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 - BaySailor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
Thanks, RubyRose....Hmm. This logbook...jellybean, maybe he already took it with him the second time he left the office...had it in his bag, or left it in his car.  I think he STILL mixed up in his sequence of he is saying he went back the third time for the log book.
I would’ve questioned Dennis as to the exact time that morning he left the log book at his mom’s.

Sorry...but what was Dennis’s original reason for visiting his dad for almost an hour?  There is no way in hell they didn’t have words over money....the trading error and/or Dennis’s debt.
 Speaking of debt, his lawyers must be taking a huge chunk of his (family’s) money.

Don’t “successful” men use briefcases anymore?

Dennis's original stated reason for visiting his father that evening was to discuss some new family genealogy info he had discovered during his recent trip to England. A trip he in no way could afford. 

"Hey Dad, I had great trip to England-  sorry about that interest check that just bounced!"

I read most likely on twitter Dennis dropped the logbook off around 7 am the morning RO was discovered. Perhaps his mother was still asleep and he didn’t wake her.

The trading error was something like RO called Dennis in the afternoon and asked him to make two trades and Dennis traded one the wrong way or didn’t trade both the way RO requested. And RO called Dennis back complaining. That is probably not quite accurate as I do not remember exactly. To my knowledge, neither McFadden nor RO’s assistant were asked about this call if they overheard what RO said to Dennis or what his tone was? Also McFadden said he knew nothing of Dennis’s claim RO was going to give Dennis a large amount of money in the fall which Dennis used as a reason for an advance in pay.

Anyway, whoever did this was enraged - and came prepared.

The cellphone roaming error has not been cleared up yet either. Hopefully it will be and soon.

Your trading error memory is pretty darn close to to the mark. Dick called Denny to place an order to purchase a certain $ amount of stock in a company that had recently split their stock, eg every share outstanding became 2 shares, but worth half as much. Companies do this to make their stocks more affordable.  Dennis wasn't aware of this stock split so he placed the order for the number of shares he thought would make the amount Dick wanted to spend based on an older share price, but instead spent only half.     

If Dennis is honest about his Dad stating he would transferr more money for him to handle in the fall, he could well have been ticked off about this error (we know he was like that with Dennis and others) and threatened to not transfer the money because of his son's mistakes.

I doubt that Dick was going to move more money to Denny. CIBC Wood Gundy charges their clients a lot more than the direct on-line brokerage services Far End would employ, and we know Dick was cheap. He overcharged his daughter for renting pastureland and had his wife on a tight allowance, expecting receipts for all of her spending.

I think your idea around questioning his secretary and McFadden around what they heard of Dick's phone calls that afternoon is brilliant. You should be a prosecutor.

Very well said Have Faith.

So, does Ainsworth and Shaw now agree on the timeline?  If so, what is it?

Thanks.   Very confusing to me.


Sorry, I didn't explain that very well. The CBC tweets have the details. Ainsworth said on the stand that when he called Shaw he was thinking that Dick had died of natural causes and was shocked Shaw said it was murder. He realized then that the thumps sound timeline was important and when they discussed their timing he accepted Shaw's belief as he hadn't really thought it through. According to his testimony, over the months following the first trial he said rethought the timeline, believing that his earlier testimony was influenced by the Shaw conversation and in honesty could not be as specific as he previously had been. Under cross, Gold gave him a very hard time about this supposed call, and brought up Ainsworths's numerous social media posts around Dennis's guilt, implying the change in his story arose from his need for justice versus a true change in his recollection. It was a heated exchange on the stand.     

Edit:   Oops, beaten to it again by Ruby, and not the first time!

The following is also very interesting;

The defence has asked for new disclosure after the testimony of a retired Saint John police officer Monday at Dennis Oland's murder retrial in the death of his father more than seven years ago.
Former staff sergeant Mike King testified that on July 8, 2011 — the day after Richard Oland's bludgeoned body was discovered in his office at 52 Canterbury St. — officers called him to a possible related incident at a nearby apartment building at 147 Germain St.

The glass of the back door had been broken, there was blood in the sink and they found an old, small "claw hammer" in an open garage, said King.

