Canadian True Crime - 61 The Murder of Richard Oland - Part 2

Episode Date: March 1, 2020

[PART 2 OF 3]SAINT JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK In the summer of 2011, the residents of Saint John would be alerted to a crime and ensuing scandal that would thrust their normally quiet city—and one of its most prominent and powerful families—into the spotlight in a way that no one could have anticipated.  I appreciate the support of my sponsors!You can find applicable codes and information here.Find out more about:Cool Mules podcast from Canadaland MediaCriminal Conduct podcastWant more Canadian True Crime? Consider becoming a Patreon for just $2 a month or more, and you’ll receive these perks!Credits: Research and writing: Gemma HarrisAudio editing and production: We Talk of Dreams Disclaimer voiced by the host of Beyond Bizarre True Crime Theme Song: We Talk of Dreams All credits and resources can be found on the page for this episode at www.canadiantruecrime.ca/episode. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hi everyone, before I start I wanted to tell you about literally one of the coolest true crime podcasts I've ever listened to. It's called Cool Mules and it's a new Canadian investigative journalism podcast that explores a story that's almost too bizarre to be real. When Vice Canada's music editor Slava P reached out to young journalists asking if they're like a job, they thought he meant a freelance writing gig. Instead, they were solicited to act as drug mules, smuggling over 15 million US dollars of cocaine into Australia. From my friends at Canada Land Media who brought you the acclaimed investigative podcast Thunder Bay comes Cool Mules, a six-part investigation. With first-hand accounts from Slava P himself as he awaited sentencing along with two former Vice employees, Cool Mules is not just the definitive account of how a music editor became an international drug runner. It also reveals how Vice's unique corporate culture saw it turn into a multi-billion dollar media company and a major cultural force.

What are people willing to do when they pay you in coolness? The first two episodes launch March the 2nd. Here's a short trailer but while you're listening, press pause and subscribe to Cool Mules now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you're listening right now. I genuinely thought you had an opportunity for me, like journalism. I thought this sounds cool. This sounds like my ticket to a huge show. It sounded like a multi-level marketing scheme but for drug trafficking. Oh, this is like Vice, like why am I being like a snitch about this? This is absolutely a story about an important and growing and powerful media entity.

There are no villains in this story. There's no winners but there's no villains. I'm Kasia Mahilovich and this is Cool Mules. This podcast contains coarse language, adult themes and content of a violent and disturbing nature. Listener discretion is advised. Where we left off, Dennis Oland had been questioned and released without charges laid. The public had no idea what was going on. Neighbours noticed a police presence at his house but months went by with no announcements or arrests. Police had executed a search warrant on Dennis's house as well as his car, cell phone, home and work computers, cell boat, cell phone records and more. Things were happening in the background but it was taking time. Meanwhile, Dennis and his family continued on with their business. The Oland family were vocal in their support of him.

The people of St John had no choice but to speculate on the case. After all, the person responsible for the 2011 murder of 69-year-old Richard Oland was still walking free. This is Christy and you're listening to Canadian True Crime, Episode 61. The media naturally had questions about the progress of the investigation and were now growing increasingly suspicious. By this point in an investigation, they would usually have access to information related to search warrants which is normally publicly accessible. In this case, numerous documents relating to the investigation had been sealed by the court after requests from the Crown. The reasoning was that the documents contained hold back evidence that information only the murderer would know and releasing them would therefore jeopardise the investigation. But after a while, with nothing new announced about the investigation, the media fought to have some of the documents released.

Finally, pieces of information trickled out starting from August of 2012, 13 months after Richard Oland was murdered. First was the revelation that there had been mass delays in the processing of the forensic evidence. The police had seized 378 pieces of evidence in total and 243 of them required forensic analysis. But now, a year after Richard Oland's murder, only 43 had been sent to the forensic lab and it was this delay that was a primary reason for the stalled investigation. The media also reported on their finding from search warrants that revealed that police were of the view that Richard's death had not been the result of an accident designed to just wound him. It was intentional and what's more, they felt there may have been a financial motive behind Richard's murder, especially from someone who owed him a significant amount of money. And then, in April of 2013, almost two years after the murder, came the revelation to the public that Dennis Oland was the prime suspect in his father's murder. Search warrant information had also been released that showed that police seized 57 items from Dennis Oland's home.

The media now also had the details of Dennis' account of the clothing he wore on the day he visited Richard. This included the conflicting reports of Dennis wearing two different coloured jackets. Needless to say, the media and the general public were whipped into a frenzy after this series of revelations. Many in the city suspected that Dennis Oland was a suspect, but this revelation was big. Information continued to trickle in as further documents were unsealed in the following months. It was revealed to the public that police engaged a forensic accountant to conduct an audit of Dennis' finances. This led to the discovery that Dennis had two mortgages on his Rosset home and he would occasionally have big fights with Richard and they would blow over quickly. The documents also said that Dennis claimed he didn't like having arguments with his father because Richard had no problem embarrassing him about his financial predicament.

This was not overly consistent with what he told police. As more months went by, the forensic results started to trickle in, but for now this was protected by the courts. Richard Oland's clothing and body contained no trace DNA or biological evidence from anyone. Forensic testing of the shoes Dennis had been wearing when he visited Richard tested negative for blood. A total of six pairs of shoes had been seized from Dennis' home, but there was no blood or DNA found on any of them. There was also no DNA found on a red reusable grocery bag recovered from the trunk of Dennis' car. This had been identified as the bag Dennis had used to carry the paperwork when he visited Richard. The head of the St. John Police Forensics Unit, Sergeant Mark Smith, had spent 15 hours over three days searching Dennis' silver Volkswagen Golf.

Ten different areas of the car were swabbed, including the driver's side door, inside latch and handle, as well as the trunk release button, the headlight switch, signal light switch, the steering wheel, the emergency brake and the seats. The tests all came back as negative for blood or DNA, and the same results came back from Dennis' cell phone. Forensic testing of a red drop on the sailboat also came back negative. The police had also requested DNA samples from Robert McFadden, who had gone for a meeting at Richard's office the same afternoon as Dennis, but earlier. He refused, and McClain's magazine reported that the reason was that he felt the forensic police investigation had been lacking. Officers would go on to covertly obtain his DNA from a straw at a restaurant months later, but the test results were not released. In October of 2013, the judge ruled that forensic evidence was not considered holdback evidence, so a lot of this forensic information was released to the public, but information about the crime scene and the condition and position of Richard's body would remain confidential.

