Canadian True Crime - Case Updates & Reflections 2020

Episode Date: August 15, 2020

Approximate Timestamps for each case discussed in this episode:72 Alloura Wells - 3:00 minute mark71 Jagtar Gill - 7:4570 Zach Miller - 11:0067-69 Ezekiel Stephan - 15:4560-62 Richard Oland - 29:0059 The Donnellys - 39:0056 Loretta Saunders - 40:0019-20 Laura Babcock - 44:006 Reena Virk - 46:30Youtube recommendation:Canadiana - Canadian History Videos Thanks for supporting my sponsors!See the special offer codes hereAD FREE Exclusive feed - Canadian True Crime InsidersAccess ad-free episodes, Chats with Kristi after show, bonus episodes, and more Learn moreCredits:Research: Enya BestAudio editing and production: We Talk of Dreams  Disclaimer voiced by the host of Beyond Bizarre True Crime Theme Song: We Talk of Dreams  Music credits:Chris Zabriskie - LaserdiscS Chermisinov - Night SnowfallIgor Khabarov - Stay Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This podcast contains course language, adult themes, and content of a violent and disturbing nature. Listener discretion is advised. Hi everyone. As you know, I'm still on a break until October 1st when I'll be back with the next case-based episode. Although, when I say I'm on break, I'm really not. Summer is a great time to release this case updates episode.

I have a Q&A coming after that, and of course, I'm still working behind the scenes on the next season. I wanted to say thank you to everyone who reached out to me after my comments about mental health. So many lovely and supportive people and so many of you are going through the same as I am. It really does go to show that you never have to suffer alone. And as someone with a bit of a platform, I think it's important to share these things

because we're all humans after all. As for me, my journey back to half-decent mental health isn't going to happen overnight, but I am making progress. So thank you all so much for your lovely comments and messages of support. I really appreciate it. We all need to take care of ourselves right now, and each other. So, for today's case updates, there have been some pretty interesting updates to some of the cases I've covered.

And I've also got some personal thoughts and opinions to share about some of them. Cases I'll be talking about today include Richard Oland, Ezekiel Stefan, Zach Miller, Jagdtar Gill, Elora Wells, Loretta Saunders, Laura Babcock, Reena Verk and more. If you're only interested in certain cases, you can check the show notes and you'll see approximate time stamps for the cases that I'm covering. So, I'll start from the most recent case and I'll work my way back. So, this was the last case of the season and obviously it's still unsolved. We don't know how Elora died or how she came to be lying next to a tent.

A couple of people on social media commented that while Elora's death was tragic, they questioned if it was really a case for Canadian true crime. The death was never ruled a homicide and I usually only cover solved cases that have suspects, investigations and trials. So, for starters, I totally get that. It sounds insensitive but I do. You guys are used to me covering solved cases for the most part. And I prefer solved cases too.

I like to know the why and the who. But sometimes the actual crime isn't so blatant and it doesn't end up in a satisfying ending where the police catch the bad guy. When it came to the death of Elora Wells, the crime here was how the death of a marginalised woman was dealt with and even more so when you consider the fears of there being a potential serial killer in the area. Homicide or not, Elora's death was an important piece of the whole puzzle that led to the arrest of serial killer Bruce MacArthur even though she didn't turn out to be one of his

victims herself. So I do love to explore the usual who done it type cases that have that satisfying ending. But I also feel that it's important to ensure that this podcast explores a range of issues to do with crime in Canada and sometimes they might be a little different to the usual. And honestly, if a podcast like mine can't cover Elora's tragic death, then who would? All this to say, don't worry, we will be back with regular programming in October. So the next thing with this case is that as you'll remember, we contacted a number of people to get updates on the situation, including Monica Forrester and the 519 Centre.

Everyone got back to us except the Toronto Police. All that we wanted to know was whether they had managed to speak to Augustinus Balesdon, Elora's boyfriend. Because three years ago, they were looking for him and Elora's sister Michelle said she had no idea if they had ever found him. In my message, I told the police I would be recording the episode in five days but I didn't release the episode for another week after that and I would have included their response if they had have gotten back to me during that week too.