King, a former roofer who had observed "the holes in the top of [the victim's] head," believed a roofer's hatchet, also known as a drywall hammer, may have been used to kill him, the court heard.

The hand-held tools typically have a bevelled hammer head with a waffle design "like a meat tenderizer" on one side and a sharp axe on the other side, he said.

The major crime unit investigated the break-in and determined it occurred after the Oland homicide and was unrelated, said King.
But lead defence lawyer Alan Gold told the court it was the first time the defence or Crown had heard about the incident and pointed out King didn't know how investigators made that determination.

King could not say, for example, how soon after the homicide it occurred or whether they tested the blood to see if it matched Oland's, said Gold.

...…..(how sloppy can these officers be?  They could have checked to see if the blood matched Dennis dna, as well as his Dad's - if only to exclude it.  ) jb

After this story was published and disclosure given to the defence they agreed that this particular break-in happened after the day of the murder-

The Crown and defence also submitted several agreed statements of fact into evidence on Thursday. One of them involved a break and enter near the crime scene that came up in testimony earlier in the retrial. Police were called to 147 Germain St. on July 8, 2011, regarding a glass back door being broken and blood being found in the sink. An old, small "claw hammer" was also found in an open garage, the court had heard.

"The break and enter turned out to have nothing to do with the murder of Richard Oland as it's clear in the [Saint John police] file the break and enter could not have occurred prior to July 7," said Knee, reading the agreed statement aloud.

and to the Shaw/Ainsworth phone conversation I mentioned above, from the same page-

It was only around 3:30 p.m., when someone called him, that he learned it was a homicide.

The revelation had a "dramatic" effect on him, he said. "I realized how much more significant the time element of when the noises were."

"What if anything did you do with this new information?" asked lead Crown prosecutor P.J. Veniot.

"I think I got a hold of [Shaw] to tell him."
Anthony Shaw testifed at Dennis Oland's murder retrial on Jan. 30. (CBC)

When Veniot asked Ainsworth if he was "able to provide any additional information," lead defence lawyer Alan Gold asked for Ainsworth to be excused from the courtroom and questioned the relevance of the Veniot's line of questioning.

"I was trying to determine whether — and perhaps it's not an important question — about whether or not that discussion had affected his timeline at all," said Veniot.

Gold objected, stressing the importance of Ainsworth's evidence about time and suggesting he will be cross-examined about prior inconsistent statements.

He said Justice Terrence Morrison should also know that the new disclosure the defence received is "regarding supposed conversations between this man and Shaw on the occasion the Crown was getting into."

Gold also pointed out the defence did not have the disclosure when Shaw was cross-examined.

Ainsworth's court comments and tweets around his belief of Dennis's guilt were so strong that they seem to me to be angry and emotional commentary rather than the objective musings of a bystander. I suspect that he is quite upset that his long time tenant's murder will not be avenged, and worse, and as he said in court, he feels a lot of guilt himself as had he acted when he heard the loud thumps the murderer may well have been apprehended. On the other hand, his claim that he and Shaw 'probably' talked on the phone the day after the murder and that upon months (years?) of reflection he believed that this chat influenced him into accepting Shaw's view of thump's timing for his earlier testimony and conversations is not implausible.  It does, however, seem to be an awfully convenient reflection given his strong emotions over the verdicts to date. Arthur Gold had the testimony around this phone conversation shut down by the judge.


There is indeed an interior door from Printing Plus to the stairwell, as well as a 'freight' elevator at the back from Printing Plus to the upper hallways.

In today's testimony the forensic sergeant said that in March 2014 it was his idea to compare the foot print photos from before and after the removal of Dick's body, but in cross examination a defense lawyer shows the court an email from the previous trial's crown prosecutor to this sergeant stating that the footprint issue will come into play in trial, and that he should downplay the footprint's significance. That's not really kosher. And completely coincidentally, the defense sent an email in January 2014 raising the footprint issue.   

BaySailor, thank you for the info re the accesses to Oland's office. Do you have an idea which door was usually used, eg single door, or through the double doors?