But it was revealed that Dennis' brown Hugo Boss jacket was found to have blood stains matching Richard's DNA profile, and police considered it to be one of the most important pieces of evidence they had improving this case. The public then learned the full details of Richard's infidelity and his difficult relationship with Dennis. By this stage, rumours swirling around St John about the case hadn't died down, quite the opposite. Vice magazine reported that in the absence of any arrests or charges, talk around town about the murder weapon speculated that a drywall hammer was involved. Other rumours circulated that the killer could have been Diana, her husband, or a vengeful investor. But the St John police chief stood his ground. It was announced to the media that police expected to make an arrest soon. And the next month it happened. On November the 13th 2013, two and a half years after Richard Olland's body was found, his son Dennis Olland was officially charged with second degree murder. In this case, a charge of first degree murder would require proof of planning and deliberation, and the police didn't have the evidence to support that.

Dennis did not enter a plea, but his uncle Derek Olland issued a statement saying, This situation truly is a tragedy for all of us who are part of the Olland family, and we are striving to understand and deal with the many implications. Dennis's mother, along with his wife and sisters, released an additional statement saying, We wish that the police would turn their attention to finding out who was really responsible for Dick's death. We know that Dennis is innocent. After Dennis's initial court appearance, the St John police held a press conference where the chief, Bill Reed, announced that no one else would be charged. CBC News reported that Chief Reed defended the two-year delay in making an arrest. Despite police identifying Dennis from the outset as their prime suspect, New Brunswick is one of only a few provinces that has pre-charge screening, which means that approval from the Crown is required in order to press charges.

He added that the arrest was finally made following some massaging of the file. Chief Reed told the media, We were in no hurry to make a mistake. It was always process-driven on the forensic side. Whether it was tech crimes, it was audits, it was DNA, we would get a little piece of evidence that would direct us in an area. We'd have to get another piece of evidence to keep going, so we built a case from nothing, essentially. Dennis Oland remained in custody until the matter was heard in court a week later. He was released on $50,000 bail, which was paid by his uncle Derek. Dennis was also required to surrender his passport and advise the St John police if he planned to travel outside the province. The preliminary inquiry or hearing commenced in May of 2014.

This is the court process that would determine if there was enough evidence to proceed to trial. A publication ban was put in place on evidence presented during the hearing, no doubt frustrating the public as well as the media. Behind that publication ban, the Crown presented the case that Dennis' motive for murdering his father was financial. As you'll recall, Dennis Oland was in a dire financial situation. He was in deep debt, including to his father who loaned him money after his divorce. In fact, the check that was Dennis' latest repayment to his dad had just bounced. The Crown's theory was that Dennis may have gone to his father's office to ask for another loan, and when he was declined, it triggered a rage that ended in Dennis bludgeoning his father to death. The defence suggested that the entire police investigation had been flawed from the outset. They claimed that St John police had tunnel vision and focused on Dennis Oland to the exclusion of other possible suspects.

After all the evidence was entered, Judge Ronald LeBlanc stated that the Crown failed to establish a motive for Dennis to kill his father. There was no evidence to support the Crown's theory that Dennis even asked Richard for more money. And even if there was, there was also no evidence that denial of such a request caused Dennis to brutally attack his father. Additionally, the judge pointed out that the $37 million inheritance hadn't even gone to Dennis. It had gone to his mother, Connie. The judge felt that police had honed in on Dennis without sufficient evidence. Quote, This conclusion on their part was totally unjustified and indeed irrational. The police merely had a hunch and an unsubstantiated one at that.

The judge also observed that Dennis' behaviour following his father's death, including his interactions with his wife once he arrived home, plus the casual shopping trip to the market and drugstore afterwards, was inconsistent with the behaviour expected from someone who had literally just committed a crime of extreme violence. Judge LeBlanc said he was confused by the evidence from Dennis' brown jacket, which was found to have four small stains on it that were a positive match to Richard's DNA. The judge stated that this evidence did not conclusively support the Crown's claim that Dennis was responsible for the murder. He questioned that if Dennis had killed his father, then why would he keep his bloodstained jacket and the dry cleaning receipt, yet dispose of the murder weapon and Richard's iPhone, both of which were still missing? On the other hand, the judge conceded that Dennis did have the opportunity to kill his father, given they were in his office together alone and Dennis was the last known person to see his father alive.

Of course, the DNA on the brown jacket, which Dennis had told police, was Navy. Was he intentionally lying, or was it just an honest mistake, and how did the DNA get there if it wasn't from the murder? The judge also concurred that there were no signs of forced entry at Richard's office, or even signs that there'd been a robbery. Once all the evidence had been heard, Dennis was committed to stand trial. The defense's request for a continuation of the publication ban was granted until after the final verdict. This publication ban would include what transpired during the pre-trial hearings held over the first half of the next year, 2015. It would later emerge that during those hearings, St John Police violated Dennis's charter rights, when officers seized information from his work computer after the search warrant had expired.

And this wasn't the first time that police had failed to respect a court order. The other time concerned Dennis's brown jacket. The defense applied to have the jacket excluded as evidence at the preliminary hearing, saying that by the time the lab got around to testing it, the forensic warrant had expired. These instances were both part of the issue of massive delays in the investigation, and they resulted in two violations of Dennis's charter rights. The crown argued that the search warrant in itself gave inherent permission to conduct forensic examinations on anything seized. A point was made that the exclusion of the jacket would gut the crown's case.

Ultimately, the judge decided that several pieces of the computer evidence were disallowed, including two letters that Dennis wrote to his father, plus a few pay stubs. But the judge allowed the brown jacket evidence to remain, a decision that would rear its head later on. The trial proceedings began on September the 8th of 2015. Dennis Olland entered a plea of not guilty, and the jury selection process commenced. A total of 5,000 potential jurors were called. That's 10 times the number usually called. CBC reported that it was the largest jury panel in the history of New Brunswick, and far bigger than those from other high-profile Canadian cases, like Robert Picton and Paul Bernardo.

It was in everyone's best interest to make sure that Dennis received as fair a trial as possible. The trial of Dennis Olland would become the most publicised, longest and most expensive in the history of New Brunswick. A lot of complex and often confusing evidence would be presented, and the court would hear from many witnesses, including Dennis Olland himself. On the first day, 47-year-old Dennis arrived with his mother, Connie. Bobby Jean McKinnon reported for CBC that there were lots of extended family members there in show of continued public support for Dennis. The trial was presided over by Justice John Walsh. He started by telling the jury that it's the crown's job to prove its case. It's not Dennis Olland's job to prove he's innocent, and it's not enough to think that he probably did it.

It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge declared that Dennis Olland starts the trial with a clean slate. The crown's opening address began with the statement that at the heart of the case was the father-son relationship between Richard and Dennis Olland. Lead prosecutor P.J. Veniot told the jury that Richard Olland had suffered over 40 blows to his body, and most of these were to his head. The attack happened sometime after his son Dennis arrived at his office on July 6th, 2011. Richard's body was discovered face down in a pool of blood with multiple sharp and blunt force injuries. He was killed in a rage. The injuries he received were described as way beyond what was required to cause his death. Quote, whatever faults and shortcomings he had, he did not deserve to die in such a gruesome manner.

