included in the agreed statement of facts submitted to the court.” 

Henneberry voiced her remorse for the killing “numerous times” during the Feb. 16 parole board hearing, says the written decision denying her day parole.  

“However, this was presented without apparent emotion,” says the decision issued Saturday. “Thus, it is difficult to assess if it sincere or self-serving given the contradictory information on file. In the board's view, you will need to demonstrate both responsibility and remorse by your actions over a prolonged period.” 

Saunders, who was from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, was 26 when she was murdered on Feb.13, 2014 over $430 in rent. 

“The victim sat on the couch waiting for the rent money, but you and your boyfriend did not have it,” says the parole decision. 

“Your boyfriend approached the victim from behind and choked her. The victim struggled and your boyfriend placed bags on the victim's head, but she tore through each one. He then hit her head on the floor twice and the victim stopped moving. He wrapped her head with saran wrap and placed her body in a hockey bag.” 

Henneberry and Leggette then “left the apartment to return a computer to obtain money,” says the decision. 

When they returned, he "carried the bag containing the victim’s body out of the apartment and placed it in the trunk of her vehicle. You both packed belongings into the victim's vehicle and left. You stopped to purchase food and supplies using the victim's bank card. When you reached (Salisbury) New Brunswick, you stopped on the side of the highway and left the victim's body in a treed area in the median.”  

Killers discussed the murder five days prior

The couple kept driving to Ontario where they stayed with a friend. 

"Police determined you and your boyfriend were in Ontario as you were in possession of, and had used, the victim's cellphone. On February 18, 2014, police spoke with you on the phone and you provided false names and dates of birth and stated you were in Prince Edward Island. Subsequently, police arrested you both in Ontario.” 

The parole decision indicates “there is video evidence of you and your boyfriend discussing murdering the victim five days prior to the murder. In this video, you talked about having acquired three cats since renting the apartment, which the victim did not appreciate. You discussed killing the victim as she and your boyfriend did not like each other over the issue of the cats.” 

Henneberry claimed she was "intoxicated and using Clonazepam when this video was recorded,” says the decision. 

“You claimed you were surprised when your boyfriend attacked the victim. However, police information indicates you knew the attack was planned and took action to keep the victim in the apartment.”  

“Your role in the death of the victim has caused profound emotional harm and has had a lasting impact on her family.” 

Saunders “was involved in a university project on missing and murdered Indigenous women at the time of her murder," says the parole decision.  

Victim impact statements "attest to significant victim concerns,” it says. 

“Your role in the death of the victim has caused profound emotional harm and has had a lasting impact on her family.” 

Henneberry’s "criminal history includes a prior conviction for uttering threats," says the parole decision.

It notes her “history of community supervision is limited.” 

Henneberry identifies “as Indigenous through the maternal side” of her family. “You advised your grandmother was an American Cherokee. You have no knowledge of where they resided or if any of your family members had any experience with the residential school system, the Sixties Scoop or a history of self-harm or suicide. You advised your mother did not finish high school, was a heroin addict and involved in crime.” 

Henneberry was "placed in foster care as a young child and ... your foster family was (financially) stable and you did not experience poverty,” says the decision. “You report feeling connected to Indigenous culture, but identify as Wiccan and believe this spirituality closely resembles that of Indigenous practices.” 

The parole board discussed Henneberry’s “relatively recent connection with your self-identified Indigenous heritage,” says the decision. 

“While there is file information that challenges the accuracy of your heritage, it appears to the board that you have made a connection and derived benefit from your involvement in cultural and spiritual events and ceremonies. You indicated that it is your intention to continue exploring the culture.” 

The Correctional Service of Canada assesses Henneberry’s “accountability, motivation level and reintegration potential as medium,” says the parole decision.  

“At intake, the areas of marital/family and personal/emotional required a high need for improvement, the areas of education/employment, substance abuse and community functioning required a low need for improvement and the area of associates and attitude did not require any immediate need for improvement. According to the current Correctional Plan Update, the area of marital/family has been mitigated to reflect a moderate need for improvement and the area of attitude has increased in need to reflect a low need for improvement. All other areas remain unchanged.” 