Could you tell me where you read the testimony about the foot print evidence?  TIA

Another revelation, that is news to me, is that the will found on R.O.'s desk was a genealogical will, not his personal one. There had been speculation that Dennis may have snapped if he saw disturbing changes to Dick's will.

This footprint issue arises in Wednesday afternoon's testimony, per the CBC live blog...

I had never heard of a genealogical will before today. Never too old to learn, apparently!

There is indeed an interior door from Printing Plus to the stairwell, as well as a 'freight' elevator at the back from Printing Plus to the upper hallways.

In today's testimony the forensic sergeant said that in March 2014 it was his idea to compare the foot print photos from before and after the removal of Dick's body, but in cross examination a defense lawyer shows the court an email from the previous trial's crown prosecutor to this sergeant stating that the footprint issue will come into play in trial, and that he should downplay the footprint's significance. That's not really kosher. And completely coincidentally, the defense sent an email in January 2014 raising the footprint issue.   

Bay Sailor, just for clarification, it was former Chief John Bates (who likely would have had little, if any, involvement in the Oland investigation who accompanied McCloskey to Court) not former Chief Bill Reid.  It was also Bates who was chief at the time of the first trial and filed the complaint with the Police Commission following King's testimony.  Regarding McCloskey's testimony, I find the testimony of King and Oram far more credible.  I always believed King (and much of what he said has since been confirmed by the investigators) and can really think of no reason why Oram would have concocted the story of McCloskey sitting on the desk, etc etc at the crime scene.

Thanks you very much for that correction RubyRose. I am with you on King and Oram, and feel so sorry for King- the position he was put in must have been awfully difficult to deal with, and I was sad seeing him break down on the stand. Clearly this has been eating him up by times. McCloskey gives the impression of being a real self-serving b*****d, loss of son not withstanding. 

A few more tidbits from the trial this week... the aforementioned Chief Reid as it turns out is also good buddies with now retired Insp. McCluskey, who testified today and actually showed up to court with the now retired Chief Reid by his side. McCluskey tried to refute another other police officer's testimony that McCluskey had asked him to lie about his presence at the crime scene, and also denied that he had made a 'Scenic tour', so to speak, of the crime scene on his second visit. He also denied that he sat on any of the furniture in the office, something a different officer had previously testified had happened.

Another police officer who testified today claimed that he had seen Constable Davidson at the crime scene check the back entrance door, questioned Davidson about the door, and was told by him that it was indeed locked. He had not mentioned this interaction with Davidson when he testified in the first trial, but claimed that he had remembered this after that trial as his memory had been jigged by the post-trial uproar over police handling of the crime scene. However after he said this today, the defense lawyer told him that all of the evidence they had gathered from other police reports, and to which the prosecution agreed, stated the testifying officer was NEVER at the crime scene at the same time as this Davidson. In other words, he was caught in a blatant lie. This is the state of Saint John's finest at the moment.

I would not be surprised if the defence requests the Judge dismiss the case because of the rampant incompetency of the police investigation and obvious perjury committed by at least one of the police officers noted above.

Yes, it was all explained on our local CTV news here. I get all the N.B. details on our news.  The SJP are maybe not trained enough in violent crimes and homicides to properly do an investigation. I do believe there is a lot of that going on in Canada. They fail to secure the crime scene, they allow numerous people to walk around without proper equipment at hand. There should only be suited persons on the crime scene and nothing moved and photos taken.  We see this continuously in serious crimes.  The same as in the Toronto homicide of the couple that was murdered in their mansion, classed as a suicide and the crime scene was contaminated. If it wasn't for their children getting PI involved, it would have been classed as a murder/suicide.  How can these officers sleep at night. I mean the conclusion was reached almost immediately, because they just in my opinion, can't be bothered doing a proper job. I don't have any faith in what is going to happen at this trial now, it's been just a comedy of errors, kind of a kangaroo court, so to say.  I have a feeling it's a washout. :( :( :( :( :(

I think these are really good points, and they worry me a bit. I think law enforcement and our courts in general aren't up to snuff.  The courts are backed up, many municipalities can't afford to staff their L/E departments properly, training seems to be weak, and perhaps even recruitment is missing the target. The folks in Saint John certainly don't have their act together, and it does seem farcical. I'll be curious to see what the provincial investigation of the police in Saint John turns up, but that's a long time away.


