Cause No. SJCR-2-2015
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK
TRIAL DIVISION
JUDICAL DISTRICT OF SAINT JOHN
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant

-and –

DENNIS JAMES OLAND
Respondent

JURY INSTRUCTIONS (FINAL)

DELIVERED BY:

The Honourable Mr. Justice John J. Walsh

AT:

Saint John, NB

CROWN COUNSEL:

P. J. Veniot Q.C., Patrick Wilbur, and Derek Weaver

DEFENCE COUNSEL:

Gary A. Miller Q.C., Alan D. Gold, and James R. McConnell

1

 INTRODUCTION

You will soon leave this courtroom and start discussing this case in your jury room. It is
therefore the time for me to tell you about the law you must follow in making your decision.

When we started this case, and at different times during the trial, I told you about several rules
of law that apply in general, or to some of the evidence as it was received. Those instructions
still apply, unless I tell you otherwise.

Now I am going to give you some more instructions. These instructions will cover a number of
topics. Consider them as a whole. Do not single out some as more important and pay less or
no attention to others. All are equally important, unless I tell you otherwise.

First, I will explain your duties as jurors, and tell you about the general rules of law that apply to
all jury cases.

Second, I will advise you of the specific rules of law that govern this case and the evidence that
you have heard.

Next, I will explain what Crown counsel must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the
guilt of Dennis Oland and tell you about any issues that arise on the evidence you have heard.

Then, I will discuss the issues that you need to decide and review for you the evidence that
relates to those issues. By doing this, I hope I can help you recall the evidence and help you
understand how it relates to the issues that you will be asked to decide. You must always keep
in mind, however, that to decide this case, you rely on what you remember the evidence was
not what counsel or I say it was.

2

 After that, I will briefly summarize the positions that counsel have put forward in their closing
addresses.

Finally, I will explain what verdicts you may return and how you should approach your
discussion of the case in your jury room.

It is important that you listen very carefully to all these instructions. I am giving them to help
you make a decision, not to tell you what decision to make.

Each of you will be given a written copy of these final instructions when I am finished. You will
have these instructions to take with you in your jury room and may refer to them in your
deliberations.

3

 DUTIES OF JUDGE AND JURY

In every criminal jury trial, there are two judges. I am one. You are the other.

As the judge of the law, it is my duty to preside over the trial. I decide what evidence the law
permits you to hear and consider, and what procedure we will follow in the case. At the end of
the evidence and addresses, it is my job to explain to you the rules of law that you must follow
and apply to make your decision.

As the judges of the facts, your first duty is to decide what are the facts in this case. You make
that decision from all the evidence given in this courtroom during this trial. There will be no
more evidence. You consider nothing else. You are entitled to come to common sense
conclusions based on the evidence that you accept.

You must not speculate or permit

yourselves to guess or make up theories without evidence to support them.

Deciding the facts is your job, not mine. Our law does permit me to comment or express
opinions about issues of fact. If I do that, however, you do not have to agree with me. You, not
I, decide what happened in this case.

Your second duty is to accept all the rules of law that I tell you apply in this case. Even if you
disagree with or do not understand the reasons for the law, you are required to follow what I
say about it. You are not allowed to pick and choose among my instructions on the law. You
must not consult other sources or substitute your own views about what the law is or what it
should be.

If I make a mistake about the law, justice can still be done in this case. The court reporter
records everything I say. The Court of Appeal can correct my mistakes. But justice will not be
done if you wrongly apply the law. Your decisions are secret. You do not give reasons. No one

4

 keeps a record of your discussions for the Court of Appeal to review.

As a result, it is very

important that you accept the law from me and follow it without question.

Finally, it is your duty to apply the law that I explain to you to the facts that you find to reach
your verdict.

5

 IRRELEVANCE OF OUTSIDE INFORMATION

The only information that you may consider in making your decision in this case is the evidence
you have seen and heard given in this court room during this trial. You must disregard
completely any information from radio, television, or newspaper accounts, internet sources,
Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media you have heard, seen or read about this case, or
about any of the persons or places involved or mentioned in it. Those reports and any other
information about the case from anyone else outside the courtroom are not evidence.

It would not be fair to decide this case on the basis of any information not introduced or tested
by the parties in court and made part of the evidence at trial. You, not the media or anyone
else, are the only judges of the facts.

6

 IRRELEVANCE OF PREJUDICE AND SYMPATHY

You must consider the evidence and make your decision without sympathy, prejudice or fear.
You must not be influenced by public opinion. We expect and are entitled to your impartial
assessment of the evidence. That was the promise you made and the oath you took or
affirmation you gave after you were accepted by the parties as jurors, and they have the right
to expect nothing less.

7

 JUROR’S APPROACH TO TASK

When you go to your jury room to begin your discussions, it is very important that no one starts
off by telling everybody else that he or she has already made up his or her mind and will not
change it, whatever anyone else may say. That is not the way to decide a case.

As jurors, it is your duty to talk with and listen to one another. Discuss the evidence. Put
forward your own views. Listen to what others have to say. Try to reach an agreement, if you
can. Your foreperson will preside over your deliberations and help you in the orderly discussion
of the issues.

Each of you has to decide the case for yourself. You should only do so, however, after you have
considered the evidence with your fellow jurors and applied the law that I have explained to
you.

During your discussions, do not hesitate to reconsider your own opinions. Change your mind, if
you find you are wrong. Do not give up your honest beliefs however, just because others think
differently. Do not change your mind only to get the case over with.

Your only responsibility is to determine whether Crown counsel has proven Dennis Oland guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Your contribution to the administration of criminal justice is a just
and proper verdict. We ask for nothing more. We are entitled to nothing less.

8

 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

Dennis Oland is presumed to be innocent, unless and until Crown counsel proves his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Indictment on which you are trying Dennis Oland is only a formal accusation or charge. It
tells Dennis Oland as it tells you, what specific crime Crown counsel alleges that Dennis Oland
committed. The charge is not evidence. It is not proof of guilt.

The presumption of innocence means that Dennis Oland started this trial presumed to be
innocent of the offence with which he is charged. This presumption of innocence stays with
him throughout this trial, including your deliberations. The presumption of innocence is only
defeated if and when Crown counsel satisfies you of Dennis Oland’s guilt of the offence charged
by proving every essential element of that offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Later in these instructions I will explain to you the essential elements that Crown counsel must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish Dennis Oland’s guilt.

9

 BURDEN OF PROOF

The obligation to prove Dennis Oland’s guilt rests with Crown counsel. From start to finish that
obligation never shifts. Dennis Oland does not have to present evidence. You may have
noticed in Defence counsel’s opening address an indication of calling certain witnesses which
they later did not call to testify. That is the Defence choice whether to call any particular
witness or not. Dennis Oland does not have to prove anything. To be more specific, Dennis
Oland does not have to prove that he is not guilty of the offence charged.

To prove Dennis Oland’s guilt of the offence charged, Crown counsel must prove each and
every essential element of that offence (but only the essential elements), as I will explain them
for you, beyond a reasonable doubt. This requirement, as I have said, applies to each and every
essential element of the offence, but not to individual items of evidence introduced at trial.

You must find Dennis Oland not guilty of the offence charged unless Crown counsel proves all
the essential elements of that offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

10

 REASONABLE DOUBT

The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very important part of our criminal justice system.

A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, far-fetched, or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based
on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone involved in this trial. It is a doubt based on reason
and common sense. It is a doubt that logically arises from the evidence, or the lack of evidence.
It is a doubt about an essential element of the offence charged.

It is not enough for you to believe that Dennis Oland is probably or likely guilty. In those
circumstances, you must find him not guilty, because Crown counsel would have failed to
satisfy you of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of probable or likely guilt is not proof
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

You should also remember, however, that it is nearly impossible to prove anything to an
absolute certainty. Crown counsel is not required to do so. Absolute certainty is a standard of
proof that is impossibly high. What Crown counsel must prove beyond a reasonable doubt are
the essential elements of the offence, as I shall define them for you.

If, at the end of the case, after considering all the evidence, you are sure that Dennis Oland
committed the offence, you should find Dennis Oland guilty of it, since you would have been
satisfied of his guilt of that offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

If, at the end of the case, based on all of the evidence or the lack of evidence, or the credibility
of one or more of the witnesses or the reliability of his or her evidence, you are not sure that
Dennis Oland committed the offence, you should find him not guilty of it.

11

 EVIDENCE DEFINED

To decide what the facts are in this case, you must consider only the evidence that you saw and
heard in the courtroom. Consider all the evidence in reaching your decision. During the trial, on
occasion you heard me mention some evidence was only admitted for a specific and limited
purpose in deciding this case. During my later review of the evidence I may on occasion
mention certain evidence and direct you that it has a specific and limited purpose. You must
consider any of that evidence only for the purpose I described or will describe and not for any
other purpose in making your decision.

The evidence includes what each witness said in answering the questions the lawyers asked.
The questions themselves are not evidence unless the witness agreed that what was asked was
correct. The answers of the witness are his/her evidence.

The evidence also includes any things that were made exhibits. When you go to your jury room
to decide this case, the exhibits will go with you. You may, but do not have to examine them
there. Whether, how, or how much you do so is up to you; consider them along with the rest of
the evidence and in exactly the same way. Recall, though, that certain exhibits should only be
handled with gloves, which gloves will be provided to you should you choose to examine those
exhibits.

You will also recall that certain exhibits were turned back over to the police to be placed
in freezers. They are identified on the exhibit lists you will be provided. Although I doubt you
will need them, if you require any or all of those exhibits at any time during your deliberations,
please send a note in writing to me through the Court constable and suitable arrangements will
be made for you to view them as well in the jury room.

12

 Because of the number of exhibits filed, you will also be provided exhibit lists with brief
descriptions of what each item is. The brief descriptions are not evidence, only guides to locate
an exhibit or exhibits. It is the exhibits themselves that are the evidence.

The evidence also includes the facts on which the Crown and Defence have agreed. There are a
number of Agreed Statement of Facts filed in this case, which you will be able to find by
referring to the exhibit lists. You must take what the parties have agreed on as facts in this case.
Some of those agreements I will have occasion to refer to during my review of the evidence.

As I explained to you earlier, there are some things that are not evidence. You must not
consider or rely upon them to decide this case.

The charge that you heard read out when we started this case is not evidence. What the
lawyers and I said when we spoke to you during the trial, including what I am saying to you
now, is not evidence. Only the exhibits and what the witnesses say and any facts the Crown
and Defence admit are evidence. Most admissions are in written form, but some were made
orally before you.

Sometimes during the trial, one of the lawyers objected to a question that another asked a
witness. Anything the lawyers said in making or answering the objection or what I said in
addressing the objection is not evidence. You must also take nothing from the fact that
objections were made, or that you were excluded when I made a decision about any particular
objection.

13

 USE OF JUROR NOTES DURING DELIBERATIONS
When we began this trial, I told you that you could take notes to help you remember what any
witness said in testifying here. Some of you have done so. You may take your notes with you
to the jury room for your use during your deliberations.

Your notes are not evidence, any more than the notes that I make or the lawyers make are
evidence. The only purpose for which you may use your notes during your deliberations is to
help you remember what a witness said or showed, for example, on an exhibit.

It is also important to remember that the notes are those of the note-taker, not someone else.
They may or may not coincide with other jurors’ memories of the evidence.

A jury’s decision is a group decision. Everyone has a say, an equal say. We depend on the
memory and judgment of each one of you to decide this case. Do not simply defer to the
person who is or seems to be the best note-taker. Notes don’t make decisions: jurors do.

14

 ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE
I will now turn to how you go about assessing evidence. I mentioned this in my instructions to
you at the outset of the trial and during the trial. I need to repeat it. You should keep the
following instructions in mind regarding every witness in this case (and exhibits), including
those witnesses mentioned by Crown counsel and Defence counsel in their closing submissions
and by myself in my later review of the evidence. I will go through this instruction on evidence
assessment more slowly and in somewhat more detail than I did at the outset of the trial and
during the trial given that you have now heard and seen all the evidence. The instructions are
these:

To make your decision, you should consider carefully, and with an open mind, all the evidence
presented during the trial. It will be up to you to decide how much or little you will believe and
rely upon the testimony of any witness. When the law speaks of assessing the credibility of a
witness, there are two aspects: the veracity (i.e. truthfulness) of the witness and the reliability
(i.e. accuracy) of his or her evidence. In other words, for every witness you need to assess
whether the person is endeavouring to tell the truth and whether that person’s evidence is
reliable. Even if a witness is honestly endeavouring to tell the truth, that person could be
mistaken. After assessing a witness’s evidence, you may accept some, none or all of it.

When you go to your jury room to consider the case, use the same common sense that you use
every day in deciding whether people know what they are talking about and whether they are
telling the truth. There is no magic formula for deciding how much or how little to believe of a
witness’ testimony or how much to rely on it in deciding this case. But there are a few
questions you might keep in mind during your discussions:
Did the witness seem honest? Is there any reason why the witness would not be telling
the truth?

15

 Did the witness have any reason to give evidence that is more favourable to one side
than to the other?
Did the witness seem able to make accurate and complete observations about the
event? Did he/she have a good opportunity to do so? What were the circumstances in
which the observation was made? What was the condition of the witness? Was the
event itself unusual or routine?
Did the witness seem to have a good memory? Does the witness have any reason to
remember the things about which he/she testified? Did any inability or difficulty that
the witness had in remembering events seem genuine, or did it seem made up as an
excuse to avoid answering questions?
Did the witness seem to be reporting to you what he/she saw or heard, or simply
putting together an account based on information obtained from other sources rather
than personal observation?
Did a witness give his or her evidence through the aid of an interpreter and, if so, what,
if any, difficulty did this cause?
Did the witness’ testimony seem reasonable and consistent as he/she gave it? Is it
similar to or different from what other witnesses said about the same events? Did the
witness say or do something different on an earlier occasion?
Do any inconsistencies in the witness’ evidence make the main points of the testimony
more or less believable and reliable? Is the inconsistency about something important,
or a minor detail?

Does it seem like an honest mistake?

Is it a deliberate lie? A

deliberate lie is always serious and may taint all the witness’ evidence.

Is the

inconsistency because the witness said something different, or because he/she failed to
mention something? Is there any explanation for it? Does the explanation make sense?
What was the witness’ manner when testifying? How did he/she appear to you? Do not
jump to conclusions, however, based entirely on how a witness has testified. Looks can
16

 be deceiving. Giving evidence in a trial is not a common experience for many witnesses.
People react and appear differently. Witnesses come from different backgrounds. They
have different abilities, values and life experiences. There are simply too many variables
to make the manner in which a witness testifies the only or most important factor in
your decision.

These are only some of the factors that you might keep in mind when you to go your jury room
to make your decision. These factors might help you decide how much or little you will believe
of and rely upon a witness’ evidence. You may consider other factors as well.

In making your decision, do not consider only the testimony of the witnesses. Take into
account, as well, any exhibits that have been filed. Decide how much or little you will rely on
them, as well as the testimony and any facts admitted by the parties, to help you decide this
case.

17

 EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE

In addition to the foregoing instructions on assessing a witness’s testimony, when considering
any expert opinion evidence that was given you also must keep in mind the following
instructions, which you have heard recited to you a number of times throughout the trial:

Sometimes, knowledge of a technical subject may help jurors decide a case. Persons, who are
qualified in that subject by education, training or experience, may state their opinions about it.
They may also give the reasons for their opinion.

In this case the Court qualified the following persons to give opinion evidence and in the
following areas:
Dr. Ather Nassemuddin, an anatomical pathologist declared qualified to give opinion on the
cause, manner and mechanism of death and the meaning of human injuries;
Payman Hakimian, an RCMP technology analyst declared qualified to give opinion evidence in
the area of the forensic analysis of computers and related electronic devices and the recovery
and interpretation of electronic data;
Neil Walker, also an RCMP technology analyst declared qualified to give opinion in the same
area as Mr. Hakimian was qualified;
RCMP Sgt. Brian Wentzel, declared qualified to give opinion on blood stain pattern
identification and interpretation;
Grant Fredericks, a consultant declared qualified to give opinion in the area of forensic video
analysis;

18

 Joseph Sadoun, a Radio Frequency Engineer declared qualified to give opinion in the area of the
design and operation of a cellular communication network and the analysis and interpretation
of cellular telephone communications and data, and in the analysis and interpretation of
cellular telephone records as it relates to the location and movement of cellular devices in
conjunction with cellular communication transmission towers;
Joy Kearsey, formerly an RCMP Forensic Laboratory Specialist declared qualified to give opinion
with regard to the forensic application of DNA typing, DNA typing procedures and the
significance of the results of DNA typing, including the calculation of frequency estimates for
particular DNA profiles in the population generally;
Thomas Suzanski, a team leader in the biology section of the RCMP Forensic Laboratory in
Ottawa declared qualified in the same areas of forensic DNA evidence as Joy Kearsey;
Patrick Laturnus, a consultant declared qualified to give opinion in blood stain pattern
identification and interpretation;
Geoffrey Fellows, a consultant declared qualified to give opinion in regards to the forensic
analysis of computers and related electronic devices, including the recovery and interpretation
of electronic data.

Each of these persons has a curriculum vitae in evidence, all marked as exhibits. These exhibits
supplement their oral testimony as to their background, training and experience. To the extent
you find it necessary, you can find their C/V’s by simply referencing the Exhibit lists to be
provided to you.

During the course of the evidence review I will undertake, I will have occasion to mention some
of the opinions. Please keep in mind that the opinions of experts are just like the testimony of
any other witnesses. Just because an expert has given an opinion does not require you to
accept it. You may believe or rely upon the opinion as much or as little as you see fit. You
19

 should consider the education, training and experience of the expert, the reasons given for the
opinion, the suitability of the methods used and the rest of the evidence in the case when you
decide how much or little to rely on the opinion. It is up to you to decide.

Experts usually form their opinions by applying their training, education and experience to a
number of facts that the expert assumes or relies on as the basis for his or her analysis.

What an expert assumes or relies on as a fact for the purposes of offering his or her opinion
may be the same as what you find as facts from the evidence introduced in this case. Or it may
be different.

To the extent that the facts you find are different from the facts assumed or relied upon by the
expert in reaching his or her conclusion, you may consider the expert’s opinion less helpful to
you in deciding this case. How much or little you believe of or rely upon an expert’s opinion,
just like any other witness’ evidence, is entirely up to you.

20

 NUMBERS OF WITNESSES

How much or little you rely on the evidence of the witnesses does not necessarily depend on
the number of witnesses who testify, one way or another.

Your duty is to consider all the evidence. You may decide that the testimony of fewer
witnesses is more reliable than the evidence of a larger number. It is up to you to decide.

Your task is to consider carefully the testimony of each witness. Decide how much or little you
accept of what each witness has said. Do not decide the case simply by counting witnesses.

21

 DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

I mentioned the terms “direct evidence” and “circumstantial evidence” in my instructions to
you at the outset of the trial. You may believe or rely upon either one as much or as little as the
other in deciding this case.

Often witnesses tell us what they personally saw or heard. As I explained in my instructions at
the outset of the trial, a witness might, for example, say he or she saw it raining outside. That is
called direct evidence. Sometimes, however, a witness or a number of witnesses might say
things from which you are asked to draw certain conclusions. The example I gave at the outset
of trial was that a witness might say that he or she had seen someone enter the courthouse
lobby wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella, both dripping wet. If you believed that
witness, you might infer that it was raining outside, even though the evidence was indirect.
Indirect evidence is sometimes called circumstantial evidence.

However, I need to caution you. Where evidence is circumstantial, it is critical for you to
distinguish between inference and speculation. An inference is a deduction (finding) of fact that
may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts you find established
in the trial; like the example I just mentioned, about it being open to reasonably infer that it
was raining outside, based on the evidence, if you accepted it, that a person saw someone
come in from outside wearing a coat and carrying an umbrella that were dripping wet.

Sometimes more than one inference, even different inferences, may be open to you to draw
from a fact or a group of facts you find established in the trial. However, even if it might be
22

 open to you to draw an inference or inferences from a fact or group of facts you find
established in the trial, it is entirely up to you to decide whether or not to draw the inference or
inferences. You are not required to draw the inference or draw any particular inference; that is
entirely up to you.

During the course of my review of the evidence you will hear me on occasion suggest a possible
inference or inferences that may be open to you to draw if you find certain facts established on
the evidence. But, again, that will be entirely for you.

On the other hand, if there are no proven facts from which an inference or inferences can be
drawn, there can be no inference drawn, only impermissible speculation and conjecture. To
help you understand what I mean, I will give you an example found in this case.

Recall the evidence of Cst. Stephen Davidson that the police had speculated early on that a drywall hammer might be a possible type of weapon used to kill Richard Oland. However, recall
that Dr. Nassemuddin was never asked at any time to compare a potential type of weapon or
weapons to the injuries. I can tell you he would have the expertise to give such opinion if he
had been asked. You therefore have no evidence before you that a dry-wall hammer was the
type of instrument that caused the injuries. The mere opinion of a police officer, or anyone else
for that matter, not qualified to say a dry-wall hammer was consistent with or was not
consistent as the instrument of death cannot become a fact in this trial. Indeed, you do not
even have before you in evidence such a kind of instrument or even a picture of one. Therefore,
there can be no reasonable inference open to you to find that a dry-wall hammer was the
instrument of Richard Oland’s death. It would be pure speculation and conjecture to find it was.
It might be a base for public gossip, but is not for you as judges.