Just before Henneberry was transferred into federal custody after she was convicted, prison guards "placed (her) in segregation due to threats of self-harm,” says the decision. 

“You were initially placed to a women's federal correctional facility in Nova Scotia. While at this institution, you were charged for being in another offender's cell and engaged in a verbal altercation with another offender. You transferred to a federal penitentiary in the Ontario region in September 2017 as a maximum-security offender.” 

Her jailers found Henneberry "in possession of unauthorized items in July 2018,” says the decision. “You cascaded to minimum security in January 2020 and have maintained employment as a cleaner. In July 2020, you punched a wall in your living unit in anger following an interpersonal issue with another offender on the unit.” 

'Issues with transparency'

Henneberry’s parole officer told the board she has "issues with transparency,” says the decision. “One example of this was providing a letter directly to the board without knowledge of your (parole officer) and indicating on your sharing you did not wish to provide comments. Your (parole officer) also indicated it appears you attempted to circumvent the involvement of your case management team in your application for parole, attempting to apply without your (parole officer’s) knowledge or the support of your (case management team).” 

Henneberry also "attempted to bypass (her parole officer) in the process of transferring" money from her institutional account to “her community supports, as required by institutional rules,” says the decision. 

“During your hearing, the board discussed with you some of the challenges identified on your file that require behavioral and attitudinal change,” says the decision. 

“To your credit, you acknowledge that accountability, problem-solving, impulsivity and emotions management remain areas where you need to make further progress. Although you feel you have made more progress than your file suggests, you agreed that you have a tendency to be argumentative and at times impression manage by misrepresenting information.” 

'Not just your words'

These are "important areas” Henneberry needs to address, says the decision.  

“Further you will need to demonstrate consistency and transparency through your behaviour, not just your words.” 

Henneberry "applied for a package of escorted temporary absences for personal development for rehabilitation purposes to attend the Healing of Seven Generations,” a Waterloo, Ont. organization that aims to help Indigenous people suffering the inter-generational impacts of the residential school system.

“In February 2020, the board approved only one (escorted temporary absence), having found your presentation at the hearing to be problematic and concerning, notably your disclosure you continued to remain in contact with your co-accused. The victim's family contacted Healing of Seven Generations who decided that due to the severity of your crime against the victim, an Inuk woman, you would be banned from accessing their services for the duration of your sentence. As a result, the (escorted temporary absence) was not authorized by the institutional head.” 

In November 2020, the board approved two escorted temporary absences so Henneberry could attend programs at a community residential facility, says the decision. “You have not yet completed these (escorted temporary absences) given the COVID-19 pandemic.” 

Henneberry’s psychological risk assessment dated August 7, 2019, shows she is "in the low moderate range of risk for general recidivism and in the low range of risk for violent recidivism,” says the decision.  

“The psychologist also indicated that the structure associated with temporary absence would be beneficial from a stress management perspective.” 

Completing the escorted temporary absences "would have been preferable,” says the decision. “However, through no fault of your own this was not possible. Nonetheless, a structured and gradual release remain the optimal method of determining your risk management in the community.” 

In April of 2015 a judge sentenced Henneberry to life in prison with no chance of parole for a decade after she pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.  

Henneberry doesn’t “have any confirmed plans for employment” when she is eventually released, says the parole decision.  

“You indicated your goal is to become a mechanic, but you have not presented any plan to pursue this line of work.” 

'Level of expressed responsibility has wavered'

The Correctional Service of Canada recommended Henneberry be denied day parole. “CSC opines you continue to demonstrate issues with transparency, insight, accountability, impression management and you often present with an entitled attitude. CSC is also concerned you have yet to demonstrate your risk can be managed in a community setting as you have been unable to participate your (escorted temporary absences).” 

Henneberry has “a very serious offence history,” says the parole decision. “Your level of expressed responsibility has wavered over the years but today you stated that you accept responsibility and ... actively contributed to the victim's murder. You stated on a number of occasions that you regret your actions and feel remorse for the victim, however, the degree that this expression is genuine remains in question based on file information. 

The parole board told Henneberry she “presented quite well (Feb. 16) and appeared to be on the right track of addressing challenges,” says the decision. 

“You agreed to actively engage your (case management team) in the future,” it says.