Canadian True Crime - 62 The Murder of Richard Oland - Part 3

Episode Date: March 15, 2020

[Part 3 of a 3 part series]SAINT JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK In the summer of 2011, the residents of Saint John would be alerted to a crime and ensuing scandal that would thrust their normally quiet city, and one of its most prominent and powerful families, into the spotlight in a way that no one could have anticipated. Thank you to my generous sponsors!You can find the codes, where applicable, at www.canadiantruecrime.ca/sponsorsFind out more about: BOOK: Shadow of Doubt - The Trials of Dennis Oland  by Bobbi-Jean MackinnonDOCO: The Oland Murder by CBC (only available in Canada)Credits: Research and writing: Gemma HarrisAudio editing and production: We Talk of DreamsDisclaimer voiced by the host of Beyond Bizarre True Crime Theme Song: We Talk of Dreams All credits and information sources can be found at https://canadiantruecrime.ca/episodes/2020/2/14/60-the-murder-of-richard-oland  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

My name's John Weir. You don't know me, but you're gonna, because I know the people that have been watching you, learning about you. They know you've done well for yourself, that people like you and trust you. Trust you. Now imagine what they're gonna do with all that information that you've freely shared with the whole world. Now imagine what they're gonna do with all the information you have at it. Yeah, I'll be in touch. This podcast contains course language, adult themes, and content of a violent and disturbing nature. Listener discretion is advised. Where we left off, Dennis Oland was found guilty of the second degree murder of his father, Richard Oland.

This was a verdict that surprised his family and friends, who felt sure they would be celebrating a not guilty verdict. They released a statement expressing their disappointment and reiterated that they continued to believe that Dennis was innocent. His legal team had already begun the appeals process. This is Christy, and you're listening to Canadian True Crime, Episode 62. St John Police released a statement praising the verdict, saying that the outcome provided a degree of validation for investigators who had experienced some intense scrutiny and criticism during the investigation and trial. But three days after the verdict was delivered, the New Brunswick Police Commission got involved. The commission is an independent oversight body charged to investigate and resolve complaints by citizens of New Brunswick, relating to the conduct of police officers in the province. And the commission was instructed to conduct two separate reviews of the way St John Police handled the investigation into Richard Oland's murder.

One review would address the breaches in forensic protocol during the general police investigation, including contamination of the crime scene and general carelessness by officers attending the scene. The other review would focus on the allegations made against Deputy Chief McCloskey. As you'll recall from the first trial, the lead forensic investigator testified that Deputy Chief McCloskey made two unauthorized and unprotected visits to the crime scene, and then suggested to him that he not tell anyone about the visits. First, the Halifax Regional Police conducted their own eight-month investigation, which cleared McCloskey of any criminal wrongdoing. But the investigation by the New Brunswick Police Commission would still continue. Dennis Oland's sentencing hearing was held on February 11, 2016, with another packed courtroom there to witness the spectacle. This case was still making national headlines, and the bitter winter weather didn't deter a crowd of around 200 of the Oland family supporters from gathering in the snow outside court. In Canada, second-degree murder carries an automatic life sentence, with no chance of parole for at least 10 years, with a maximum of 25. The crown stated that the brutal nature of Richard's murder required nothing less than a period of between 12 and 15 years before Dennis would be eligible for parole. The defence requested that the judge take Dennis' children into account in handing down the sentence.

Over 70 character references were provided to the court to illustrate the amount of support for Dennis. His eldest daughter said, Another reference was provided by Dennis' stepson, who said he hoped that his mother would find someone special that would make her happy. Quote, Having found Dennis who was kind, caring, supportive and loving, I couldn't be any happier for my mother or to have such a great father. He's always been there to show me things and help me along the way when no one else would. It deeply saddens me that the result of this case, regardless of what is to come in the future, has changed my family. Dennis' uncle Derek Oland, the executive chairman of Moosehead Breweries, called Dennis one of the most decent and kindest of men who had always been a credit to the Oland family.

In a subtle statement about their support of Dennis, the Oland family declined to make victim impact statements about Richard's murder. Before delivering his decision, the judge stated that Dennis, quote, The judge acknowledged that 69-year-old Richard Oland was, regrettably, a very difficult man. He also acknowledged the presence of long-standing dysfunction in the family, describing it as a family tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. In accordance with the jury's recommendation, Dennis Oland was sentenced to life imprisonment with a possibility of parole in 10 years, which was the minimum. The guilty verdict and sentence wasn't the only bombshell to be delivered by the court. The judge went on to cite the importance of openness and transparency in conducting investigations. He ruled in favour of the long-running petition by CBC News to make the video of Dennis' full police interview available to the public.

Obviously, people scramble to watch it. Meanwhile, before Dennis was sentenced, his legal team had filed a notice of appeal. They argued that his guilty verdict was unreasonable in law and not one that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could judicially have arrived at. The appeal questioned the judge's decision to admit the bloodstain evidence obtained from Dennis' jacket after it had been tested outside the time frame specified in the warrant. As you'll recall, there were mass delays in sending exhibits for testing and delays in them being tested and sent back. By the time the jacket was tested, the warrant had expired. Another issue was the Crown's closing summary at the trial.

The Crown put forward their theory that Dennis and his father had become involved in a heated argument about two things, money and Richard's affair with Diana. But because this was in closing arguments, Dennis wasn't allowed the opportunity to be cross-examined on these points. Remember, at the preliminary inquiry, the judge said there was no evidence that Dennis had asked his father for money and there was also no evidence that possible denial of such a request could have inspired such rage. Appeal court documents also revealed that in late September of 2011, just a few months after Richard's murder, the Oland family approached police about posting a reward for an unspecified amount of money for information leading to the arrest of Richard Oland's killer. But St John Police had declined the offer, saying that it would have been unethical to accept it, given that Richard's son was the prime suspect. At the same time, the defence filed notice of an application for Dennis to be released on bail, while his appeal made its way through the court system.