23

 As with witnesses, things filed as exhibits may also provide direct or circumstantial evidence.

In making your decision, both direct and circumstantial evidence count. The law treats both
equally. Neither is necessarily better or worse than the other. In each case, your job is to decide
what conclusions you will reach based upon the evidence as a whole, both direct and
circumstantial. To make your decision, apply your intelligence, common sense and experience
of life.

24

 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF OFFENCE CHARGED
AND
JUDGE’S REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON EVIDENCE

It is now my duty to review what I think are the important parts of the evidence, and to relate
that evidence to the issues that are for you to decide, and to provide certain special instructions
on the law in relation to some of that evidence.

In doing that, I may overlook evidence you think is important. I may mention evidence you think
is insignificant. I may make a mistake about what a witness said while testifying. The lawyers
have also referred to some of the evidence in their closing submissions.

My references to the evidence are only to help you remember it, and to show you how it
relates to the issues in this case. If my memory of the evidence is different than yours, it is your
memory and understanding of the evidence that counts. You find the facts and base your
decision on your memory of the evidence, not mine, nor that of counsel. It is your duty to
consider and make your decision on all the evidence, not just those parts of the evidence to
which counsel or I refer.

Our law also permits me to comment or express opinions about issues of fact. If I do that,
however, you do not have to reach the same conclusion. You, not I, decide what happened in
this case. You are required, however, as I have said before, to follow all my instructions as to
the law.

25

 As you know, the offence charged is 2nd Degree murder, stated in the Indictment as follows:
Dennis James Oland stands charged that he:
On or about July 6th, 2011, at the City of Saint John, County of Saint John,
Province of New Brunswick, did commit second degree murder on the person of
Richard Oland, contrary to the provisions of Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Code
of Canada and amendments thereto.

The parties have agreed that Richard Oland was killed at the place set out in the Indictment and
was killed on or about the date set out in the Indictment. The essential elements of the charge
that Crown counsel must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order for you to find Dennis
Oland guilty of 2nd Degree murder are:

i.

That Dennis Oland caused Richard Oland’s death;

ii.

That Dennis Oland caused Richard Oland’s death unlawfully; and

iii.

That Dennis Oland had a state of mind required for murder; that is, he either meant
to kill Richard Oland or meant to cause Richard Oland bodily harm that Dennis Oland
knew was likely to kill Richard Oland and was reckless whether Richard Oland died or
not.

As a matter of obvious law and common sense, I instruct you that Richard Oland’s death was
caused unlawfully.

As well, as a matter of common sense you might also conclude that given the manner of death,
including the number and location of the blows delivered to Richard Oland, that whoever or
26

 whomever did this meant to kill Richard Oland or meant to cause him bodily harm that the
person or persons who did this knew was likely to kill Richard Oland and was reckless whether
Richard Oland died or not.

As I told you at the outset of the trial, the essential element of the offence charged at real issue
in this case is the first one mentioned, that is, whether the Crown has proven beyond any
reasonable doubt that it was Dennis Oland who caused Richard Oland’s death. As a
consequence, my review of the evidence will be directed to that essential element, which, for
the sake of convenience, I will also refer to at times as the issue of identity; meaning, has the
Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Dennis Oland killed Richard Oland?

I reiterate that this review of the evidence I am about to undertake has three purposes:
i.

to refresh your memory of some of the evidence because of the length of the
trial and the detail of evidence put before you;

ii.

to specifically relate some of that evidence to the issue of identity you are to
decide; and

iii.

to provide certain instructions on the law in relation to some of that evidence.

I remind you, however, that the evidence is entirely for you, and that you are not restricted to
considering only the evidence I mention or specifically relate to the issue of identity or that the
lawyers have mentioned. This instruction is particularly important to keep in mind in a case
such as here where you will have a written copy of my evidence review with you in the jury
room. You must consider all of the evidence in the case and apply your own intelligence,
common sense and experience of life in assessing it.

27

 But, I also remind you that you must follow any instructions on the law I give in relation to any
particular evidence or any other legal instructions I have given or will give at any time
throughout my address to you.

In the course of this review of the evidence, I will take the liberty at times of referring to the
defendant as Dennis and the deceased as Richard. I do this only for ease of reference;
otherwise I would be more formal.

I will begin my review of the evidence with the state of Richard Oland’s body when found and
then move on to some of the other crime scene evidence, including the results of certain
forensic examinations that were done and certain tests that were performed, and then address
some of the surrounding evidence, then move to a review of Dennis Oland’s statement to the
police and his testimony to you, and then conclude by reviewing some of the evidence
pertaining to alleged motive.

There is no significance to the order I refer to the evidence. To state the obvious, I have to start
somewhere and end somewhere and, given the sheer mass of evidentiary detail in the case and
because of certain legal complexity, try to make my review as functionally comprehensible as I
can for you. Despite my best efforts in the time I have had, this review of the evidence will be
long by jury charge standards. It is, though, (as I hope you can appreciate) necessary because of
the nature of the case and the length of the trial.

28

 You will see when you get my instructions in writing later that I have divided this review of the
evidence into sections. I have done this for your ease of reference only. Beyond that, the
division of this evidence review into sections has absolutely no other significance.

Section 1
Recall, Dr. Ather Naseemuddin is an anatomical pathologist who was declared qualified to give
opinion evidence as to the cause, manner and mechanism of death and the meaning of human
injuries. I see no need to go into any fine detail on the horrific injuries suffered by Richard
Oland, for you also have a booklet of 30 photos (Exhibit P-30), the Doctor’s written report
(Exhibit P-59), his sketch made of the head fractures (Exhibit P-58) and a series of printouts
from the photos generated by the Doctor during his testimony (Exhibits P-60 to P- 64).

In sum, the Doctor’s evidence is that:
I.

Richard Oland was almost 6 feet tall, weighed 192 pounds and had been
otherwise healthy. There is a toxicology report attached to the autopsy
report that reveals a low level of alcohol found in Richard Oland’s urine
only, consistent with alcohol consumption several hours prior to death;

II.

There were no overt signs of body decomposition. This can be explained
by the fact the body was found in a cool room and was later stored in a
cooler in the morgue;

III.

Richard Oland received a combination of 45 separate “blunt force” and
“sharp force” blows to his hands, neck and head, administered by two
different surfaces; the surfaces being either on the same instrument or
on separate instruments. I pause for a moment.

29

 Recall I pointed out that there is no evidence before you that a dry-wall hammer was the type
of instrument that caused the injuries. And, I explained that speculation by the police that it
might be the instrument cannot become a fact in this trial and that therefore there is no
reasonable inference open to you to find that it was the instrument of Richard Oland’s death.
However, that the police speculated early on in the investigation that the weapon might be a
dry-wall hammer and, as a result, what they did or did not do about it does have some
relevance for other purposes. I will mention that relevance later.

I return to Dr. Naessemudin’s evidence:

IV.

Of the 45 blows that Richard Oland suffered, six (6) were “sharp force”
defensive-like injuries to the hands that broke bones in each hand;

V.

At least five (5) of the blows administered to the head (2 above and
behind the right ear and three above and behind the left ear) were
similar 2.5 cm round blunt force contusions with a cross-hatching pattern
on the surface. The Doctor had not seen that type of injury before;

VI.

The remainder of the blows to the head and neck area were “sharp
force”, chop-like, linear injuries of varying lengths, caused by anything,
the Doctor said, that is sharp and chop-like capable of transferring
enough force to break through bone without the instrument itself
breaking, i.e. leaving parts of it in or on the injuries. However, he said
they were not claw tool-like injuries;

VII.

Some of the sharp force injuries appeared to have been made in quick,
rapid succession as they were parallel to each other, on the same axis

30

 and same plane. I refer you to Exhibit 30, Photo #17 that shows those
injuries behind Richard Oland’s right ear;
VIII.

The wounds to the head resulted in over a dozen fractures to the skull,
some of which broke through both skull plates into the cranium;

IX.

A separate fracture to the roof of the eye socket is an egg like fracture,
caused by a frontal blow. This could have occurred, the Doctor agreed, if
Richard Oland fell to the floor face first;

X.

Given the number and incapacitating nature of the blows to the head, the
Doctor also agreed it would be logical to conclude that some of the blows
were struck while Richard Oland was low to the floor or while he was on
the floor and that in their totality would be completely disabling,
rendering Richard Oland incapable of movement. The Doctor further
agreed that something solid striking the skull would make some noise.
And, I would add, you have evidence that the more severe injuries,
relatively speaking, were to the left side of the head and you can see in
the photos that Richard Oland was found face down with his head turned
to the left.

XI.

Death would have been rapidly fatal given the nature and number of
blows to the head;

XII.

The Doctor, beyond venturing the opinion that the blows to the hands
probably came first, could not give an opinion on the sequence of the
blows to the head and neck area, nor whether they would have been
delivered by a right or left hand, nor the number of assailants, nor could
he give an opinion as to the time of death preceding the discovery of the
body.
31

 Section 2
When Sgt. Mark Smith of the Saint John Forensic Identification Section entered the office of Far
End Corporation the morning of July 7th 2011, the lights were on (including a lamp on Richard
Oland’s desk), the drapes were closed, the air conditioner was on showing a temperature
reading of 19 degrees and the wall mounted TV was on showing a Channel Guide for Direct TV
but with no sound. Sgt. Smith subsequently processed, over a number of days, the crime scene
inside that office and at other areas inside 52 Canterbury Street.

As an overview of his evidence, Sgt Smith noted a backpack against the side of the desk near
the body, with an IPad leaning against it, a file folder on the floor with papers also near the
body and a set of keys, all of which you can see in the photos. He also said the keys were for a
BMW vehicle, which vehicle was located in Richard Oland’s normal parking lot and spot at the
corner of Canterbury Street and Princess Street. (Sgt. Smith examined Richard Oland’s BMW
later for any signs of struggle or damage with negative results). Sgt Smith removed a wallet
from Richard Oland’s front right pocket for identification purposes; it contained various cards,
including credit cards (See: Exhibit P-5, Photo 119). There was no billfold for money for that
type of wallet. Sgt. Smith also located eye glasses under Richard Oland’s body (as you have
seen, Richard Oland wore eye glasses).

Sgt. Smith explained the process by which he and Cst Squires removed the body from the floor
onto the stretcher. He followed the body to the morgue and secured it and returned to 52
Canterbury at 3:40 p.m. that afternoon. Sgt Smith continued to process the scene.

He testified as to the arrival that evening of RCMP computer technology experts; about holding
them out in the foyer until he completed processing the scene and then about being present
32

 when those individuals did their work inside the office. I will address some of that computer
evidence a little later.

The next day, July 8th, Sgt Smith attended at the morgue with Cst. David Macdonald also of the
Saint John police force Identification Section. The purposes for their attendance were to
process Richard Oland’s body like a crime scene and to document the ensuing autopsy. Sgt
Smith detailed the steps he and Cst. Macdonald took – of photographing and examining the
clothes and body - back to front, top to bottom, stage by stage - with a crime scope and with
magnification, and of seizing any hairs or fibres that were seen or fluoresced; of seizing the
body bag and sheet initially used to place the body on the stretcher at the scene; of seizing the
clothes and the Rolex watch from the wrist; of taking fingernail clippings; of swabbing the end
of the fingers and palms; of seizing small hairs found between the fingers on both hands; of
taking a hair sample from the body.

You know that there was no trace or biological evidence from any other person found on
Richard Oland’s clothing or on his body.

Sgt Smith testified as to the body having been then washed, x-rays having been performed and
toxicology and DNA bodily standards having been taken from Richard Oland’s body. These
standards were blood samples from the femoral artery area. Samples from vitreous humor and
urine were also taken. As for the blood sample to be used as a DNA standard for later
comparison testing, this was placed on a special collection card that Cst. McDonald had brought
with him. The card was then placed into a Mylar envelope, sealed and identified and initialed by
both Cst. MacDonald and Sgt Smith and seized by Sgt Smith.

33

 Sgt. Smith also testified about documenting the number, type and size of the injuries observed
during the autopsy. You have the pathologist’s evidence and the photographs in these regards.

Later that evening, after he returned to the police station from the autopsy, Sgt. Smith
examined what we know is the camp log book (Exhibit D-3), the relevance of which I will also
refer to later.

Sgt. Smith took many photographs, at differing times and days, and of numerous places,
locations, and things, including at 52 Canterbury St. He also attempted to lift, unsuccessfully,
fingerprints inside the building and office. He also collected various swabs for potential DNA
analysis at that location. Sgt Smith and others, as you have heard and seen, also seized a
number of items at different locations during the course of the investigation. Sgt. Smith
explained, though, that he could not send, at least initially, just any and all items to the RCMP
DNA forensic laboratory for testing. He had to discuss the matter with the RCMP laboratory as
to which limited number should be sent the first time, to ensure a 25 day turnaround of test
results. You will recall the evidence of Sgt. Smith and of Cst. Macdonald as to the great many
items sent by the Saint John police to the RCMP Laboratory in different submissions at different
times.

Before proceeding further in summarizing Sgt Smith’s evidence, I need to give you a clear
warning. I gave you this warning near the end of the Crown’s case and need to repeat it:
Throughout Sgt. Smith’s, Cst David Macdonald’s and RCMP Sgt Brian Wentzell’s
testimony there has been reference to various presumptive tests employed on various
objects and things to try to detect blood. I am referring here to Hemastix, Blue Star, and
LMG. In any place mention is made of a positive reaction from any of those tests you
cannot use that evidence alone to find that blood was detected on that object or thing.
34

 You heard that these are not confirmatory tests, only presumptive tests. And you heard
from them and from Joy Kearsey why that is – because false positives can occur for a
very wide range of reasons. It would therefore be very dangerous to factor a positive
reaction from a presumptive test alone into your decision making. Those tests are
employed by investigators to generate leads, i.e. as a means to determine if follow up
testing should occur. On the other hand, no reaction on an object or thing from any of
those presumptive tests I mentioned is evidence you can consider in your evidentiary
assessment.

You have also heard evidence that the RCMP laboratory, using more stringent
confirmatory tests, reported that on certain exhibits they confirmed blood. This is
evidence you can consider in your evidentiary assessment.

However, on certain other exhibits for which a positive reaction to a presumptive test
resulted, the laboratory has subsequently reported from their testing that blood could
not be confirmed, meaning they cannot say whether there was blood or not on those
exhibits. In this circumstance, it would be very dangerous to infer, from a positive
reaction to a presumptive test alone that cannot be confirmed as blood, that blood is or
might be present on the exhibits in question. It is so dangerous to draw such an
inference on a presumptive test alone that I instruct you that the proper inference to
draw in your decision making is that there is no evidence of blood on those particular
exhibits.

I move back to Sgt. Smith’s evidence.

35

 Recall he stickered with scales the various areas inside the Far End Corporation office from
which he obtained swabs (you have seen in the photos of Exhibit P-5 that those stickers are
numbered B1 through to and including B15). It was determined by later analysis that of the 15
swabs, blood of Richard Oland was on 14 of them and that the blood on the 15 th swab (on the
box on the conference room table) was agreed to be unrelated to the crime. Actually, apart
from that older appearing stain found on that box on the conference table, the evidence is that
the only blood identified inside the office of Far End Corporation was from Richard Oland.

Sgt Smith described the extensive examination he undertook of the Volkswagen Golf vehicle
registered to Dennis Oland. He examined the vehicle on July 14 th, 15th and 18th, 2011 over 15-16
hours in total. He used a crime scope, Hemastixs, Blue Star Chemical reagent (on the darker
areas inside the vehicle), and LMG chemical reagent (on the lighter colours inside the vehicle).
Eleven (11) swabs were also taken from different areas inside the vehicle. Neither Richard
Oland’s blood nor DNA was found inside that vehicle. A thorough physical search did not reveal
anything either. And, you will recall Cst. Macdonald’s evidence that neither the exterior nor
interior of the vehicle appeared to have been cleaned prior to its seizure. (See: Exhibit P-53 –
Booklet of 12 photos).

Sgt. Smith also seized a red grocery bag (Exhibit P- 43) [Exhibit P-43 should only be handled
wearing gloves]. This was seized from the hatchback trunk of the Volkswagen. He documented
items found within the bag, which items are displayed in Exhibit D-30 (a series of 20 photos). No
blood was detected on or inside the red grocery bag or on any of the items within the bag.
Other items found in the trunk of the vehicle and examined with negative results included a sail
cover and lawnmower blade, (the evidence being that both items were purchased by Dennis
Oland on the morning of July 7th). Sgt Smith did seize from the glove compartment an item
shown in Exhibit P-8, Photo #1, which is a blank cheque on Dennis Oland’s CIBC bank account
marked void.

36

 Sgt Smith showed you in Exhibit P-5, Photo #94, what he referred to as a geometric pattern very
near the main blood pool at the crime scene, which he believed to be a faint footwear
impression. He explained, as I understood, that initially he believed it was made by Cst Squires’
footwear because of where he had been standing to assist Sgt Smith in removing the body.
However, on March 21, 2014 Sgt Smith was conducting a review of his file and realized that he
had observed in photographs those faint marks before the body had been removed. He then
took steps to try and match the impression to footwear. He had a photograph(s) of the
impression run through a data base for shoe type, make and model with negative results
because of the lack of detail in the impression. He also gathered photos of footwear for
comparison purposes, including 6 pairs of footwear earlier seized from Dennis Oland’s home
and footwear from Cst. Squires. He concluded there was insufficient detail in the crime scene
impression to make any comparison. Sgt Smith testified that the only other thing he could have
done back at the crime scene initially is to take analytical photos, that is, with a scale in place.
He agreed with the Defence that it was possible that the footwear impression observed on the
floor of the office near the main blood pool was made by the killer and, if so, it was a good
possibility blood would be transferred onto that person’s shoes and pants.

As for the six (6) pairs of shoes seized by Cst. Macdonald from Dennis Oland’s residence on July
14, 2011, Sgt Smith testified that all were examined and no blood was detected on any of them.
Indeed, Cst. MacDonald testified that he examined those shoes over the course of 4 days in the
Fall of 2011, both visually and with chemicals.

Sgt Smith agreed that of the shoes depicted in Exhibit D-38, photograph #4 closely resembles
the shoes Dennis Oland is seen wearing the morning of July 7, 2011 at a Kent’s store in Saint
John (Exhibit D-36 and D-37); although in re-direct examination he said the only thing he could
tell was that it was dark coloured footwear. He also testified that those shoes also appear
37

 similar to the shoes Dennis Oland was wearing during his police interview, which took place the
evening of the same day, as shown in two stills from that video interview (See: Exhibit D-35 pp 1
and 2); although in re-direct examination Sgt Smith testified that all he can say about the
footwear appearance is that they are dark coloured and the toes are squared off somewhat.
Recall in Dennis Oland’s video statement to the police (Exhibit P-75), he told Cst. Davidson,
when asked what he had been wearing when he visited his father the evening before, that he
had been wearing “these” shoes, referring to the shoes he then had on. Sgt Smith agreed with
the Defence assertion that on those kinds of shoes there are fruitful areas for blood detection
because of where blood could collect.

Whether or not any of the shoes seized from Dennis Oland’s home on July 14th are the same as
he is seen wearing in the Tandi’s Restaurant video on July 6th and in the Kent’s store video the
morning of July 7th and during his police interview later that same day is for you to assess along
with all the other evidence in the case, including Dennis Oland’s unchallenged testimony that
the shoes seen in photograph #4 of Exhibit D-38 are the shoes he wore on July 6th and 7th.
Recall the mid-trial instruction I gave to you following Grant Frederick’s evidence (the expert on
forensic video analysis). That direction applies to all the video evidence put before you in this
case. The instruction is as follows:
They are all exhibits in this case and will all be available to you to view in your
jury room. There, you may watch any or all of them as much or as little as you
consider necessary to help you decide this case.
As you watch the various videos, consider carefully whether any or each of them
are of sufficient clarity and quality and of sufficient length to help you decide
whether whatever persons, places or things are shown, or pointed out to you or
testified to as being seen in any of the videos is or are in fact seen in the video.
The same caution applies to the quality and clarity of any still photographs taken
from any video.
Remember, however, that these videos and any still photographs taken from
them are simply pieces of evidence to consider along with the rest of the

38

 evidence and that it is solely for you to determine how much or how little the
videos and any still photographs taken from them assist you.

Section 3
I move back again to Sgt Smith’s evidence. Recall that the photographs he took of blood
staining throughout the Far End Corporation offices were also done for the purposes of any
analysis by a blood spatter expert, which he was not. Also, Exhibit P-52 is a rough sketch
prepared by Sgt Smith the afternoon of July 9, 2011 of the office. He determined that:
1. The distance from the deceased’s head area to the curtain is 6 feet.
2. The height from the floor to the top stain on the curtain is 5ft 1in.
3. The estimated distance from where a person sitting in a chair in a normal position at
Richard Oland’s desk to the monitor on the floor in front of the desk is 7 feet.
4. The centre of the blood pool from the west wall is 10.8 ft and from the South wall is
8.11 ft.
(For orientation purposes, you now know that the north side of the office is where the filing
cabinets are located on the right side of the office. Consequently, where you enter the office is
the east side; the opposite wall overlooking Canterbury Street is the west side; and the side of
the office where the bank of computer monitors are is the south side of the office.)