Prosecutor Veniot said the murder weapon had never been recovered. The jury was told that Dennis was on the edge financially. He was deeply indebted to his father. And at the time of the crime, Dennis's general financial situation was not good. He had a lot of debt, was behind on his loan payments to his father, and he was paying over $4,000 a month in child support. Quote, this was the burden carried by Dennis Olland when he went to visit his father. The Crown went on to say that Dennis was also upset about the affair his father had been having, describing it as a family concern. The opening address by the Crown ended by telling the jury that everyone is capable of doing bad things. The financial circumstances might point one towards a path one might never expect.

The defence team included criminal defence lawyer Gary Miller and well-known Toronto criminal defence lawyer Alan Gold, who was transplanted to New Brunswick for the duration of the trial. In his opening address, Gary Miller mentioned the Crown's assertion that Richard's affair with a woman called Diana may have been a motive for Dennis killing him. There was no evidence of that, and it had been at least a year since Dennis had spoken to his father's associate about potentially having a word to his father about the affair. The defence also pointed out that Dennis's financial problems were nothing new. Richard had a history of providing financial assistance to his son even before his divorce proceedings. The first occasion was in 1998 when Dennis purchased his grandparents' former home and again the following year when he purchased the adjacent farm. The defence also made the point that Dennis had a history of falling back on making his repayments, as far back as 2002, not just in the months before the murder.

On the previous occasions, Richard was understanding about Dennis's financial situation and gave him some leeway. The defence rejected the Crown's claim that Dennis was motivated to kill his father in response to eliminating his financial worries. The jury was told that there was also no evidence of animosity between Richard and Dennis over his financial situation. In fact, there was no evidence to suggest that Dennis had even discussed his finances with his father at any stage in the months prior to his death, either verbally or via email or text message. The court heard in-depth financial evidence which included the details of Richard's loan to Dennis that allowed him to keep the family home after his divorce. Through testimony, the Crown painted a full picture of Dennis's financial situation at the time of the murder. A forensic accountant who had analysed Dennis's financial records testified that he had nearly maxed out a line of credit on his house worth over $160,000, and that line of credit had been increased several times. Dennis owed over $30,000 on his credit card, which also had just had the limit increased.

The court heard evidence that a month before the murder, Dennis received a $16,000 advance on his salary from CIBC Wood Gundy, and he desperately needed it. His financial obligations and spending were reported to be $14,000 more a month than what he actually earned. He was shuffling around credit to repay other credit. And while records showed that Dennis had been repaying his father in accordance with their agreement, he started to slip behind. And by the time Richard died, Dennis was two months in arrears on his monthly repayments. One check bounced the month before Richard's death. Despite his horrendous financial situation, in the six months before his father's death, Dennis spent more than $20,000 on overseas trips travelling to Europe, the UK and the US. On the day Richard was murdered, Dennis's checking account was overdrawn by almost $2,000. The court heard from Richard's business associate, Robert McFadden, who went with his son Galen for a meeting with Richard on the day of the murder, and left only minutes before Dennis arrived.

Robert told the court that in the weeks before the murder, Richard was considering changing his will and his life insurance policy. But the timing or the request didn't seem to be that big of a deal. Robert added that the request to change the will and life insurance was in fact a recurring event that Richard would suggest once in a while. Richard's secretary Maureen Adamson testified that Richard had a good relationship with his son Dennis. She said she'd known them both for about 30 years and had never seen them argue. Additionally, she never heard her boss complain about the money his son owed him. In fact, he didn't even really keep close tabs on it. Maureen took the checks from Dennis and cashed them in. She said Richard checked in casually once or twice a year, but that was it. Maureen said that after Richard arrived at the office for work that morning, he didn't leave it all day.

Shortly before she left for the day, Dennis arrived and Richard swung around in his chair and said, Hi Dennis, in a cheery way. The two started chatting straight away about the genealogy project and Maureen slipped out the door at about 5.45. She also testified that in the weeks before Richard's death, Dennis had asked his father if he'd sponsor an upcoming sporting tournament that his daughter was participating in. Richard said yes and donated to his granddaughter's team anonymously. Dennis wrote him an email addressing him as dad and offering him a very big thank you. According to Maureen, things were perfectly fine between father and son. Do you have a passion project that you're ready to take to the next level?

Squarespace makes it easy for anyone to create an engaging web presence, grow a brand and sell anything from your products to the content you create and even your time. When I launched this passion project six years ago, I needed some kind of online hub to manage all the non-podcasting tasks that come with podcasting. I chose Squarespace because it's an all-in-one platform that seamlessly helps me achieve multiple goals. It's important to have a website that looks good and I was inspired by Squarespace's wide selection of clean and modern templates. They can be easily customized with pre-built layouts and flexible design tools to fit your needs and you can even browse the category of your business to see examples of what others have done. I use the built-in blogging tools to create a new page for each episode and there are so many intuitive options from embedding an audio player so listeners can stream episodes to scheduling posts to be published on a certain date, an easily moderated comment section and automatically displaying recent episodes on the homepage. Every Squarespace website and online store includes SEO tools to help you maximize your visibility in search engines and I love the powerful insights I can get from the analytics tools,

helping me better understand who's visiting the site, where they came from and how they're interacting with it. Do you have a passion project or business idea or something to sell? Go to squarespace.com.ctc for a free trial and when you're ready to launch, use offer code CTC to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. That's squarespace.com.ctc with offer code CTC and get your passion project off the ground today. And then we'll get started. Richard's business associate, Robert McFadden, also told the court what he knew about the affair Richard had been having with the real estate agent, Diana. He confirmed that Dennis did ask him to raise the issue of the affair and see if Robert could get his father to call it. But this was over a year before Richard's murder.

Robert told the court he'd never found a good time to bring up the topic and he didn't speak to Dennis about it again after that. He did testify that Richard was careful with his extramarital relationship. He and Diana would take trips away together, but they would always take separate flights, only ever meeting up outside St John. The court also heard from Diana herself, who had since moved away from New Brunswick. She testified that she tried to reach Richard many times on the evening of July the 6th, starting from her first call at just after 6.30pm, which is when she said they were usually in contact most days. She testified that she called and texted him many times later that night, including at 11.12pm when she wrote, Pathetic. And then the next morning she texted him again at 9.30pm asking him, What the hell is going on with you? She was downtown for a hair appointment and walked towards his office and that's when she saw the police cars.

Diana's husband testified that he'd known Richard and Connie Oland since 2003, but he had no idea his wife Diana was being unfaithful. He stated that he only became aware of the affair after Richard's murder. Diana's husband had been ruled out as a suspect following two interviews with police. But the defence pointed out that at no stage did police request his bank or phone records or the GPS in his car, and what they said should have been routine efforts to eliminate him. The evidence from the crime scene was substantial. The court heard testimony from the pathologist who performed the autopsy, Dr. Athar Naseemuddin. He testified about Richard Oland's injuries, saying the 45 blows would have been rapidly fatal and that many of them would have been inflicted after he collapsed on the ground, defenceless. He likely only survived for a few minutes.