Dennis insisted that he wasn't a flight risk and if he were released, he would comply with all conditions. The appeal documents were accompanied by Arthur Davids, by Dennis' mother Connie and his uncle Derek, who both supported the request for his release. His mother said, quote, I further believe that my son respects me and would not do anything to jeopardise my trust in him. Never before in the history of the province had bail been granted to someone convicted of murder, so the chances of Dennis Oland being granted bail was slim. So it wasn't surprising that a week after he was sentenced, his request for bail was denied. The defence then put in an application to the court of appeal, which ruled that the decision would be upheld. Although there might be legitimate grounds for appeal, the ruling stated that none of them were serious enough to virtually guarantee an acquittal or a new trial.

And if Dennis were to be released, the public's confidence in the administration of criminal justice would be undermined, it said. As with the guilty verdict, Dennis' family were again shocked and distressed when bail was refused. They released a statement saying, We know Dennis has been wrongly convicted and are confident our appeal will see justice prevail. His prolonged absence will be incredibly difficult and only serves to further compound the loss and anguish our family has suffered. We will continue our long legal battle by pursuing every option to prove Dennis' innocence. We will not rest until he is home and Dick's killer is found. Later that month, April of 2016, Dennis filed an application with the Supreme Court,

seeking to overturn the court of appeal's decision to deny him bail. But again, the decision was upheld, with the ruling stating that releasing someone convicted of murder pending an appeal would undermine the public's faith in the criminal justice system. Several months after that, Dennis was meeting with two visitors at the Maximum Security Atlantic Institution where he was housed. As he was talking to them, two other inmates approached him and started punching him, knocking him to the floor and continuing to punch and kick him after he fell. Dennis' visitors had tried to break it up but were unsuccessful until the guards arrived. Dennis was left with unspecified facial injuries which were treated at the prison. The RCMP North East District laid charges against the two men in their mid-20s.

One was serving life for first-degree murder and the other was serving 15 years for attempted murder. The lawyer for the Oland family, Bill Teed, released a statement to clarify that at no time did Dennis himself make any complaints about the assault. Quote, There's been some inference drawn by some that he has and we just want to make it abundantly clear that he has not been involved in any way, shape or form with respect to the laying of charges against these two individuals. Prison Code The two men later faced court in September of 2017, pleading guilty to repeatedly punching and kicking Dennis. They were both sentenced to an additional four months in prison. No motive for the attack was ever disclosed. On October the 24th 2016, the Court of Appeal presented its decision.

Dennis' overarching claim that his guilty verdict was unreasonable was rejected. However, the Court did find that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury about evidence regarding Dennis' brown jacket, saying that it was not the smoking gun that the jury had been led to believe. As you'll recall, Dennis originally told police that he was wearing a navy jacket, but it was later proved to be brown. The decision stated, quote, The trial judge had aired in his instructions to the jury about how much weight to place on a key piece of the evidential puzzle, which was whether Dennis had lied to police about what he was wearing the night they believe his multi-millionaire father was killed. The Court of Appeal criticized the trial judge for failing to instruct the jury that even if they found Dennis' conflicting statements about the jacket to be a lie, this didn't necessarily prove his guilt, because they would need to conclude that the reason he was lying was to conceal his involvement in the murder of his father. The Court went on to say that this fact may have incorrectly been the clinching element for the jury's verdict. In a momentous victory for the defense team, the Court of Appeal made a unanimous decision. Dennis Olin's conviction was quashed. A new trial was ordered. Dennis' appeal was successful.

After about 10 months in prison, Dennis was released on bail to go home to his family, who were obviously elated at the news. Dennis' Uncle Derek released a statement on behalf of the Olin family, expressing their satisfaction and affirming that they continued to believe that Dennis was innocent. So Dennis was now out on bail, meaning his application with the Supreme Court was now a moot point. But Canada's highest court wasn't done with the issue. In March of 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the New Brunswick Court of Appeal made a mistake when it denied Dennis Olin's bail while he waited for his appeal. This was a landmark decision, because no one convicted of murder in New Brunswick had ever been granted bail pending appeal. The decision said that Dennis Olin presented as an ideal candidate for bail. He wasn't a danger to the public, was not a flight risk, and the grounds for the appeal weren't considered frivolous. This decision set a new precedent for every jurisdiction across Canada, in cases where a person convicted of murder applies for bail while their appeal is pending. The Crown announced it would appeal the ruling with the Supreme Court, with the goal to have the murder conviction reinstated.

CBC News reported that in response, the defence intended to file a cross-appeal, now seeking a full acquittal for Dennis instead of just a retrial. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals. The original ruling would stand, and Dennis would go to trial for a second time. This meant that the Police Commission hearing into the allegations against Deputy Chief McCloskey would be delayed, to allow for any new evidence that might come up at the retrial to be heard. In Canada, murder trials are usually heard by a jury, in accordance with the Canadian Criminal Code. In cases where the defence requests a judge-only trial, approval is dependent on the Attorney General providing consent. In the case of Dennis Oland, the defence lodged a request for a judge-only trial, based on the significant amount of media coverage which could potentially be prejudicial, and compromise Dennis' right to a fair trial. But this request was refused without any explanation. Everyone was on tenterhooks awaiting the announcement of the new trial date, which ended up being postponed three times.

On October 15th 2018, Dennis again pleaded not guilty to murdering his father. A new panel of jurors was finalised, and it was announced that the trial would commence the next month. But there were more delays as various court issues arose, one of them being a major concern about the jury selection process. It would later emerge that a police officer assisting the Crown had conducted background checks on prospective jurors that were deemed to be improper. The officer used the police computer system to assess whether potential jurors had prior negative interactions with police. The defence argued that the officer's actions effectively constituted juror shopping, which had the potential to compromise the jury's verdict. It was announced that the conduct of the officer involved would be investigated by the police commission at the conclusion of the retrial. So Justice Terrence Morrison declared a mistrial.

