Judge greenlights accused killer Greg Fertuck's application to re-examine Crown witnesses

A Saskatoon judge is allowing accused killer Greg Fertuck to call his former girlfriend and a gun expert back to the trial so he can personally question them about their testimony.

It's the latest twist in a case that began when Fertuck'sestranged wife, Sheree, vanished from a gravel pit near Kenaston on Dec. 7, 2015.

Greg Fertuck was charged with first-degree murder and is standing trial at Court of King's Bench in Saskatoon.Sheree's remains have never been found.

The trial began in September2021.

• Greg Fertuck murder trial delayed again after accused asks to question girlfriend, gun expert

Since that time, Justice Richard Danyliuk has heard details of a so-called Mr. Big Sting.

Fertuck was arrested in 2019 after police targeted him in an elaborate, months-long undercover operation where officers posed as criminals. Fertuck told undercover police that he killed Sheree and explained how he did it, but now claims he made that story up because he was afraid.

The Crown's evidence was presented in court during a series of voir dires trials within the trial. That means the judgeneeds to decide if what Greg told police will be applied to his trial decision.

Justice Danyliuk's decision on what will be considered admissible was set for April, but Fertuck fired his legal team and decided to represent himself,then applied to re-examine the witnesses.

"This is a unique case, in many ways," Justice Danyliuk wrote in his ruling. "The overarching consideration is trial fairness. Mr. Fertuck must be allowed to meet the case against him."

Fertuck indicated that he would quiz the firearms expert about shell casings discovered in the gravel pit where Sheree went missing. He also said he'd question his former partner about a statement he allegedly made to her in which he admitted to killing Sheree.

In his decision, Danyliuk cautioned that Fertuck would not have free rein with the witnesses.

"He must understand that his questions are not evidence unless the witness agrees with or adopts what he says in his questions," he wrote.

"He also must understand that he cannot be his own expert witness."