The weapon was never recovered, so Dr. Naseemuddin had to testify about what might have caused the injuries. He said they were inflicted by two separate surfaces, one that caused round wounds about three centimetres in diameter with a faint crosshatching pattern in them, and one with a sharp edge, strong enough to cut through bone without breaking apart and leaving pieces in the wounds. He couldn't say whether it was two separate weapons or one weapon with two different surfaces. Regardless of the nature of the weapon, the pathologist testified that while he couldn't estimate a specific time of death, Richard would not have survived more than a few minutes. He told the court, there are so many injuries which are terribly incapacitating, I would think those would have to come after the victim was able to make any defensive motion. On cross-examination, the defence referred to Richard's ability to defend himself, asking, there must have been some initial involvement with the attacker or attackers? CBC News noted that this was the first time the notion was raised that there may have been two perpetrators.

Dr. Naseemuddin agreed. Defence lawyer Alan Gould suggested that Richard was physically quite capable of defending himself because he was a healthy, robust man at nearly six feet tall and 190 pounds. Again, the pathologist agreed. Dr. Naseemuddin also testified about the low amount of alcohol that had been found in Richard's urine, which indicated that he had consumed alcohol in the hours before his death. Earlier in the trial, Richard's secretary Maureen had testified that no alcohol was kept in Richard's office and that they'd both been there all day apart from in the middle of the day when she left briefly to get him pizza for lunch. Constable Stephen Davidson, the investigator who played good cop when Dennis was first interviewed, testified that they went to considerable effort to find the murder weapon. They searched the office and the outside areas, including parking lots, around cars, grassy areas, and a nearby construction site. He said St John Police had formed the view that the nature of Richard's injuries suggested he was killed with a hammer type instrument, similar in size to a drywall hammer or a hatchet. Drywall hammers are designed with a bevelled hammerhead, a waffle design is on one end, and a sharp blade is on the posterior side, exactly as described by the forensic pathologist.

The court heard evidence about the crime scene from the head of forensics for St John Police. Sergeant Mark Smith told the court that Richard's office was one of the bloodiest crime scenes he'd ever seen. He agreed that the blood spatter in the office had sprayed in all directions and in some instances had travelled some distance. The court heard that the person who created these injuries would have significant blood stains and spatter on their person and clothes and would be expected to transfer blood stains onto surfaces of other objects they came into contact with. He also agreed with the forensic pathologist's analysis that some of Richard's injuries seemed to be caused by a hammer type instrument and others were inflicted with a blade-like weapon. The court heard that the pulls of blood around Richard's body may not have occurred until after the attacker left the office. This explained another piece of evidence, the presence of just one footprint at the scene. Unfortunately, the police were unable to connect it to a suspect. We'll find out why soon.

Under cross-examination, Sergeant Smith agreed that because of the bloody nature of the crime scene, whoever killed Richard would have had blood on at least some part of their shoes. As you'll recall, six pairs of shoes belonging to Dennis Oland were forensically tested, including the ones he'd said he'd worn when he visited his father. And none returned a positive result for Richard's blood, including in the laces and the stitching, areas which often have accumulated DNA. The court saw photos and surveillance footage of the shoes, including the next day when Dennis wore them again. Footage showed him wearing them the next morning at a building supply store just an hour or two before his father's body would be found. And he was still wearing them when he was interviewed by police later that day, although they weren't seized by police until later when they searched Dennis's house. The court also heard from an RCMP blood spatter expert, Sergeant Brian Wensel, who said he was called to examine the scene four days after the murder. That's pretty late in a murder investigation. He said that by then Richard's body had long since been removed.

The blood had dried and was beginning to flake, people had been in and out of the office and some items had been moved. He said that this put him at a disadvantage and he largely had to rely on crime scene photos. Sergeant Wensel said he traced many of the bloodstains to two main points of origin, the area on the floor where Richard was lying and the seating area in front of his desk. The defence proposed that whoever struck Richard repeatedly would have been in close proximity to him and based on the amount of blood spatter at the crime scene, the attacker would have been covered in a significant amount of blood. Sergeant Wensel agreed and the defence went further. They stated that if the killer had blood on their clothing following the attack and then immediately got into a car with fabric seats, it was only reasonable to conclude that there would be a strong chance that the blood on the clothing would transfer to the upholstery on the car seats. Wensel agreed again. As you'll recall, ten different areas of Dennis's car had been painstakingly swabbed over three days. Everything, including the seats, came back negative for blood or DNA.

The court was shown CCTV footage from a restaurant across the street from Richard's office on the evening of the murder. In the video, Dennis could be seen carrying a red reusable grocery bag. This bag was retrieved from Dennis's car's trunk and was found to be negative for the presence of blood. Another inconsistency was of course the issue of what jacket or blazer Dennis was wearing when he went to visit his father. The first issue is that he told police in his interview that he was wearing a navy blazer. But this was proven to be incorrect. Testimony from Secretary Maureen, who was there when Dennis arrived at his father's office, confirmed that he was actually wearing a brown blazer. And this evidence was corroborated by video surveillance from slightly earlier in the day that was shown to the jury. In it, Dennis could be seen walking out of his office wearing a brown blazer. By the time the brown Hugo Boss jacket was seized by police in the house search, it had been dry cleaned.

Receipts were found that showed it was taken to the dry cleaner the morning after Dennis's interview with police. As we know, the jacket was found to have four small areas of DNA that were found to match Richard Oland. A DNA expert testified that the chances that the DNA extracted did not match Richard's profile were 1 in 20 quintillion. And in his opinion, it came from blood because it seemed unlikely that the DNA came from any other DNA source such as saliva or sweat. The crown's position was that this brown jacket was dry cleaned as soon as possible after the murder so that any potential evidence could be concealed. It was actually 36 hours later and the defence counted that it was Dennis's wife who had the jacket dry cleaned, along with many other articles of clothing, simply in preparation for the family to receive visitors in the days following Richard's death and funeral. In fact, the co-owner of the dry cleaner that cleaned the brown jacket testified saying that he did not see any blood stains on the clothing brought in by Lisa Oland.

And while same day service was available to her if she needed it, Lisa was satisfied with the standard 24 hour wait to get the cleaned items back. It was also noted that no other pieces of clothing that Dennis wore to the meeting had evidence of blood stains, including the shoes and pants he wore and was wearing again the next day when he was interviewed. Remember, the court had just heard that whoever attacked Richard would have been covered in a significant amount of blood and it would have transferred onto other objects and surfaces. Several police officers provided testimony about the delays and mistakes around the processing of the brown jacket evidence. The court heard witness testimony that one of the investigators involved with the search of Dennis's home used his bare hands to touch the sleeve of the brown jacket when they first saw it in the closet. And then a gloved officer took it, rolled it up and put it in a small paper bag where it lay crumpled until it was sent to the RCMP forensics lab in Halifax more than four months after the murder. And it took another eight months before it was analyzed and returned.