So it's now been almost a month and no response. The third update on this case is an interesting one and it comes from someone who works in a funeral home in Toronto. In this episode, I incorporated a quote about Rebecca Price discovering Elora's remains. As you'll remember, she contacted the police several times to ask if there was an update because she wanted to look out for a memorial service for the body that she'd found. The article on DailyExtra.com says, But the police told her that if the body wasn't reclaimed then the coroner would destroy it,

so no funeral service. I was contacted by a funeral director's assistant from Toronto who wanted to clarify this as it relates to unclaimed remains in Ontario. They told me, quote, we often bury unclaimed persons. I just wanted to let you know that all unclaimed persons are eventually buried, never destroyed. They went on to say that a cremation can only be authorised by a will or next of kin, so that's not an option either. They told me that the City of Toronto covers costs for funerals for all persons who can't

afford them, like poor and needy people and unclaimed bodies. But the budget allocated only covers care for basic services only and the amount they are able to pay means that often they are only able to find space at certain cemeteries that are on the edge of the city and difficult to get to. This person ends their statement by saying, There are definitely social injustices happening in the area of death care. I and others are slowly chipping away at them. Hmm, one of these days I would love to dig into this for some other project.

But alas, we're in the middle of a pandemic. Thanks to the person who contacted me with this interesting info and gave me permission to share. Episode 71, The Murder of Jagtar Gill So Jagtar was the mother of three who was recovering from an operation and her husband and daughter went to get her flowers for their 17th wedding anniversary. When they arrived back, they discovered she had been bludgeoned and stabbed to death. Her husband, Bupindapal Gill, had been having an affair with a work colleague who was also

a neighbour called Gurpreet Ronald and the two of them were later found guilty of first degree murder. As you'll recall, their guilty convictions were overturned on appeal. The ruling found that the trial judge made a legal error in not telling the jury they could consider a conviction of second degree murder, which means that the crime did not have the planning and deliberation that is required for a first degree murder charge. It's a shame, but I agree with this. The phone calls that Gurpreet made to Bupindapal on the day of Jagtar's murder were suspicious,

as was the fact that she was looking out for his car going past on the way to Sobies, because that was when the coast was clear to go over to Jagtar's house. But was she planning on going over to murder Jagtar or was she going there to confront her or threaten her? We just don't know. And without knowing what was actually said in the calls between she and Bupindapal, it's only circumstantial evidence that there was planning and deliberation, in my opinion anyway. One would think that if there was planning, they would have figured out what to do with

the murder weapons instead of hiding one of them in a box of Christmas decorations and then discarding it later. But then again, one would think that if you knew that your wife had been murdered, you wouldn't let your 15-year-old daughter discover her body first. So, a new trial was ordered and the update is that Gherpreet Ronald applied to be released on bail until her new trial, but it was denied. She maintains that she's innocent. Jagtar's family told media outlets that they were grateful to the Crown for its aggressive

opposition to Gherpreet's release. They say the decision is a relief and they're counting it as a victory, but they still know that it's just one step in what's going to be a very long legal journey. Jagtar's niece, Raman Deep Chahal, spoke to CTV News Ottawa. Quote, It brings back a lot of pain and suffering. It brings back a lot of evidence in front of us that we're trying to move on from. Having her released would mean our entire family, friends and community at large would

be constantly living in fear. Gherpreet's family said they were disappointed that she didn't get bail. They released a statement through their lawyer, Michael Spratt. Quote, We will now focus on preparing for trial, where Ms Ronald will address these allegations fully and directly and where she is confident she will be vindicated. The next court appearance is in September, with a new trial scheduled for February of 2021.

There's been no word on whether Bupindipal has applied for bail. Episode 70, The Survival of Zak Miller This was the story of the two boys who were abducted by a repeat child sex offender and held for two days in an abandoned farmhouse in Saskatchewan. It was somewhat of an awkward story to tell, because the two boys were minors, aged 10 and 14 at the time, and only the 10-year-old, Zak, wanted to go public with his story. And he certainly was brave in doing that, but going public in that way is a personal decision, so I can totally understand why the 14-year-old did not go the same route.

Since I've told the story, I've been contacted by listeners who lived in Saskatchewan at the time of the incident, and remembered how the media covered it initially. I've been told that several media outlets suggested at first that the 14-year-old was an accomplice of Peter Whitmore's rather than his victim, which is sad, but it's not overly surprising given that it was more than a decade ago that this happened. Most people are aware now that a 14-year-old legally can't give consent in this way. Because of the way this case happened with the publication ban, many of the original articles no longer exist.