As for the blood staining, Sgt. Smith agreed that this was an exceptionally bloody scene,
basically 360 degrees radiating out from where the deceased’s body lay. You will recall that a
series of 17 photographs (15 of them taken by RCMP Sgt Wentzell and 2 of them taken by Sgt
Smith) (Exhibit D-28) were extensively reviewed by Defence counsel with Sgt Smith. Sgt Smith
agreed that there were a great many blood spatters and agreed with the description that
“blood was going in all directions” and agreed, upon being referred to the blood spatters on the
curtain on the north wall and on the computer monitors on the south wall, that some were
fairly high up.
39

 Sgt. Smith described observing 100’s of smaller spatter radiating out from the main pool of
blood surrounding Richard Oland’s head. He said, as you can see, the spatter was concentrated
on the west and east side of the body but not so much on the south side of the body. When he
had first entered the office he noticed two transfer type stains on the floor on the right side of
the conference room table. Recall that Sgt Wentzell examined those stains later (Areas D and E
in the photos) and determined that neither had enough detail to permit an opinion as to what
made those stains.

As for the blood spattering observed at the crime scene, recall, that when the police were
seeking to justify a search warrant for Dennis Oland’s home just days after the crime, Sgt Smith
informed the officer applying for the warrant that he and Sgt Wentzell believed there would
have been significant blood spatter on the person who committed the crime. And, Sgt. Smith
agreed with Defence counsel at this trial, although not having been declared an expert entitled
to give opinion on blood pattern interpretation and analysis, that it would be highly unlikely
there would not have been significant blood spatter on whoever was striking Richard Oland.

You will recall, though, that RCMP Sgt Brian Wentzell had no recollection of telling Sgt Smith
that any blood on the attacker or attackers would be significant, although he did agree it was
possible he said that. But, Sgt Wentzell was not prepared to go that far in giving his opinion at
this trial. It is for you to decide in the assessment of their respective credibility if Sgt Wentzell
actually told Sgt Smith that there would be significant blood spatter on whoever was striking
Richard Oland. Take into consideration the assertion made in the affidavit in support of the
search warrant, Sgt. Smith’s testimony, Sgt. Wentzell’s testimony and Sgt Wentzell’s
credentials.

40

 The pathologist, Dr. Nasemuddin, did agree with the Defence that any attacker would likely
have substantial amounts of blood on the person and clothing and that there would be blood
on the instrument or instruments used to inflict the injuries. In considering this opinion, you
should keep in mind that the pathologist was not sought to be qualified in the specific area of
blood stain pattern identification and interpretation. However, no objection was made to his
giving this evidence; therefore, the weight you place on this opinion is for you to decide.

I mentioned the evidence of RCMP Sgt Brian Wentzell. Recall, he was declared qualified to give
opinion in the areas of blood stain pattern identification and interpretation. With the aid of
Exhibit P-72 (a Booklet of Photos) and Exhibit P-73 (a Sketch), he described to you the different
types of blood stain patterns he observed and gave his opinion in regard to the directionality of
some of those many stains and gave his opinion as to the place of origin of some of the stains
identified. As I understood his evidence, in his opinion:
i.

Some of the blood he observed was of a downward flow pattern consistent with the
position of Richard Oland’s head when the body was found;

ii.

He concluded that the pooling of blood on the floor where the body was found was
after the infliction of the injuries and not as a result of a volume of blood dropping
to the floor. He saw no evidence of a fountain-like arterial flow of blood;

iii.

He found, near the body, a swipe and wipe pattern with blood spatter on top;

iv.

He concluded that some of the spatter stains he observed may have come from castoff events or from expiration from the body, but he could not differentiate them;

v.

As I previously mentioned, he observed two transfer stains on the floor (marked
Areas D and E in the photos), but with insufficient detail to detect what made them;

41

 vi.

He found three transfer stains in an area close to Richard Oland’s body, which stains
he marked as numbers 1, 2 and 3 on Exhibit P-5, photo #93. Number 1 had some
lateral movement which made it difficult for him to say if made by footwear;
Numbers 2 and 3 were consistent with tread of footwear. Of those stains, Sgt
Wentzell did not recall seeing them until he sprayed the chemical LMG and the
stains were quite deteriorated and therefore hard to tell if blood spatter in those
areas came before or after the transfer stains;

vii.

He found two transfer stains on the office desk style high back chair - one on the
upper front of the back rest and the other on the upper back of the back rest.
However, it appears from other evidence that these stains were caused during the
removal of the body;

viii.

He also found blood spatter stains on that office chair. He opined that those spatters
could have originated from where the body was located and could have been made
when the chair was in the position seen in the photographs;

ix.

He also found 100’s of other blood spatters radiating out from either the sitting area
of Richard Oland’s desk or the area where Richard Oland’s body was found. He said
there was no void in the radius of the spatter, but the extent of spattering was less
on the south side of the office. You also have for your consideration Exhibit D-45,
which are 12 photographs depicting blood spatter counts in defined areas and
showing the radius area, and Exhibit D-46 which is schematic entitled “Range of
Blood Spatter”, both exhibits having been accepted by Sgt Wentzel as fair
depictions;

x.

And that based on the location of the blood spatters, the types of spatter and the
directionality of some of that spatter, Sgt Wentzell identified two places of origin for
the spatter:
A. Originating from the sitting area of Richard Oland’s desk; and
42

 B. Originating on or near the floor in the location of where Richard Oland’s body
was found;

xi.

He found no evidence of blood having been cleaned up at the scene and no evidence
of clean-up of their person by an attacker or attackers at the scene. In this latter
regard, you will recall the evidence of Sgt. Wentzell’s examination of the washroom
on the 2nd floor and the finding of DNA in the sink and on a paper towel from one of
Mr. McFadden’s sons pre-dating the crime;

xii.

He was not asked to examine any door handles, in particular the exit to the alleyway
door. He agreed with the Defence that blood can be left on door handles, including
blood which might possibly not be visible to the eye.

As I touched on earlier, unlike Sgt Smith and Dr. Nassemuddin, Sgt Wentzell was more guarded
in his opinion regarding the extent of blood transfer or blood spatter expected to be found on
the person of an attacker or attackers. You recall the extensive cross-examination of Sgt
Wentzell in this regard. He did agree that more blood spatter would be expected the closer to
the bloodletting source and that anyone administering the blows Richard Oland received would
have had to be close to him. He also agreed that after the initial blows the blood source would
be increasing with each further blow. He further agreed with Defence counsel’s
characterization that it would be fair to say that an attacker here was a perfect target for blood
spatter.

However, what Sgt Wentzell was not prepared to categorically say is that the amount of blood
on any attacker would be significant or substantial. He testified at different points that: “I am
not saying there would not be spatter on an attacker, but can’t say it would be large amounts”;
“There could very well be spatter on the assailant - I am not able to say it would be a large

43

 amount - there could be a large amount”; “I am not suggesting there would not be spatter – I
am just not able to say how much”.

As I understood his evidence, the reason Sgt Wentzell would not unequivocally say there would
be significant or substantial amounts of blood on an attacker or attackers, is because in his
experience and research there could be other explanations. He mentioned that it depended on
the position of the body and the position of the assailant and the weapon or weapons, giving as
examples that blunt force could cause blood to go in all directions depending on the kind of
weapon and where the weapon struck on the body; and that the linear type injuries, such as he
observed, may be indicative that the weapon had a small surface area along the edge, which
would disperse blood out to the sides not to the front and back. Recall the pathologist’s
evidence that the linear sharp force injuries to the head were much greater in number than the
blunt force injuries.

Patrick Laturnus was also declared qualified to give opinion evidence in the same area as Sgt
Wentzell was qualified. I expect you will find that of the two, Mr. Laturnus has the greater
experience, having been heavily involved in the field both as an investigator, teacher and
consultant. Whether that translates into more reliable evidence on the points he disagreed
with Sgt. Wentzell in this case is entirely for you to assess.

Mr. Laturnus does not appear to have disagreed with Sgt Wentzell’s general observations and
conclusions, such as, for example, the places of origins of the blood spatter. However, on the
question of the extent of spatter an assailant would be expected to have on their person from
administering such an attack as was inflicted on Richard Oland, Mr. Laturnus was not as
guarded as Sgt. Wentzell was in venturing an opinion. Mr. Laturnus testified that it would be a
significant amount, and that although the spatter could be anywhere on the assailant, he was of
the opinion that it would be more prominent from the waist up, including on the face and
44

 hands. He agreed in cross-examination by Crown counsel that he would particularly expect to
see spatter on the arm used to inflict the blows and agreed that he would expect to find blood
also inside the cuff. Mr. Laturnus did not say this, but inside the cuff would, of course, depend
on what if any article of clothing was worn on the arms by an attacker.

Mr. Laturnus testified that Sgt Wentzell was technically correct; that sharp force injuries would
displace blood to the sides. And he agreed with the literature and guidelines in his field put to
him in cross-examination, to the effect that an expert should be prudent in giving an opinion as
to the amount of blood on an assailant. And, he agreed that blows to the human head cannot
be replicated in field tests. However, he testified he has never seen a situation where someone
has struck a blow and not had blood come back on them. And, Mr. Laturnus said, that giving an
opinion regarding the amount of blood expected on an assailant is a contextual assessment.

In the context of this case, according to Mr. Laturnus, what Sgt. Wentzell had not factored in to
his opinion is the number and depth of some of the sharp force injuries and where an attacker
would have to have been positioned to deliver the blows as Richard Oland lay on the floor.
Although he could not say how many blows were delivered between the sitting position behind
the desk to the final position on the floor, Mr. Laturnus pointed to the evidence of some of the
circular blood spots on the desk (for example those behind the pen holder) and on the
conference table as being consistent with blows administered to Richard Oland when he was
close to the floor; creating the fountain or cone affect he mentioned, blood raining up, out and
down at a 90 degree angle.

As I understood him, as the number of blows increased so would the blood-letting (i.e. there
would be more blood available to be distributed) and as the sharp force instrument penetrated
deeper the laws of physics would dictate that the blood would spray upwards. Furthermore,
although he could not venture an opinion as to the size of the attacker or whether the blows
45

 were administered left or right handed, he testified that an attacker would have to be close to
and leaning over Richard Oland in some manner and to some extent to deliver the blows;
increasing the probability of a significant amount of blood being spattered onto the attacker.
He also said that although there was no void in the 360 degree arc of spatter around the room,
the south side of the office had less spatter, indicative that, although the assailant would have
had to move, the attacker was likely situate on the southern side of Richard Oland’s body when
it was on the floor in delivering the blows. Mr. Laturnus also testified that there would be no
doubt that whatever weapon was used would be covered in blood.

In cross-examination, Mr. Laturnus said that although he would have expected to see a “cast
off” pattern of blood caused by the wielding of a weapon, such a pattern was difficult to find
within the impact pattern of this scene. He agreed that one explanation could be that the
weapon was not lifted high enough to create “cast off”. Mr. Laturnus also agreed in crossexamination that there is no evidence of bloody tracks leaving the office or a drip trail left by
blood off the assailant or off any weapon being carried out of the office by the assailant.

As for the absence of bloody tracks leaving the office, Mr. Laturnus said, as did Sgt Wentzell,
that the amount of blood on the floor around the body seen in the photographs would not have
been there at the time of the attack, although he could not say how much would have been
there. He also said that the transferring of blood by the bottom of shoes is, depending on the
pattern on the soles and the amount of blood on it, subject to the ‘stamp’ affect, i.e. eventually
there would be no more blood on the sole to transfer.

As for any clothing worn by an attacker, Mr. Laturnus testified he would not expect a drip trail
to be left by blood on the clothing because the clothing would have to be saturated for that to
occur. In redirect examination, he testified that the absence of a bloody track out of the office

46

 and the absence of a drip trail were not inconsistent with his opinion that there would be
significant blood on an assailant’s clothes, hands and face.

Mr. Laturnus also said that a drip trail could possibly be left by a weapon used in a beating such
as the one administered here. As mentioned, he had testified that no doubt any weapon used
here would have been covered in blood. He was not asked what reasons there would be for the
absence of evidence of a drip trail left by the weapon or weapons removed from the office.

Ultimately, the extent to which Richard Oland’s attacker or attackers had blood on their person
or persons or on any weapon or weapons is for you to assess, applying your common sense and
taking into consideration all the evidence, including what you see in the scene photographs, the
evidence of Sgt Smith, the evidence of Dr. Nassemuddin, and Sgt Wentzell’s and Mr. Laturnus’s
expert evidence. I make the observation that in assessing the totality of the evidence regarding
blood spatter, keep in mind that only Sgt. Wentzell and Mr. Laturnus were declared qualified to
give expert opinion in this area, but that like for any witness it is up to you to decide whether to
accept all, part or none of the evidence either of them have given, as is the weight that you give
to their respective opinions.

Section 4
Mr. Laturnus was also asked his opinion on the prospect of blood transfer in relation to various
items in evidence before you as exhibits. Like Sgt Wentzel, he saw no evidence of clean-up at
the scene. As for the brown jacket, Exhibit P-33, Mr. Laturnus said that if the assailant had been
wearing that jacket he would expect to have seen significant amounts of blood on it, so much
that you would be able to see it in a photograph. If the assailant had driven a vehicle away from
the scene without first washing his hands, Mr. Laturnus testified that although anything is
possible, there would be a very good possibility of finding traces of blood in the vehicle. Also, if
47

 the assailant had handled a Blackberry phone shortly after the crime, for example to answer a
phone call, he would expect to find traces of blood on it. Shown Exhibit P-43, the grocery bag
seized from the trunk of Dennis Oland’s vehicle, Mr. Latrunus said he would expect the same if
the assailant handled the straps, which are rough textured. And, he testified that any container
holding the weapon (or weapons) used would be an excellent source for finding blood traces.
He did agree in cross-examination by Crown counsel that blood dries quickly in small amounts
and it is therefore possible to touch items without leaving a blood trace on the item.

The Defence had earlier referred Sgt Wentzell to the Grocery Bag (Exhibit P-43) seized from the
back of the Volkswagen Golf vehicle registered to Dennis Oland. During the investigation Sgt
Wentzell had examined that bag as did, you will recall, Sgt Smith and Cst. Mcdonald. He agreed
that the bag was carefully examined, inside and out, and that no trace or DNA evidence from
Richard Oland was found. Sgt Wentzell also agreed that if that bag had been proximate to
Richard Oland’s body during the attack on him there would be blood spatter on it and that if
the weapon or weapons had been put in the bag after the homicide to be transported, there
would be a vanishing small chance the inside of the bag would not have been stained with
Richard Oland’s blood, if, he said, the weapon had not been wrapped up in something.

Sgt Wentzell was also shown photographs of the shoes seized from Dennis Oland’s residence
that had been examined by Cst. Macdonald with negative results (See: Exhibit D-38). I have
mentioned these shoes to you earlier as well. In particular, Sgt Wentzell was asked questions
about the shoes shown in photograph #4. Recall I mentioned the evidence of those shoes
before, including that Dennis Oland testified that he wore those shoes on July 6 th and 7th. Sgt.
Wentzell agreed that the laces and holes in the shoes could be an excellent source to find blood
and that the stitches in the shoes would absorb blood. He also agreed that if Dennis Oland wore
any of the shoes seen in the photographs and if any of them were exposed to a blood source
there is a good possibility there would be blood on them. Sgt Wentzell’s only qualification was
in regard to any blood on the soles of the shoes worn by the attacker or attackers. He testified
48

 he saw no footwear impressions leaving the scene, i.e. from the area of pooling or spatter to
the entrance to the office, except, as previously mentioned, he did observe two transfer stains
on the floor (marked as Areas D and E in the crime scene photos), but with insufficient detail to
detect what made them. Recall that Mr. Laturnus also explained the “stamp affect” from shoe
wear, pointing to Areas D and E as possible evidence of that affect.

Sgt Wentzell was also referred to the extensive examination conducted by Sgt. Smith of the
interior of the Volkswagen Golf vehicle. A question put to Sgt Wentzel was to the effect that
isn’t it true that if the killer of Richard Oland had gotten into that vehicle there is an “excellent
chance” blood would have been transferred to the vehicle? Sgt Wentzel’s, you might think
common sense answer was: “If the individual had clothing on and received blood on their
person and went to that vehicle and the blood was still wet there is a good opportunity of
blood being transferred to the vehicle”. He also had a similar opinion regarding the use of any
Blackberry phone.

Sgt Wentzell examined a number of pieces of clothing at the request of the Saint John Police.
They included the clothing Richard Oland was wearing when he was found, and two articles of
clothing seized from Dennis Oland’s residence. As you know, the two articles of clothing seized
from Dennis Oland’s residence that Sgt Wentzell examined were a laundered dress shirt and a
dry-cleaned brown sports jacket. Recall that Dennis Oland gave unchallenged testimony that he
was wearing that shirt and jacket on July 6th.

Three areas on the shirt (See: Exhibit P-72, photo #99 and Exhibit D-48, a series of photographs)
were marked for examination and no blood or DNA was detected. You also see, though, that
the shirt has a laundry cleaning tag on it. Recall that this shirt was one of 8 shirts (7 dress shirts
and 1 golf type shirt) seized by Cst David Macdonald from Dennis Oland’s home on July 14th.
Recall that he too examined the same dress shirt that Sgt Wentzell did with the same negative
49

 results, along with another broadly similar dress shirt he had seized (See: Exhibit P- 104 photos
33-36).

The brown sports jacket marked Exhibit P-33 was first examined by Sgt Wentzell on December
6, 2011. Recall that Cst Macdonald had seized that jacket from the master bedroom closet in
Dennis Oland’s residence on July 14th, 2011 and that in seizing the jacket, which, as you have
seen, had a dry cleaning tag affixed to it, he had rolled and folded the jacket up into a paper bag
and that it barely fit. Recall that Cst. Macdonald had examined the jacket on November 9th and
17th. During his testimony Cst Macdonald explained his examination to you by reference to the
first 22 photographs found in the booklet of photographs marked Exhibit P-104. You can see
that the jacket has a two button front, but the bottom part of the top button is broken off. You
can also see from a garment tag that the jacket purports to be a size 38 S.

Recall that on November 9th, 2011 Cst. Macdonald hung the now wrinkled jacket up in the Saint
John police forensic identification lab and used halogen lights to illuminate it. Recall he did a
systematic, visual examination from a distance of approximately a foot away. He identified
three areas of stain on the outside front of the jacket; being at the right elbow, at the inside of
the right sleeve and at the upper left chest. He circled each of the identified areas with a white
chalk and stickered a scale next to each area, numbered 1, 2, and 3 respectively. He testified
that the photographs found in Exhibit P-104 depict each area under normal zoom flash
photography, then a close-up using a macro lens to show more detail, and then an enhanced
picture by overexposing the light and at 500% magnification. He did not swab any of those
areas.

Cst. Macdonald testified that he also rolled up the cuffs of each sleeve:

50

 On the inside right cuff area he placed a sticker scale marked #4 next to an area
of staining and areas of dilution.
On the inside left cuff area he placed a sticker marked #5 to show staining
around the stitches in that location.

Cst. Macdonald testified he took no cuttings from the jacket.

Sgt Wentzell’s task was not only to determine what if any stains were on the jacket but also to
determine how any stains were deposited there. At the time he received the jacket the cuffs of
both sleeves were rolled up and there were already 2 cm scales in different locations on the
jacket along with some markings, which, as I have mentioned and described were all done by
Cst Macdonald before it was sent to Sgt Wentzell. Sgt Wentzell added the yellow markings you
see in his own photographs.

Sgt Wentzell also testified that he too saw five areas of stain (See: Exhibit P-72, photo #100). He
said there were stains visible to the eye on the rolled up sleeves but the other three stains that
were on the front of the jacket were more difficult to see because of the colour of the jacket.
He agreed those stains could go unnoticed by the wearer. He also used a strong light and
magnification to show them. Sgt Wentzell could not say how any of those stains were deposited
nor could he age the stains, nor could he say whether dry-cleaning would have effect on stains
of this type.

Section 5
I pause here. There is no direct evidence before you as to the effect that laundering or dry
cleaning at VIP Dry Cleaners would have on stained clothing. There is, though, some indirect
51

 evidence, which may or may not assist you. Mr. Nam of VIP Dry Cleaners explained that,
although he could not compare his process to other dry cleaners, he said that his business uses
a gentler process and that is why he received approval from the City to set up shop about 5
years ago. He appeared to be referring to the solvent he uses in the dry cleaning process. He
identified the solvent as DF 2000, but was unable to identify its chemical composition or the
chemical composition of the dry-cleaning detergent that is used in conjunction with the solvent
or their overall effect. As for the laundry, he uses a detergent called GR 200 powder, but was
unable to explain its chemical composition or effect.

Mr. Nam testified that for both clothes to be laundered and clothes to be dry-cleaned, he has a
pre-wash stain treatment available specifically formulated, it appears, for blood and other
proteins (See: Exhibit D-72). He said that even if a customer does not identify a stain or stains
for treatment, he will check for stains himself for pre-wash treatment purposes and that he also
double checks for any stains following dry cleaning.

