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 [4] 5 6 ... 18
  To paraphrase, Gold said it was devastating to his client, and Gregory said it was no big deal. lol

I was really surprised at Gregory's comment. In a hearing that is really a conversation among 3 parties a blatant misdirect/ lie like that would make me distrust that lawyers arguments more, but I suppose judges are used to that sort of thing.   

I want to reiterate, that the fact that Oland's brown jacket was apparently seized illegally in the search warrant, and that it was sent out of province to be tested when it shouldn't have been, has no bearing on why I feel that there was enough cause for "reasonable doubt" in his guilt. I would be enraged to see a guilty person get off due to a legal technicality or innocent, inept errors made by LE.

The following excerpt lists the most significant grounds which should have caused "reasonable doubt" that Dennis was able  to slaughter his father in a blood spattered, horrific, gory crime scene, mere minutes before he was captured on a surveillance camera, with no sign of blood on him. This is pure logic that he would have been covered in blood, or at the least, it would have been clearly visible. There is the other significant witness evidence by the two men who heard the sounds when Richard was being killed, that could have cleared Dennis outright, but was discounted when one witness changed his testimony re the time it happened from his statements to police the next day after the murder, and from his same testimony at the pretrial. I don't consider him as credible as his friend who never deviated from his account. And as far as the tiny spots of blood on the brown jacket...

"None of the expert witnesses could say how long the blood had been on the brown jacket or how it got there. Others testified that the killer likely would have considerable blood spatter on his or her clothes, based on the amount of spatter at the crime scene.
No blood evidence was found on any other articles of Oland's clothing, his car, home or cell phone."

The Court didn't even bother to hear the prosecutions case for the evidentiary value of the jacket; they listened to the defenses objections and determined that they did not need to hear the prosecutions rebuttal. I would think that means the Court felt the defence argument was not sufficient to overturn the trial judges ruling on that evidence as otherwise they would surely have let the prosecution have their say.

The Chief Justice's comments lead to me believe that their sticking point in making a decision is Dennis's behavior after his father's death. After day 1 in the Appeals Court the trial judges instructions to the jury appeared to be an issue for the Chief Justice but he later said he been convinced otherwise to some degree by the prosecutions rebuttal of that concern, perhaps allayed by the fact that the prosecution and defense sat with the trial judge for hours on different occasions to help the judge create his instructions to the jury.

The fact we did not hear a decision rendered immediately is good news for the defence, and I am curious to know what aspects of Dennis's behavior they are considering. His trip to the wharf? The dry cleaning the next day? His normal shopping behavior? I wonder...     

I was surprised at the nervousness shown by both Gold and the Prosecutor this week when speaking. I would have thought they had both done this often enough to be comfortable talking to judges but by times they stuttered, stopped and restarted sentences, and the prosecutor giggled nervously frequently when making points. Apparently Provincial Supreme Court is nerve wracking, even for the pros.     

Thank you Have faith.  So - let's see, it is Tuesday the appeal to throw out the verdict?

Somewhat confusing - if that is correct.  As Supreme Court to rule on bail pending a re-trial.

Is that correct?

The institution is Maximum Security.  Good grief.  I don't think Dennis needs that type of imprisonment. lmo


Yes this is the appeal to overturn the verdict, or order a new trial. The bail appeal comes later.

currently scheduled for Oct. 31

I wasn't referring to the Oland case, Bay Sailor.  I was referring to jellybean's reply #1547, the case of a pastor in Ontario who had originally been charged with murdering his pregnant wife and then being found guilty of manslaughter at trial.  To make a long story short, he was then granted bail while awaiting an appeal of that conviction.  Since there had been evidence of premeditation in that case, I was questioning the reduction in the charge.

Big oops, please excuse me as I slink off into the wings on this one.  :-[  I am very sorry about that. Please accept my apology.


I'm surprised at the Jury's decision that he was guilty only of manslaughter.

Clearly there was some premeditation here.

There certainly wasn't much evidence of that. I can't believe he would have planned to kill his father at the time he was scheduled to have a meeting with him, and shortly after chatting with his father's secretary. The cell phone and CCTV evidence showing his drive home to Rothesay indicates the murder took place within a small window of time, and thus any pre-planning resulting in the murder during any of his three visits to Dick's office would had to have been done in brief. Other than the fact we do not know where the murder weapon came from and thus a time from which intent must have been formed, the evidence suggests an angry murder after an argument or other such trigger, IMO.

I think Dennis would relatively happily return to Rothesay, his supportive wife and mother, and his job at Far End.     