He dismissed the jury and announced that the trial would be heard by Judge alone, which was a major win for the defence. Dennis Olin's retrial started on November 21st 2018, seven years after the murder of his father. The defence announced that, as in the first trial, 50-year-old Dennis would take the stand. Both the prosecution and the defence agreed that rather than certain witnesses testifying again, videotape testimony from the first trial would be played to the court. This included testimony from Diana, the woman that Richard had been having an affair with. But other witnesses appeared in person to testify again, including Richard's secretary Maureen and the men from Printing Plus, the office underneath Richards. As you'll recall, one of the big issues at the first trial was about Richard Olin's iPhone and the phone towers that it connected to. His iPhone was never located. The question on everyone's mind was where was it, along with who took it and why.

An investigator with Rogers Communications testified to what Richard Olin's cell phone was doing, starting from July 6th, 2011, the morning of the day of his death. While he was at home before he'd gone into work, his phone was connecting with a cell tower in Rossi, where he lived. When he arrived at work, his cell switched to a cell tower in St John, near his office, where it connected after that. A computer forensics expert again testified that the phone was connected to Richard's computer in the afternoon, likely charging. At 4.41pm, about an hour before Dennis arrived, the cell phone's data had been backed up to the computer and the phone was disconnected from the computer three minutes later. Over the years, the backup data had been analysed using the latest technologies as they became available, and the court heard that no incriminating evidence was found. So what happened to that cell phone after 4.44pm, and why did the killer decide that it had to go missing? So we know that Dennis Olin arrived for his visit just after 5.30pm, which is the last time that Richard Olin's computer recorded human interaction.

It was left on after that time, but there was no evidence that he used it again, and Dennis was gone at around 6.30pm. The court again heard the evidence that at 6.44pm, Diana, the woman Richard was having the affair with, sent a text to his phone, and it was the last communication that was successfully delivered. And curiously, instead of pinging from a cell phone tower near downtown St John, where Richard's office was, his phone pinged off a tower in Rossay, near Renforth Wharf, where Dennis Olin had stopped off to see his kids. Coincidence or not? The court heard that all incoming calls after that went directly to voicemail, and text messages were not delivered to the device. St John police contacted Richard's telco provider, Rogers, in an attempt to obtain the GPS coordinates of his phone, in a process known as forced registration. When Rogers tried to locate the phone, they received a roaming error. Again, there was a lot of highly technical discussion about cell phone evidence and more confusion. The defence said they were misinformed about the meaning of roaming error at the first trial. But none of the evidence or testimony or discussion was able to provide a concrete conclusion about what happened to Richard's iPhone, whether it was destroyed or not, or where it might be now. A telecommunications network expert testified that the likelihood of Richard's cell phone being in his office in downtown St John, but transmitting via the tower at Rossay, 14 kilometres away, was very small.

He agreed with the Crown's assertion that the strongest possibility was that the iPhone itself was most likely in Rossay. The experts stated that regardless of whether a phone call or text message was being transmitted, a cell phone is designed to detect the strongest signal available. He confirmed that the Rossay Tower, which was near Renforth Wharf, was potentially strong enough to send a signal as far as downtown St John, if that's where Richard's phone was. But the signals from two other towers were stronger. This evidence weighed in favour of the prosecution's argument, but under cross-examination, the defence maintained that it was still possible that Richard's iPhone was in the St John area where his office was. Unlikely, maybe, but no expert witness had ever discounted that as a possibility. Several pieces of new evidence were introduced at the retrial. The court heard that more than a month after the murder, a man walking in a wooded area in west St John found numerous post-it notes. Their potential significance wasn't immediately apparent, but in the context of Richard Olin's death, they were a possible clue. CBC News reported that the notes included names of members of the Olin family, including Richard, as well as what was written as policemen named Mike, Stephen and Mark.

In an unusual coincidence, these were the first names of the prominent investigating officers on the case. Other notations on the notes said things like alcoholic, transfer $429 and John insured, but their significance wasn't clear. The court heard that Constable Stephen Davidson interviewed the man who found the notes and arranged for the immediate area to be searched. He told the court that the notes weren't tested for fingerprints due to their age, and obviously he considered them to be in poor condition due to having laid outside in a wooded area for a considerable length of time. The defence questioned whether a hair fibre that was found stuck to one of the notes had been tested. It hadn't, but Constable Davidson told the court that the nature of the fibre wasn't clear. Like much in this case, the post-it notes remained a mystery. Do you have a passion project that you're ready to take to the next level? Well, Squarespace makes it easy for anyone to create an engaging web presence, grow a brand and sell anything from your products to the content you create and even your time.

When I launched this passion project six years ago, I needed some kind of online hub to manage all the non-podcasting tasks that come with podcasting. I chose Squarespace because it's an all-in-one platform that seamlessly helps me achieve multiple goals. It's important to have a website that looks good, and I was inspired by Squarespace's wide selection of clean and modern templates. They can be easily customised with pre-built layouts and flexible design tools to fit your needs, and you can even browse the category of your business to see examples of what others have done. I use the built-in blogging tools to create a new page for each episode, and there are so many intuitive options from embedding an audio player so listeners can stream episodes to scheduling posts to be published on a certain date, an easily moderated comment section and automatically displaying recent episodes on the homepage. Every Squarespace website and online store includes SEO tools to help you maximise your visibility in search engines, and I love the powerful insights I can get from the analytics tools, helping me better understand who's visiting the site, where they came from and how they're interacting with it.