But I did manage to get my hands on some older newspaper clippings, and I can see how the media coverage focused on the Amber Alert for Zak, but mentions of the 14-year-old who was also taken were much smaller, a smaller photo and only a brief description of him. Once the publication ban on the boys' names were issued, almost all of these articles were no longer available online. I did receive a complaint that my episode was biased and that the survival of the other boy, the 14-year-old, was kind of pushed to the side to focus on Zak's story. Now, the complaint was not without merit.

I mean, the title of the episode was The Survival of Zak Miller, even though two of them survived. I did respond to the person, but in case anybody else had the same thought, I just want to acknowledge it here. I thought a lot about this, and to be honest, I just can't think of another way that I could tell the story in a way that achieved Zak's objectives of going public and raising awareness while also respecting the privacy and anonymity of the other survivor. I think it's just one of those things that isn't so black and white and there's no clear answer.

So I also have some bittersweet news to share about this case. As you'll remember, Zak was diagnosed with complex PTSD and still struggles with suicidal thoughts and chronic loneliness because he doesn't have anyone else to relate to and has no one to talk to about his experience. As you'll remember, all of the other victims of Peter Whitmore are still under publication ban and they aren't in contact with each other. Well, after the episode was released, a handful of people listening actually contacted me, saying that they were survivors of childhood abduction and sexual assault, and were wondering

if Zak might be willing to talk with them. As you'll remember, Zak said he makes himself available to families who reach out. I was able to connect these people with Zak, who was incredibly gracious, and I heard back from one of them. His name is Jay and he's a Canadian survivor who was abducted and sexually assaulted in the 70s when he was 11. And up until now, Jay had never had a conversation with another survivor about their experiences. He told me that he and Zak spoke on the phone for nearly two hours and gave me permission

to tell you about it. He said, quote, We compared our stories and damn we are identical with our fears and phobias. We discussed the harassment we endured after our event and even how we are treated as adults as if we were the offenders. Jay has also told me that after reflecting on the call, he didn't realise how important it would be for him, and that talking with Zak reassured him that how he feels about certain issues is completely normal for survivors of this type of event.

I don't know about you, but I think that's pretty powerful. Episodes 67 to 69, The Death of Ezekiel Stefan This was the story of the toddler who had meningitis and had two weeks of off and on symptoms, including being stiff and lethargic and showing odd neurological symptoms. His parents said they ummed an aard about whether to get medical attention for him, ultimately deciding not to until the decision was taken out of their hands when he stopped breathing. Tragically, after they called 911, the ambulance that came to get Ezekiel was not stocked with the proper equipment needed to help a toddler breathe.

So poor Ezekiel was already not breathing and then went without oxygen for at least another 8 minutes in the ambulance. As you know, he was kept on life support for a number of days before being declared brain dead and his life support switched off. At trial, his parents David and Colette Stefan insisted they did their due diligence when making the decision not to have Ezekiel seen by a doctor using the information they had at the time. Colette knew about bacterial and viral meningitis and had googled but decided that the kind

Ezekiel had was viral. The prosecution argued that if they had have gotten medical attention for Ezekiel before he stopped breathing, he would probably be alive today. The defence argued that Alberta Health Services stuffed up by sending an ambulance that had been de-stocked of the proper equipment and then when they realised their error, they tried to cover it up. It was a long three-part series but a quick overview. David and Colette Stefan had been found guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life

to Ezekiel. They appealed and they were given a new trial where they were acquitted. That trial judge, Justice Terry Clarkson, made some decisions and comments that drew a lot of criticism. As you'll remember, there were two medical examiners who presented conflicting determinations about how Ezekiel died. One was for the defence, Dr Annie Savageau, who determined Ezekiel died of lack of oxygen and he only had viral meningitis.

The other was Dr Barmy Adali Adeyakbo, the medical examiner who conducted Ezekiel's autopsy and who testified for the prosecution and he determined that Ezekiel died of the more severe bacterial meningitis. The judge went with Dr Annie Savageau's testimony and essentially said that Dr Adeyakbo spoke with an accent and was difficult to understand. After the acquittal, dozens of medical and legal experts filed a complaint saying that Justice Clarkson's comments could be perceived as racist. The Crown announced that it was going to appeal David and Colette's acquittal.