Mr. Nam had no memory of pre-wash treating any of the clothes dropped off on July 8, 2011
under the account of Lisa Oland. In considering this evidence, you should also consider the
colour of the jacket and to what extent stains (depending on size, number and colour) on the
outside of it would be readily visible to the eye and that there were indeed stains subsequently
found on the jacket by the police. But you should also consider Mr. Laturnus’s evidence that, if
that jacket had been worn by the attacker, in his opinion there would have been a significant
amount of blood on it – so much you would see it in a photograph. Mr. Laturnus also testified
that different fabrics have different absorption rates and because of that and the effect of
blood spreading or not on a fibre depending on angle of impact, you cannot put much stock on
the size of a spatter stain on fabric. Mr. Laturnis and Sgt Wentzell agreed that the stains on the
jacket could not be said to be spatter stains. However, I point out to you that the jacket was
dry-cleaned and what, if any, effect dry-cleaning would have in altering the appearance of an
original stain is unknown in the evidence.
52

 As for the dry-cleaning itself, Mr. Nam testified that no water is used and the heat setting is 150
degrees, Fahrenheit or Celsius he was not sure. (You can take judicial notice that 150 Celsius =
302 Fahrenheit and 150 Fahrenheit = 65.55 Celsius). He also testified that he irons jackets,
shirts and pants following dry-cleaning or laundering. Mr. Laturnus testified that heat cooks
blood. He also testified that the best way to remove blood from clothing is washing in cold
water. Joy Kearsey, the former RCMP DNA scientist, testified that heat can breakdown DNA. I
note, though, that the other DNA scientist, Thomas Suzanski, testified that in testing the DNA
extracted from areas AA, AC and AO on the brown jacket he observed no evidence of
degradation of the DNA analysed.

Recall the evidence of Jinee Choi, Mr. Nam’s wife. Her duties at VIP were administrative in
nature and that beyond watching her husband work on occasion she does not do the actual
laundering and dry-cleaning. But, recall that she was asked in cross-examination a series of
technical questions. She was asked if she knew that you need an enzyme to breakdown a blood
stain and that is why saliva will work. She testified she did not know, although I am not sure if
her response was to the first or second parts of the question or to both questions. In any event,
she was then asked if she knew that if you don’t break down a blood stain and if you heat it, it
will be fixed forever. She responded yes.

As to Ms. Choi’s testimony in these regards, I caution you that the questions asked are not
evidence; only the answers to the questions are evidence. And, I further caution you that her
affirmative answer to the last question should carry very little, if any, weight for you. I say that
because she was expressing an opinion that she had not been declared qualified to give, albeit
without any objection having been raised by the other side. You have no evidence of her
qualifications upon which you could even judge her knowledge or source of knowledge on such
53

 a technical subject. I can tell you that if I was making any decision I would not rely on her
answers. But, since the evidence is before you, that is your decision to make.

Recall the brown sports jacket was rolled and folded into a too small bag by Cst Macdonald
when he seized it from Dennis Oland’s residence and you saw its crumpled appearance in
photographs when it was removed from the bag a couple of months later for the purposes of
examination. Sgt Wentzell testified that he could not say how the stains he did see on the
jacket were deposited there, except to make the observation that he would think the confirmed
blood stains on the jacket were deposited when wet because dried blood could not transfer
that way, although, he said, he had no experience with the effect of pressed stains. As I
understood, what he meant was that he had no experience with what would happen if a dry
stain was pressed against an otherwise unstained area or if a dry blood stain could flake and
migrate onto another area.

Joy Kearsey testified that blood could flake and migrate if it was in a dry state on a solid surface
or if clothing was saturated with blood such that not all of it soaked-in; if it then dried it could
flake off the surface of the garment. However, in her opinion, on a garment she would not
expect a soaked-in blood stain, which has then dried, to transfer or to flake and migrate from
one area or place to another. Recall she testified that it is normal for the lab to receive for
testing clothing wrapped in plastic or in too large or too small paper bags.

In assessing the degree of risk, i.e. of some change from what was on the jacket prior to its
seizure to what was found on the jacket after seizure because of the manner in which Cst
Macdonald handled and stored it, consider all of the evidence and apply your common sense
and experience of life.

54

 Section 6
With this background evidence on the dry-cleaning and handling of the brown sports jacket, I
return to Sgt Wentzell’s examination of it - Exhibit P-33. When Sgt Wentzell performed his own
examination of the jacket he kept to the same numbering system as Cst. Macdonald used.
Therefore, to assist in refreshing your memory, I will try to relate the observations and
measurements made of each area on the jacket by Cst. Macdonald at the same time as I relate
those by Sgt Wentzell. However, their examinations and the later examinations of the jacket at
the RCMP DNA laboratory, as well as the subsequent DNA analysis, are interconnected
evidence. The challenge for me is to review all this evidence together in a manageable and
functional way.

I have therefore decided (before going any further in reviewing the evidence as to the
examination of the brown jacket) that this would be a logical place to interject some of the
basic DNA evidence. I will try to briefly summarize that evidence so as to give you context for
the results of the examinations of the brown jacket conducted by Cst Macdonald, Sgt. Wentzell
and the RCMP Evidence Recovery Unit; and to give you context for the subsequent DNA testing
as interpreted and reported by Joy Kearsey and the results of the additional testing by Thomas
Suzanski.

But, before doing any of that I pause to explain. The forensic significance, the purpose, of
introducing the DNA evidence is (1) to establish the DNA profiles of particular individuals (the
known samples); (2) to establish whether any DNA is found on relevant persons, objects or
things (the unknown samples); and (3), if unknown source DNA is found, to determine whether
it is consistent with a particular individuals DNA profile (the known samples); and (4), if
55

 consistent, give you an understanding of the degree of rarity of such a DNA profile, so as to
assist you in determining whether or not the DNA from that person is the source of the DNA in
the unknown sample. However, the DNA evidence itself cannot help you determine how or
when an unknown sample (from which DNA was extracted) was deposited on a person, object
or thing.

As you can see, depending on the evidence in a case overall, if DNA is not found on a relevant
person, object or thing this may or may not be significant evidence and if a particular DNA
profile is found on a relevant person, object or thing, this may or may not also be significant
evidence.

You should not be overwhelmed by any aura of scientific infallibility associated with DNA
evidence. DNA genetic profile estimates, for example, are not intended to be precise. They are
the products of mathematical and scientific testing and theory. The purpose of introducing that
kind of evidence, as I have said, is to give you an understanding of a DNA profile’s degree of
rarity.

You must understand that the evidence given as to random match probabilities and the
likelihood ratios is the expression of the scientists’ opinions as to the degree of rarity of a
particular DNA profile. Those numbers are not the expression of the probability or likelihood of
guilt. DNA evidence is just one piece of circumstantial evidence introduced by the Crown as part
of its case. Its significance will depend upon other evidence you have heard and seen in this
trial.

With that caution I turn more directly to the DNA evidence.

56

 As you recall, Joy Kearsey, the former RCMP DNA reporting scientist, first gave us a lesson in
what DNA is and how it is utilized for forensic purposes. Ms. Kearsey explained that the kind of
DNA analysed by the RCMP forensic laboratory is that in the nucleus of cells found within
biological substances ranging from blood, saliva and semen, to hair roots, tissue and skin cells,
etc. Since DNA is identical in every cell throughout the body and does not change with age it is
possible to compare the DNA contained within different substances from the same body, and
regardless of when they are deposited or found. However, environmental insults such as heat
or moisture can breakdown the DNA molecule and testing can also be hampered if there is not
enough DNA available to be extracted from a particular biological substance. Ms. Kearsey
testified that the RCMP protocol considers one (1) ng of DNA (a billionth of a gram) to be ideal
for testing purposes, but that DNA quantity down to 0.246 ng is considered sufficient for
testing.

Ms. Kearsey explained that DNA is a very large molecule, 3 billion chemical base pairs long,
packaged within the 23 chromosomes that make up a human being. DNA is called the
“blueprint for life” for a reason, because it codes for life; why we have a head, arms, legs,
organs, etc., etc., which explains why 99.9% of the DNA is identical among us all. But, Ms.
Kearsey also explained that there are differences among us at the other 0.1% of the molecule;
areas of variability on different chromosomes shared among us, but inherited at differing
frequencies. Some of those variable regions (or loci) are called Short Tandem Repeats
(identified by the acronym STRs). And, it is certain STR’s regions of the DNA molecule that were
analysed in this case.

This testing was first performed by the RCMP using ‘Profiler Plus’, which is a commercially
available kit that is human DNA specific. It permits examination of up to 9 STR loci (or regions)
found on different chromosomes, plus a gender determination marker. It was the results of this
57

 testing that Ms. Kearsey interpreted and reported. You also heard that the RCMP have now
moved to ‘Identifiler Plus’, which is identical to ‘Profiler Plus’, except it is even more
discriminating because it permits examination of up to 15 STR loci, comprising the 9 loci found
in ‘Profiler Plus’ plus an additional 6 STR loci. If you are inclined, all 15 STR loci are illustrated at
Tab 1, slide 15 of Exhibit P-142. You will recall that Mr. Suzanski did re-testing of the DNA
extracted from certain areas on the jacket using ‘Identifiler Plus’ and gave evidence as to the
results obtained.

As I interpreted Ms. Kersey’s evidence, there are essentially two stages involved in forensic
DNA typing evidence.

The first stage is the biological process employed using certain chemicals and technologies so as
to reveal, examine and compare the STR regions in the DNA extracted from different samples,
whether the samples originated from known or unknown contributors.

In testing, when it comes to an area of interest on an item, such as a stain on cloth, Ms. Kearsey
explained that the area of interest is cut out completely or partially (depending on the
judgment of the search technologist as to how much of the stain is needed to obtain sufficient
DNA). She testified that in doing the cutting out of a stain the search technologist will leave a
few millimetres of the material around it so as to avoid cutting through the stain. Each cutting
will then be placed in its own tube and transferred to a DNA analyst. The analyst will add
chemicals to the tube for the purposes of extracting the DNA present on or in that cutting. The
analyst will then quantify the amount of DNA extracted, i.e. determine how much human DNA
has been extracted. The DNA extracts are then subjected to Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR),
which amplifies the DNA (i.e. the so-called molecular photocopier that targets the regions of
the DNA to be examined). This is why the testing only requires relatively small amounts of DNA.

58

 The extracted and amplified DNA is then fluorescently tagged and separated by a process called
Capillary Electrophoresis, which creates an Electropherogram. The Electropherogram
represents the corresponding DNA fragments at the STR regions as peaks on a graph; the
relative height of the peaks being indicative of the amount of DNA present. This is then
simplified by assigning a numeric identifier to the DNA fragments seen at each STR region for
which results were revealed. Because of genetic inheritance, a person will inherit one DNA
fragment maternally and one DNA fragment length paternally at each STR region or locus.
These are called alleles, which represent the number of repeats of the base pairs that make up
a fragment length. Recall she drew the analogy to identical box cars of a train, the number of
box cars (the alleles) determining the length of a train (the fragment length).

The two alleles inherited at any one locus or region can be of different lengths or of the same
length. So, for example, hypothetically at one STR region a person might have one allele
inherited from his or her father which is an 11 repeat (being the shorter DNA fragment) and the
other allele inherited from his or her mother which is a 12 repeat (being the longer DNA
fragment). At another STR region that person might have one allele inherited from the father
that is a 13 repeat and the other allele inherited from the mother that is also a 13 repeat (being
two alleles of the same length), and so on with varying combinations at each STR locus (i.e.
region).

As I mentioned, the DNA profiles obtained from known samples (for example, from blood or a
buccal swab, etc.) taken from particular persons are then compared to the profiles obtained
from DNA extracted from the unknown samples. In some samples there will be sufficient DNA
that permits full results to be obtained; in the case of ‘Profiler Plus’ at all 9 STR loci (regions) or,
in the case of ‘Identifiler Plus’, at all 15 loci (regions). And if there is only one person’s DNA
profile present this would be called a single source full profile.
59

 In some samples that contain the DNA of only one person there might be a limited amount of
DNA or the DNA might be degraded, which might result in only a limited number of loci (i.e.
regions) revealing a result (e.g. 6 out of 9 STR regions or 6 out of 15 STR regions, depending on
the kit used) or in some samples just a few alleles are revealed. This would be called a single
source partial profile.

As well, there may be samples from which the DNA from more than one person is extracted.
This would be called, appropriately enough, a mixed origin profile. In cases where there is a
mixed origin profile, one profile could be considered the major component (because the alleles
are represented to a greater degree) and the other profile the minor component. Or there may
be a mixed origin profile where all alleles are represented equally.

Whether a single source full or partial profile or mixed origin profile is obtained, unless all the
identical alleles (i.e. the DNA fragment lengths or repeats) are found in all the loci that revealed
a result by the testing (i.e. all the same combination of alleles at those different STR regions for
which test results could be obtained) between the known and unknown samples, then the
donor of the known sample would be absolutely excluded as the donor of the unknown sample.
Or, of course, it may be that there is an insufficient amount of human DNA or the DNA is too
degraded to allow any result to be reliably interpreted by the scientist or there may be
situations where there is not a sufficient quantity of DNA to test at all, in which cases no results
are obtained.

In these regards I refer you to Exhibit P-144, the “Laboratory Testing Results Chart”. You will
have this Chart with you in the jury room to refer to and I know that you find that it is easily
readable, thanks to the efforts of the lawyers. I therefore see no need to repeat where in those
60

 places in the chart you will find the different kinds of outcomes just mentioned. I have, in my
own way, mentioned certain of those results earlier and will refer to others later in this charge.

To continue with my understanding of the evidence as to the DNA laboratory processes and
procedure; if, as between the known and unknown samples, the numbers of repeated blocks
making up the DNA fragments match (i.e. the alleles are all of the same combinations) at each
STR region examined for which interpretable results are received, then the laboratory moves to
the second stage. This is a determination of how rare or common the matching STR profiles are,
so as to get a sense of how probable or not it is that the contributor of the known sample was
the contributor of the unknown sample? Obviously, the greater the number of STR sites that
can be tested and found to be of the same combination of alleles as between the known and
unknown samples the lower the probability of a coincidental match; or put another way, the
less likely it is the known and unknown samples came from different contributors.

To try to answer the question of whether the matching STR profiles are from the same person
or it is just a coincidence, the RCMP laboratory performs statistical probability estimation to
determine how common or rare that full or partial profile would be in a population. As I
understood Ms. Kearsey, the first requirement is to ascertain the frequency that a particular
pattern of two alleles at a particular STR locus (region) is shared by individuals. To know this, it
is necessary to reference a data base or data bases compiled for those purposes. In this case
the RCMP referenced their Canadian Caucasian data base. Once the estimated frequency of
each of the two alleles at an STR locus (region) is ascertained, it is then mathematically possible
to calculate the frequency that two specific alleles would be shared at one of those regions.
This can be repeated for each STR loci examined and then the frequencies at each loci can be
multiplied together to determine the frequency of the entire STR profile.

61

 The RCMP Laboratory refer to the number determined (i.e. 1 in X) the “Random Match
Probability”. That is, for this case, “the estimated probability of selecting an unrelated
individual at random from the Canadian Caucasian population with the same DNA profile”.
Illustrated in the evidence here, the RCMP laboratory initially calculated that Richard Oland’s
full STR profile, i.e. at all 9 loci (i.e. regions), results in a random match probability of 1 in 510
billion; i.e. “the estimated probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random from the
Canadian Caucasian population with the same profile” as Richard Oland. Likewise, you have
seen an example of a partial profile in this case, 6 of 9 STR only could be detected in the
unknown sample on an area of the brown jacket. It matched Richard Oland’s profile. You have
seen that in that instance the random match probability to Richard Oland’s profile became
higher (i.e. the number became lower); recall that for that partial profile the estimated
probability of selecting an unrelated individual from the Canadian Caucasian population with
the same partial profile as Richard Oland’s went up to 1 in 180 million.

And you have seen that using ‘Identifiler Plus’ the random match probability of Richard Oland’s
full STR profile at all 15 STR loci is so low (i.e. the number is so high) that it literally defies
description – the estimated probability of selecting an unrelated individual from the Canadian
Caucasian population with the same full STR profile as Richard Oland is 1 in 20 quintillion.

However, since DNA is genetically inherited, within a family an STR profile may be more
common; or, to put it differently since the numbers we are discussing are so high, within a
family an STR profile may not be as rare as in the unrelated population because it would be
expected that blood relatives, especially full siblings, would share some of the same alleles.
That is why you have the additional calculation made by Mr. Suzanski as to the likelihood, also
based on the RCMP Canadian Caucasian population data base, of that same profile being
observed in an untested full sibling. Mr. Suzanski said “untested” obviously because you know
he compared Richard’s STR profile to his brother Derek’s STR profile and found it did not match.

62

 As well, you know from Ms. Kearsey’s evidence that Dennis’s STR profile does not match his
father’s.

In addition to the examination and testing of other items and objects, a focus of this trial has
been on the results of the examinations and DNA testing of Exhibit P-33, the brown sports
jacket. As mentioned, the jacket as examined by Cst Macdonald is depicted in Exhibit P-104,
Photographs 1-24. The same jacket as examined by Sgt Wentzell is depicted in Exhibit P-72
photographs 100-115. And, the jacket with cuttings taken from it is before you. And the results
of the DNA testing of all the various areas of the jacket are found in “The Laboratory Testing
Results Chart” - Exhibit P-144.

A total of five areas of the jacket were identified from the combined examinations conducted
by Cst. Macdonald and Sgt Wentzell; a sixth area was later identified by the RCMP Evidence
Recovery Unit:
First Area: Identified as 0019-01 on or near the elbow area of the outside right
sleeve – Cst. Macdonald observed, as seen on Exhibit P-104 (Photos #5-8), a 3
millimetre reddish stain embedded into the fabric. Recall he overexposed the
picture and magnified it by 500% to reveal the stain to the eye. During his testimony
he circled the area on photograph #8. Sgt. Wentzell also observed a stain at that
area. He said it was 3 millimetres or less in size above the scale seen in that location.
(Recall that a millimetre is 1/25th of an inch). He said that Photos 101 and 102 of
Exhibit P-72 are closer views of that stain. He also took photographs through a
stereomicroscope and that Photo 103 is the stain at 20X magnification and photo
104 is at some level higher. He said there is red staining in the fibres of the jacket.

Subsequent Hemochromogen testing confirmed blood at this area, which area was
identified as AA by the RCMP Evidence Recovery Unit. This area was subjected to
63

 DNA analysis using ‘Profiler Plus’. The evidence is that there was a full 9 loci match
to Richard Oland’s STR profile and that the estimated probability of selecting an
unrelated individual at random from the Canadian Caucasian population with the
same profile is 1 in 510 billion. The evidence is also that that remaining DNA which
had been extracted at area AA was later subjected to analysis using the more
discriminating 15 loci ‘Identifiler Plus’, which also matched Richard Oland’s profile;
and, as result, the estimated probability of a coincidental match to an unrelated
Canadian Caucasian individual lowered to 1 in 20 quintillion. And the evidence is
further, based on the RCMP Canadian Caucasian population data base, that it is 3.4
million times more likely that the DNA evidence obtained would be observed if
Richard Oland was the donor of the DNA obtained from this area rather than an
untested full sibling.

Second Area: Identified as 0019-02 on the inside area of the outside of the right
sleeve – Cst. Macdonald observed a reddish stain similar to the stain he saw at area
1 embedded in the fibre threads. He said it was 1 millimetre in size. He circled the
area during his testimony on Exhibit P-104 – Photo 10, which is a picture at 500%
magnification. Sgt Wentzell also saw a reddish stain. He said it appeared to be 3
millimetres or less in size. Photo 105 of Exhibit P-72 is a close up of that area, which
Sgt Wentzell circled on the photograph during his testimony. Photo 106 is at 20X
magnification, the area also was marked on the photograph during his testimony.
Photo #107 is at a higher magnification and was marked on the photograph during
his testimony.

Subsequent Hemochromogen testing confirmed blood at this area, which area was
marked AB by the RCMP Evidence Recovery Unit. Attempts were made to conduct
DNA analysis. However, the evidence is that the quantity of human DNA obtained
from this area did not meet the minimum requirement for further processing.
64

 Third Area: Identified as 0019-03 on the outside upper left chest area – Cst.
Macdonald saw a stain he described as a discoloration on a few threads that
measured at 1 millimetre. Exhibit P-104, photo #13 depicts this stain in over-exposed
light at 500% magnification and the area was circled on that photo by the officer
during his testimony. Sgt Wentzell saw a reddish stain in the one millimetre range,
as depicted in photos #108 and #109 of Exhibit P-72, which he identified on both
photographs by showing a smaller area within the white chalked circled area.

Subsequent Hemochromogen testing confirmed blood at this area, which area was
marked AC by the RCMP Evidence Recovery Unit. This area was subjected to DNA
analysis using ‘Profiler Plus’. The evidence is that there was a full 9 loci match to
Richard Oland’s STR profile and that the estimated probability of selecting an
unrelated individual at random from the Canadian Caucasian population with the
same profile is 1 in 510 billion. The evidence is also that remaining DNA which had
been extracted at area AC was later subjected to analysis using the more
discriminating 15 loci ‘Identifiler Plus’, which also matched Richard Oland’s profile;
and, as result, the estimated probability of a coincidental match to an unrelated
Canadian Caucasian individual lowered to 1 in 20 quintillion. And the evidence is
further, based on the RCMP Canadian Caucasian population data base, that it is 3.4
million times more likely that the DNA evidence obtained would be observed if
Richard Oland was the donor of the DNA obtained from this area rather than an
untested full sibling.

