Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Have faith

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 64
1
The judge's decision is not expected until July 19.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench Justice Terrence Morrison had hoped to have a ruling ready by June 7. But after hearing closing arguments on Thursday, he said he now realizes that was "wildly optimistic."

  I wonder why closing arguments delayed the judge's expected time of ruling from June 7 to July 19?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-murder-retrial-closing-arguments-1.5127906

2
I was feeling a little meloncholy today, not quite sure why. It's spring and another change of seasons, I guess. I took a walk around the yard and noticed tulips where they weren't suppose to be; popping up in the middle of the lawn, between the bushes, peeking out from behind view. That's when I remembered that Penny's parents use to have tulips in their garden. They purchased a new plant every year they were together. Their tulips were so resilient and hardy. These Tulips today looked cute and carefree all over the lawn. Perhaps a squirrel carried them to their new destination; replanted them. Who knows.

My mind wandered from Penny's parents to Penny. I still feel so much relief that she was found. I wonder what it would be like if she were still here? I know people don't live forever, but does that mean that we can't wish they did sometimes? In mid-May it will be five years since Penny was found; 10 years since she disappeared. I know I've always said during our search that I just wanted to know that she didn't need to be found. That she wasn't hurting. I'm truly thankful for that. But, it is days like this that I always ask "Why?" A part of me still needs to know what happened. When they found her, the authorities spoke directly to her next of kin, her children, but not to Penny's siblings and family. We really didn't get the full story. Even if we did, I don't know if we ever really do get closure. None of us asked to be put in this position but have been left to deal with it in our own way. Sometimes, I just wish I could let it go....

But Penny is up in heaven with her parents, and we are down here with crazy and carefree tulips all over the yard. Replanted, and I don't know why. But, somehow I feel there is a message in that. I think I'll leave them be - cute and carefree.

Conccerned, you found new tulips ready to pop up in your yard that you never planted. It will be ten years since Penny went missing in less than two weeks. I would also take this as a message.  Penny wants you to truly find peace of mind, wants to thank you for caring, and wants you to know that she is in a good place.  She knows how much you love gardening. You will never know the answer to "why" until you two hook up in heaven. Love your flowers in the moment, and know that answers will come later.

One of your quotes:

"I remember the day I heard the news that they found Penny, I decided to go to a place that sold plants and flowers. You see after Penny went missing I never bought flowers for the garden because I figured if I had time to garden then I wasn't trying to find Penny. And, for six years we couldn't enjoy things when we knew she may need to be found. Gardening was one of those things I gave up..."


3
It was a waste  when so much of our research idea's, including pictures, vanished off this site... We have entertained different suspects over the years showing what they looked like.  For the sake of D1's post above, here is a reminder of Arnold's handy work;  the following extensive write-up/s say it all.  Arnold spend a long time around the Alberta area... very active in 1981.  http://www.mindytran.com/Arnold%20news%20stories.htm

All of our media articles and photo uploads vanished from the London serial killer sites that we worked on for years. Years of time and effort researching and uploading historic articles were lost. I have asked if there was any possibility that Chris could correct this but we have never heard from him. To say that the London Crew is devastated is an understatement. UC was gutted when he changed servers and I guess there was nothing he could do. I'm still not over the loss, and have been devastated about  the history that was lost on all of our cases. But I am happy to see  that UC members are forging ahead in cases, despite this, as in Kelly's case.

There is a new book coming out about one of our historical London cases (Jackie English) and I hope that it will bring interest back to UC members. Good to see Kelly's tread active.

4
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: April 17, 2019, 01:39:26 PM »
 Happy Heavenly Birthday to Jackie.  Jesa has made sure that she will never be forgotten, which is the ultimate in sisterly love. I believe Jackie is right beside you Jesa, celebrating her life with you.

5

[/quote]

I think this should explain for you why the Defence pulled their witness, Have Faith.  I might have thought the judge would have made a ruling rather than telling the two parties to sort it out for themselves.  It seemed to me that was his job, not theirs.  In the event he had ruled in favour of the Crown, I would have thought the Defence  would still have the right to not call the witness if they so chose. 

Both sides made reasonable arguments, I thought, but in the interest of "truth", it could have helped to hear what the witness had to say.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-murder-retrial-defence-begins-1.5042829
[/quote]

Thanks Ruby. I still don't get it. lol

6
About the jacket
Asked why he would take that brown jacket to the cleaners - DO responded that he though the jacket might fit his son for the funeral.   Ha Ha.  It was pointed out by Pros. that his son was 12 years of age, and the size would definitely be way too big.

And I watched part of published funeral on line.  Everyone was dressed in black including regular sized 12 year old boy in a black suit.  Smaller than DO.


jb
I don't believe the jacket cleaning story for a second. I consider it extremely unlikely that anyone from an old Rothesay family schooled in proper funeral attire would consider allowing their son or stepson to wear this brown jacket to a family funeral. Possibly to the funeral home for visitation, but otherwise it's just not done.

Well that is interesting to know. People in my city no longer wear black to funerals. That protocol was given up many years ago, and even family members do not feel restricted to wear black. I see your point, which I was unaware of before.