Now, despite me assuming that the appeal would likely be pushed back because of COVID-19, it went ahead as scheduled in June via a Zoom call, which I called in to. It wasn't overly exciting, I have to tell you. David and Colette didn't appear on screen, just their lawyers along with other legal professionals, including a panel of three justices who have to make the decision on the appeal. The first ground for appeal was Justice Clarkson's criticism of Dr Adeyakbo's accent and mannerisms. As you'll remember, he wrote in his judgment that the doctor's testimony was severely

compromised by, quote, his garbled enunciation, his failure to use appropriate endings for plurals and past tenses, his failure to use the appropriate definite and indefinite articles, his repeated emphasis of the wrong syllables dropping his h's, mispronouncing his vowels, and the speed of his responses. The Crown's case was that Justice Clarkson prejudged Dr Adeyakbo and discounted his testimony. The prosecutor described the judge's comments as abusive. He crossed the line, and he should have understood that an interpreter was available to him if he had trouble understanding the testimony.

The Crown also made the point that Justice Clarkson's comments, sent a message that people who aren't fluent in English or who aren't articulate speakers, are not welcome to participate in the court system. The defence countered that Justice Clarkson ran a completely fair trial. But Alberta's Chief Justice Catherine Fraser responded, quote, My question is, what relevance does communication style, enunciation, language, syntax, mispronouncing vowels, what relevance does any of that have to the question of admissibility of evidence? The second grounds for appeal was that the judge made a mistake by putting the onus on

the Crown to prove that getting medical treatment for Ezekiel Sooner would have saved his life. The Crown gave an example. If Ezekiel had cancer and the Stephens knew that and declined treatment, under Justice Clarkson's reasoning for judgement, the Crown would have had to prove that cancer treatment would definitely have cured him, and obviously no one could ever know that. The Crown also said that Justice Clarkson gave too much weight to irrelevant factors, like whether the meningitis Ezekiel had was bacterial or viral. The fact of the matter was that Ezekiel's parents had a responsibility to seek the appropriate

form of treatment as any reasonable parent would do when he showed signs of not being well, according to the Crown. The defence again reiterated that if the Stephens had believed their child was in danger, they would have sought medical help Sooner, and it was the paramedics that caused Ezekiel's death by failing to intubate him. Justice Peter Martin, one of the panel of three, pointed out that by the time the paramedics even got to Ezekiel, he hadn't been breathing for a number of minutes. Quote, he was dead when they got him.

How can you say in those circumstances, medical people are responsible? I'm just at a loss here. So the appeal hearing was held and now we're waiting on the panel of appeal court judges to come back with a decision on whether David and Colette Steffen will have their acquittal overturned. So now to my thoughts. As you know, I tried very hard, especially with this case, not to let my own opinions seep through my coverage because I wanted you guys to make up your own minds.

But overall, what I was seeing from the evidence is this. In my opinion, the ambulance should never have had to be called in the first place. Ideally, Ezekiel would have been under medical care well before he had the neurological symptoms, before his back started aching, before he was so stiff he couldn't get into his car seat. Now a lot of the case hinged on what a reasonably prudent parent would have done. I consider myself to be a reasonably prudent parent. I have two kids age six and eight. We defer to scientific medicine and our pro vaccine for our kids.

But I'm a little like the Steffens as I do prefer a wait and see approach when it comes to taking my kids to the doctor. But as soon as there are breathing issues, all bets go out the window. And one thing I learned as a mother early on is that combinations of symptoms are important too. If there's a fever, breathing issues and the child is lethargic, to me there is no argument that they at least need to be checked out. I went through each of Ezekiel's medical symptom events and I counted five times that

I would have taken him to the doctor before his parents did. And when it comes to the neurological symptoms, his pulling at the diaper, that's a trip to the emergency department right there. And this happened a full week before Ezekiel stopped breathing, a week before he was too stiff to put in his car seat and his parents made the quite frankly astounding decision to drive a two hour round trip with him on a mattress on the back seat. As a reasonably prudent parent, the only way I can see making a decision to drive a two hour round trip with a kid on a mattress in the back seat of the car is if I literally

had to rush him to the hospital and that was the only way that I could get him there. I can't imagine making that decision just to go and sign some legal papers. It really is astonishing. Now obviously the ambulance should definitely have been stocked with the correct equipment to help Ezekiel breathe again. I've seen medical professionals refer to this as gross malpractice and question why there hasn't been an inquiry into how that happened and to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Hopefully they have sorted those issues out by now. So the ambulance situation was tragic and lack of oxygen was what caused Ezekiel's death. But how did he come to experience that lack of oxygen? If he had received the proper medical attention he needed before he stopped breathing, he likely wouldn't have ended up in that de-stocked ambulance in the first place. So do I think that the Stephens could be called reasonably prudent parents in the way they dealt with Ezekiel's medical emergencies?