Do you have a passion project or business idea or something to sell? Go to squarespace.com.ctc for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, use offer code CTC to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. That's squarespace.com.ctc with offer code CTC, and get your passion project off the ground today. As you'll recall, timing was crucial to the case. It was established that Dennis left his father's office in downtown St John for the third time just after 6.30pm, and he was considered to be the last person to see Richard alive. The prosecution's theory was that he bludgeoned his father to death between 6pm and 6.30pm. Then he drove home, where he stopped off at the Renforth Wharf hoping to see his kids, before he arrived home after 7. And at just after 7.30pm, he was captured on surveillance footage, food shopping at a local market with his wife, more than 20 minutes drive away from his father's office.

This all provided him possible solid alibis if it were able to be determined what time Richard Oland was murdered. Was it before 6.30pm when Dennis left the office, or after 6.30pm? One of the witnesses that wasn't called to testify in the first trial was asked to the second. New Brunswick politician Jerry Lowe said he'd been at a restaurant called Tandy's, which is located directly across the road from Richard Oland's office building. He said he saw a man exit the building that evening, but couldn't remember when. Time-stamped video evidence from the restaurant proved that Jerry was there on the night that Richard was murdered, arriving at 7.40pm and leaving at 8.35pm. But the problem was that even though he was definitely dining there that night, he dined there frequently and he couldn't be sure if he saw the person exit the building that night, or the night before. So if this new witness saw a person leaving Richard Oland's office at the later time after 7.40pm, it opens the possibility of the murderer being someone other than Dennis Oland, because Dennis had an alibi at that time.

As you'll recall, on the night of the murder, John Ainsworth and Anthony Shaw were at Printing Plus, the office directly below Richard Oland's. They heard a loud crash, and then 8 or 10 repeated sounds coming from Richard's office. As for the timing, again it's critical. Anthony Shaw had testified at the first trial that he heard the noises sometime around 7.30pm or 7.45pm. He repeated this testimony at the retrial. John Ainsworth, the owner of Printing Plus and also the owner of the building, had also testified at the first trial, but his recollection was less specific. He could only say for sure that he heard the noises sometime between when Anthony arrived at 6pm and when a customer came in to send a fax at 8.11pm, which was documented. This timing is critical because of Dennis's documented whereabouts after he left his father's office. If the noises were in fact Richard Oland being murdered, if it was established that they were heard after 6.30pm, it meant that Dennis could not have been the killer.

But at the retrial, new evidence was submitted. The court heard that the same year that Richard was murdered, a private investigator had been hired by the Oland family to look into the case. John Ainsworth from Printing Plus provided a videotaped statement to this private investigator under oath, where he stated that he thought the noises were made between 7.30pm and 8pm. Additionally, during his initial statement to police on July 8th, 2011, the day after Richard's body was discovered, John had put the time as being about 30-45 minutes before his customer came in to send a fax. The transaction was time stamped at 8.11pm, putting his timing at around 7.30 or 7.45pm, consistent with his employee's recollection of the time. At the retrial, John was cross-examined on his backtracking regarding the time. He insisted that he was not paying attention and that once he had time to reflect on what happened, he felt he couldn't be any more specific about the time, other than giving the timeframe of between 6.00pm and 8.11pm. On cross-examination, there was a tense exchange between the defense and John Ainsworth.

The defense accused John of being biased towards Dennis Oland being the killer, and that's why he backed off his original statement to police and to the private investigator. But John Ainsworth insisted that he was not that kind of person, adding that integrity is everything and he just wanted to be honourable. As you'll recall, there was a low level of alcohol found in Richard Oland's urine after his death. At the retrial, a forensic toxicologist for the Crown testified that the evidence suggested there was alcohol consumption several hours before Richard died. As you'll recall, his secretary Maureen and his business associate Robert McFadden had previously testified that no alcohol was kept in his office, and they didn't see Richard leave the office that day, although Maureen left at lunch to buy him some pizza. But the defense presented their own forensic toxicologist, who told the court that the evidence suggested that Richard may have consumed a small amount of alcohol about an hour before Richard was murdered. Bobby Gene McKinnon of CBC New Brunswick reported that the defense was suggesting that Richard was alive after Dennis left his office at 6.30, and then perhaps he met someone for drinks and was killed. But under cross-examination by the Crown, the expert witness acknowledged that this was only one possibility.

As you'll recall, at the first trial, the defense argued that the back door out of Richard's office that exited to an alleyway almost at ground level was most likely the attacker's exit point. But there were many investigation errors. One officer said the alleyway door was open the whole time during the investigation, others said they hadn't seen anyone examine it for evidence, and the area in question wasn't photographed until three years after the murder. At the retrial, the defense presented as evidence an enactment video that illustrated how the killer or killers could have escaped using this back door. It showed that after the attacker exited the rear of the building, they could have hopped on top of a garage and climbed over a low retaining wall to the backyard of another property and escaped that way. The court heard from retired constable Mike Horgan, a police dog handler, who said he didn't search this part of the escape route or beyond that because he couldn't access those areas with his sniffer dog. He did say he spent up to 25 minutes in the alleyway, but neither he nor his dog found any evidence or humans sent to follow. He said he and his dog also searched the full city block around the office building that day, including parking lots and sidewalks, but they didn't find any evidence. As at the first trial, the court again heard that Dennis' brown Hugo Boss jacket sat in police storage for four months before being tested.

A police constable told the court that when the jacket was seized, it had a dry cleaning tag attached. He testified that from a forensics perspective, he had to make decisions about what to send for testing first, and went on to say that the possibility of reduced forensic value informed his decision to send the shoes first, instead of the clothing that had been dry cleaned. The defence again argued that the five or so minuscule spots of DNA on Dennis' brown jacket was simply innocent transfer and could well have happened before Richard's murder. Again, Dennis Oland took the stand in his defence, saying that he wanted to clear his name. Previously, the defence attempted to have his original police interview thrown out as evidence, but was unsuccessful. And now that it was available to the public, there wasn't much point anyway. He again denied that he killed his father, but also agreed with the Crown that he had a tense relationship with Richard at various times. He confirmed that they indeed had conflict, adding, I wish I had a better relationship with my father, and there were times when it was troubled.