I find  the items to be compelling. Did Oland's lawyers miss the ball by not asking the pathologist if the evidence suggested that the attacker was right or left handed? Sounds like it to me. I can see why the prosecution didn't ask. Why was the lawyer's witness account (Cheryl Johnson) of a heated argument heard coming from Oland's office area, just before he was likely killed, not part of the testimony at the first trial? One of our unanswered questions--did the defense mess up on this also?

As far as Dennis having a financial motive to kill his father, I think it is evident that Richard would never allow Dennis to lose the family homestead, Sevenacres, due to financial problems. RO saved the estate after DO's divorce and I'm confident that he would do it again, and just take it off DO's share of his estate.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find the article in the link provided.
Yes, I agree, it seems odd from afar that Cheryl Johnson did not take the stand, but I can't believe that lawyers with the experience of Gold et al simply overlooked it- I suspect there is something more that either prevented her from testifying or led both sides OR the judge to determine her testimony wouldn't be relevant or appropriate. Otherwise that would be a terrible error of omission for the defense to have made.

I too also believe that Dick might well have decided to retain the 7 Acres property, but that does not alter the fact that Dennis couldn't pay his credit cards and was getting cash advances from his manager John Travis, and misled a bank about his income on a mortgage application. I see that, and his inheritance, as motive.   


A new trial may well deal with three things: an argument, a jacket and whether the murder weapon � thought to be a drywall hammer � was swung by a left hand or a right.

PART 1: Why the second-degree murder case against Oland fell apart

A Saint John lawyer, Cheryl Johnson, heard an animated argument in or near Richard Oland�s Canterbury Street office the evening of the murder, shortly before two men working in the print shop below the office heard thumping and banging sounds, perhaps of a struggle, overhead.

Secondly, Richard Oland�s killer was likely right-handed, the pathologist�s findings suggest.

And thirdly, witnesses testified at his trial that they saw Oland on the Renforth wharf wearing a brown jacket � a jacket that was later found to have bloodstains on it. However, forensic evidence showed the car Oland drove away from his father�s office had no bloodstains.

he Crown�s argument at his trial was that Oland was strapped financially and murdered his father, to whom he already owed hundreds of thousands of dollars, when the �daddy bank�, as the prosecutor appeared to enjoy calling it, refused to extend further funds to finance his son�s �extravagant lifestyle.�

However, investigators found no hard evidence of discord between father and son, defence lawyer Alan Gold reminded judges hearing the appeal.

The Oland family�s global brewing and distillery empire provides them with vast corporate and personal wealth. Richard Oland�s personal net worth at the time of his death was about $36 million.

Dennis and Lisa Oland�s finances were indeed under water in the summer of 2011, but the jury also heard testimony that they held two-thirds equity in their home, a 20-room house and expansive property in Rothesay called Sevenacres, that Dennis inherited from his grandfather.

In addition, Dennis was managing an investment portfolio valued by his employers at $20 million to $25 million. This made the former world markets trader with CIBC Wood Gundy a definite asset to the firm.

The court also heard that Dennis had little to gain by killing his father since his mother would get all of the money, which speaks to motive. Robert McFadden, Richard Oland�s accountant and business partner, testified that Oland�s widow, Connie, receives her husband�s fortune in trust and upon her death, the trust will be dissolved and assets shared among Richard�s three children, Dennis, Jacqueline Walsh and Lisa Bustin. McFadden said that after his mother�s death, Dennis�s portion would be reduced by $538,000 � the amount advanced by his father, with $269,000 going to each sister. The advance covered the expenses of Dennis�s divorce, allowing Dennis to keep his ancestral home.