Absolutely not. To my reasoning they missed at least five warning signs, five serious warning signs, that their son needed to be taken to at least the walk-in clinic. Would they have been found guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life? In my opinion, yes, without a doubt. Poor Ezekiel was in pain for two weeks and he desperately needed medical care from qualified professionals and he didn't get it. The last remaining thing that's on my mind is why.

Why did those parents not seek medical attention? And why are they doubling down on the notion that it was anything but their own failure to provide necessaries of life that caused Ezekiel's death? Well, in my mind, the fact that David Stephens' job is to sell supplements for his father's company could be a factor because he was giving Ezekiel one of the supplements to treat his symptoms. So, if David then had to turn around and take Ezekiel to the doctor, would that be an admission that the supplements he travels around to promote don't work as he states?

Perhaps David was so stubborn that he just couldn't see past that. It's a shame. Overall, the quote from Dr Clay Jones on science-basedmedicine.org resonated with me. He basically hypothesised that from the moment David and Colette realised they waited too long to seek help, they began rationalising and unintentionally altering their memory as they went over their decisions time and time again. So they're essentially sending their memories through a filter, and those thoughts of doubt about whether the decisions they made really were the right ones, or guilt about how they

weren't able to protect their child from harm, are slowly filtered out. And what they're left with is conspiracy theories, where the fault lies with someone else. I don't think we'll ever really know for sure, but this theory could explain why the testimony given by the Stephens at trial described Ezekiel's illness as not as severe as how they described it in the initial recorded statements at the hospital. So, what should happen? I do hope that they will be found guilty again at the next appeal.

But do they need to go to jail for this? Is it going to actually help anything? I don't think so. I think, honestly, the most appropriate part of their original sentence was the order for their kids to be taken to a medical doctor at least once a year and see a public health nurse every three months. I would love to know if they're actually doing this, because when they went to a second trial, the original sentence would have been overturned as well, including that order to

take their kids to the doctor. After the break, I give you my opinions on the Richard Oland case, including a curious new update, as well as updates on the Loretta Saunders, Laura Babcock, and Rina Verk cases. Do you have a passion project that you're ready to take to the next level? 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 customized 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 maximize 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. Episodes 60 to 62. The Murder of Richard Oland.

This was the story of prominent New Brunswick businessman Richard Oland, whose personal assistant found his bloody body in his office when she arrived for work one morning in 2011. He'd been bludgeoned to death. Now, as you'll remember, the police really bungled up this investigation on several fronts. They used the office bathroom. They went in and out a back door for a week without using gloves. Several officers walked through the crime scene unauthorized and without protective gear, and the deputy chief was later accused of suggesting that another officer lie and say

that he wasn't at the crime scene. So they made all kinds of errors, and Richard's son Dennis ended up being acquitted. Now, when I covered this case a few months ago, I ended up forming an opinion about whether Dennis should have been found guilty. There is an update to this case, but before I get to that, I'll tell you how I formed my opinion. We know that Dennis was at his father's office until around 6.30pm. This was confirmed with CCTV footage.

The two men from printing plus underneath Richard's office, originally told police they heard thumping noises coming from his office around an hour after that, at approximately 7.30 or 7.45pm. This was great evidence that Dennis was not responsible because he was captured on CCTV footage shopping with his wife 20 minutes away near his home at that time. Now, the problem was that at trial, one of the men from printing plus said that upon reflection, he couldn't be sure exactly when he heard the thumping noises. He could only narrow it down to after 6pm and before 8pm, a two hour window.

So with Dennis still being in Richard's office at the start of this window, and only leaving 30 minutes into it, this meant that it was still within the realm of possibility that Dennis could have committed the murder. The trial judge decided to accept the original police statements that they heard the noises at around 7.30pm, so the noises had to have happened after Dennis left. Now the other issue that stood out to me was that there was blood spatter everywhere and if it was Dennis who committed the murder, then how did he escape? He only had those five tiny spots of his father's DNA on his jacket, so faint that the dry cleaner

couldn't even see the stains when it was taken to be cleaned. There was no blood found on his shoes, his pants, his shirt, in his car, or on the reusable bag he carried his documents in from his father's office. Could he have been wearing a hazmat suit or similar? Maybe, but nothing was ever found in the area, although we know the police made mistakes on that front. The other thing was Richard's cell phone which was never recovered along with the murder weapon.