Sergeant Mark Smith explained the delays to the court, saying that St John Police were limited in the number of exhibits they could send to the RCMP forensic lab for testing at any one time. He claimed that detectives had to wait for results to be received for each exhibit before sending further exhibits for testing. When it came to the question about the four areas of Richard's DNA being found on Dennis's jacket, Sergeant Wenzel, the blood spatter expert, said he couldn't be certain about whether the stains were linked to the murder. But he did agree it was possible for the blood stains to have been on the jacket before Richard's death. When asked about the size and nature of the blood stains on the different areas of the jacket, Sergeant Wenzel replied that they were faint and difficult to see, with the largest measuring about two centimeters. He acknowledged that the blood stains were in fact so small that despite examining the jacket twice, he'd missed one. After all, the dry cleaners themselves had missed them, and this was before the jacket was cleaned. Sergeant Wenzel told the court that it was impossible to determine how old the spots of blood were on Dennis's jacket, and he was unable to comment on whether or how any dry cleaning might have affected the stains.

The jury heard some other theories for how the DNA might have gotten onto the brown jacket, like a skin condition Richard had which affected his scalp and caused it to flake, scab and sometimes bleed. This was confirmed by Richard's secretary Maureen. The defence suggested it was possible for Richard's blood to have been transferred to Dennis's brown jacket during the course of a regular conversation with his son, like when they were discussing findings related to their shared genealogy project, or if they hugged. Richard was reported to have had some hearing issues, and often leaned in to better hear people speaking. The process of normal skin shedding made it possible for Richard's blood to have been transferred to Dennis's jacket that way. But Dr Naseemuddin, the pathologist who performed Richard's autopsy, testified that he did not recall seeing any open sores on Richard's head that were evidence of a flare-up in his scalp condition. As you'll remember, there was a delay in the blood spatter expert arriving from Halifax to examine the scene. By this stage, Richard's body had obviously been removed and some of the blood spatter in the office had dried and flaked off surfaces. And to make matters worse, the police had kept no record of which items in the office had been touched, or by whom. Through cross-examination, the defence attacked this delay as well as some other deficiencies in the forensic investigation of the crime scene.

The court heard that forensic officers failed to adequately protect the crime scene from contamination, starting from the amount of time it took for a comprehensive examination of the crime scene to be conducted. The court heard that police officers used Richard's office bathroom for two days before they tested it for blood and fingerprints. This would have meant other officers who used the bathroom would need to be excluded before any real analysis could be done. The court heard that when officers arrived on the scene, they found a door at the back of Richard's office which led to an alleyway. Even though Richard's office was technically on the second floor, this back exit was almost at ground level because the building was built on a hill. The landlord, John Ainsworth, also of Printing Plus, told the court that the back door into the building had a deadbolt on the inside, which was the only way of opening the door. From the outside, the door didn't have a handle, just a keyhole entry. John Ainsworth issued a key to the far end corporation but didn't know how many copies had been made.

Maureen had testified that she didn't have a key. The defence argued that the killer would have escaped out the back door because it was the closest escape route and the best getaway out to the back alley. And because it opened from the inside, they argued that the killer would have had to touch the deadlock. The problem was that it was never tested for fingerprints or DNA. The head of Forensics said that it was because at some point during the investigation, somebody opened the door. The defence, however, suggested the Forensics officer overlooked the back door altogether, noting that it wasn't even photographed until years later. In the week after the murder, police also continued to enter and exit the building through the main door on Canterbury Street without gloves. It was only afterwards that police realised the main door should have been dusted for fingerprints.

Several officers, including the Deputy Chief, walked through the crime scene unauthorised and without protective clothing and equipment. This, of course, meant the one bloody footprint discovered at the scene by Forensic officers had to be compared against all of the police footwear as well. And likely by then, the footprint was of no use. Deputy Chief Glenn McCloskey admitted that he did enter the crime scene on the first day, twice. The first occasion was in response to a request by another officer to observe Richard's body. When he arrived, he entered the office with three other officers and they were only in the office for between 45 seconds and a minute before leaving. Deputy Chief McCloskey added that he stopped by again at around 12.30 and entered the office with another officer out of curiosity. But they weren't there for long before the head of Forensics, Sergeant Mark Smith, instructed them to get out.

Deputy Chief McCloskey agreed that it wasn't protocol for him in particular to enter the office on either occasion. He wasn't assisting or directing the investigation and he wasn't employed as an inspector at the time. And he also wasn't wearing protective clothing, even though he insisted he didn't touch anything. Deputy Chief McCloskey also told the court that when he was standing in the foyer outside Richard's office later that day, he noticed the rare door exiting to the back alley was open. He went outside but stated he wasn't certain whether he'd touched the door. When the deputy was cross-examined by the defence, he admitted he may have touched or even opened the rare door which had not been swabbed or photographed. By the time this could be conducted, several officers had touched the door anyway. Deputy Chief McCloskey said he looked around outside for several minutes and then re-entered the building.

In what would be a pretty big revelation in the trial, Major Crime Unit Officer Sergeant Mike King, who had just retired, testified that he was asked to lie in court. And the person who asked him was Deputy Chief McCloskey, his supervisor. McCloskey didn't want anyone to know about the unauthorised and unprotected activity at the crime scene, so he suggested to Sergeant King that he didn't have to tell anyone. Sergeant King testified, quote, I told McCloskey I had never lied on the stand in 32 years and I wasn't about to start now, whether it be for a homicide or a traffic ticket. Constable Stephen Davidson also testified that he knew about the request. Deputy Chief McCloskey strongly denied the allegations and suggested that Sergeant King was just jealous of a promotion he got that they both applied for. The defence raised further concerns about the way the investigation was conducted.

Some witnesses, including paramedics who attended the crime scene, weren't interviewed until 18 months after the murder. Leads provided by other witnesses weren't pursued by police at all and others weren't called to testify. The police had also failed to clarify with the forensic pathologist at autopsy about whether the weapon could have possibly been a drywall hammer. The revelations made by numerous officers during their testimony raised concerning questions about the possibility of police misconduct. As a result, the St John Chief of Police immediately directed the Police Professional Standards Unit to investigate the allegations, but we'll get to that later. As you'll recall, the business directly under Richard Olin's office was printing plus and the two men working there that night heard noises. John Ainsworth, who was also the building's landlord, told the court that the noises he heard coming from Richard's office that evening were quick. He stated it sounded like someone was thumping on something that was on the floor, as opposed to thumping on the floor directly.