Fourth Area: Identified as 0019-04 on the inside of the cuff area of the right sleeve –
Cst. Macdonald observed 9 red stains that appeared to be embedded in the fabric.
They were 1 millimetre is size. He also observed what he described as areas of
dilution. During his testimony he encircled in black ink an area on Photo 17 of Exhibit
65

 P-104 to show the area of red staining and drew lines with arrows in green ink to
show areas of what he called dilution. Cst. Macdonald performed a hemastix test,
which according to him showed a weak positive result (being 15 seconds to turn
colour when the RCMP standard is 10 seconds). Sgt Wentzell testified to seeing
three (3) areas of diluted appearing stains, 2 cm or less in size. He marked the areas
D-1, D-2 and D-3 on photo #110 of Exhibit P-72. He also observed a minimum of two
stains submillimetre in size, which he marked SM-1 and SM-2 on Photo #110. Photo
#111 also shows the same areas of the cuff.

The evidence is that a number of different areas on the inside right cuff area were
marked for analysis by the RCMP Laboratory. The areas were assigned the letters
AD; AG; AH; AI; AJ; AK; and AM. No blood was found in any of those areas.

At areas AD and AG, the quantity of human DNA obtained did not meet the RCMP
Lab’s minimum requirement for testing.

At areas AI and AK no human DNA was detected in the extracts obtained from those
areas.

At area AH the DNA typing profile obtained was of mixed origin consistent with
having originated from two individuals, with at least one individual being of male
gender. The partial profile of the major component at 6 loci matched that of Richard
Oland and the estimated probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random
from the Canadian Caucasian population with the same profile is 1 in 180 million.
The profile of the minor component matched the profile of Dennis Oland with a
random match probability of 1 in 65 for the only 4 alleles detected.

DNA testing at area AJ revealed the same results as area AH, except the minor
component here contained only limited genetic information, sufficient for Ms.
66

 Kearsey to say there is a second contributor but not enough to make any
comparison.

Testing of area AM revealed a partial DNA typing profile of mixed origin consistent
with having originated from two individuals, with at least one being of male gender.
However, due to the nature of this mixed profile, no meaningful comparison could
be made to any samples. A portion of area AM, marked area AP, was also tested but
only a partial DNA typing profile with limited genetic information was obtained. The
consequence was that no meaningful comparison could be made to any samples.

Fifth Area: Identified as 0019-05 on the inside of the cuff area of the left sleeve –
Cst. Macdonald observed staining around the stitches embedded in the fabric. He
measured the stains at 2, .5, 3, and .5 millimetres respectively as shown on photo
#21 of Exhibit P-104. Sgt Wentzell testified to seeing four (4) stains submillimetre in
size and 2 other stains (one being 1 millimetre by 5 millimetres and the other being
1 millimetre by 3 millimetres in size); the stains being just below the scale seen in
Photo #112 of Exhibit P-72. The area of the stains was circled on Photo #114 by Sgt
Wentzel during his testimony. No blood was found on the inside left cuff area.

The evidence is that an area of the inside left cuff was marked as AE for DNA testing,
but that the quantity of human DNA obtained from this area did not meet the
minimum requirement of the laboratory for further processing.

Another area of the inside cuff area was marked AL and the evidence is that a partial
DNA typing profile was obtained. It was of mixed origin consistent with having
originated from two individuals, with at least one individual being of male gender.
The profile of the major component matched the profile of Dennis Oland and the
estimated probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random from the
Canadian Caucasian population with the same profile is 1 in 310 billion. The profile
67

 of the minor component matched that of Richard Oland with an estimated
probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random from the Canadian
Caucasian population with the same profile being 1 in 40. However, Ms. Kearsey
testified that only 4 alleles were detected in the minor component and that Derek
Oland also had the same 4 alleles. Mr. Suzanski therefore agreed that Derek Oland
might also be the contributor to the minor component.

Sixth Area: During his testimony Sgt Wentzell was also shown the last two
photographs in Exhibit P-72 – Photos 122-123. They were taken after Sgt Wentzell’s
second examination of the jacket on October 30, 2012, by a member of the RCMP
Evidence Recovery Unit on November 2, 2012 after a very detailed examination.
Shown in those photos is an area circled in white with the letters AO on the outside
back of the jacket near the hem and close to the center seam. Neither Cst.
Macdonald nor Sgt Wentzell had seen this stain in their earlier examinations. Ms.
Kearsey testified that the area, as recorded by the RCMP Evidence Recovery Unit,
was 5 millimetres by 5 millimetres, but Sgt Wentzell testified, when asked, that the
stain was 2 millimetres or less in size.

Hemochromogen testing confirmed blood at this area. And, area AO was subjected
to DNA analysis. The evidence is that the DNA typing profile obtained matched that
of Richard Oland at 9 loci and the estimated probability of selecting an unrelated
individual at random from the Canadian Caucasian population with the same profile
is 1 in 510 billion. The evidence is also that that remaining DNA which had been
extracted at area AO was later subjected to analysis using the more discriminating
15 loci ‘Identifiler Plus’, which also matched Richard Oland’s profile; and, as result,
the estimated probability of a coincidental match to an unrelated Canadian
Caucasian individual lowered to 1 in 20 quintillion. And the evidence is further,
based on the RCMP Canadian Caucasian population data base, that it is 3.4 million
times more likely that the DNA evidence obtained would be observed if Richard
68

 Oland was the donor of the DNA obtained from this area rather than an untested full
sibling.

As I mentioned, the results of the entire DNA testing you will find in Exhibit P-144, the
“Laboratory Testing Results Chart”.

This has been a rather extensive review of the evidence pertaining to the examination and
testing of the brown sports jacket. A number of interrelated questions are raised that you may
want to consider:
-

In any of the areas of the jacket where Richard Oland’s DNA profile was found to
match, is it reasonable to infer that Richard Oland is the contributor of the DNA
found, having regard to the evidence of the random match probabilities and
likelihood ratios and the other evidence in the case?

-

You have heard that there is nothing in a DNA profile itself that indicates the origin
of the DNA, i.e. from what substance it came. Therefore, on the three areas (areas
AA, AC and AO) of the jacket where red staining was observed, blood confirmed, and
a single source DNA profile consistent with Richard Oland being the contributor was
found, is it reasonable to infer that the human DNA extracted and analyzed came
from the blood as opposed to some other DNA consistent with Richard Oland that
had been deposited in those areas at some time; by, for example, the transfer of
epithelial cells from the touching of the jacket or by aerosol transfer such as by
saliva, mucous, etc?

On that question you have evidence of Richard Oland’s manner of social interaction - ‘up close
and personal’ if I could describe it that way. Ms. Adamson’s evidence was that her employer
had a low quiet voice (recall he wore a hearing aid(s)) and that in personal interaction he would
69

 be up close and leaning into a person, sometimes touching the person and she agreed that
what is depicted in the social interaction photos marked as Exhibit D-10, is indicative as to how
Richard Oland would interact – she said “it would not be unlike him”. Recall Robert McFadden
gave similar evidence, as did John Travis. Recall also, that during Dennis Oland’s testimony he
demonstrated with Defence counsel how his father would greet a person, including his son.
Also, you have heard from Ms. Adamson that when she left the office the evening of July 6 th
Richard and Dennis were looking at a document on the desk and that Dennis was standing very
close, hovering over his father who was sitting at his desk. However, you have the opinion of
both Ms. Kearsay and Mr. Suzanski that it is more likely that the human DNA extracted and
analysed came from the blood. Keep in mind that the evidence is that it is not just at one area
where that blood was found and a single source DNA profile obtained, but at three different
areas of the jacket, one of which was on the lower outside back of the jacket near the hem;

-

Is it reasonable to infer either that the blood that was confirmed on the jacket came
from the crime scene or that it was deposited on the jacket at some earlier time?

On this question, recall that neither Ms. Kearsey nor Mr. Suzanski could say when the stains
would have been deposited, how the stains were deposited, or, in the case of mixed origin
DNA, the order in which the substances containing DNA were deposited. In this regard, there
was some evidence given that Richard, at least at one time, had a scalp condition. Recall that
Ms. Adamson was asked by Defence counsel if it was correct that her employer: “had some
type of condition of the scalp and on occasion would have scabs on his scalp and these would
bleed”. Ms. Adamson’s answer was: “Now and again, there were little, I want to call them cuts,
but yes, dry skin or whatever on his scalp”. Ms. Adamson did not say whether or not Richard
Oland suffered from that condition of his scalp on July 6 th, 2011 or when it was she last saw him
with that condition. Diana Sedlacek’s evidence was that she and Richard Oland were in a close
to 8 year romantic relationship by the time of his death. She said that if they were not travelling
separately they were in each other’s physical presence 3 times a week and that many times
70

 they travelled outside the area together. She said when they first met she noticed damage from
sun exposure on the bald spot on the top of his head; that it was hardly noticeable. She said it
had been years since he had that issue; more specifically, she said that it was more than a year
and a half prior to July 2011. The pathologist, Dr. Nassemuddin, testified he did not recall
observing any open sores on Richard Oland’s scalp.

However, you also have indirect evidence from Dennis Oland as to possible past contamination
of his brown jacket by his father. He testified that he saw his father very often and said he has
worn the brown sports jacket in his father’s presence and that his father would greet him as he
did others, which manner he described for you in the courtroom. Dennis also testified that his
father always chewed the cuticles of his fingers and he has seen dried blood in those areas of
his father’s hands. And, he testified about having to move his whole family and all their clothing
into his parents’ home for 3 months in early 2010 and that he stored his clothes, including the
brown sports jacket which he had purchased in 2009, in his father’s bedroom closet. He said
that even when his parents came home his clothes remained in that closet for another month
until his father asked that they be removed because he was getting confused as to what was his
and what was Dennis’s.

Dennis also testified that in August or September 2010 he used his father’s workshop to
straighten the steering arm for his tractor. Dennis said he used the workshop on his way home
from work and was wearing the brown sports jacket. He said he took his jacket off to do the
work and then forgot to take it with him when he left. When he came back for it the next day
his father was at the workshop and his father retrieved the jacket from another location other
than where Dennis had left it. Dennis also said that at the time he remembers seeing a scab on
his father’s head. He said he recalled seeing blood on his father’s head.

71

 I point out to you that Dennis Oland was not directly challenged by the Crown during crossexamination on the event Dennis described at his father’s workshop. However, generally
speaking, the Crown is under no obligation to cross-examine at all or on any particular subject
matter if an accused testifies and has an opportunity to say in direct examination what he
wants to say about his position. You must remember that just because an accused was not
cross-examined on something he or she said does not amount to acceptance by the Crown of
what the accused said. If that were the law every cross-examination would be painfully long
and in some cases very unproductive. The Crown, just like the Defence, is entitled to decide
what questions to ask and what questions not to ask. As you can appreciate, there can be
multiple reasons why there is an absence of cross-examination on a subject matter or subject
matters and there are a multitude of strategies and styles involved in cross-examination.

But, as you can also appreciate, sometimes there are risks run in the approach taken in crossexamination. One of those risks, as a matter of common sense, is that in certain circumstances
a failure to challenge a witness in cross-examination on a certain aspect of that person’s
evidence may tend to bolster that person’s credibility on whether the event did occur. In other
words, it can become a factor to consider (along with all the other witness credibility
assessment factors I directed you on before) in deciding whether to accept that person’s
testimony on the particular subject matter. Dennis Oland’s testimony that he remembers an
event that occurred approximately a year before his father’s death, where his father handled
the specific jacket at the center of attention in this case (Exhibit P-33) and also remembers that
at the same he saw blood on top of his father’s head, is one such circumstance.

However, the assessment of Dennis Oland’s credibility on these or any other aspects of his
evidence is entirely for you to assess, as is the weight you place on his evidence. On this part of
his evidence, the fact that he was not challenged by the Crown during cross-examination on his
testimony that he remembers an event from a year before his father’s death where his father

72

 handled that specific brown sports jacket and at the same time had blood on the top of his
head, is a factor to consider in that assessment.

I go on to other questions raised by the evidence related to the examination and testing of the
brown jacket.

-

What if any inference can be or should be drawn as to whether the blood that was
confirmed at area AB on the right outside sleeve of the jacket (from which human
DNA was extracted but of insufficient quantity to DNA test) came from Richard
Oland?

-

What if any significance is there to the locations on the jacket that blood was
confirmed, i.e. two areas of the outside right sleeve, an area on the outside upper
left chest, and area near the hem on the outside back?

-

What if any significance is there to the evidence of DNA consistent with Richard
Oland having been found at an area on the inside cuff of the right sleeve where no
blood is found, i.e. area AH, part of a larger area described by Sgt Wentzell as diluted
appearing staining?

-

What if any significance do you place on the limited number and small size of the red
staining where blood was found on the jacket, given the blood spattered crime
scene you have seen and the evidence given by the blood stain pattern experts Sgt
Wentzell and Mr. Laturnus?

-

What if any significance do you place on the evidence that the jacket had been dry
cleaned; and dry-cleaned at VIP dry cleaners by an apparently ecofriendly process;
and was not, if you accept Mr. Nam’s evidence, subject to any pre-treatment
because Mr. Nam never noticed any stains? In this last regard, what if any
73

 significance do you place on the colour of the jacket, but, again, also taking into
consideration the evidence of the blood stains pattern experts Sgt Wentzell and Mr.
Laturnus, among other evidence.

These considerations and any others are entirely for you. But, in your assessment, recall the
instructions I gave to you earlier, a portion of which I will recite again:
Where evidence is circumstantial, it is critical for you to distinguish between
inference and speculation. An inference is a deduction (finding) of fact that may
logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts you find
established in the trial;
Sometimes more than one inference, even different inferences, may be open to
you to draw from a fact or a group of facts you find established in the trial.
However, even if it might be open to you to draw an inference or inferences
from a fact or group of facts you find established in the trial, it is entirely up to
you to decide whether or not to draw the inference or inferences. You are not
required to draw the inference or draw any particular inference; that is entirely
up to you.
On the other hand, if there are no proven facts from which an inference or
inferences can be drawn, there can be no inference drawn, only impermissible
speculation and conjecture.

I will return to the relevance of the evidence of the brown sports jacket again later.

Section 7
I now move to other evidence.

As background, Robert McFadden, Richard Oland’s long-time accountant and, you might think,
‘go to guy’, if I can use those words, explained that Richard Oland was at the time of his death
the sole shareholder and director of a numbered company which owned two subsidiary
74

 companies, Kingshurst Estates Ltd. and Far End Corporation. Robert McFadden and Dennis
Oland were the named co-executors in Richard Oland’s ‘Will’ made in 1996. In order to
administer Richard Oland’s estate, the executors appointed Dennis Oland the President of the
numbered company and Mr. McFadden secretary-treasurer, while Mr. McFadden became
President of Kingshurst and Far End. Each is the directors of all three companies.

Mr. McFadden testified that under the 1996 Will, which spoke on Richard’s death in 2011, the
residential home and contents were bequeathed to Richard’s wife Connie Oland and the
residual of the estate (which included approximately 36 million dollars in investments) was
placed in a spousal trust after payment of outstanding debts and funeral expenses. The
beneficiary of the trust is Connie Oland and it is administered by Mr. McFadden and Dennis
Oland, the trustees. By its terms, Connie Oland is to receive the income generated by the trust
and the trustees could encroach on the capital for her if in the discretion of the trustees they
were to conclude that the income was insufficient. Also by the terms of Richard Oland’s Will,
upon Connie Oland’s death the trust would be dissolved and whatever is remaining would be
distributed equally among their three children - Jacqueline, Elizabeth (Lisa) and Dennis. Mr.
McFadden said that he and Dennis have divided the executor fees and trustee fees they are
entitled to, such that he has received $765,000 in executor fees and $50,000 as trustee and
Dennis has received $100,000 in executor fees and $50,000 as a trustee.

Mr. McFadden also gave evidence that on July 4th, 2011, Richard, who had just come back from
a trip, was “mellow” and suggested they revisit his 1996 Will. It was not an urgent matter. Mr.
McFadden said that revision of his Will was a topic Richard would periodically raise. Mr.
McFadden said that what were on Richard’s mind in wanting his Will revisited were the
inclusion of a process for a family auction and the creation of a family trust. Mr. McFadden
agreed with Defence counsel that the first of Richard’s concerns would have been to avoid
disputes between heirs (but Mr. McFadden was not aware of any fighting between potential
heirs) and the second would be to minimize taxes.
75

 Section 8
It is convenient now to address the evidence of Maureen Adamson. I will do so at some length
because she was the first person at the crime scene, because her evidence provides you some
additional background and because it also gives some context for assessing the relative
significance of some of the other evidence.

As you know, Ms. Adamson was Richard Oland’s personal secretary of many years. You might
find that she was a very busy and efficient one. Her duties extended to organizing his personal
and business financial records, to arranging his travel, etc. Indeed, she continued to work for
Far End Corporation even after Richard Oland’s death, until she retired in July 2014. Ms.
Adamson described Far End Corporation as in essence the deceased’s personal investment
company.

Having known him for 30 years, she described her employer as “very detailed”, explaining, as
examples, that he coded all his expenses and kept a pretty up to date calendar on his computer
(to which Ms. Adamson had access if necessary). She said that even when her employer was
away from the office on his many travels he generally expected to be kept up to date daily. But,
not invariably; for example, recall Richard Oland had been away fishing on the Miramichi for 8
days at the end of June into early July 2011 and Ms. Adamson could not recall her employer
making contact with her by phone or text in that period.

Ms. Adamson also knew Diana Sedlacek (who we know was Richard Oland’s mistress), having
first met her when Ms. Sedlacek was hired as an interior designer when Richard Oland was
having his home renovated. Through the ensuing years Ms. Adamson, on approximately 10-12
occasions, made travel arrangements together for Richard Oland and Ms. Sedlacek. Recall that
76

 Robert McFadden said that Richard Oland appeared very careful about not having that
relationship known, but that, he said, if you followed the money it would be apparent (e.g.
booking separate flights to the same place). Recall, as well, that Mr. McFadden had access to
his employer’s e-mail and, on some occasions, his IPhone, which also revealed to him the
nature of the relationship between Richard Oland and Ms. Sedlacek.

I pause for a moment to caution you with respect to a piece of evidence that got put before you
prematurely. Recall that Robert McFadden testified that on one of the occasions he had Richard
Oland’s IPhone (he did not say when) he observed a message from Ms. Sedlacek to Richard
Oland expressing that she wanted him to leave his wife. Recall I cautioned you at the time that
you could not rely on that for the truth of the assertion in that message because it was hearsay.
Recall, that Ms. Sedlacek was not asked about whether she sent such a message or the truth of
the assertion. Therefore, you must not rely on it for its truth in the course of your decision
making in this case.

This is as good a place as any to mention Jiri Sedlacek’s testimony. He was the husband of
Richard Oland’s mistress. He was obviously called to testify by the Crown to dispel any belief
that he was involved in some way in the killing of Richard Oland. He testified that he was at his
home on Darlings Island the evening of July 6th, 2011, which was corroborated by his wife when
she testified. She also testified that she never told her husband about the affair she was having.
And, despite the length of his wife’s affair and her apparently frequent and sometimes lengthy
absences, Mr. Sedlacek testified that he did not even know of the affair and did not find out
about it until sometime after Richard Oland’s death. The credibility of Jiri Sedlacek’s evidence,
like any witness, is for you alone to assess in the manner I suggested earlier in my instructions
to you. You can accept all, part or none of his evidence.

I move on.
77

 You might find that the gist of Ms. Adamson’s and Mr. McFadden’s evidence regarding the
deceased’s approach to his business and personal finances is that, although he had financial
advisors and, except for the bulk of his investments which were handled by two money
managers in Toronto, he was very much in control. And, you know that at the time of his death
Richard Oland was a very wealthy man, by anyone’s standard. But, you might also find from the
totality of the evidence that, generally speaking, he did not give his money away, even to his
own family, and that it seems he was a very demanding, narcissistic type person when it came
to his family – a difficult person you might conclude. But, all of that is for you alone to say.
Although I am entitled to express my own views on occasion, and I have done so here, it is your
view and only your view that counts.

Ms. Adamson testified that among her responsibilities was doing the paper work for refunding
Richard Oland’s wife, Constance Oland, her monthly household expenses, which averaged
$2,000-$2,500 per month (e.g. for food, household repairs, etc.). Mr. Oland would bring in the
receipts. Ms. Adamson would then do up a report to him and he would write the cheque to
reimburse his wife. Ms. Adamson explained, though, that as far as she knew there was no
limitation on Mrs. Oland’s expenses, it was just that they were in the range of $2,000 to $2,500
per month and that her employer paid the hydro and phone from his own personal account.
She said that she never knew of a time when there was a problem in Richard Oland giving Mrs.
Oland a cheque to cover the receipts incurred. It was just that her employer wanted to see the
breakdown – needed to see receipts – and they had to balance. On occasion he would ask Ms.
Adamson a question about them. She agreed with the characterization of Richard Oland being
“very much a detailed person”, obsessive compulsive-like in those areas. Richard himself would
give Ms. Adamson a lot of his own receipts for his expenses.