Now we know that after Dennis left his father's office, he stopped off at that wharf to see if his kids were there before going home. At the same time, his father's phone pinged off a cell tower near the wharf, instead of a cell tower closer to where the office was. But the cell tower experts weren't able to rule out that Richard's phone wasn't at his office in St John at the time. Dennis' movements at the wharf were witnessed by two people. They didn't see him discarding anything at the wharf and searchdivers didn't find anything

either. I questioned why Dennis would take off with his father's phone, and if he did, why he would discard it in public at the wharf. So after the coverage of the case was finished, I had formed an opinion, and it was this. Dennis left Richard's office at 6.30. Someone else came to Richard's office an hour after that, murdered him, and took his phone and the murder weapon. Richard Oland had upset many people.

He was respected as a business person, but generally not well liked, it seemed. And there was certainly evidence that the police seemed to zero in on Dennis to the exclusion of other possible suspects. So my analysis and opinion was that none of us can say for sure that Dennis Oland didn't do it, but when I weighed the evidence up, a logical person would have to conclude that there is far more to say he didn't do it than he did. There was not enough evidence for a guilty verdict, so I agree. But then some new information came in that kind of threw me off.

In mid-June, the media reported that a domestic action had been launched against Dennis Oland by his wife Lisa. CBC News noted that even though the application was filed in Family Court, it wasn't clear if the application was part of a divorce or another hearing. What they did manage to find out is that the title or interest in several of the Oland family properties was being questioned by Lisa. Just days later, CBC News reported more information. Apparently, Dennis Oland and Lisa separated in February-March of 2020, and Dennis moved

out of the marital home. That's the one that he came back to after stopping at the wharf where his wife was sick. So Dennis' estranged wife said that he moved out of the marital home and in with his mother Connie and signed a listing agreement with a realtor for the house. In the filing, Lisa says that Dennis removed items within the house without her consent and gave a key to the realtor who entered without her permission while she was at home. She also says that she was concerned that Dennis was going to sell the house without her knowledge or consent.

She stated, I have tried to encourage mediation. According to the CBC, Lisa wants ownership of the house and its contents, spousal support, an equal division of marital property and debt, as well as costs and interest. She wants all family assets frozen and has also asked that Dennis be, quote, restrained from harassing, annoying or otherwise interfering with her. In the filing, Lisa says, quote, over the course of our relationship I have lost everything, including my income, property I held at the beginning of the marriage and my investments. Lisa goes on to say that she took on debt for Dennis' benefit and when he left to move

in with his mother, he told Lisa to, quote, go speak to a trustee in bankruptcy. Lisa stated that because of the circumstances of the Oland family, she has not been employed for several years. She started two businesses but couldn't keep them because of the situation and the fact that she had to attend Dennis' public court appearances. She also spoke about several periods of illness, saying that when she became sick in 2012, the year after Richard's murder, Dennis told her that she never had to work again in her life because he had significant means.

She described how the situation has changed. She said that Dennis has reported a very low income since 2017 and hasn't provided her with a sustainable amount of support so she doesn't have enough money for groceries and medical treatments. But she said he doesn't want to sell his yacht and spent money to open it up for the season, which is apparently a costly exercise. Lisa went on to say that her financial insecurity and uncertainty has caused her significant stress, quote, I have been publicly shamed enough by the respondent and do not wish my

credit to be destroyed. The claims filed by Dennis Oland's wife are of course unproven right now, with the next court appearance to be in September of this year. So, does any of this have anything to do with Richard Oland's death in terms of whether Dennis was involved? Of course not, but I found it kind of added a few pieces to the puzzle that is Dennis Oland's strange personality. So as you'll remember, Dennis was odd in his car, driving the wrong way up a one-way

street, stopping in the car for 10 minutes, going to different parking spots, circling the block, and then walking one way down the street and then the other, and of course telling the police that he was wearing a navy jacket when it was in fact brown. Now, before the police asked him about this, they had already told him that they had security footage of him. He would have known that they knew the colour of his jacket, so what reason would he have to lie about it? I didn't find him to be deceitful.