Dennis told the court that the inconsistencies in his initial police interview about the colour of his jacket and the number of visits to Richard's office were nothing more than honest mistakes. The Crown mentioned Dennis' three visits to his father that night, the first time because he'd forgotten some of the documents, the second time which was the actual visit, and the third time to get the logbook that he'd left there, which was a surprise extra detail revealed at the first trial. The Crown suggested that the reason Dennis didn't tell police about the third visit was because that's when he went back to kill his father. Absolutely not, he replied. The Crown brought up the fact that Dennis sat in his car for ten minutes or so between the first and second visits. It was put to Dennis that during this time, he was working up the courage to go in and talk to his father about his financial issues. Absolutely not.

Again, he said the visit was a positive one, where they discussed their shared genealogy project. This time around, Dennis was given the opportunity to respond to the Crown's assertions that he went there to discuss his money situation and flew into a rage when his father wouldn't help him. Dennis testified that this was wrong. He never spoke to his father about money that day. And the other assertion by the Crown was that Dennis was disgruntled about his father's affair with Diana. Again, Dennis said that that was not the case. During the retrial, further concerning revelations emerged about the conduct of St John Police. The Court heard from Constable Anthony Gilbert of the Major Crime Scene Unit. He said dispatch didn't provide any information about what sort of incident it was until they arrived at Richard's office.

When the call came in to 911, the operator was told that a man was unconscious and not breathing. Constable Gilbert told the Court that had he known he was attending a potential crime scene, he would have taken the necessary precautions by wearing protective gear. Constable Gilbert went on to testify that within 30 seconds of entering the office crime scene, he realized the seriousness of the incident. He and Constable Davidson quickly retraced the steps they'd taken into the office, ensuring they didn't come into contact with any objects or surfaces. Sergeant Mike Smith, who was head of forensics, admitted in court that he made mistakes in failing to protect the crime scene from potential contamination. Many of the police officers were not wearing any protective gear, like footwear coverings or latex gloves. Even Sergeant Smith himself didn't wear any protective gear when he first entered the crime scene, even though he knew it had been deemed a suspicious death. He admitted to his mistakes, including the fact that he didn't tell anyone that he'd discovered Deputy Chief Glenn McCloskey and Sergeant Greg Orem at the crime scene when they shouldn't have been.

He told the Court that they asked him if they could view the body, quote, I've been on the police force long enough that if the Staff Sergeant and Inspector and whomever else asked to view the body, you just stop saying no. The defence suggested that the office was like a tourist attraction. Sergeant Greg Orem took to the stand and corroborated Sergeant Smith's account of his unauthorised attendance at the scene with McCloskey. He admitted that the morning after the murder, they walked around various parts of Richard's office and neither officer wore protective clothing. He said he crouched several feet away from Richard's body in an effort to see the head injuries and he described how McCloskey was half sat on the desk with one foot on the floor. Orem claimed that McCloskey mused that he hoped Richard's death was a suicide and said that it would be easier if a gun were underneath the body. Sergeant Orem testified that Sergeant Smith, the head of forensics, then returned and told the two of them to leave.

As for Deputy Chief McCloskey, although he had been cleared by the Halifax Regional Police Investigation, he still had to face an arbitration hearing with the New Brunswick Police Commission in October of 2018. But the Commission only has the authority to discipline active officers. So in April of that year, McCloskey decided to retire. He would state that the proceedings against him caused him so much stress that retiring seemed to be the only way to make it go away. At the retrial, he again testified. Under oath, he once again denied that he effectively asked Sergeant King to lie about his presence at the crime scene. He said, I would never ask anybody to lie or change their testimony. He also denied the allegations from Sergeant Orem and stated that he did not sit or lean on anything at the crime scene.

He said, everyone's memory is different. He did admit that he made mistakes and concurred that he should never have made repeated visits to the crime scene. Meanwhile, in December of 2018, in the middle of the Dennis Oland retrial, the conclusion of the Police Commission's investigation found that Glenn McCloskey willfully or negligently made false statements with intent to deceive, falsify or mislead, and he was found to have committed five breaches of the Police Act. The allegations that he used words to the effect of, you don't have to tell them that, in relation to being at the crime scene unauthorized and not taking proper forensic precautions, was substantiated. CBC News reported that the five breaches of the Police Act included two counts of discreditable conduct, and one count each of deceitful behavior, neglect of duty and being a party to a breach of the professional code of conduct.

The allegation relating to a neglect of duty was not substantiated. McCloskey went on to take legal action against the Police Commission for alleged negligence and lack of procedural fairness. More on that later. Dennis Oland's retrial again had multiple moments of conflict and confusion. Right before the trial began, there was a switch of lawyers in his defense team, and the defense abruptly withdrew one of its witnesses, a cell phone expert, before he even testified, saying that the Crown was planning to ambush the witness with an unknown line of questioning. The Crown and the defense still couldn't agree on the roaming error issue,

and the Crown originally decided to call the ex-husband of Dennis Oland's ex-wife to testify, but then withdrew the witness without giving a reason. There was also an issue of false memory from another police witness, which was discounted as evidence. In its closing arguments, the defense accused the police of focusing on Dennis as the likely killer and falling victim to confirmation bias, which is when they may have placed importance on facts that supported that position and dismissed those that didn't. The issue of timing was prominent in the closing argument. With the defense saying that the police and the Crown decided to dismiss Anthony Shaw's confident and consistent statement

that the noises happened at around 7.30pm, and instead they chose to favour John Ainsworth's far less confident revised statement that he could only be sure they happened between 6pm and 8.11pm. The defense also stated that John's testimony should be dismissed altogether, because his time estimate was originally the same as Anthony Shaw's for several months until he changed his mind. The defense claimed the Crown's case was circumstantial, and there were many pieces missing. If the pieces don't fit, you must acquit, he told the judge, echoing that famous quote from the OJ Simpson trial. The Crown rejected the defense's claims that the case was about confirmation bias or tunnel vision, quote, It's about a father and son, one wealthy and one not. Money was the motive.