During the trial that consumed the fall from September to Christmas 2015, the jurors were barraged with testimony from nearly 50 witnesses, and hundreds of exhibits were entered into evidence, but it was not pointed out to them directly that Oland is left-handed, his lawyers confirmed in interviews after the verdict.
For Oland to have brought a weapon to the meeting with his father suggests premeditation, yet Oland was only charged with second-degree murder. Online posts suggest he is a hobbyist who fills his off-hours sailing, tracing the Oland family�s genealogical roots, and restoring old cars.
Oland says he went to his father�s office after work on July 6, 2011, to give him a copy of a family will, 190 years old, that showed the family�s founder had been illegitimate. He said they laughed about it together because some members of the extended Oland family might find the news embarrassing.
Pathologist Dr. Ather Naseemuddin said in an interview that he wasn�t questioned about the direction of the blows during his testimony by either the prosecutor or the defence. Defence lawyers Gary Miller and Alan Gold confirmed this. In a telephone interview last January at his office at Saint John Regional Hospital, Naseemuddin said �I can�t recall� being asked by the Crown prosecutors or the defence whether the assailant was right or left handed.
Miller said in an interview in January 2016 that Naseemuddin was �mute� in court on the directions of the blows, but the lawyer agreed with the premise that it�s reasonable to expect that deeper wounds to the left side of the head would result from a right-handed killer wielding a weapon in a frontal assault. Naseemuddin wasn�t asked about that directly in court, Miller said.

However, Naseemuddin did testify that six fractures on the left side of Oland�s head were �more rapidly fatal� than the ones to the right.
That suggests �a right-handed assailant,� forensic psychologist Dr. Eric Mart of Portsmouth, N.H., said in an interview. Mart has provided expert testimony for courts in Canada and the United States on the mental state of those perpetrating violent offences.
Four of the blows created a depressed area in the skull measuring about 10 centimetres in length, seven centimetres in width and two centimetres deep. Some of them �breached the outer table of the skull,� and �entered the cranial cavity,� reaching the brain, the court heard.

Video of Dennis Oland leaving his father�s office on the evening Richard Oland was killed � his face appearing serene and his clothing clean � raises doubts that he attacked his father in a sudden fit of rage because his clothing would have been bloodied and he would have had trouble regaining his composure in the time available, according to Mart.

Other video, presented in court for the time surrounding his father�s death, actually appears to offer evidence of innocence. In the two separate videos taken later in the evening of the murder, Dennis is seen shopping at a pharmacy for cold medicine for his wife and then at Cochran�s Country Market in Rothesay for a watermelon at about the time witnesses testified they heard loud noises coming from his father�s office.

No blood was found in his car or on a reusable grocery bag, folded up in the trunk, which he was carrying to and from his father�s office. A dry cleaner, who inspected the brown jacket Dennis is wearing in the video and was taken for cleaning two days after the murder, testified that Dennis�s jacket was not stained with blood or gore.
more in the link should the reader wish to continue....

Their strikes me to be some hogwash in the way the defense portrays these items, particularly the financial motives. They state that Dennis's mom received Dick's money, but that's not really true.  Connie received the house and RRSP's. She also receives the income generated by the Far North investments, but the the investments themselves, 30 million plus, belong to Dennis and his sisters. While that money is indeed in trust, the trustees, depending upon it's terms, can access the capital should the want too. And while the defense here is arguing that Dennis had a tidy income as a broker we know that his boss was giving him multiple advances because he couldn't pay his bills, and his credit cards were maxed out. That doesn't jibe with their contention of 'no financial motive' to me.     

I don't think it matters who requests a trial by either judge or jury jb. Both sides have to agree or it doesn't happen.

Well, the trick to get out of another trial, is to not agree..... and go free?

er.... Something is not making sense.... I think I am missing something.
Am wearing my "stupid hat" today.


It will be by jury unless crown, defence, and judge agree otherwise. If the defence wants a judge only trial and the others don't agree, too bad for the defence. It proceeds as a jury trial.

This time around, who has the choice? Re; by judge or jury? Prosecution or Defendant?


The Criminal Code stipulates all homicide cases are to be heard by a judge and jury, but the defence or Crown can request a judge-alone trial. The other party must consent and its decision cannot be appealed.

Apparently the Crown wouldn't accede to that, at least at this point.     

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18