Section 9
78

 Ms. Adamson testified that she also took care of depositing monthly post-dated cheques
written by Dennis to his father; in the amount of $1,666.67 (deposited on the 15 th of each
month into Richard Oland’s personal account at the CIBC bank in Saint John, to which account
both Richard Oland and Ms. Adamson had access on line). As you heard, these cheques
represented interest payments against money lent by the deceased to his son because of his
son’s divorce a couple of years before. Mr. McFadden provided details in his testimony about
those financial arrangements.

He explained that Dennis was in the midst of a divorce from his first wife in 2008-2009 and that
Richard thought his son needed help and Richard also wanted some input into what would
happen. Recall that Dennis was at risk of losing the ancestral family home and adjacent farm
property. Richard lent Mr. McFadden’s services to Dennis, which lasted about two years, for
which Mr. McFadden charged Richard Oland. Mr. McFadden discussed strategy and financial
solutions with Dennis and in doing so also kept Richard informed. Mr. McFadden also made
proposals to Richard Oland regarding Dennis’s situation. As I understood Mr. McFadden’s
testimony, in the end Richard Oland funded his son’s divorce in the following manner and
amounts:
1. $120,000 cash as an equalization of martial property and debts paid to Leslie Oland,
Dennis’s then wife;

2. $303,000 to settle the then mortgage on the marital home at 58 Gondola Point Road
in Rothesay; meaning that the martial home would then be owned solely by Dennis
Oland without a lending institution mortgage over it. The residential property was
appraised at the time at $600,000;
3. And, $115,000 was advanced to pay a line of credit;

79

 Dennis signed a promissory note when each of those disbursements of money was made.
According to Mr. McFadden, Dennis also agreed to provide a mortgage to his father over the
residential property at 58 Gondola Point to secure the loan; was to give a right of first refusal
on the property to his father; and enter into a domestic contract with his now wife Lisa. None
of those documents, to Richard Oland’s knowledge according to Mr. McFadden, ever did get
executed, for the reasons Mr. McFadden gave. Mr. McFadden said that although Richard knew
the documents had not been executed, Richard never expressed any concerns to him about it;
that, as Mr. McFadden put it, it was more fun for Richard building sail boats. Mr. McFadden
testified that he himself did not know if any other any security had been placed against Dennis
Oland’s home after the divorce was finalized, nor was he aware of Dennis’s financial situation in
the period leading up to Richard Oland’s death.

Dennis Oland confirmed in his testimony that those documents were not executed. He also
testified that he was not concerned if his father found out that the security had not been given.
Nor did Dennis inform the bank about the money his father had lent him, nor did he believe he
had to. Dennis testified that his father had told him that the principal amount of money would
be deducted from any inheritance he received.

You have seen in the financial documents presented by the forensic accountant, Eric Johnson,
that Dennis had entered into collateral mortgages with CIBC after the finalization of his divorce
and before his father’s death, in order to secure lines of credit he had arranged post-divorce
(See: Exhibits P-123 and 124). The evidence is also that by July 6th 2011 the increased line of
credit of $163,000 that Dennis sought and obtained from his bank in March 2011 was already
maxed out.

As I understood Mr. McFadden, the $1,666.67 payments that Dennis started making to his
father in September 2009 represented interest of 4% on $500,000 of the money that Richard
80

 had advanced, the interest rate being similar to what a Bank would charge (See: Exhibit P-120,
Tab 5). Ms. Adamson testified that Richard Oland did not inquire frequently about those
payments. Mr. McFadden also testified he could not recall a time Richard Oland ever refused to
financially help his son.

In the spring of 2011 the last cluster of post-dated cheques Dennis Oland had provided ran out.
Ms. Adamson, by e-mail of May 24th 2011, requested additional cheques beginning with one for
the month of May. She received them on June 28th (apparently there had been an intervening
mail strike). Dennis asked her to hold off depositing the first cheque until Monday July 4 th. She
actually deposited the cheque on July 5th. Sometime after Richard Oland’s death she received a
notification by mail that the cheque was not honoured because of insufficient funds.

In the past this had happened once or twice before (i.e. NSF cheque) and Ms. Adamson would
not bother her employer with that information and simply arranged directly with Dennis to
replace the cheque, which he did. Ms. Adamson testified that she and Richard Oland shared an
e-mail system on the office computers such that while they could not see each other’s sent emails they would both see any received or reply e-mails. Richard Oland did not mention to Ms.
Adamson anything about the post-dated cheques required from Dennis.

She also agreed that at a much earlier time, around 1999, Richard Oland had helped Dennis
purchase the “pasture property” adjacent to the ancestral home where Dennis lived and that
Dennis was required to repay his father by $11,000 annual lump sum payments and that in one
of those years Dennis was unable to make the payment and the arrangement was renegotiated and readjusted between Dennis and Richard. According to Mr. McFadden’s
testimony, as I understood, this “farm” property was purchased by Richard’s real estate holding
company, Kingshurst, from Dennis sometime after the divorce finalized for additional monies
given by Richard to Dennis.
81

 In any event, as mentioned, the cheque Dennis Oland wrote for $1,666.67, and gave to Ms.
Adamson asking her not to deposit until July 4th, was returned NSF by the Bank after Richard’s
death. You will probably find that this is readily explainable by the evidence regarding Dennis
Oland’s financial state by early July 2011.

You have a glimpse of that state of financial affairs and the financial pressure it was causing him
in the exchange of e-mails between Dennis and his wife Lisa at the end of May and first of June
2011, over trying to get access to money though credit cards (Exhibits P-125; P-126) and in the
evidence of Dennis Oland’s then boss at CIBC-Wood-Gundy, John Travis, as to Dennis needing
advances in his pay to bridge him over the months of June and July 2011 until he expected his
business to get better (See: Exhibit P-114). And, you have seen in one of the e-mails between
Dennis and Mr. Travis just how anxious Dennis was to receive that money in mid June 2011
(See: Exhibit P-117); and even then, you have seen, it was not enough because Dennis asked his
wife for additional monies immediately after (See: Exhibit P-127), but she too, it may appear to
you, was also broke.

You also have the bigger picture painted of Dennis Oland’s financial condition in the period
January 1, 2011 to July 7th, 2011, as seen in the evidence of the CIBC records presented by Eric
Johnson in direct examination. And, you have the additional records for the period extending
back to 2009 presented by Mr. Johnson in cross-examination.

The volume of financial records put before you is large and the accuracy of those records is
accepted by the parties. Therefore, for my purposes of review I will point to where in that
material you will find the various summaries Mr. Johnson prepared, discuss them briefly, and

82

 leave it to you in your deliberations to review such of the supporting material in greater detail
as you consider necessary.

As for the first 6 months of 2011, you will find those summaries in the various tabs of Exhibit P120. And, you will find the supporting materials in Exhibits P-112 and 119. And, lazy me, you will
find a summary of those summaries at Tab 6, p. 5 of Exhibit P-120 - for the Main CIBC Bank
Account, for the CIBC VISA Credit Card Account, for the Personal Line of Credit Secured by a
Collateral mortgage; for the Investment Account; and for the RRSP Account. This summary
reveals that on July 6th, 2011:
There was $294.18 in Dennis Oland’s main bank account, which you will see from other
records quickly turned into an overdraft of $655.82 on July 7th, and, from the evidence
of Michelle Taylor-LeFrancois, you know that the account was no longer overdraft
protected;
There was a balance owing of $32,582.53 on his credit card against a credit limit of
$27,000;
There was $163,939.68 owing against his personal line of credit, the credit limit being
$163,000, and that from Exhibit P-119, Tab 1 at p. 3 you see that a payment of $481.72
due on the line of credit was attempted to be made but was rejected for non-sufficient
funds;
There was a zero dollars balance in his investment account, which account had been
that way since the end of March 2011;
There was a $20.13 cash balance in his RRSP account which account had been that way
since the end of February 2011;

83

 As for the period extending back to 2009, you will find additional supporting materials in Exhibit
D-68 and summaries of Dennis Oland’s financial situation in Exhibit D-69. Slide 11 of Exhibit D69, reveals that his Main CIBC Bank Account balances in the first 6 months of those years have, I
suggest, a similar pattern to the first 6 months of 2011. Likewise, Exhibit D-69 reveals, I suggest,
that his Investment Account and RRSP Account are similar to that seen in the first 6 months of
2011. You will also find, though, that his debt load has increased since 2009.

You will also find in Exhibit P-120 at Tab 2 p. 3 a chart of Dennis Oland’s net pay earned at CIBCWood Gundy in 2008 to 2010, comparing the amounts earned in the first six months of each of
those years relative to what was earned overall in each of those years and also comparing what
was earned year to year. It also shows what was comparatively earned in the first six months of
2011. However, recall the charts shown there have been corrected in slides 59 and 60 of Exhibit
D-69. Whereas before the charts reflected a significantly higher income in the first 6 months of
2008, it was revealed that he received a $75,000 low interest rate loan in April 2008,
immediately available to him as income in that year upon which he would be taxed, but
required to be paid back to his employer over 10 years. I expect you will find that the corrected
chart continues to reveal, though, that his net income in the first 6 months of 2011 was
appreciably lower than in those previous years.

Finally, as earlier mentioned, by July 6, 2011 Dennis had already received an $8,000 advance in
his pay in June and would require another advance in pay in July, which advances you know
from Mr. Travis’s evidence and logic would have to be deducted, in some manner, from future
pays.

In cross-examination, Dennis agreed with Crown counsel that in July 2011 he was not able to
meet his monthly expenses and that his wife had been off work. He also testified that she was
going back to work in September of that year and that his financial situation in July 2011 was
84

 not a new occurrence. He explained to the effect that the nature of his employment and its
dependency on the vagaries of the stock market resulted, to coin a phrase, in times of feast and
famine.

I leave the assessment and characterization of Dennis Oland’s financial situation and any
inferences as to the financial pressure that would reasonably be expected to have exerted upon
him leading up to the time of his father’s death, against the backdrop of his previous years
financial situation, entirely to your intelligence, common sense and the experience of life.

I have referred you to all this financial information evidence now as it may be relevant to your
consideration of any motive alleged. I will address this later.

Section 10
I now move away from the financial affairs evidence to some more of the crime scene evidence
and related evidence.

As for the layout of the building at 52 Canterbury St. and the office of Far End Corporation, I
again refer you to Exhibit P-5 (Booklet of 119 photos) and the various sketches that were
entered into evidence. You are all very familiar with that layout by now.

Ms. Adamson said that three keys were required for access: the first to unlock the street level
door (generally it was locked after business hours); the second key to unlock the door at the top
of the stairs leading onto the second floor; and the third key to unlock the door into the Far End
Corporation office. To her knowledge those with keys were her, Richard Oland, Bob McFadden
85

 and the building owner, John Ainsworth. Recall John Ainsworth’s evidence that he had keys and
gave one to Far End Corporation, but placed no control over how many keys they had made for
their uses.

The first floor was occupied by the business Printing Plus. There was an empty office next to the
office of Far End Corporation on the second floor, which according to Ms. Adamson was
normally locked. Recall the electrical panel was in that room and if a fuse was blown she would
have to call down to Printing Plus to have someone unlock it. Also on the second floor was a
door, being an exit door which led outside into an alleyway at the back of the building. (You are
familiar with this exit and the alleyway by now). Ms. Adamson testified she had no key for this
door.

As you know, John Ainsworth is the owner of 52 Canterbury St and of the business Printing Plus
that occupies the first floor of the building. He has owned that building since 1999. He
described its layout and its use and occupancy in July 2011. He testified that the third floor was
used for band rehearsals. Preston Chiasson also said he used it as an occasional painting studio.
Ms. Adamson said that sometimes people would come to the third floor to rehearse around
6:00 or 7:00 pm, but not often at that time. John Ainsworth explained that he allowed a
different number of bands to practice on the third floor. He gave one of those musicians a key
to access the third floor (but did not police how many keys that person would provide to
others), but they had no key to access the door at the top of the stairs on the 2nd floor. The
musicians did have access to the loading doors at street level at the front of the building. And,
the musicians had access to the elevator in the building so as to bring up their equipment. Mr.
Ainsworth also said that the bands had no schedule and it was unpredictable as to when a band
would arrive, although they would not be there during the day because the music would be
disturbing to persons in the rest of the building.

86

 I return more directly to Ms. Adamson’s testimony.

As for office routine, at the end of the day Ms. Adamson would, if she was the last to leave of
course, turn off the various programs up on Mr. Oland’s computer (all the office computers
themselves normally remained on), turn out the lights and in the summer turn off the AC; lock
the office door, ensure the door leading to the alleyway was locked, and lock the door leading
on to the top of the stairs and the door at street level. There was no alarm system that she was
aware of and in their 7-8 years at that location there were no break-ins or thefts to her
knowledge. Mr. McFadden’s evidence was to the same effect. John Ainsworth’s evidence was
that over the years he has had three break-ins, but all on the street level into Printing Plus.

On July 6th, 2011 Ms. Adamson was first in the office, a bit early to allow the cleaning lady in.
She doesn’t recall anything out of the ordinary in terms of opening up. She didn’t recall if the
street level door was locked or not, but since nothing was out of the ordinary she believed that
the 2nd door (top of stairs) and 3rd door (into the office) were locked. She did her normal routine
– brought coffee, turned the lights on, turned on the coffee machine, opened the blinds if they
were closed, turned on the AC, and got the programs on the computer booted up.

Bob McFadden and his son Galen arrived sometime after her. Galen McFadden had a
temporary summer job scanning materials for Richard Oland. A meeting had earlier been set up
for that day at 10:00 a.m. for Richard Oland with two insurance representatives. Around
“9:30ish” Ms. Adamson called her employers IPhone to remind him of the meeting, did not get
an answer, so texted the number. She said she waited a bit, got no reply, so she called his
home. She reached him and reminded him of the meeting and he arrived shortly after. You will
see in Exhibit P-27 Ms. Adamson’s text message reminder to Richard Oland the morning of July
6th about the scheduled meeting. Ms. Adamson then called him at his home.

87

 Ms. Adamson said the meeting between Richard Oland and the two representatives and Bob
McFadden was done before lunch time. Mr. McFadden explained that his employer’s term life
insurance (the beneficiary being Far End Corporation) was coming up for renewal in the near
future and the two insurance representatives were trying to interest Richard Oland in another
policy.

At lunch time Ms. Adamson went out to get her employer a pizza for lunch and when she
returned he was still at the office. I pause to refer to Exhibit P-128. Recall this is five pages of
text messages exchanged between Diana Sedlacek and Richard Oland, which were extracted
from Ms. Sedlacek’s own cellular phone. For this exhibit, Ms. Sedlacek’s messages are colour
coded in green and Richard Oland’s are in black. The messages start at 9:08 a.m. on July 6 th,
2011 and end at 12:52 p.m. on July 7th. For now, I refer you to a text reply found in that exhibit
from Richard Oland sent on July 6th at 12:01 p.m. (i.e. just past noon) setting out options for a
trip planned, according to Ms. Sedaleck, to Portland, Maine.

The evidence is that this July 6th 12:01 p.m. message to Diana Sedlacek is the last known text
message sent from Richard Oland’s IPhone. The evidence is also that Richard Oland’s IPhone
registered (i.e. pinged) off the Brunswick Square cellular tower in uptown Saint John when that
text message was sent. This is seen in the Rogers’ Call Detail Record entered as Exhibit P-129. I
will address the expert evidence regarding the general rule relationship between cellular
phones and cell towers later.

I move back to Ms. Adamson’s evidence. She testified that Richard Oland never left the office
the afternoon of July 6th. I expect you will find that Robert McFadden’s testimony corroborates
that evidence. Around 3:00 or 4:00 o’clock Ms. Adamson put an envelope under the receiver of
88

 her employer’s office phone. It was for his gardener and contained $110.00 in cash. She placed
it there so he wouldn’t miss it and for him to take it with him. As seen in the photos in Exhibit P5, it was still there under the receiver the next day.

Mr. McFadden testified that July 6th was a reasonably quiet business day, there was nothing
unusual or out of the ordinary. He said it was not a hectic day; there was no deadline to be met
kind of day. He said that Richard would be getting caught up on the financial markets, his
portfolio (recall the two financial newsletters found on the right hand side of his desk) and on
the status of his sail boat that was then being built (the components being in several countries).
Richard Oland, Mr. McFadden said, was planning to do more things about that sail boat. You
will recall the 360 numbered document found on the far right side of his desk with a sticky
attached related to the sail boat.

Around 5:00 p.m. Ms. Adamson got busy winding down the office – she turned off the coffee
pot, pulled the blinds shut and inquired of Richard Oland whether to turn off the air
conditioner. He told her to leave it on because he said: “he would be here for a while”. Recall
that given his prior schedule, which took him away from the office for an extended period, July
6th would have been Richard Oland’s first full day back at the office and Ms. Adamson said he
would have a lot of catching up to do and agreed with the Defence suggestion that this was
probably the reason he told her “he was going to be there for a while”.

I pause to give you a specific legal instruction. The statement that Richard Oland made to Ms.
Adamson that he “was going to be there for a while”, obviously was not made by him under
oath and he cannot be subject to cross-examination. Therefore, you should be cautious when
considering that statement. However, it is some evidence showing Richard Oland’s state of
mind at the time, and may support an inference that he likely acted in accordance with his

89

 statement. Whether you draw that inference and the significance you place on it in the context
of all the evidence is entirely for you.

Mr. McFadden testified that Richard Oland had the habit of arriving at the office around 10 a.m.
and leaving around 7:00 p.m.; 7:00 p.m. being what Mr. McFadden described as Mr. Oland’s
normal leaving time. At least that was Mr. McFadden’s own personal experience with Mr.
Oland’s routine, because Mr. McFadden agreed it would not be unusual for him to leave work
at 5:30 p.m. and for Mr. Oland to stay behind. Mr. McFadden said that on July 6th he himself
would more likely have stayed past 5:30 p.m. if had not had his son with him.

I jump ahead for a moment to the evidence of John Ainsworth and Anthony Shaw. You know
from their evidence that at least up to 9:00 p.m. later that same evening, when they left the
premises of Printing Plus, no bands had been playing, which would, according to Mr. Ainsworth,
have otherwise disturbed Richard Oland.

I move back to the chronology of events earlier that day. Ms. Adamson testified that around
5:30 p.m. Dennis Oland arrived in the office.

I interject here the evidence of William Adamson, Maureen’s husband. He had parked outside
the office building door about 10 feet from the street level door which leads up to Far End
Corporation. He said he got there about 5:20 p.m. As usual, he tooted the horn to alert his wife
of his arrival. He said his wife normally finishes work about 5:30. After he tooted the horn Bob
McFadden and his son Galen came out of the building, acknowledged him, and then walked
away. Mr. McFadden’s evidence confirms this.

90

 After they left, Mr. Adamson noticed a male person go into the same street level door. He first
noticed the person in his peripheral vison coming from the left. As I understood, since Mr.
Adamson was facing south on Canterbury, the person he saw would have had to be coming
from the north on the east side of the street. Recall where Robert McFadden placed Mr.
Adamson’s vehicle, which would be facing south at the curbside next to 52 Canterbury, directly
out from the Far End Corporation street level door. Mr. Adamson said he took notice of the
person because he was concerned that someone entering the building at that time might mean
more work for his wife and therefore she would be late leaving. Although Mr. Adamson did not
identify the person who entered the building, it is not an issue between the parties that this
was Dennis Oland. Later I will situate this evidence in the time line of Dennis Oland’s
movements that evening when I review his statement to the police and his testimony at trial.

Mr. Adamson further testified that the person was carrying a red, vinyl coated, grocery-storetype tote bag with some kind of design on it. The person was carrying it by the handles. It
appeared to Mr. Adamson that there was something in the bag but whatever it was it did not
seem heavy. When shown a picture of a shopping bag by the Defence, depicted in Exhibit D-17,
he testified that it looks like the right size, shape and colour as the one he saw on July 6 th, 2011.
Also later on, I will address Dennis Oland’s evidence regarding that grocery bag.

Recall that the bag in the photograph shown to Mr. Adamson by the Defence was seized from
the trunk of Dennis Oland’s Volkswagen Golf hatchback vehicle by Sgt. Smith on July 17, 2011 –
(See: Exhibit P-43). Sgt Smith identified it as a ‘My Compliments’ reusable grocery bag. Items
found within the bag included an orange plastic bag, cellphone holder and charger, maps,
papers and other documents. Whether it was the same bag that Dennis Oland took to his
father’s office after work on July 6th will be for you to assess. As I mentioned, I will address
Dennis Oland’s evidence about it and the associated security video images later.

91

 As I mentioned earlier, the bag and contents seized from the trunk of Dennis Oland’s vehicle
were thoroughly examined by the Saint John Police forensic Identification section and by RCMP
Sgt Wentzell with negative results. Swabs for DNA testing were taken. The grocery bag itself
was sent to the RCMP lab on April 3, 2012. No blood was detected on or in that bag or on the
contents nor was any DNA of Richard Oland found.

I return once again to Ms. Adamson’s evidence. Recall she said Dennis Oland arrived at the
office around 5:30 p.m. She testified that Richard Oland appeared happy to see his son and that
father and son started talking about the family genealogy. She explained that Richard and
Dennis shared and enjoyed a common interest in the genealogy of the Oland family. Actually, as
I understood, at some point in the past they had learned of Ms. Adamson’s own interest in
genealogy and she had actually got a computer program for them so they could keep track of
their research.