The Crown rejected the fact that Anthony Shaw's timing was ignored. In light of all the other evidence, the Crown stated that the only reasonable inference is that the murder must have happened before 6.44pm. Which was when the last message was received by Richard Olin's phone before it went offline and was never seen again. Quote, This is a case about all the evidence and how it fits together, not trying to explain away individual pieces of evidence in a vacuum. By the time the prosecution and defense had both rested, the retrial had spanned four months, hearing from 61 witnesses and going through 309 pieces of evidence. Remember, the trial was judge only, and for the Olin family, it was a tense two month wait for Justice Morrison to prepare his verdict. On July the 19th, 2019, he was ready. In delivering his decision, the judge told the court that in order to convict someone of murder, suspicion and probable guilt was not enough.

The judge agreed with the Crown that there is much to implicate Dennis, citing the DNA matching Richard's profile found on Dennis's brown jacket. But he went on to say that the small number and size of the blood stains found on that jacket were inconsistent with the bloody nature of the crime scene. As you'll recall, blood spatter experts testified at the first trial that there would have been blood everywhere. The judge further noted some frailties in Dennis's testimony, saying it tended to undermine his credibility. He stated that in light of this and the evidence as a whole, he could not accept outright Dennis's denial of guilt. But the judge went on to say that he wasn't confident he could accept the Crown's version of events either. There were too many missing puzzle pieces to form a coherent portrait of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge doubted that whatever resentment Dennis harboured towards his father, it alone would not have inspired the red-eyed rage that would account for such a brutal crime.

The judge did not agree that Richard was murdered for financial gain, stating that it contradicted the Crown's previous theory that it was a crime of rage. Justice Morrison agreed that the noises heard by John Ainsworth and Anthony Shaw at Printing Plus on the night of the murder were most likely the sound of Richard Oland being killed. As for timing, he considered Anthony's guesstimate of around 7.30pm to be reliable and accepted John's previous statements that he heard the noises at around 7.30pm too over his own testimony, which was that he heard the noises between 6 and 8.11pm. The judge said that the Crown reluctantly agreed. In short, I am not satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Dennis Oland who killed Richard Oland. Justice Morrison found Dennis Oland not guilty. Dennis was now a free man. He chose not to make any comment to the waiting media pack outside court. At a news conference afterwards, though, his defence team told the press,

I hope that everyone in St John now understands and appreciates that Dennis did not kill his father and understands the misery that he and his family and his friends and supporters have gone through the last eight years. The very same day that the body was found, before the police had even talked to Dennis, they were discussing putting 24 hours surveillance on Dennis simply because he was the last known person to see his father. Based on a flawed investigation, they never took their eyes off him. Dennis lost his dad to a brutal murder. Right now, he's entitled to as much private time with his family. Leave him in peace and let him come to the wonderful realisation that it's finally over. The murder investigation and the complex, protracted proceedings that ensued without a doubt captivated the tiny province of New Brunswick. The twists and turns of the case placed Dennis Oland, his high-profile family, St John Police and the New Brunswick Police Commission all under a significant amount of public scrutiny, not to mention the criminal and civil proceedings in the case that proved to be an expensive exercise.

As for Deputy Chief McCloskey, in the months before Dennis's acquittal, CBC News had reported that he had intended to take further legal action against the Police Commission for alleged negligence. The basis of the claim was that the Commission failed to conduct the investigation without bias, deliberately engaging in unlawful conduct and exercising their public function and violating the public trust. McCloskey was also reported to be seeking a judicial review of the Commission's investigation as well as compensation. He alleged that the Commission acted in bad faith and denied him natural justice due to a lack of procedural fairness. His lawyer said that he'd been forced into an early retirement and had sustained great economic loss. My client feels that the New Brunswick Police Commission, as it was then governed and managed, did him a great disservice, which has had quite the ripple effect in his career and post-career and reputation, and he's seeking redress for that. In August of 2019, CBC News reported that the Commission and its former Executive Director issued a statement of defence, denying any wrongdoing. They said that they conducted themselves in good faith in a lawful manner in accordance with the Police Act, and at no time did they engage in illegal or wrongful conduct.

As for the New Brunswick Police Commission's investigation into the police handling of the Oland investigation, CBC News reported in July of 2019 that they may not proceed with the review. The Commission also announced that the review into the conduct of the St John Police Officer regarding the jury selection process for the retrial would not proceed. The Commission did decide to review previous decision-making regarding the murder investigation. The outcome of the review was finalised in December of 2019, with the report noting 22 recommendations to strengthen the system. For the Oland family, it was finally over. A month after Dennis' acquittal, Public Prosecution Services issued a statement that said in part, After having reviewed and assessed both the policy and legal considerations, Public Prosecution Services has determined that there is no basis upon which the Crown can appeal the acquittal of Dennis Oland. But Richard Oland's murder remains unsolved, and just a month after Dennis' acquittal, the St John Police said that it wasn't actively investigating the case anymore.

Thanks for listening. I'm doing something a bit different this time, and I'm now thrilled to be joined by Bobby Jean McKinnon, journalist from CBC New Brunswick, who covered this case from the very beginning. She's also authored the definitive book on this case, a national bestseller which has just been updated, expanded and revised. It's called Shadow of Doubt, the Trials of Dennis Oland Revised and Expanded Edition, and in it, Bobby Jean takes you inside every stage of this case, addressing in amazing detail the issues with the original police investigation, the trials and appeals, and the inner workings of the Oland family. So Bobby Jean, thank you so much for joining me. 00:58:44,000 --> 00:58:51,000 As someone who was on the ground zero, so to speak, what do you think fascinates so many people about the case? Well, I think it was really a combination of things. You know, this was a high-profile family, a wealthy family, the founders of Moosehead Breweries, the oldest independently owned brewery in Canada.