7
quote RubyRose
Quote
From what I understand, jobo, they shared the same residence but other than that lived pretty much separate lives.  She may not even have been aware that he hadn't come home that night.  Or cared very much, for that matter.  You know the old saying "under the same roof does not necessarily mean under the same ceiling".

I seem to recall she told police she thought he was out of town on business but could be wrong about that.

Wife told detectives that she believed he was at an executive meeting of the Ganong Chocolate Company and was therefore out of town.

About the jacket
Asked why he would take that brown jacket to the cleaners - DO responded that he though the jacket might fit his son for the funeral.   Ha Ha.  It was pointed out by Pros. that his son was 12 years of age, and the size would definitely be way too big.

And I watched part of published funeral on line.  Everyone was dressed in black including regular sized 12 year old boy in a black suit.  Smaller than DO.

Police interview

Dennis began right away, talking about his father, and at one point said his father was a stickler for perfection.  He would go into a rage if not done properly.
He told the detective, that his tools had to be returned after use and placed in its proper place.  Dennis said that he recently helped his sister doing repairs on her leased farm from RO, as the place was falling apart.

It is quite possible that DO had the claw hammer in the trunk of his car, and went back the second time and murdered him with that.  When he got home, he hosed it down, and when he went to his mothers he returned the tool and dropped off the log book.

No blood on log book

Very possible DO picked up the log book on last trip, placed it in his bag, took out the hammer and murdered his father. Wrapped up the hammer in red cloth, and carried the log book to the car and placed in the passenger seat of his car.

Yes, he might have had a rain slicker in that bag and gloves, placed in the trunk, after he worked on this wife's boat, prior to the murder.
Most Sobey's customers have more than one Sobey's bag.  Dennis destroyed the bag and phone.

Since the accountant was not helpful regarding DO's affair. Best way to end the suspicion and or prove that his Dad was having an affair, was to go through his Dad's phone.  That is why - only the phone was missing.

jb

You make some good points as usual jb. :)  For the record, I am not professing that Dennis is innocent, but that I genuinely have reasonable doubt that he is guilty. I can't wait to hear how the judge will rule. I trust his judgement way more than I did with the jury trial.

Just a few comments in reply to yours:

I have never read that the Crown made mention of DO's 12 year old son being too small to wear the infamous brown jacket to RO's funeral. I actually thought I had read that the jacket was meant for his step-son Andru who lived with him, and was in his mid twenties. I don't expect either one of us to try and find a link, unless you have one handy.

The Oland sister ran the farm that was part of DO's property, not RO's.  RO sectioned the farm out of DO's property as part of his loan arrangement to save the house during DO's divorce settlement. I'm pretty sure the farm property and out building were included in the search warrant of DO's property. There are photos of LE at the barn site. LE were looking for a relevant murder weapon at that time and never found one.

Dennis did not work on his wife's boat until the morning after the murder.

RO's missing phone, and the ping off a tower near Rothesay at 6:45 is the best circumstantial evidence against DO imo. Although the defense expert said it wasn't impossible for the cell phone not to be near that tower, it was unlikely. Like other members, I am very disappointed that the defense did not call their phone tech witness.and would like to know why they didn't. Their only comment recorded by media blog was something to do with not wanting to be "ambushed" by the Crown. What does that mean? But I do think that RO's long standing affair was well known and Mrs. Oland was aware of it also. I don't think she cared (other than public embarrassment) and I don't think RO would ever divorce her and have to divide up his wealth. (Connie knew this also). But I can see DO taking his phone, to save his mother embarrassment, knowing that the texts and calls between RO and his mistress that day would be exposed.

HF




8
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 28, 2019, 08:00:24 PM »
Vanessa is an author who lives in London. She has written other books, one about the history of the London Hotel. I believe she is a member of Unsolved Canada, and no, she is not associated with Mike Arntfield.

I have met Vanessa on Jackie's annual walks and look forward to her new book about Jackie.

9

Dennis may well have had the motive to go into a rage and kill his father. The Crown contends that it was because he was denied a loan, or was incensed about RO's extramarital affair. Everyone agrees that this was a crime of passion. The violence and overkill attest to that.

Crimes of passion happen spontaneously in a rage induced frenzy, which is evident in this bloody murder. The killer doesn't premeditate and plan, as in bringing cover up clothing for his entire body, head, face and feet to hide the blood spray. The Crown has never suggested that it was premeditated because it doesn't fit the crime.

The tote bag DO carried in and out of RO's office was not packed full, as it would be to carry protective clothing, and no blood was found in it. There is no evidence that he had a second bag.  I'm sure investigators would have looked at that. There was no evidence that the killer needed to wash up in the bathroom to get blood off of him. Dennis was shown on CCTV leaving RO's office with no visible of signs of blood on his clothes. I truly believe the defence blood spatter expert that said the killer would have been noticeably covered in blood. I don't believe the LE expert who said there wouldn't necessarily be blood spatter on the killer. Just picture the small area of the crime scene and the evidence that the  blood spatter travelled in a 360 degree area, and out to nine feet from the body.