  I don't think Dennis had a say in it.
I suspect you are right!!


Should his appeal be granted, hopefully he will wear a completely different color - other than brown.


I heard that stripes are coming back.

Sister Lisa did not attend the trial proceedings and now we're told did not submit a character reference letter either, while her sister Jacqui did both. I hope this won't lead to animosity with the remaining members of the family. It is an interesting article...

What a silly question on my part.....An impact statement would have been awkward, I agree. Best to leave it alone.
Still, it must have been difficult going into that office every morning........


I can't imagine how terrible that must have been in the beginning. I would think (and hope) that the secretary and accountant must get along well and used each other for support. Along with Ainsworth they must have experienced a difficult, lonely and trying time. Perhaps being together helps them deal with it.

Come to think of it, no impact statement from Richard's secretary,(who retired from Far End, who worked for Dick for 30 years) nor his accountant.


Submitting victim impact statements would be the end of their employment at Far End! "Um, sorry boss, I didn't mean what I said about you killing your father giving me PTSD and nightmares and all that stuff. I really do like working for you. And, uh, sorry for hiding your scissors and letter openers."

Having known (and sometimes worked with) Dennis for decades the accountant could have also submitted a character reference for Dennis, but chose not too. 


Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I have to question that a judge would provide a letter of support for a convicted murderer at a Sentencing Hearing.  I was always of the opinion the judiciary was supposed to be above all that regardless of their personal feelings.  I find it very disturbing, to say the least.

So much for the old saying " Not only must justice be done but must be seen to be done".

Yes, I was a little surprised he would submit one. Per the CBC report:  "Now onto letter from "one of the Blue Bloods of Rothesay," former judge Wallace Turnbull, who "concurs" with min 10yr parole eligibility".

per link to live blog via this story...


Glad to see that the request for bail has been placed under a different judge.  Walsh was not amused by the "blue bloods" yesterday.

After reading about the "show of hands for support for the family", yesterday - and listing some of them as being retired judges, etc, it now makes me wonder if the judge who will be considering bail, is a friend of a friend of a friend. 

I do not wish to think that way. What an uncomfortable thought. Shame on me for even considering it.

Don't feel ashamed, you are right on point. The presiding judge on bail, Marc Richard, is one of 9 on the NB Court of Appeal. Another on that court is Justice (Supernumary) Turnbull who's letter in support of Dennis was one of those noted in court at the Sentencing Hearing, and who was mentioned by Dennis in his police interview as being a lifelong friend of Dick's but with whom he had a falling out after making a nasty comment about the judge's son's impending marriage to a McCain. Dick and Judge Turnbull grew up across the street from one another and their sons are longtime friends. Judges Richard and Turnbull have therefore worked together for at least 12 years as Richard was appointed to that court in 2003 (Turnbull in '93).       

I have a question for baysailor if he/she comes back.

I am just curious, did Dick skipper his own yacht in these ocean races?

He did usually skipper the boat when he could though usually he had a pro driver at the helm when campaigning in regattas. He's had several Olympic and America's Cup sailors drive and trim for him, sometimes supplied by sailmakers I suspect, sometimes out of his own pocket. Albeit when the sailmaker supplies guys for your boat, it's more or less coming out of your pocket anyways, I suppose... 

He raced with a mix of pro and amateur guys onboard.     

I will trust Judge Walsh's word about presumptive blood tests.   

and as should the jury. It's my understanding that science has not been able to pin down the precise likelihood of false positives in presumptive blood testing, but in Canada and the USA they clearly believe it could be high enough such as to disallow anyone in court from suggesting a positive test is proof of the presence of blood. Be that as it may, I believe presumptive positive tests for blood are much more likely to be correct than false, but not likely enough to satisfy our courts who demand greater precision in such matters.         

I do question their motivation. They have enormous financial resources to fund an investigation of their own, and if they wished to they have had several years to do so. Reasonable evidence suggesting the existence of another bona fide suspect is typically used to bolster the defences case; the lack of such in this trials defence presentation suggests strongly to me that none exists. I'm sure they did look into this and we are aware private investigators were hired by someone early in the investigation.

With respect to the blood evidence, sometimes only blood which passes both the presumptive test and the in-depth forensic test can be presented at trial, and the detailed arguments counsel engaged in here that were unreported may well have included such discussions, but we do know that in this case the judge would not allow evidence of blood that passed the first test but not the second. I suspect (and I may be wrong, it's just my belief) that there was much presumptive evidence of blood in Dennis's car and on his clothing that failed the second test, perhaps due to cleaning and laundering.   

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 18