So, you know, there's a certain celebrity status. I think there's the universal appeal of family relationships, particularly between a father and son. And this was also a brutal murder in a small city. It was a controversial investigation and even more controversial verdict. The case against Dennis Oland was a circumstantial one, so there were a lot of unknowns. What was the murder weapon? Where did it come from? Where did it go? Why was Richard Oland's cell phone taken? Why wasn't there more blood on Dennis Oland's jacket? Why was there no blood trail leaving the crime scene? So I think people were intrigued. And generally speaking, there's growing interest in true crime cases overall. Look at the TV documentary, Making a Murderer and podcasts like your own. And this really was a sensational case. Some people dubbed it the OJ Simpson case of the Maritimes and the Trial of the Century. What was the process like writing the book as compared to your daily reporting for CBC News?

Well, it was completely different. First of all, I had never written a book before, so it was a steep learning curve. There's definitely a lot to it. All of a sudden, I was dealing with editors and lawyers and publishers and publicists, creative directors and agents. So I've gained a whole new respect for the craft in the industry, that's for sure. And with day to day reporting, you're basically just trying to summarize what happened that day for web stories. We follow sort of the inverted pyramid structure, putting the most important information at the top so people can very quickly get the gist of the story within the first few paragraphs. But with the book, it's pretty much the complete opposite. It was more of a narrative telling of a story. And with reporting too, for the most part, you're just stating the facts. But with writing the book, it offered me the opportunity to write in a different style with more color and personal observations.

Figuring out how to structure it was a big challenge because many people had followed the case closely and knew the outcome. And so I knew it couldn't be just sort of a collection of articles. I had to structure it in such a way that it was interesting and satisfying for the people who had been following the case from day one and were going to be looking for something more. But at the same time, I had to make sure that someone who didn't know anything about the case could pick up the book and easily follow along. And it definitely does offer a more comprehensive look at the evidence that was presented at the trial and it's packaged in a much different way. You know, during the trial, you've got witness one talking about issues A, B and C and then witness two talking about issues X, Y and Z. So what I did was I went back through all my notes and found, okay, who's talked about issue A and what did they say and sort of put it all together. Another big challenge was that nobody was willing to be interviewed at that time.

So if I had a question or I needed a clarification on something, I couldn't just pick up the phone and call somebody. And sometimes there was conflicting information, even with some basic facts, like when Dennis and his wife, Lisa, were married. In his pre-sentence report, he told probation officer it was 2009, I think it was, but she said it was 2008. So which was it? And trying to track down the correct information some other way, you know. And also I didn't personally know Richard or Dennis before the murder, but I really wanted to try and paint a fuller picture of them. So I had to draw from whatever other sources of information I could find. So for Richard, for instance, I relied on comments people made during interviews shortly after his death and the eulogy delivered by his good friend Pat Dara. For Dennis, I had his statement and testimony statements from family members to police.

Letters of support filed for his sentencing. Affidavids supporting his bail application and then online research, everything from his Facebook page to, you know, yacht club listings. So I just sort of wove all those bits and pieces together to try and give readers a sense of who Richard was and who Dennis is. What was the public reaction to the book like? Well, it was really interesting. I had some people tell me that they thought he was guilty before they read the book and after they read it, they thought he was innocent. And I also had some people tell me the opposite that they initially thought he was innocent and after reading it, they thought he was guilty. So it's interesting how everybody seems to see something different in the same information.

Many people have strong opinions, though, and the community remains passionately divided even after the retrial between those who believe he's innocent. Those who believe he's guilty and those who believe he's guilty but felt that he never would be convicted either due to a lack of evidence, problems with the investigation or the family's prominence. Obviously, you also reported on the retrial. What was that like and how did it differ from the original trial? Well, one of the big differences was the fact that it was judge alone. If it had gone ahead as judge and jury trial, like the first trial, I wouldn't have been able to refer to any of the evidence from the first trial. But because it ended up being heard by judge alone, I could. So that made live tweeting from the courtroom a little less stressful because I didn't have to worry about keeping the two separate.

It also made it more interesting to report on because I was able to compare and contrast the two trials, whether it was new evidence or new witnesses, new approaches by the Crown or defense. The other difference with the judge alone was that unlike with the jury, the judge had to give reasons for his verdict. The jury just says guilty or innocent. Justice Terrence Morrison had to put his reasons in writing and they had to be based on facts and the law. So I think that helped people understand the reasonings behind the acquittal. I don't think it necessarily brought the finality that some people were hoping for though. I think the community still remains divided. Why did you decide to update the book and how did that process compare to writing the first edition?

I mean, I hadn't planned to write the book at all, but I had covered the case from day one. So from the day Richard Olin's body was discovered and everyone kept asking me what I thought. I could be in line at the grocery store, out at a restaurant or at a party and people would come up to me and say, you were there for the whole thing. What do you think? Did he do it? Did Dennis Olin kill his father? Everywhere I went, it seemed to be all people wanted to talk about. And as a journalist, I think it's really important to maintain objectivity to be able to present the facts in a fair and balanced way. And really what I think doesn't matter. All that mattered at Dennis Olin's first trial was what the jury thought and at his retrial what the judge thought. But people kept asking.

So that was one of the main reasons I wrote the first edition was that I thought this fascinating tragic story that thrust this family and the city into the national spotlight had left both the family and city forever changed and it needed to be fully told. And I also realized that I had a lot of information that never made it into my daily reports. I sat in court every day for about six hours a day, but my TV reports were only about two minutes long and our radio items are even shorter, only about a minute long. And with the web stories, I could cover a lot more information, but even then there are length restrictions and time restrictions. You know, there's only so many hours in the day. And the trial sat for about 50 days. It was one of the longest criminal trials in New Brunswick history.

