Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91

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

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
92
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.
93
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. 
94
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



95
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

96
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« Last post by Have faith 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.
97
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« Last post by freeman on March 28, 2019, 01:04:47 PM »
New book that lets you "Dig deep into the unsolved murder of Jackie English and join the hunt for a serial killer"
The Forest City Killer: A Serial Murderer, a Cold-Case Sleuth, and a Search for Justice
by Vanessa Brown

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44498180-the-forest-city-killer

Paperback, 328 pages
Expected publication: October 4th 2019 by ECW Press

 I had not heard anything about this previously. Who is Vanessa Brown and is she associated with Mike Arntfield?  The blurb says the has used Det Alsop's files.
98
https://globalnews.ca/news/5102337/coroners-service-interactive-map/

B.C. Coroners’ Office has released an interactive map of those missing in B.C.  (200+ people).
99
Since you both are discussing this fact regarding the blood and possibly someone wearing a cover up suit in case of getting blood or DNA on their clothing, I feel that would be a crime of premeditation. However, then it discounts a murder of rage and flash anger. So that would take that theory out of the mix. I am more apt to think that this was a planned murder, maybe not a long term plan, but maybe on that very same day that the crime occurred. They would have to be in possession of a weapon. They would have to in some way protect themselves from blood spatter. We have all been told that there was blood everywhere. So that would mean, clothing, shoes, face, hair, blood would be everywhere on a person. I do believe they focused on one individual for this crime. There was no eye witness to the exact time this happened. Also the police indicated they did not check the other exit to the building, when they were doing their investigation. So someone very well could have left without being seen.  There is enough doubt to possibly find Dennis not guilty. We will have to wait and see and the Judge alone is making his decision and knows all about the rules of law and evidence. It is not like a jury, then there are 12 people who make the decision. So it will be very interesting to know what will come out of all of this trial.  I think there is a possibility that he will be found Not Guilty.  :o :o :o :o :o
100
Well thought out, Have Faith.

I was thinking in terms of any  type of disposable coverall/overall already being on the premises.  That does not mean I necessarily think  it happened that way, though.  Too much is unknown to make that determination.  For instance, would the killer(s) have had access to such items if they were there?  It also raises the question of premeditation regarding the murder weapon and I, too, believe it was a crime of passion committed on the spur of the moment.

I think it is safe to say, however, that unless the killer remained in the building until well after dark (which eliminates Dennis), it is highly unlikely he left by the Canterbury Street entrance or, as shown in the video compiled by the Defence, by the gate which opens onto Germain Street without attracting attention.  (Assuming the killer was covered in blood, that is).

I agree with you regarding the reasonable doubt but would not go so far as to say I personally believe Dennis is not guilty.   On the other hand, I can see the other side, too.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]