Author Topic: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John  (Read 482052 times)

RubyRose

  • Member
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1800 on: March 24, 2019, 08:18:20 AM »
If, as has been suggested, jellybean, he was wearing a disposable coverall, there likely would not  have been much, if any, blood on the jacket.  The presence of the blood on the inside left cuff appears to be the most damning.  The fact there was no blood found on the logbook really doesn't mean much.  The opportunity was certainly there to have removed it from the office earlier.  As for the number of trips, particularly the conveniently forgotten one, I've always found that part of the story odd but did in the beginning somewhat put it down to confusion/preoccupation even though the reasons given always seemed improbable.

It's very unfortunate and disappointing that the Defence pulled the "expert" cell-phone witness at the last minute and since they did,  I am left with the impression that under cross-examination his testimony would not have been as favourable as they had originally (quite loudly) publicly predicted it would be.  But that's just me.

Overall, Dennis' defence team did a much better job this time around so we shall just have to wait and see.  Sadly, I don't expect the truth of what happened will ever really be known, whatever the outcome.


Have faith

  • Member
  • Posts: 1001
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1801 on: March 25, 2019, 09:18:45 PM »

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.

RubyRose

  • Member
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1802 on: March 27, 2019, 11:52:47 AM »
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.

capeheart

  • Member
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1803 on: March 27, 2019, 03:37:37 PM »
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

jellybean

  • Member
  • Posts: 8204
  • Tired of Crime not doing their time
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1804 on: March 30, 2019, 03:40:26 PM »
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

« Last Edit: March 30, 2019, 04:10:14 PM by jellybean »

Have faith

  • Member
  • Posts: 1001
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1805 on: March 30, 2019, 06:01:01 PM »
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




BaySailor

  • Member
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1806 on: March 30, 2019, 07:03:55 PM »
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. 

Have faith

  • Member
  • Posts: 1001
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1807 on: March 30, 2019, 07:21:09 PM »
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.

RubyRose

  • Member
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1808 on: March 31, 2019, 04:37:42 AM »

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
« Last Edit: April 01, 2019, 05:36:53 AM by RubyRose »

BaySailor

  • Member
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1809 on: March 31, 2019, 01:57:46 PM »
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.   
« Last Edit: March 31, 2019, 03:29:42 PM by BaySailor »

Have faith

  • Member
  • Posts: 1001
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1810 on: April 01, 2019, 12:01:35 PM »

[/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

RubyRose

  • Member
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1811 on: April 01, 2019, 01:56:57 PM »
Neither do I, really, Have Faith, but I guess as the Judge said, "It's a "moot point".

jellybean

  • Member
  • Posts: 8204
  • Tired of Crime not doing their time
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1812 on: April 05, 2019, 07:52:02 PM »
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 the lesson is?…...

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

When is this trial over - Anyone know?

jb
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 10:03:23 PM by jellybean »

BaySailor

  • Member
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1813 on: April 05, 2019, 09:01:24 PM »
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.
     

RubyRose

  • Member
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: Richard (Dick) Oland | Murdered | 69 | Saint John
« Reply #1814 on: April 06, 2019, 12:51:36 PM »
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.