Plus I had about five years worth of information in my notepads and search warrants, court documents, transcripts, experts reports. So I had a lot of information. And so I could use that to tell a fuller, more comprehensive story about the case and about the Olin family, its history and prominence in New Brunswick. So I could put all that information together in one place and empower readers to make their own informed opinions. When it came to doing the update, like I say, I didn't plan to do it, first of all, because the first one was a lot of work, but so much had happened in the three years since I had done the first edition. After the jury found Dennis Olin guilty of second degree murder, the defense applied for an appeal and requested bail. His bail was denied. No one convicted of murder in New Brunswick had ever been granted bail pending appeal before.

The defense appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. While Dennis Olin was waiting, he was assaulted in prison by two offenders. He ended up successfully appealing his conviction and was granted bail while awaiting his new trial. But his Supreme Court bail appeal went ahead, even though it was now a moot point for him. And the attorneys general of three other provinces and a defense lawyer's association all wanted a chance to weigh in on this issue. And the country's highest court ruled that Dennis was wrongly denied bail. So that set a national precedent. There were a number of pretrial hearings spread over several months dealing with issues like admissibility of certain evidence.

We went through the whole jury selection process. Again, about 5,000 people were summons, one of the largest jury pools in New Brunswick history, possibly in Canada. There ended up being a mistrial of the jury trial because an officer had conducted improper background checks on the jurors. Then we proceeded by judge alone, which is quite rare in Canada. Under the criminal code, all homicides are usually automatically tried by judge and jury. The trial lasted 44 days, spread over four months, culminating, of course, with Justice Terence Morrison's not guilty verdict. And the second trial was so different from the first in that it was judge alone instead of judge and jury. And of course, the not guilty verdict, I just felt compelled to see it through and tell the whole story.

How did the process compare to writing the first edition? Well, it was interesting because I went in thinking, you know, oh, it's just an update. It's not a whole book. It won't take me very long. But in some ways it was more challenging because it was still a whole trial. So there was a lot of information to cover, but a fair amount of it was still the same. In fact, the Crown didn't bother recalling eight of the witnesses. They just used the videotape of their testimony from the first trial.

So that was really a big challenge was how to tell it in such a way that accurately and fairly reflected what transpired without being too repetitive. But I just basically sat at my kitchen table or in my backyard and just wrote and wrote and wrote. And then with the help of my editor, Jill Ainsley, who is great. We just pared it down to five new chapters jam packed with what we felt was the best material with all the twists and turns as well as some of the new details that had never been reported before. And but really I think what's the best part about the book is that all of the information from the whole eight years is there in one place and it tells the whole story from start to finish. So what was your relationship like with the Oland family as the Daily Reporter and and how is it today? Well, I think I think it was cordial during the case. It was a bit awkward during the trial.

You know, during the breaks, during the bathroom breaks, I would be washing my hands at the same sinks as his mother and his wife and sister and his mother would say hello to me and we'd talk about the weather and that kind of thing. She was always very pleasant. But, you know, they they were never willing to to talk about the case. They they only ever issued statements. They were never willing to be interviewed at that time. And then after he was found not guilty, his lawyer, Alan Gold, asked the media to leave him in peace and let him come to the wonderful realization that it's finally over. And I've seen Dennis Oland around a few times since then. St. John is a fairly small city.

But, you know, we've basically just gone our own ways and I've respected the family's request for privacy. And, you know, he is just a citizen now. And so I've tried to let him be that. So as the one person who has reported on this since the beginning, who was across all of the evidence, all of the trials, wrote the definitive book and then updated that book. In your mind, what is the most perplexing or confusing piece of evidence that kept you up at night when you were reporting on the case? Hmm. It's hard to pick just one. I guess it would have to be why was Richard Oland's cell phone taken?

A review of the backup of the cell phone found that there was no incriminating evidence. So was there something new on the phone that wasn't on the backup that we don't know about? Or maybe was there something on the phone that the killer just wanted to see for themselves that maybe wouldn't point to them as the killer? I don't know. We just may never know. I guess another one is how did the killer get out of there without leaving a blood trail? You know, we heard evidence that it was one of the bloodiest crime scenes anybody dealing with the case had ever seen. There was blood spatter 360 degrees and yet there was nothing found, you know, outside that office, down the foyer, down the stairs, down the street. And there was no evidence of any cleanup at the scene that, you know, that the killer had cleaned themselves up.

So how, how is that possible? Don't know. It's another mystery. Thanks to Bobby Jean McKinnon for taking the time to come and chat with me about this case. If you wanted to delve into the details even further, I highly recommend her book. It's called Shadow of Doubt, The Trials of Dennis Oland Revised and Expanded Edition by Bobby Jean McKinnon. I've linked it in the show notes. And for Canadian listeners who might be living under a rock, by sheer coincidence, CBC has just released a four-part documentary on the case, which is available to watch on the free streaming service CBC Gem, but only if you're in Canada. You'll hear from Dennis, his wife, his mother and many of the main players in the story,

and this is the first time any of them have agreed to a media interview. In a curious twist, the documentary was actually not made by CBC employees. It was made as a commission by an independent company. In early March, CBC News reported that the filmmakers were given access to the family by the daughter of Ellen Gold, Dennis Oland's head lawyer who came from Toronto to take the lead at the trials. His daughter ended up with an associate producer credit. The production company Seven Knotts Media Inc. stated that they adhered to the journalistic standards and practices of the CBC. The documentary is called The Oland Murder. I've included a link in the show notes.

This episode of Canadian True Crime was researched and written by Gemma Harris. Edited by me, an audio production was by We Talk of Dreams, who also composed the theme song. The host of the Beyond Bizarre True Crime podcast, Voice the Disclaimer. I'll be back soon with another Canadian True Crime story. See you then. You've freely shared with the whole world. Now imagine what they're going to do with all the information you have at it. Yeah, I'll be in touch.