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
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

I take him at face value when the judge he says that his original estimate of how long it would take him to render the decision was too 'optimistic' In the CBC's twitter reporting from the page you link he backs that up with notes to other Judge only murder trials. Given he had researched and was able to orate those case comparisons to the court he must have realized he would need more time before the closing arguments began, but didn't announce it until he made his closing comments after said arguments.   

2
Thank you for sharing, BaySailor.  P.W., like his son, sounds like a man who was used to having things his own way.  It must have been awkward and uncomfortable for those who witnessed it, though.

I think it must have been awkward and uncomfortable for those at Dick's table.  For many others it was somewhat entertaining.

P.W.'s bearing was very much that of a British military officer; he served with distinction in the Canadian Army in WWII as a captain and died a Brigadier General. Warm and fuzzy he was not, but neither was he a bad guy. 

3
Excellent points from all...

Gosh,

Were it not for that jacket, with RO's blood - even up the lining and sleeves, I would say - there is doubt.   Because, it would be odd at best that it just so happened that he had rain slicker and claw hammer in the trunk of his car. 

However, to be on the safe side of things.......

A Lesson to be learned by fathers who are mean, miserly, and have a mistress tucked in plain sight.

And so it goes...…...

Never - Ever loan your tools to anyone!! :D   

When is this trial over - Anyone know?

jb

On loaning tools....

Dick's father P.W. had the property Dennis lives in now. One weekend, sometime after Dick had quit the brewery for the last time  P.W.'s handyman had trouble with the mower so he walked up to Dick's house and and asked him if he could borrow his to finish the job. Dick said no.  Apparently he didn't like to lend tools.
The next week P.W. and Dick both happened to be at the city's old club at lunchtime. P.W. walked over to Dick's table and told him if ever refused a borrowing request like that again he would send some staff over to rip out the Moosehead keg system in Dick's house and dump the beer onto the floor. It was a very public and angry dressing down.

on the trial....

Closing arguments are set for May 9th, and the judge thinks it might take him a month or more to deliver the written decision.
     

4
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.

It's certainly still considered proper in these circles (and not just in Rothesay) to wear a dark suit and sober tie to a funeral. Dress codes also hold for weddings unless otherwise indicated. Once, while staying with my folks, I was on my way to a wedding at the private school's chapel in Rothesay wearing a lighter French blue shirt with a charcoal grey suit. They headed me off in the kitchen and suggested kindly but strongly that I substitute that shirt for a proper white one. Yeeshk. Sadly, it''s more funerals than weddings that I now attend but the dress codes still apply for most of these 'proper' folks. I really don't think the 22 year old step son of of an Oland would not follow that, but then again since  Dennis's bank accounts were dry and the credit card over limit buying him a new suit was probably a difficult proposition.   

5
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. 

6
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 events..as 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!"


7
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.

8
Very well said Have Faith.

9
So, does Ainsworth and Shaw now agree on the timeline?  If so, what is it?

Thanks.   Very confusing to me.


jb

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!

10
The following is also very interesting;

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-trial-saint-john-1.4968298

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-

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-murder-retrial-ainsworth-dna-1.5026725


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.

11
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.

     

12
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.

http://live.cbc.ca/Event/Jan_17_2019_-_Dennis_Oland_murder_retrial?Page=2

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

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-murder-retrial-richard-oland-1.4979845

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

13
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.   

14
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. 

15
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.




Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18