Ms. Adamson recalled that Dennis was wearing a brown jacket or coat. She doesn’t recall what
else he was wearing, only that the jacket or coat was brown in colour and the only reason she
remembers that, is that it struck her because it was such a hot day. As she said, that “stuck”.
When she was shown stills from the Brunswick House security video of Dennis Oland (Exhibit P9) from the morning of July 6, 2011 she did not know if the brown jacket or coat depicted was
the exact jacket. All she could say is that the one she saw Dennis wearing at the Far End
Corporation office was brown. She also doesn’t recall if Dennis Oland had anything in his hands
when he arrived at the office. Dennis Oland testified he had the reusable grocery bag Exhibit P43 with him.

Although she wasn’t expecting Dennis Oland to arrive, she said it was not uncommon for him to
drop in on his way home. Recall she said that she has known Dennis Oland from back in the
days when she worked for Brookville Transport that Richard Oland had owned. She did not
92

 know Dennis at a personal level; she would only see him at the office. As far as Ms. Adamson
could tell, Dennis and his father Richard had a good relationship. Recall, that after her
employer’s death she mentioned seeing comments in the press that they had frequent
arguments and that this surprised her as she had not seen them argue in all those years. (I
caution you that the ‘press’ reference is not evidence – only Ms. Adamson’s answer is the
evidence).

Robert McFadden gave evidence that Dennis would come to the office 4 or 5 times a year and
that, to his personal knowledge, Dennis had been at his father’s office twice in the months
preceding his father’s death regarding genealogy matters. Recall as well, that Mr. McFadden
knew Dennis and Richard for a long time and that Mr. McFadden had more involvement with
the family outside the office, and that in all those years he never saw any animosity between
Dennis and Richard. Mr. McFadden agreed with Defence counsel that he never saw Dennis raise
a finger against his father.

You have detailed evidence from Dennis Oland himself, through his police statement and from
his testimony, as to the nature of the relationship he had with his father through the years. This
will be for you to assess, as will be the significance, if any, that relationship has for you in
deciding whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Dennis Oland
who killed his father.

Section 11
You will remember that Ms. Adamson had possession of an Oland family camp log book (Exhibit
D-3). It was at the office on July 6th when Dennis arrived. Mr. McFadden explained that his son
Galen had been scanning it and that work had been recently finished. Ms. Adamson testified
that she needed to see that the log book was returned to Richard Oland’s wife Constance
93

 (Dennis’s mother) so it could be given back to Mrs. Oland’s brother (Jack Connell) who was
leaving town shortly. Ms. Adamson testified she intended to give it to Dennis to take with him
since he was there, but she first wanted to show Richard Oland what she was going to give to
Dennis to take.

As I understood Ms. Adamson’s testimony, Richard had by this time wheeled his office chair
from his desk over towards the west end of the conference table situate in the middle of the
office (See: Exhibit P-5 Photo # 52). Ms. Adamson said she remembers handing the book across
the conference room table towards her employer. This would be in the direction of the corner
of the conference room table closest to Richard’s desk, but she does not know if her employer
took it from her.

In cross-examination, it was pointed out to Ms. Adamson that at the preliminary inquiry she
testified that the log book was on the end of the conference table closest to Richard’s desk and
that she had at the preliminary inquiry showed the location of the log book on the table with
the initials L.B. she had put on a sketch that is now marked Exhibit D-4 in this trial. However,
when she testified further in cross-examination on this trial she said she last remembers
handing the log book down to that area of the table next to the typewriter. She said that this
was the area she remembers aiming for. Recall she gave a demonstration in the courtroom. She
said she doesn’t know if the book actually got laid down on the table, but if it did, she said, it
would be in the area she marked earlier on the sketch. And, you will recall that that area of the
conference table being referred to is shown in Exhibit D-5 (the photo of the table with the
typewriter on it). Ms. Adamson further testified that if the log book got laid down in the area of
the table she was aiming for, she agreed with Defence counsel that the book would have rested
on top of some of the circled areas depicted on the table, which we know to be areas of blood
spatter found on the table by the police at the crime scene and circled for identification.

94

 Dennis Oland testified that the log book was one of the reasons he dropped by his father’s
office after work on July 6th, explaining that his father had it for about a year and that his uncle
was anxious to get it back. Indeed, Dennis said that this is reason he went back to 52
Canterbury St. the third time that evening, because he had forgotten to take the log book with
him when he left. He said that when he went back into the office his father was over by
Maureen’s desk and his father told him he had noticed Dennis had forgotten the book. Dennis
said the log book (and 3 discs) was at the middle end beside the typewriter on the conference
table. Recall he marked the area L.B. on a sketch entered into evidence as Exhibit D-88. Dennis
also said that his father made him stay so as to go through the log book; his father pointing out
to him that the paternal side of the family also had a connection to the camp for which the log
book had been kept. Recall Dennis referred to some pages of that book that he had been
referred to by his father that evening. Dennis testified that he took the log book with him this
time and the next morning dropped he it off at his parent’s home so his uncle would get it.

Recall that Sgt Mark Smith examined that log book the evening of July 8 th, 2011 at the police
station. He checked for blood staining on the book. He checked visually and with a white light
and also used a hemastix. His examinations were negative, as were subsequent even more
detailed examinations conducted by Cst. David Macdonald. Sgt Smith was questioned by the
Defence as to whether it was “likely” that the log book would have been spattered by blood if it
was located at the end of the conference table closest to Richard Oland’s desk during the attack
on Richard Oland. You can see that area Defence counsel was referring to in Exhibit D-28, Photo
#4. Sgt Smith’s reply was that it was “possible”.

Recall that Sgt Wentzel was shown that same area of the table and that it was Sgt Wentzell who
had actually had marked the blood spatter with the white circles seen in the photos of that end
of the table. Sgt Wentzell had not observed blood spatter on the typewriter itself. He testified
that although he could not conclusively say, it would not surprise him if the log book could not
have fitted in that area of the table without blood spatter having gotten on to the book. Mr.
95

 Laturnus was of the opinion that if the log book was on the table adjacent to the typewriter at
the time of the attack it would have had spatter on it based on the amount of spatter he
observed on the table.

Whether the log book found its way to that area of the table the evening of July 6th and, if so,
remained there and, if so, would have been blood spattered, is for you to assess along with all
the other evidence in the case in considering whether or not Dennis Oland was present when
his father was killed.

Section 12
When Ms. Adamson left the office she said Richard Oland was back sitting at his desk and
Dennis Oland was standing beside him hovered over the desk. They were in close proximity to
each other– they appeared to be engrossed in a discussion about the family tree – genealogy.
Indeed, Ms. Adamson testified that although she said goodbye to them they did not respond.

I pause here to refer to the evidence of Payman Hakimian and Neil Walker, the RCMP
technology analysts who examined the office computers. Recall that Mr. Hakimian is a Senior
Forensic Analyst with the RCMP “J’ Division Integrated Technological Crime Unit. Mr. Walker
now holds the same position with RCMP “H” Division in Halifax. Both were declared qualified to
give opinion evidence in the area of the “forensic analysis of computers and related electronic
devices and the recovery and interpretation of electronic data.” I will also refer to the evidence
of Geoffrey Fellows the expert in this field from England called by the Defence.

I mention their testimonies now because evidence of when Richard Oland stopped interacting
with his computer and your assessment of whether Richard Oland ever interacted with his
96

 computer after the time his son Dennis said he left the office, is a relevant consideration for
you. What, if any, weight you place on it, though, is entirely for you.

The evidence is that RCMP identification number PE 6 was Richard Oland’s main computer. It
was connected to the monitor on his desk as shown in Exhibit P-21, Photo # 14. Recall Ms.
Adamson testified that Dennis arrived at the office around 5:30 p.m. and that she left at 5:45
p.m. Mr. Hakimian’s testimony was that the most likely time of last human activity on the
computer identified as PE6 was 5:39:52 p.m. on July 6 th. Mr. Fellows qualified Mr. Hakimian’s
opinion. Mr. Fellows testified that 5:39:52 p.m. was the last evident human usage time; that
activity being the opening of the Southern Ocean Racing Conference website, a very static
website according to Mr. Fellows.

Mr. Fellows qualified Mr. Hakimian’s opinion because of the additional evidence that analysis of
this computer by both Mr. Hakimian and Mr. Fellows revealed. Just before 5:39:52 p.m. the
Adobe Reader program started to read a PDF document at 5:28 p.m. and at 5:38 p.m. a web
browser (like Internet Explorer) called FireFox was started (starting both programs obviously
requiring human interaction); and that at the time the computer was initially examined and
unplugged by Mr. Hakimian both the PDF document and browser were closed. However, both
Mr. Hakimian and Mr. Walker, as I understood their evidence, agreed with Defence counsel
that simply reading and/or closing a PDF document, without more, would not leave an
electronic trace as to the time it was closed. As for the FireFox browser, although both
witnesses were more guarded about whether closing such a program would leave an electronic
trace as to time of closing, neither was aware of any way to determine when that would have
occurred. Mr. Fellows’s evidence was more definitive. In his opinion, the closing of either or
both would not and did not leave a trace. He testified that the most the examination can say is
that the PDF document and web browser were closed at some point before the screen shot you
see in photograph 15 of Exhibit P-21 was taken by the RCMP.

97

 This is all to say, that in light of this additional evidence it might be more accurate when
considering when Richard Oland actually stopped interacting with his computer to start with
placing a qualification on Mr. Hakimian’s specific opinion – the qualification being that the time
of last human activity on Richard Oland’s computer of 5:39:52 p.m. was the last apparent time
of human activity on the computer; or, as Mr. Fellows put it, the last evident time of human
usage.

And from there, consider those experts’ opinions in the context of all the surrounding evidence,
not only of the evidence of the PDF document and FireFox browser having been earlier started
and the evidence that it cannot be electronically determined when the PDF document and the
browser program were closed. I say that because you might want to consider Mr. Hakimian’s
additional evidence that the work on Richard Oland’s computer he did observe for the
afternoon of July 6th was contiguous (continuous) up until 5:39:52 p.m. Mr. Fellows agreed that
this is what it appeared to him too. And, as well, consider the program Mr. Hakimian observed
open on Richard Oland’s computer before he unplugged it. This computer had a “Microsoft
Windows 7 Professional” operating system. The screen shot Mr. Hakimian took of that
computer, as I pointed out, is shown in photo #15 of Exhibit P-21. You saw that the program
Microsoft Outlook – E-mail is on the screen.

According to Mr. Hakimian it had lost connectivity to the mail server, and that is the reason
there was a prompt for username and password overlaid on the screen. He also said that if the
computer monitor was already in sleep mode the prompt message would not have reactivated
the screen. Why connectivity to the mail server was lost Mr. Hakimian could not say, but he
said it is not an uncommon occurrence. As you also saw on that screen shot there were folders
displayed on the left side of the screen, folders which categorized various e-mails, and the
computer was connected to the folder entitled: “2aaaa 2011 race program”. Keep in mind that
98

 Mr. Fellows testified that the most that he can say from the analysis of PE-6 is that the PDF
document opened by the Adobe Reader program and the website opened by the FireFox
browser closed at some point before the screen shot was taken.

And, with that evidence, you might want to consider what Dennis Oland said during his police
interview as to what he saw his father doing vis a vis the computer when he arrived at the
office. You will recall that Dennis told Cst. Davidson that: “When Maureen was there, he was
checking his e-mails … because he was trying to get her to do something about an appointment
or something like that. And he was checking his e-mails but after that … I don’t think he
touched his computer at all … but I don’t … I don’t remember. I don’t remember … I mean, he
always on his phone, always talking on his phone, but can’t remember … imagine why he’d be
texting if he had his e-mail open in front of him”. In other words, is that some evidence tending
to show that the PDF document and the browser had already been closed, at least by the time
Dennis observed his father’s computer?

The simple point being made is to consider all of the evidence in deciding how much or how
little the evidence of the last apparent time of human interaction on Richard Oland’s computer
assists you in trying to determine the last actual time of human interaction on the computer on
July 6th, 2011.

But, in addition to considering what the last actual time of human interaction was on the
computer identified as PE-6 on July 6th, you also need to consider any evidence of Richard
Oland’s pattern or routine in using the computer identified as PE-6 or the computers identified
as PE-7 and PE-8 on previous days. Remember, the whole point of this computer evidence is
directed at trying to determine when Richard Oland stopped interacting with his computers and
why he did not return to interacting with his computers. Hence, the relevance of any evidence

99

 that might show Richard Oland’s historic pattern or routine as to when he would normally stop
using his office computers.

Recall that Mr. Hakimian could not say whether 5:39:52 p.m. on PE-6 is consistent with other
days that Richard Oland would stop working on his computer because Mr. Hakimian had not
looked at other days and had not been asked to look at other days. This evidence was provided
by the Defence expert, Mr. Fellows. I expect you will find him to be a highly qualified forensic
computer analyst.

He examined PE-6, PE-7 and PE-8 for June 17th, 16th, 15th, 14th, and 13th. Recall Ms. Adamson
had said that this was the last full week her employer had been in his office prior to July 6 th. Mr.
Fellows explained that it can be difficult to reconstruct historic usage of a computer,
particularly the more it has been used after the dates of interest. Recall the analogy he drew to
the contrail of an airplane, the farther back the more detail that is lost. As I understood, in the
case of computers the more they are used the more the data is changed because the data is
constantly being overwritten and replaced. As a consequence, the evidence of historic usage of
a computer should be treated with great caution.

Regarding the analysis he conducted for the dates noted, Mr. Fellows could not say it is a true
reflection of those days. Rather, he said it was his best summary based on the partial and
incomplete information found. In his opinion the analysis revealed that the last known human
usages of the computers were:
For PE-6 – on June 17 (no later than 5 p.m.); on June 16 (5:44 p.m.); on June 15 (3:18
p.m.); on June 14 (4:02 p.m.); on June 13 (no user activity);
For PE-7 – on June 17 (no user activity); on June 16 (4:00 p.m.); on June 15 (3:05 p.m.);
on June 14 (9:00 a.m.); on June 13 (6:00-6:30 p.m.);
100

 For PE-8 – on June 17 (5:05 p.m.); on June 16 (11:30 a.m.); on June 15 (4:35 p.m. or a
little later); on June 14 (5:00 p.m.); on June 13 (no user activity detected)

As I said, consider all the evidence in trying to find what was the last actual time of human
interaction on Richard Oland’s main computer PE-6 on July 6th. And, it is entirely for you how
much or how little that time assists you in your deliberations.

Section 13
I return to Ms. Adamson’s testimony. Recall that she said she left the office at 5:45 p.m., (which
she pegged because of a document she printed out just before she left). She testified that on
her way out of the office she checked the back door to the alleyway on the 2 nd floor and
ensured that it was locked. She also testified that she didn’t bother checking if the empty office
next door was locked because at that time there was work being done in there. But, you may
also recall that John Ainsworth, when he testified, said that work was not being done in there at
that time.

As you know, Ms. Adamson discovered her employer’s body the next morning. She had testified
that the office routine was that the last to leave would lock up. She testified that on the
morning of July 7th the street level door was closed but unlocked and she had only to push it
open. This was not surprising to her as it had happened before, for various reasons she gave.
The evidence of Preston Chiasson was that he had gone through that street level door to access
the back entrance into the office of Printing Plus earlier that morning, had found that street
level door unlocked, which he said was “not common but it has happened”. Recall that neither
John Ainsworth nor Anthony Shaw had checked that door before they left Printing Plus around
9:00 p.m. the evening before. As Mr. Ainsworth explained, it would not have made much sense

101

 to do so because although he did not hear a band that night, there could have been people up
there.

The 2nd floor door at the top of the stairs, however, according to Ms. Adamson, was out of the
ordinary in that it was closed but not shut tight and was not locked. Recalled she grumbled to
herself about that. She also smelled what she described as a “vile odor”. The door to the Far
End Corporation office itself was closed but she doesn’t know if it was locked because out of
habit she put her key into the lock. She went in and set the coffee she was carrying at the end
of the conference table in the middle of the room as seen in the photos, walked to the left side
of the conference table and then saw two legs. She immediately went back downstairs and
obtained the help of Preston Chiasson who was in the Printing Plus office on the first floor and
they both went back to the Far End Corporation Office.

When asked, she said she did not touch her lamp on her desk and does not recall switching the
office lights. She remembers the AC was running (which was unusual) and it was cool in the
room. She did not see Mr. Chiasson touch anything and she pointed on a sketch (Exhibit P-6) as
to where she had stood and where Mr. Chaisson had stood. Mr. Chiasson said he went into the
office on the right side of the table in the middle of the room and approached. Where he
stopped to view the body he marked PC with a circle on Exhibit P-10, around where the yellow
cords are seen in Exhibit P-5, photos 44, 55, and 63. There is also a remote control seen on the
floor in this area. Ms. Adamson testified that this was normally on her employer’s desk. After
Mr. Chiasson made his observations of the body, he said he then carefully backed out of the
room. His evidence is that he did not touch anything in the office either.

102

 Section 14
Within a week after her employer was found dead, Ms. Adamson was asked by Sgt Brooker to
come to the Far End Corporation office to see if anything was out of place or missing. She
testified that she did not notice anything out of place or missing. Recall Ms. Adamson’s testified
her employer was a “techie” and had a lot of gadgets, and you would recall, for example, her
evidence about the number of monitors he had on his desk and used at the same time and of
the cameras found. You have seen and heard about the kinds of technology Richard Oland had
and the uses he put it to from other witnesses as well, including Mr. McFadden.

Ms. Adamson testified that she never saw her employer’s cell phone after his death. Neither
did Mr. McFadden. And, you know that Richard Oland never responded to text messages or
phone calls the evening of July 6th. And, of course, there are only three possible answers open
to you as to why Richard Oland did not respond at the various times that evening – he chose
not; he could not; or he was dead. And, you know his IPhone 4 has never been found. And, it is
reasonably open to you to infer that whoever attacked Richard Oland took his IPhone, for
whatever reason.

Obviously then, evidence relevant to when and why Richard was not responding to text
messages or answering phone calls the evening of July 6th, and where his phone might have
been the evening of July 6th and at any time after, is evidence you may consider on the issue of
the identity of the attacker or attackers. I will now review some of that evidence as I
understood it. Later on I will try to assist you in assessing the significance of this evidence by
raising some questions for your consideration.

Now to the cell phone evidence:

103

 You will recall the computer specialists, Mr. Hakimian’s and Mr. Walker’s, evidence; that based
on their analysis of Richard Oland’s main computer, an IPhone had been connected to that
computer the afternoon of July 6th, the IPhone having been backed up onto the computer and
that the backup had been completed at 4:41 p.m. that afternoon. Mr. McFadden had testified it
was he who set it up so Richard could back up his IPhone on to his computer. Mr. Hakimian was
able to discover from his analysis that it’s so-called “friendly name” was “RHO IPhone” (recall
the deceased’s full name was Richard Henry Oland) and that it had a unique IMEI identifier
number. Mr. Walker, you will recall, did additional research and analysis and determined that
the IPhone had actually connected and disconnected to the computer four (4) times that
afternoon, the last connection at 4:35:41 p.m., and that the last written backup was at 4:41:26
p.m. and that the IPhone was unplugged from the computer (i.e. from the USB cord connected
to the computer) at 4:44:10 p.m. And, you know from other evidence that it was an I-Phone 4
and that the service provider for this phone was Rogers Communication and that it had the
assigned phone number – (506-721-2378). In other words, the evidence is that this was
Richard’s I-Phone.

As far as Ms. Adamson was concerned her employer had his IPhone with him all the time and
that it would be unlike him not to answer it. She said he generally answered his I-Phone when
she called him and that she knew that if he didn’t answer he would often return her call
because of call display on his phone. She did not know if he screened calls to his IPhone. She
said that if she was trying to reach him her first way would be by calling his IPhone; if he didn’t
answer she would text his IPhone; and if he didn’t respond she would call his home. She also
explained that her employer regularly would receive calls on his IPhone while he was in his
office; as she said, others had his number.

You may recall that in Dennis Oland’s statement to the police he said his father was always on
the phone. As well, Mr. McFadden said that Richard Oland was generally attached to it; that it
was either in his pants or jacket or beside him. But, Mr. McFadden also testified that he
104

 noticed, when it came to himself, in the period leading up to July 2011 that there was a
departure in how Richard Oland used his phone in that he was not answering it right away.

When Ms. Sedlacek testified she did not give evidence as to any routine or pattern between
herself and Richard when it came to phone calls and text messages, other than to say that she
had to respond within a period of time. You know that they were having an illicit affair that
Richard was making some effort to hide. And there is evidence that at least shortly before July
6th Richard was not responding promptly to Ms. Sedlacek, at least as promptly she appears to
have hoped. I am referring here to Exhibits D-24; D-25 and D-26A. Recall that these were
extracts from the IPhone backup that were introduced through Neil Walker, the RCMP
computer specialist.

Exhibit D-24, shows certain contact information for Diana Sedlacek and a picture of three men
(apparently known to Richard Oland) in a bar. As I understood, if any of Diana Sedlacek’s
contact names (and the associated phone number) triggered Richard Oland’s IPhone that
picture of the three men would appear on his IPhone. The explanation for that I think is pretty
obvious to you without being told.