I have a reasonable doubt that Dennis is guilty. I don't think LE ever got over their immediate tunnel vision and properly investigated other people. For an example, the building owner was the only other person in the building at the same time that evening. Was he upset that RO was ending his office lease? Did he go up with a drink to talk to RO? He seems to be as combative a personality as RO. Did they get into a heated argument? He had access to a bathroom downstairs to wash up. He could have cleaned up foot blood stains from DO's office and leading to downstairs. Somebody had to clean up the bloody foot stains in the office since this was not a premeditated murder right?

The landlord denied RO's secretary's testimony that there were renovations being made to the adjoining office on RO's floor. Why would she lie about that? Why would he lie about that? He could have accessed a drywall hammer in that office. Add to that, he changed the time he heard the killing thuds so that Dennis was implicated. Did his pal AS just happen to drop by to see him after hours when he shouldn't even be there? Or was AS called in for an alibi? The two of them went drinking till 1 am afterwards. Maybe they were a bit shook up.

I'm not saying that the building owner is guilty (although I posted that to JB..haha) but I am using him as an example that I am not confident that LE seriously looked at anyone else after deeming Dennis guilty on day one. For me, it all comes down to reasonable doubt.

10
Thanks, Have faith....Dennis never gave his mom the log book though, did he? Didn’t he just leave it in the sun porch or something? Sorry, but I can’t seem to find any pertinent articles when I look back through this thread.
One big problem is that Dick’s body wasn’t found until the following morning, by his secretary...so,No one was aware of any wrongdoing until the next morning...except the perp.
So no one suspected anything...

My recall is the same as Ruby's in that he left the log book on a hallway table, and there was no mention that he saw or spoke to his mother.

11
Thanks, RubyRose!
I’m still concerned about when the log book was returned though, because there is no definite answer...Dennis should be able to answer that question...I hope they ask him.
I think it’s an important question too...because if Dennis was out late that night returning the log book, (unbeknownst to his mom until the next morning)... then in reality, he could have been hiding the murder weapon, and any blood stained items...he could have been doing anything.

Dennis returned the log book to his mother's house the next morning. It became part of a search warrant since it was placed in RO's office by his secretary before she left work the day of the murder. Testing showed no blood on it.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/dennis-oland-tells-jury-he-didnt-kill-his-father/article27540915/



DO's reason for taking the suit and several shirts to the cleaners was to have clean clothes for RO's funeral.

Dennis was put under police surveillance immediately after leaving his interview at the station, the day RO's body was found. So he would have had to dispose of the murder weapon the evening of the murder or the next morning.  He said he was gardening---LE dug at his property; he said he went to the pier--LE did dive searches; he said the next day he went to his wife's boat--LE searched the boat.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-investigation-dna-derek-1.3292157


13
I have trouble with Ainsworth's later explanation of how he was "influenced" by Shaw as to the timing of the thuds. He arrived at work the next morning to see the building and area overtaken with cops cars. He tried to go up to RO's office and was stopped by a cop who said he wasn't allowed to enter. He was asked if he heard or saw anything suspicious from the day before, and he said yes, he heard the thuds coming from RO's office. He said it was "around 8ish" pm.

Any reasonable person seeing the police presence, and being denied access to the building, and being asked if he heard anything suspicious would think that this was a crime scene. Just like RO's mistress who drove by at the same time and saw the all the cop cars knew that something horrible had happened to RO. Yet Ainsworth, who was directed to the police station to give a formal statement, is saying he thought all through that process, and all day long that Dick maybe had a heart attack until he heard at 3:30 that he was murdered. Seriously, that his excuse for later changing the time--he didn't know DO was murdered when he gave the original time, and it took him years to realize how important that time was...so he added two hours before his and Shaw's reported time .

The only person I feel sorry for is Anthony Shaw. I can't imagine what he must feel knowing his good friend is lying in a murder trial. moo




14
I think it’s understandable Ainsworth had to give a general range of time when he heard the noises.

 I don't find it "understandable" that Ainsworth changed his original statements of the timing he heard RO being murdered. I also think that it would be easier for him to narrow down the time span closer to the time when he had a customer (8.11pm) as he originally did, than to add two hours before that event. Unlike his friend Anthony Shaw, I don't find Ainsworth credible.

I believe Ainsworth changed the timing after he also testified (7:30-8:00) at the preliminary hearing, but I can't find the reference to that.

"When Ainsworth and Shaw spoke to police at the scene on the morning of July 7, 2011, shortly after the victim's body was discovered, they both indicated the noises were at "8ish," according to the officer's notes, the retrial has heard."

".... a videotaped statement made under oath by Ainsworth in 2011 for a private investigator working for the Oland family and entered into evidence on Friday, makes it clear that originally, Ainsworth also thought the sounds were made at 7:30 to 8 p.m."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-evidence-in-oland-retrial-relates-to-men-who-heard-thumping-noises-coming-from-victim-s-office-1.5026725
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/canada/defence-lawyer-raises-new-questions-about-timing-of-richard-olands-killing-286590/

15
You're welcome blueriver. You can usually "google" a question and find a media link that addresses it.

For example, google--"what did Dennis Oland pick up from the wharf". Our memories can't retain everything we have read. :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 64