What I did find him to be was highly unorganised, has issues making decisions, and is overall a bit wishy-washy, a bit of a buff head, as we say in Australia. But his wife was standing by him in a very public way through years and years of court proceedings, so I kind of weighed that as adding credibility to his story. But if what his wife is saying now turns out to be true, proven in court, then it would seem to me that Dennis Oland is less mild-mannered and wishy-washy, and more deceitful and manipulative. Ultimately, there's no inferences here that could logically affect the facts of the Richard Oland case, and court proceedings are done, but I do find details like this really interesting

to ponder. Given that this episode was released just days before the 140th anniversary of the crime, there's of course not going to be any updates to the case itself. But in June of this year, a casting announcement was made for a true crime film called Black Donnellies. 29-year-old Sarah Bolger, known for her role in The Tudors, will play Johanna Donnelly, production of the film starts next year, 2021. Given what I know about the issues around the use of the name Black Donnellies, hence why

I called my episode The Donnellies, I will be following this film with interest. Episode 56, The Murder of Loretta Saunders. Loretta was the pregnant Inuit woman from Nova Scotia, who was passionate about raising awareness for missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. She had sublet her apartment to a couple and was growing impatient when they weren't paying the rent. She went to her apartment to ask about it, but instead she was attacked from behind, suffocated to death, stuffed in a hockey bag and dumped off the highway.

The couple she had rented the apartment to stole her car and her bank cards and drove to Ontario, where they were apprehended. Blake Leggett and Victoria Hennaberry were both sentenced to life in prison, but their parole eligibility differed. Blake, who attacked Loretta, would have to wait 25 years, and Victoria, who watched and helped, would wait just 10. As you'll recall, Victoria's statement of apology was incredibly passive. She simply said, It's sad to know I was involved in the death of someone.

She then went on to appeal her conviction, saying that she wanted to withdraw her guilty plea because she was coerced into it. She claimed the stress of the trial had led her to be diagnosed with PTSD, but when asked for proof of this diagnosis, she couldn't provide it. Her case was weak and the appeal was dismissed. That was three years ago. But this wasn't the last we heard from Victoria. In February of 2020, the media reported that she had a parole board hearing and was now

claiming Indigenous status, American Cherokee from her mother's side. She then applied for a five-hour escorted temporary absence from prison to attend an Indigenous women's sharing and drumming circle. And this was the second time she had applied to access Indigenous healing services. Her first request for support from an Indigenous women's centre was denied because the centre exists to support Indigenous women and children, one of whom Victoria had been found guilty of murdering. The new claim of Indigenous heritage did not go over well with Loretta Saunders' family.

Her father Clayton said, It seemed like a gimmick or a game to get her own way and get out of something. The parole board added some comments of their own in their decision, saying that Victoria lacked victim remorse. Quote, You presented as emotionless when reading your statement. The board noted and pointed out that you smiled almost continuously throughout your hearing, which is highly unusual given the gravity of your offending. Your decorum significantly changed when the board delivered its decision.

There were two elders present at her hearing and the decision noted that Victoria, quote, will need to address truth-telling on your cultural journey. The decision allowed her to attend 24 drumming sessions and noted that she is of acceptable risk within the framework of participating in this approved absence, but there would be significant work to do before any possibility of conditional release. Loretta's family were not happy and her father Clayton told the telegram that they didn't feel the voices of Loretta and her family were being heard. Quote, There's no justice being done.

There's no closure. That's for sure. It makes us feel now like we're up against the parole board, the justice system, and we're just left out in the cold. As we know, this is often the complaint of the loved ones of victims who attend parole hearings. We do know that the criminal justice system exists to focus on the criminals and what to do with them, not the loved ones of their victims.

But still, it's a shame that so many of the loved ones end up feeling this way. Episodes 19 and 20. Dylan Millard and the murder of Laura Babcock. As you'll remember, Dylan Millard and Mark Smitch were first arrested for the murder of Tim Bosmer, the man who was trying to sell his truck on Kijiji. After that, it came out that they may have had something to do with the disappearance of Laura Babcock, Dylan's sometime love interest who went missing the year beforehand. Laura's murder was tried as a no-body case, with the crown presenting evidence that the

two men likely disposed of Laura's remains in the incinerator, months before they did the exact same thing to Tim Bosmer. Dylan Millard and Mark Smitch were found guilty of the first-degree murder of Laura Babcock in December of 2017. Now, as you might remember, in August of 2019, the media reported that Laura's family had received her voter registration card in the mail, which was likely incredibly traumatising for them. See, Laura hadn't been officially declared dead, because the legislation states that

a coroner can't complete a death certificate if remains have never been found. So, the Babcock family were required to appear before a judge to get a court order to officially declare Laura dead, and it was at the exact same court where Millard and Smitch were tried and convicted for Laura's murder. And they did. At the time, Laura's family said they wanted to see the legislation change, so that if there is a murder conviction, the coroner can make a judgement that the person is dead, whether a body has been found or not.