He also stated that the noises sounded like they were coming from one location. John testified that when he heard the noises, he and his colleague Anthony Shaw kinda looked at each other, but when the noises stopped, they continued on with their work. The court heard that John did not hear any other noises like yelling, screaming, shouting or arguing. John testified that he was unsure of the exact time he heard the noises, but he was certain it was between 6pm and just before 8-11pm, documented specifically because a customer came into the office to send a fax. Anthony corroborated John's accounts of the noises, stating that these were the only sounds he heard while at printing plus that evening, but his timing was different, quote, I would estimate around 7.30pm, it's my best guess. Anthony was asked why the men did not investigate the noises they heard.

Anthony told the court he had experience owning similar buildings and investigating noise complaints. He testified that his experience taught him that noises like that were usually related to furniture assembly. And also, like John, he did not hear any voices arguing or screaming. As you'll recall, Dennis told police that after he left his father's office, he was supposed to go home to see his wife Lisa, who said she was sick. But instead, he stopped by Renforth Wharf to see if his kids were there. When he saw they weren't, he drove home, got changed, and then he and Lisa went to the drugstore and the market, close to their home in Rossay, which is about a 20-minute drive from Richard's office in downtown St John. The court saw time-stamped CCTV footage that showed Dennis and his wife Lisa shopping at the market at 7.38pm,

talking to a lady at the checkout counter who was later identified as his aunt. After purchasing food for dinner, Dennis and Lisa went next door to a drugstore, where a receipt showed he made a purchase at 7.42pm. So, John Ainsworth said he heard the noises between 6pm and 8.11pm, which seemed to fit with the Crown's theory that Dennis killed his father in a rage before he left the office at 6.30pm. But Anthony Shaw said he heard the noises at around 7.30pm at night, right when Dennis and his wife were on surveillance camera shopping, 20 minutes drive away. This timing did not fit the Crown's theory. The court also heard an agreed statement of facts about Dennis Olin's stop-off at the Renforth Wharf between leaving his father's office and arriving at his home.

He told police his kids were with their mother for the week, and he stopped off at the wharf to see if his children were swimming there in the early evening, as they often did. And his stop by the wharf was witnessed by a couple, who contacted the police after they recognised Dennis on TV at his father's funeral. In statements submitted to the court, they said Dennis Olin walked past their vehicle toward the wharf, carrying a reusable grocery bag. Before he got to the wharf, they saw him bend down and pick something up, although they couldn't say what it was that he picked up. He then walked to the end of the wharf where they watched him sit down, open the bag, and take something red out, possibly another bag. He wrapped whatever he'd picked up in the red thing and put it right back in the main bag. He then walked briskly past the witnesses again, got back in his silver car, and drove away.

The wharf evidence is important for several reasons. Richard Olin's iPhone was never recovered, and neither was the murder weapon. So it was speculated that perhaps the wharf stop was designed for Dennis to discard objects if he had them. After the people who witnessed Dennis at the wharf contacted police, a team of five divers were sent, who searched the water around Renforth Wharf for an undisclosed item that would not have been in the water for a long period of time. But according to court documents, nothing suspicious in nature was located. And also, the witnesses did not see him discard anything. Dennis would be asked to explain his actions at the wharf stop later.

Richard Olin's missing iPhone 4 was a whole thing. His business associate, Robert McFadden, testified that he was generally attached to his iPhone and typically carried it in one of his pockets or put it on the table beside him. Telecommunications giant Rogers, Richard's service provider, handed over the records for his iPhone, as well as the records for Diana's phone, that's the woman he'd been having an affair with. The records were entered into evidence and showed the date and time of the calls and text messages, as well as who initiated and received each contact and which cell towers transmitted each of the signals. In the morning of July the 6th, when Richard Olin was at home before work,

his phone pinged off a tower in Rosset where he lived, about 20 minutes drive away from his office in downtown St John. Once he got to his office, he connected his iPhone to his computer and his phone pinged from a nearby cell tower in downtown St John all day, until 4.44 that afternoon when it was disconnected from the computer. This is about 45 minutes before Dennis arrived at his office. And remember, Robert McFadden along with Richard's secretary Maureen were in the office with Richard just before Dennis arrived. The court heard about the final communication that had been successfully received by Richard Olin's cell phone at 6.44pm.

This is about 10 minutes after Dennis said that he'd left the office. The court heard that after this time, Richard's cell phone went silent and stopped receiving calls and text messages. The 6.44pm message was the last one successfully received and it was a text message from Diana. It just said, you there? Records showed that when Diana sent the message, her cell pinged off a cell tower near her Darling's Island home where she was with her husband that night about 30 minutes away. Except Richard's phone that received the message

did not ping off the same downtown St John cell tower it had been pinging from all day. Instead, it pinged off a tower about 1km away from the Renforth Wharf in Rossi close to where Dennis said he'd stopped to see his kids. Although it was pointed out that this didn't necessarily mean the cell phone itself was in the area at the time just that the tower that delivered the message to the phone was. Dennis' statement was that after he left his father's office at around 6.30pm it would have taken him about 15 minutes to drive to the Renforth Wharf. He estimated that he would have arrived there around 6.45 to 6.50pm.

Unfortunately, the couple who witnessed him there couldn't remember the exact time that they were there. They just said sometime after supper. The court heard from a Rogers employee who explained that the phone provider has a special program that can ping phones and will often get a geographical position of where the phone is located in real time. This program is obviously useful in court cases and missing persons investigations. The employee testified that they tried to send out the special ping to Richard's iPhone but the attempts failed and came back with something called a roaming error. The definition and agreement of what a roaming error was and the issues around when it was received

ended up being a big point of discussion in the trial. The Crown and the Defence agreed on definitions of roaming error for the purposes of the trial. It basically suggested that the iPhone hadn't been destroyed but there was much confusion around what this actually meant. In fact, the conversation over the cell phone evidence had already started at the preliminary inquiry when the lead investigator Constable Davidson had conducted his own research. He wanted to see which cell phone towers picked up each signal so he made over 100 phone calls from various locations in and around St John and Rossi.

The intent was to prove that if Richard's cell phone was still at his office when Dennis left at around 6.30pm then it would have continued to ping from that same nearby tower in St John that it had pinged from all day not off another tower 20 minutes away near the wharf near where Dennis had stopped off. But at the preliminary inquiry to determine if the case should go to trial the judge wasn't satisfied with the cell phone information provided. He stated that neither the phone records nor the test calls conducted by police provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that Richard's iPhone itself was in the vicinity of that tower near the wharf.

The judge went on to say that it was possible for a jury to conclude that Richard Olin's cell may have been anywhere even outside Canada when the roaming error was received. And additionally at the inquiry the judge said the crown failed to provide a clear explanation as to why Dennis would have taken his father's phone when he left the office. Back to the trial, the president of the Canadian Association of Broadcast Consultants had been declared an expert on cell phone networks. He was asked about whether it was possible for a cell phone call made from downtown St John to connect to the tower 20 minutes away in Rosset.

He responded that the chance would be minimal explaining that generally cell phone calls are transmitted by the closest tower and the court had heard that there were three towers that were closer to Richard Olin's office than the one near the wharf. So did this mean that Richard's phone itself was near the wharf? No one could say. Ultimately there was a lot of highly technical discussion about cell phone evidence and the importance of the roaming error.

But none of the evidence or testimony was able to provide a concrete conclusion about what happened to Richard's iPhone, who if anyone took it, whether it was destroyed or not, or where it might be now. 47-year-old Dennis Oland took to the stand in his own defence. This was the first time he had spoken publicly about the case and the courtroom was packed. Early on in his testimony he was asked point blank if he killed his father. No, no I did not. Choking back tears and wiping his eyes with a tissue,

he spoke about his relationship with his father, saying that despite the old school relationship they had, he missed him. He was asked if he loved his father and replied, Absolutely yes. He said that his father didn't say I love you every day, but he did say it from time to time. The packed courtroom heard about his financial problems. Dennis said that his income had recently dropped because of downturns in the market,

but added it happens from time to time and the downturns usually don't last that long. Dennis went through his version of the day again. He testified that his father's secretary Maureen was still at work when he arrived at Richard's office to discuss the genealogy project. Dennis spoke with Maureen and then shook hands with his father as they hadn't seen each other for a while. As Maureen left the office for the day, Richard asked how Dennis was and how the project was progressing. Dennis told the court that he and his father had a great time, describing their meeting as an engaging and wonderful conversation.

Under cross-examination, Dennis admitted that there were some inconsistencies in what he said in his police interview, compared to what some of the evidence showed. He said at the time of his statement, he just found out about his father's death and he was nervous, in shock and sad. He said he didn't intend on giving police misleading information. Obviously, Dennis was also inconsistent with his account of what blazer he was wearing, telling police that he was wearing a navy blazer when an actual fact it was brown and the brown one had the small stains that were matched to his father.

But the other major inconsistency was regarding his several stop-ins to his father's office and his odd movements both walking and driving, including that wrong turn up a one-way street. In his police interview, Dennis said that he arrived at his father's office around 5.30 and left at around 6.30. But the court had been shown CCTV footage recorded at 6.12pm by a restaurant across the road from Richard's office on the evening of the murder. In the video, Dennis could be seen carrying a red reusable grocery bag, heading one way, but then crossing over the street across from Richard's office building.

And this is nearly 20 minutes earlier than when Dennis said he left. He was asked to explain this. As you'll recall, Dennis drove to his father's office the first time and parked his car. But as he was climbing the stairs to his father's second floor office, he remembered that he'd left some important documents at work. So he turned back, drove around a bit before realizing he'd forgotten his after-hours pass to get back into his office. So he decided to go back to his father's office with the documents he had.

He parked in a different place the second time. Dennis explained his odd movements at the time he was caught on camera at 6.12pm, which he said was the second time he left his father's office. He said he'd actually gone back in the direction of the first parking location when he remembered he'd parked his car in a different location the second time. So he headed back to where his car was actually parked, crossing in front of the restaurant with the intent to stop in at the drugstore to get painkillers for his knee.

But he said he changed his mind and crossed the street again, heading towards his car. Basically, again, he was indecisive. Dennis addressed the CCTV footage that showed him leaving his father's office at 6.12pm, despite his initial statement saying he left 20 minutes after that. Then, in testimony described as a surprise to the court, he confirmed that he did leave at 6.12pm, but he actually returned to his father's office for a third time. More surveillance video was shown, which Dennis confirmed was him and his car.

The video showed him opening and closing the hatchback before getting into the vehicle and driving away between 6.12 and 6.15pm. He testified that he put some items into the back of his car, read an email or text, and then took off his jacket as he got in the car. And that was when he realized he was supposed to retrieve a family logbook from his father's office, which he'd forgotten to take with him when he left the second time. He said he was only intending to run back to Richard's office quickly to get the logbook. He told the court that he walked back to the office along the east side of the street,

and the restaurant of the CCTV cameras could not capture that side of the street, so this was not recorded. Dennis said that the logbook was on the table in the middle of the office. Evidence that was corroborated by Maureen earlier when she said she specifically left it there for Dennis to take with him. Dennis said that his father kept him for a few minutes talking about the logbook before he left for a third time just after about 6.30pm. Earlier, the court heard testimony about the crime scene, describing how the blood spatter from the attack on Richard was widespread

everywhere in the office, including all over the table where the logbook had been. The logbook was recovered and tested negative for blood. If Dennis's third visit to his father's office was to pick up the logbook, then the attack on Richard would have had to have happened after Dennis had left with the book. Dennis said he took the logbook with him and dropped it off the following morning at his parents' house. So Dennis admitted to being mistaken as to the actual time he finally left Richard's office, although he said he took a call from his wife Lisa as he was leaving, which cell phone record showed was at 6.36pm.

As you'll recall, Lisa called to tell him she felt sick and just wanted him to go home. But instead of going straight home, he stopped off at the wharf and didn't tell her. When he arrived home, he testified that he looked around but didn't immediately see his wife. He thought she might have been upstairs so he went up to change, putting his clothes on the bed, and changing into shorts and a shirt. He stated that after he and Lisa found each other and chatted, they then went to the drugstore and to the market, which was time-stamped at 7.38pm on CCTV footage. The defence again pointed out that this is the time that Anthony Shaw from Printing Plus said he'd heard the noises coming from Richard's office.

Dennis was asked to explain his movements at the wharf against the statement written by the couple who witnessed him there. He agreed with their statement, saying that before he got out of his vehicle at the wharf parking lot, he noticed broken glass on the ground where people normally walk. He reached down, picked up the broken glass and put it in the reusable grocery bag he was carrying. When he was asked why he took it to the end of the wharf, Dennis explained that he did that to safely contain the glass until he could dispose of it. And the reason why he walked to the end of the wharf was because the area where his children often swim wasn't visible without looking downwards off the end of the wharf. The witnesses had written in their statement that they saw him look over toward the lighthouse and the playground. Dennis said he couldn't recall if he disposed of the glass in a garbage can at the wharf area or later at home.

Dennis testified about the brown jacket with the blood stains. He confirmed what Maureen had said about Richard's skin condition that caused his scalp to flake, scab and sometimes bleed. He was asked about the fact that his father chewed on his cuticles and told the court that he often saw dried blood in the area. He also testified that during the winter of 2010, he moved into his parents' home for three months while they were renovating their own home. During this time, Dennis kept all of his clothes in his father's closet. When Richard returned, he asked Dennis to get his clothes out of the closet because he kept getting confused about which clothes were which. The defence claimed that Richard's clothes hanging in close proximity to Dennis's was another opportunity for innocent transfer of DNA. So that was the end of the defences case.