So, the update is their efforts in getting the death certificate ended up being the catalyst for a change in the legislation. In December of 2019, Laura's law was passed, which changed the process for getting a death certificate for those in similar circumstances. So now, under the new system, a court order declaring an individual has died can be used along with a statement of death, which can either be filled out by the family, their friends and relatives, or the Registrar General. Hopefully, this new law will spare other families from having to go through similar or deals.

Reena was the 14-year-old from Victoria, BC, who, in 1997, was lured under a bridge by a gang of teenagers and attacked by them. One of them felt guilty and called it off, and as Reena walked herself home, bruised and bloodied, she was followed by two of the teens who then dragged her to the water and murdered her. Those two teens were 15-year-old Kali Allard and 16-year-old Warren Glowacki. They were both found guilty of second-degree murder, and, after 13 years, Warren was released on full parole in 2010.

Kali Allard would stay in prison until 2017, when she was released on day parole. But by this time, she had given birth to her first child, who she conceived during a private family visit with her boyfriend, who was on day parole from a nearby prison at the time. Many members of the public questioned how this was allowed to happen. She had her baby in early 2017 and then went back to the parole board, saying that the baby had given her a new outlook on life. She was granted day parole in November of that year. Well, in January of this year, 2020, Kali received a day parole extension.

Now, she can spend four days in the community, but has to return to a community residential facility for a minimum of three days every week. The ruling said that the board found a more gradual release to the community is necessary to ensure her successful reintegration. The board said that while it took a long time for Kali to articulate remorse and regret about Reena's murder, she had demonstrated sustained and positive change. She had successfully completed numerous programs and had behaved well during her escorted absences. Now, what the ruling also revealed was that Kali had since had a second child, to the same

father as her first. The board report says, quote, while your partner, who was an offender who has completed his sentence, was reincarcerated, you demonstrated maturity and persisted in the goals you had for yourself and your first born. You have had a second child, are in the same relationship, are employed and are assessed as making continued progress. In July of 2020 it was announced that Kali had been granted extended day parole and overnight leave.

She still lives in a halfway house, but she is progressively being given more freedoms leading to her inevitable release. It's now been 22 years since Reena's murder. I certainly hope that she is sincere and will go on to live a normal life, at least for the sake of her two children. Well, that's it for this episode. If you're interested in my analysis and thoughts on each case, I have a monthly after show of sorts called Chats with Christy, where I take you behind the scenes on cases I've

covered and share information that didn't make it into the episode. You can sign up on Patreon, or if you want to pay in Canadian dollars, you can sign up on Supercast. You'll also get early access to every episode without any of the ads, and you'll unlock access to two bonus episodes. Visit canadientruecrime.ca slash support to learn more. Today's podcast recommendation is not actually a podcast. For something a bit different, it's an independent YouTube channel all about fascinating Canadian

history stories, and in my opinion, it deserves a wider audience. It's called Canadiana, a documentary series that explores stories that have made Canada the unique place that it is today, featuring playful animations and scenic footage. Canadiana has won awards for their videos. You'll learn about Canada's greatest murder mystery, the hidden story behind Vancouver's Twin Peaks, Winnipeg's Secret Code, a Canadian slavery story, and you can also check out episodes on Indigenous history, famous historical figures in Canada who were women, and a series of episodes that focus on colonial statues, like the ones covered in pink paint during

those recent Black Lives Matter protests in downtown Toronto. Now is a great time to learn a bit more about Canadian history than you might have learned at school. So check out Canadiana on YouTube, or visit thisiscanadiana.com. There's also a link in the show notes. Well, that's it for now. Thanks for listening. This episode was researched by Anya Best and me, with audio editing by We Talk of Dreams.

The disclaimer was voiced by the host of Beyond Bizarre True Crime. Thank you for your patience and understanding as I take a break. I'll be back next month with a Q&A. See you then.