The prosecution had called over 40 witnesses. The defence had called three, including Dennis, and there were over 230 exhibits presented. It was time for final arguments. The defence said that a not guilty verdict was appropriate, adding that they were now at the end of a three-month trial and were no closer to knowing who killed Richard Oland than they were at the start. Defence lawyer Alan Gold said the crown's evidence was circumstantial, quote, There's not a shred of evidence that would produce the kind of emotion that would lead to the brutal killing of Richard Oland. The police investigation found no forensic evidence that pointed to Dennis Oland, and there was no evidence of a cleanup anywhere. Gold went on to say that there was no blood or DNA evidence in Dennis's clothes, on the reusable grocery bag he carried to and from his office, or on his phone, which he used to take a call from his wife as he was leaving his father's office.

There was also no evidence found at Renforth Wharf, including any kind of murder weapon or his father's iPhone. Alan Gold discounted the cell phone tower ping evidence, that's the message to Richard's cell phone at 6.44pm, that pinged from the tower near Renforth Wharf, where Dennis had stopped to catch a glimpse of his kids. Despite the witness testimony and the data, the defence stated that it wasn't known where a cell phone call will actually connect. He said Richard Oland could have stayed in the office or even left for a short time, nothing could be ruled out. Gold then referred to the inconsistencies in Dennis's statement to police, pointing out that Dennis was forthright and candid about his errors, and readily admitted to things he'd gotten wrong or mistaken. His initial account conflicted with his subsequent evidence, but Gold said there was nothing suspicious about his confusion about where he parked

or what route he took to get to and from his father's office. He mentioned the brown jacket, calling this piece of evidence a red hearing. Dennis's confusion about the colour of the jacket was the honest confusion of an innocent person, his lawyer said. He went on to explain that there's no way to determine how the stains got there or how old they were. Even the dry cleaners said they didn't see any stains before it was cleaned. The jury was reminded of expert witness testimony that stated that an attack like this would have resulted in a lot of blood spatter. If the jacket had been worn during this crime, there would be spatter and tons of it. The Crown's closing address emphasised that Dennis Oland was the last known person to see his father alive and had the opportunity to kill him.

The identity of the person who killed Richard Oland is known to you. It's Dennis Oland. The Crown submits it cannot be anyone else. Crown prosecutor PJ Veniot said that Dennis's financial situation was a possible motive. There's only so many times you can go to the Bank of Daddy before being declined. He referred to the viciousness of the attack as a crime of passion by someone who knew Richard. There was no evidence of robbery or forced entry. The message to Richard's cell phone at 6.44pm was brought up. The jury was reminded of the expert witness that testified that the chance that the phone was still in Richard's office was minimal.

Prosecutor Veniot then referred to the noises heard by the two men at Printing Plus, one who guesstimated the noises were at 7.30-7.45pm and the other estimated between 6 and 8pm. Veniot said there was no evidence that either of the men looked at a clock to make actual note of the time. He mentioned that Dennis lied about the colour of his jacket three times, suggesting that it was an attempt to mislead police in their investigation. He then pointed to the mistakes in the investigation, saying that certain things could have been handled better by police, but the investigation did turn up important evidence.

The Crown's closing remarks ended by stating that Dennis Oland being the killer is the inescapable conclusion. With that, it was time for the jury to retire for deliberations. In issuing his instructions to the jury, Justice Walsh emphasised that the case against Dennis was circumstantial. He reminded the jury that they had to be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt in order to find Dennis guilty. His instruction was that if they found that the noises the Printing Plus men heard on the evening of July 6th were connected to Richard's murder, and if they also accepted Anthony Shaw's evidence that he heard the noises at around 7.30pm, which was the same time Dennis was seen shopping with his wife, then they were to find Dennis not guilty. Judge also pointed to the weakness of the DNA evidence on Dennis's jacket,

saying there was no way to know when or how, though small specks of Richard's blood came to be on Dennis's jacket. It was up to the jury to decide whether the spots were from the crime scene or a previous occasion. Friends of the family would later tell the 5th estate that they were pleased with how the trial went and expected to be celebrating a not guilty verdict. The jury deliberated for four days. On December 19th, 2015, they came back with a verdict. They found Dennis Oland guilty of the second degree murder of his father, Richard Oland. The Telegraph Journal reported that when the verdict was announced, Dennis's knees buckled.

He collapsed, wailing, Oh my God! CBC journalist Bobby Jean McKinnon would tell the 5th estate that it wasn't a noise she'd ever heard before. She described it as being like a wounded animal. The Oland family was devastated by the verdict. Family members gasped and Dennis's mother Connie wept. In a press, she issued a statement saying, We are shocked and saddened by the outcome of the trial.

Our faith in Dennis's innocence has never wavered and the jury's decision has not changed that belief. I am extremely proud of my son Dennis and he will continue to have our love and support in the difficult days ahead. Brother Derek, Dennis's uncle, echoed Connie's sentiments, saying, We are disappointed and dismayed by the outcome of the trial. We continue to believe our nephew and cousin Dennis is innocent and we will support him and his family members through the course of whatever legal actions will unfold. We want to reiterate that all Oland family members are certain Dennis had nothing to do with the death of his father. We are proud of Dennis and we continue to place our trust in the expertise of his legal team.

Dennis's lawyers had already begun the appeals process. This is not the end of the story, not by a long shot, but this is where we'll leave it for part two. Part three will be released slightly early and without any of the ads for just $2 a month on Patreon. Just visit Patreon.com slash Canadian True Crime. This series relies on the reporting of Robert Jones from CBC New Brunswick, Mike Landry from The Telegraph Journal, Mike Cameron from CTV Atlantic, Kevin Beset for The Canadian Press and Bobby Jean McKinnon from CBC New Brunswick. Bobby Jean's best-selling book Shadow of Doubt, The Trial of Dennis Oland,

provides an in-depth look for all those interested in digging into the complexities of all of those pieces of evidence after the series is over. It's fascinating stuff. I will be sure to link it in the show notes and tell you all about it in the next part. My podcast recommendation today is Criminal Conduct, a new investigative series co-produced by Javier Laver from Pretend Radio. Take a listen. 9-1-1. This is Jeremy Banks, his girlfriend Michelle O'Connell. Her death was officially ruled a suicide, but not everyone believes the sheriff's conclusion.

Then, a private citizen named Eli Washtok began investigating her case. But before he could finish, he was murdered. We're picking up where Eli Washtok left off. From the creators of Twisted and Pretend podcasts, this is Criminal Conduct, Season 1, an investigative podcast looking into the death of Michelle O'Connell in the murder of Eli Washtok. Download Criminal Conduct wherever you listen to podcasts. This episode of Canadian True Crime was researched and written by Gemma Harris. Edited by me, an audio production was by We Talk of Dreams who also composed the theme song.

The host of the Beyond Bazaar True Crime podcast, Voice the Disclaimer. I'll be back soon with Part 3. See you then.