Exhibit D-25 is a so-called selfie picture of Ms. Sedalcek sent by her to Richard Oland’s IPhone
on June 26th, 2011 along with a text message asking that he send her a picture, which it does
not appear he did. You might infer from the text message and other evidence that this was sent
around the time he was leaving on his fishing trip to the Miramichi.

Exhibit D-26A comprises 4 pages. It was described as a merger of the call log and text log
recovered from the backup of Richard Oland’s IPhone for the period July 4, 2011 starting at
11:20 in the morning up to 1:57 the afternoon of July 6th. It therefore also incorporates the text
105

 messages seen in Exhibit P-27. Exhibit D-26A starts on July 4th, which you might infer from the
text messages and the other evidence was around the time Richard Oland was returning from
or had returned from his fishing trip. Defence counsel’s purpose for this evidence, you will
recall, was to show, given the evident long periods of time between Ms. Sedlacek’s texts and
voice messages and Richard Oland’s replies, that he did not always promptly respond to her (at
least by his IPhone), no matter how insistent she might be.

Sylvie Gill is an investigator for Rogers Communication. She introduced exhibits that you will be
able to study in the jury room if you find it necessary. They include the Call Detail Record (CDR)
for Richard Oland’s Cell Phone (Exhibit P-129); Rogers’ Communication Invoice dated July 24,
2011 (Exhibit P-132), which includes charges for Richard Oland’s cell phone and charges for a
separate data plan only (identified by the phone number 506-639-0958) for a device that from
Mr. McFadden’s evidence I believe is related to Richard Oland’s sailing boat; and part of a
record retrieved from a Roger’s program known by the acronym NICE (Exhibit D-73). I remind
you that when reading the Call Detail Record, anytime you see the letters QUUMSCO under the
column “Switch”, this refers to the Quebec Switch and that therefore any corresponding times
for a referenced call or text message must have one (1) hour added to match up to New
Brunswick time.

According to Ms. Gill, those records reveal that the last outgoing call from Richard Oland’s
IPhone was at 10:02 a.m. on July 6th registering on the Fairvale cellular tower in Rothesay
(which Rogers tower is identified as SJFVUO); that the last text message sent from the phone
was, as I mentioned earlier, at 12:01 p.m. on July 6th registering on the cellular tower at One
Brunswick Square (which Rogers tower is identified as SJUU3); and that the last communication
the IPhone received was an incoming text message at 6:44:32 p.m. on July 6 th registering on the
Fairvale cellular tower in Rothesay (SJFVUO). And you know from Diana Sedlacek’s evidence,
and Exhibit P-128 taken directly from her own phone’s data storage, that this last received text

106

 message was sent by her from her home on Darling’s Island to Richard Oland with the words:
“U there??”, and that she never received a reply or answer.

Ms. Sedlacek also testified that between that text message and the next one she sent at 7:19
p.m., she made calls to Richard’s cell phone; she did not remember how many calls she made,
but he never answered her calls. She said the phone immediately went to voice mail. This too
appears to have been confirmed by Ms. Gill testimony and by Exhibit P-129, the CDR for
Richard’s phone. This shows that Ms. Sedlacek’s phone made 5 intervening calls – at 6:46:27,
6:46:34, 6:5039, 6:58:54; 7:14:30, and 7:16:03 p.m., according to her, all going directly to voice
mail. You have also heard and seen that 2 phones calls that morning and 1 in the early
afternoon to Richard’s IPhone went to voice mail. There is no evidence as to whether or not
those 3 calls went directly to voice mail.

I interject here some of the evidence of Cst Stephen Davidson. Remember that on March 29,
2012 he tested an IPhone 4 in its different statuses or modes. That is:
He called the IPhone when the phone was fully on and the screen lit up. He testified that
the phone rang 4 times and then went to voice mail;
He also called the phone when the screen was not visible but the phone was not fully
powered down. He testified that the IPhone rang, the screen lit up displaying the
incoming call, and that after 4 rings went to voice mail;
He also called the IPhone when it was fully powered down (i.e. shut off completely). The
two calls he made went immediately to voice mail.

I come back to Ms. Sedalcek’s evidence. Because Richard was not answering his phone and the
calls were going immediately to voice mail, she texted him again, with the following message at
7:19 p.m., as seen in Exhibit P-128 as follows:

107

 You’ve turned your phone off!! Why!!!!!!?????? Your not at office & don’t tell me U hav
a “Bus” mtg cause U don’t – So tell the fucking truth!!! Cause I’m sitting here not doing
suspicious things & I hav a lot if men who would live 2 b with me!!!!!! Do stop this
fucking around! And answer the damn phone! I wil call at your house

However, Sylvie Gill explained that according to the Call Detail Record, Richard Oland’s IPhone
did not receive this message, at least on July 6th and 7th, the period covered by the CDR. Ms. Gill
did say that the system would continue to try to send the message for 3 days.

Diana Sedlacek testified she did not make any more calls until she sent another text message
later that evening at 11:12 p.m., with only the one word message – Pathetic! However, the CDR
for Richard’s phone shows that her phone did make six (6) more calls between 7:19 P.M. and
when she sent the text message at 11:12 p.m. The evidence is that those phones calls also all
went to voice mail and that the 11:12 p.m. text message was also not delivered to Richard
Oland’s IPhone.

Ms. Sedlacek was asked if she also called Richard’s office the evening of July 6 th. She said: “I
don’t recall calling the office” and said that she was: “fairly positive that she didn’t”. However,
you would have noted that in her 7:19 p.m. text message she wrote: “your not at office …” You
might ask yourselves why she would say that in the message if she had not called the office by
then. And she did have his office number, which according to both Ms. Sedlacek and Maureen
Adamson was 506-642-4300. This, of course, is my own observation. However, it is confirmed
by the CDR for Ms. Sedlacek’s phone, Exhibit P-131. In that exhibit you will note a call made
from Ms. Sedlacek’s cell phone to the Far End Corporation office number on July 6 th at 6:49:54
p.m.

108

 Ms. Gil’s evidence was that if there is a connection made to a land line phone there will be a
duration recorded (and in this case the duration of that call is shown as 3 seconds), but the CDR
does not tell you if it was a completed call or voice mail answering or an automatic response.
This will be for you to decide. That Ms. Sedlacek actually might have called Richard’s office,
even though she did not believe she did, is also for you to determine, as would be the
significance of any such finding in considering the overall question of why Richard Oland was
not responding to her.

Ms. Sedlacek testified that the next morning she called Richard Oland’s cell phone and it was, as
she described it, “dead – nothing”. The CDR for Richard’s phone shows that a text message sent
by Ms. Sedlachek the next morning was not received and phone calls she made went to voice
mail.

The additional evidence is that on the afternoon of July 9 th, Rogers Communication, at the
request of Sgt Brooker of the Saint John police, employed the NICE program to attempt to find
the real-time geographical location of Richard Oland’s IPhone. This is done, as I understood, by
forcing the phone to register on (i.e. to ping off) a cellular tower. Rogers Communication could
not locate the phone because the Rogers analyst received the response code “Roaming Error”,
which, according to the Agreed Statement of Facts in evidence as Exhibit D-74, means that
either “the phone was registered on a foreign network (in which Rogers does not have a
roaming agreement)” or “the phone location cannot be obtained from the Rogers network for
some unspecified reason” or that “Rogers has no indication where on the network to reach out
to in order to request the location of the device as the record of the device’s location has been
purged from the network databases due to a period of inactivity (i.e. no calls, SMS’s or data
access)”.

109

 The evidence from Ms. Gill is also that if the NICE program cannot locate a phone there are
other response code messages that could have been received instead of “roaming error”. One
is “unknown subscriber” and the other is “absent subscriber”. The term “absent subscriber”
according to the Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit D-74) “could mean that Rogers has an
indication where on the network to reach out to in order to request the location of the device
but the device is currently not reachable (off, out coverage, unregistered)”. To be clear, neither
of those message codes came up when Rogers tried to locate the phone on July 9 th.

As I mentioned before, the last outgoing text message from Richard Oland’s IPhone was sent to
Ms. Sedlacek on July 6th at 12:01 p.m. and the last text message received by his IPhone was at
6:44 p.m. that evening sent by Ms. Sedlacek. The outgoing message at 12:01 p.m. pinged off
the Rogers tower at One Brunswick Square in uptown Saint John, a short distance from the
office of Far End Corporation. The last incoming message pinged of the Fairvale tower in
Rothesay some distance from the Far End Corporation office in uptown Saint John. Given the
evidence of Ms. Adamson and Mr. McFadden, it is reasonably open to you to find that the last
outgoing message at just past 12 noon on July 6th was sent by Richard Oland from his Far End
Corporation Office on the second floor of the building at 52 Canterbury Street.

However, where Richard Oland’s IPhone was when the last incoming text message was received
at 6:44 p.m. is a serious point of contention between the Crown and the Defence.

Joseph Sadoun is a Radio Frequency engineer declared qualified to give opinion in regard to the
relationship of cell phones and cell phone towers. I will try to summarize his evidence.

Mr. Sadoun explained that in his field the general rule is that a cell phone (in sending or
receiving a call or text message) will connect to the tower emitting the strongest signal, which
110

 generally would be the tower closest to the cellphone. It is only a general rule because the
signal (i.e. the electromagnetic waves) can reflect or refract, or fade, or be blocked depending
on environmental factors such as terrain and land use clutter or because a tower has reached
its handling capacity.

You have concrete examples of the application of the general rule and the existence of
exceptions to the general rule found in the Test Calls Report seen at Slide 21 in Exhibit P-135.
Recall Cst Davidson obtained from Hughes Communication an I-Phone 4. He made a series of
calls at different locations, both in “uptown” Saint John and at locations out to and in Rothesay
from the IPhone-4 to a land line phone inside the police station. The purpose was to determine
what cellular towers the IPhone would communicate with from the different locations when
the calls were made. The record of those calls, made in March 2012, is set out in Exhibit P-80, as
amended by Exhibit P-80A. In the uptown Saint John locations, Cst. Davidson made those calls
standing up outside. The others were made from inside his vehicle.

Cst. Davidson acknowledged that he did not consult with an expert before he made those calls,
nor did he make any calls from the office of Far End Corporation and that he did not test for
incoming text messages to the IPhone, and did not make any calls around 6:30 p.m. in the
evening or near the anniversary of Richard Oland’s death. In any event, recall that at some
locations certain of the calls made did not ping off the towers projected by the software
program Planet E/V used by Mr. Sadoun. And, at two locations none of the calls made
connected to the expected towers.

Mr. Sadoun also used the Planet E/V software program to predict the best server coverage area
of certain towers, including the One Brunswick Square tower in uptown Saint John and the
Fairvale tower in Rothesay. This resulted in the production of what is called a propagation map
or maps, the colours signifying the predicted best server coverage area of a tower; the Fairvale
111

 omnidirectional tower predicted best server coverage area, for example, being shown in pink.
You will see those maps at Slides 14 to 20 of Exhibit P-135. Recall that in order to generate
these maps a broad array of information must be collected and inputted into the software
program. This information includes the precise location of the cell towers and a myriad of
technical parameters, including antenna type, height, azimuth, tilt and emitted radiated power,
along with the terrain and land use clutter data bases for the areas in question, and the
frequency of bandwidth and the coverage of neighbouring cell tower sites.

I would caution you, however, against overreliance on the propagation maps produced when
considering where Richard Oland’s IPhone was during the evening of July 6 th. I do so for three
reasons. First, the evidence is that those maps are only predictions of the best server coverage
area; not the location of a particular cell phone that has connected to a specific tower.
Remember that although a cell phone will connect with the strongest signal, which is generally
the closest tower, it is only a general rule for the many reasons I have mentioned and as the
test calls performed by the Saint John police illustrate. Second, recall Mr. Sadoun agreed with
Defence counsel that one of the fundamental assumptions of the propagation maps before you
is that a phone would be at 1.5 metres, not at a higher elevation such on a second floor of a
building. And third, there are no drive test data from Rogers Communication for the towers in
question, which, if that data was available, might be some additional evidence of the
predictability of a cell phone connecting to certain towers from different locations.

However, Mr. Sadoun also testified that cellular towers form part of a network of towers that
work together to provide service coverage for devices. He explained that in the periphery of a
particular tower there will be a programmed neighbour list of towers to which a cell phone can
be handed off to, if, for examples, the tower has reached or is reaching capacity or if the cell
phone is moving from one tower’s coverage area to another. This permits a cell phone to
continually look for a stronger signal; quality of service, not cell phone location tracking, being
what telecommunication companies such as Rogers Communications is providing. He said,
112

 though, that he had not actually seen the neighbour list for the Fairvale tower for July 2011.
And, he said that the Fairvale tower had sufficient power to reach out 25 k/m. However, he
qualified that distance by saying over a flat terrain.

Mr. Sadoun was asked his opinion of the likelihood of a cell phone that has communicated with
the Fairvale tower in Rothesay being located in the downtown Saint John area. He testified
there would be minimal likelihood; that “it would not be a good chance” a cell phone in Saint
John would be serviced by the Fairvale tower. The reason he gave was that there were a
number of other tower sites between the Brunswick Square tower in Saint John and the
Fairvale tower that would offer better coverage. He explained that if you are trying to cover
Saint John with cellular service the 2nd best sites would be the four he circled on Exhibit P-137.

In assessing this opinion, you should keep in mind that Mr. Sadoun did not say if his opinion
would be the same or different if a cell phone was at a higher elevation, such as the second
floor of a building in Saint John. And, he agreed that the most accurate way to have determined
what cell tower a cell phone would connect with in receiving text messages would be to go the
exact location where the phone had received a message and have messages sent to it at that
location over a number of days around the same time and date. As you know, this was not done
here.

On the other hand, in considering Mr. Sadoun’s opinion you should also consider the Call Detail
Record (CDR) evidence, if you so find, that 5 transmissions to and from Richard Oland’s IPhone
while it was on the second floor office of Printing Plus between noon and 2:00 p.m. that day did
connect with the Brunswick House tower, which is very close by; that there are other cell
towers between Saint John and the one in Rothesay; and that a cell phone will connect to the
tower emitting the strongest signal to the phone, which is generally (but not always) the closest
tower.
113

 Like for any witness, you can accept all, some, or none of Mr. Sadoun’s evidence and the weight
you place on his opinions is entirely for you.

This then has been a review of some of the evidence regarding Richard Oland’s IPhone 4. To
repeat - as to when and why the IPhone was not answering or responding in that period of time
and where it might have been in that period of time is relevant evidence for you to consider on
the issue of the identity of the attacker or attackers of Richard Oland. As I said, I will address
this again later.

Section 15
I move on to other evidence:

Recall that Maureen Adamson worked for Richard Oland for a very long time and that it
appears he relied heavily upon her. If you accept her evidence that nothing was missing or out
of place in the office (and you will note in particular the evidence that Richard Oland’s Rolex
watch, wallet, car keys for his BMW, an envelope with cash for the gardener, an IPad, and
digital cameras were not taken and you would have observed that there does not appear to be
any extraneous damage done to the office), you may take this evidence into account in
determining whether or not the killing was motivated by or arose out of an incidental crime,
such as robbery, theft, etc., at least an explicable crime, because Richard Oland’s cell phone is
still missing. That is for you to decide. And you should also consider the severity of the injuries
inflicted on Richard Oland, which I reviewed with you at the outset.

114

 I refer you to this evidence because the manner of Richard Oland’s death and whether or not
there was an obvious incidental crime purpose for the attack, could be relevant on the issue of
identity, in that this evidence together may lead you to infer that this was not a random killing
and that the killer or killers was or were in a state of rage at the time of the attack. However,
that is entirely up to you to consider. You may find other explanations.

More, of course, should be considered. Recall again the nature of the injuries suffered by
Richard Oland and the pathologist’s opinion of what caused them. No instrument or
instruments that could have inflicted the injuries on Richard Oland was found inside the office
of Far End Corporation or on the premises of 52 Canterbury Street. Further, the evidence is that
searches conducted by the police immediately outside and relatively close to and surrounding
52 Canterbury Street found nothing connected to the crime scene.

You will most probably conclude, then, that whatever was used to strike the blows to Richard
Oland was not from the office but was brought into the office by the killer or killers and then
taken away from the office by the killer or killers. And, you might reasonably infer that the
attacker or attackers and the instrument or instruments used to inflict the injuries would have
most probably been spattered and/or stained to some extent or extents with Richard Oland’s
blood. To what extent or extents is, of course, for you to assess. Recall that I reviewed that
evidence in some detail with you earlier.

In all these regards, in helping you decide whether the Crown has proven beyond any
reasonable doubt that Dennis Oland is the one who killed Richard Oland, logically you should
also consider and common sense assess the significance of the absence of physical evidence
connecting Dennis Oland to the crime scene and consider and common sense assess the
significance of any physical evidence that might connect Dennis Oland to the crime scene.

115

 Recall that the police made a thorough examination of Richard Oland’s body (which I reviewed
with you before). Recall, as well, that the evidence is that the police also conducted extensive
searches and examinations inside and outside 52 Canterbury Street. And recall the police
arranged for two different diver searches that were performed at different times off the
Renforth Wharf and the nearby rowing club and a divers search at the yacht club in
Millidgeville. And, recall an extensive examination and search was made of a boat there called
the Loki. Also recall that the police performed a number of land searches around the Bill
McGuire Centre in Rothesay. They also made an extensive search and examination of Dennis
Oland’s Volkswagen Golf and its contents (which I reviewed with you before). The police also
conducted an extensive search of Dennis Oland’s home and property. Recall that approximately
30 officers were involved in that search. And, you know that certain of his clothing and shoes
were seized and extensively examined (which I also reviewed with you before).

In these regards I direct you to the evidence of S/Sgt King, Sgt Smith, Cst Davidson, Cst. Horgan
(the dog master), Cst Coughlan, Cst Russell, Sgt Henderson, Cst Macdonald and Sgt Wentzell to
name some of the police officers who gave evidence on the extent of the searches and
examinations conducted. I see no need to detail this evidence with you as I expect you will
conclude that the searches and examinations were extensive and thorough. But, again, that
assessment is for you.

And, you will recall that there was also a trace examination conducted by Cst. Macdonald of
Dennis Oland’s Blackberry Cell Phone, in particular the number keys, the battery housing and
the battery, all with negative results. Information was also recovered from the cell phone by
the computer experts, as well as from three computers seized from Dennis Oland’s residence a Dell Desktop (RCMP identification number PE 13); a Toshiba Desktop (PE 14) and a Brown
Toshiba Desktop (PE 17). Recall that Mr. Hakimian was asked by the Saint John Police to search
116

 for documents and pictures in those computers; specifically, e-mails, web history (including
internet searches), last usage data, personal files and folders, including pictures but excluding
music.

Mr. Hakimian recovered the information requested from that cell phone and those
computers and did what Mr. Gold referred to as a “data dump” for use by the Saint John Police
in their investigation. And, you will recall that over a period between October, 2012 and
January 2013 Cst. Shawn Coughlan searched through 100’s of papers seized from Dennis
Oland’s home and also reviewed all the information that had been downloaded from his
Blackberry phone and those 3 computers.

And further, recall that Payman Hakimian and Neil Walker testified that Richard Oland’s
IPhone had been connected the afternoon of July 6 th to Richard Oland’s main computer and
was disconnected from the computer at 4:44:10 p.m. And you will recall that the IPhone had
been backed up on to the computer, which back-up finished at 4:41 p.m. that day. You will
remember that Mr. Walker did a “data dump” of the backup of that IPhone and provided that
to the Saint John Police for examination as well.

From all the forgoing searches and examinations, I expect you will find that:
i.

There is no physical evidence that connects Dennis Oland, or anyone else for that
matter, to anything found on the clothes Richard Oland was wearing or anything
that was found on Richard Oland’s body;

ii.

There is no physical evidence that connects Dennis Oland to any weapon or
weapons or object or objects that could have been used as a weapon or weapons to

117

 inflict the injuries suffered by Richard Oland (including a dry-wall hammer, although,
as I directed you, there is no evidence that a dry-wall hammer inflicted the injuries);
iii.

There is no physical evidence from the exterior or interior of his Volkswagen vehicle
or of its contents that connects Dennis Oland to the bloody crime scene;

iv.

There is no physical evidence from the grocery bag (similar in appearance to the one
Bill Adamson saw and you might see in the Thandi Restaurant video) which was
found inside Dennis Oland’s vehicle that connects that bag to the bloody crime
scene or connects it to any weapon or weapons having been exposed to it and/or
transported in it from the crime scene;

v.

There is no information from the back up of Richard Oland’s IPhone that evidenced
any animosity between father and son or any concerns expressed or disparaging
comments made by Richard Oland about his son or by Dennis Oland to his father;

vi.

There is no information from the papers and computers from Dennis Oland’s home
or his Blackberry phone that evidenced an intention by Dennis Oland to commit a
crime or evidenced a crime already committed by him;

vii.

There is no physical evidence from Dennis Oland’s shoes seized from his home, in
particular from the shoes shown in Exhibit D-38, photo #4;

viii.

There is no physical evidence that indirectly connects Dennis Oland to the bloody
crime scene from an article of clothing (i.e. grey coloured shorts and shirt) Dennis
Oland appears to have changed into after arriving home from his father’s office that
evening, as seen in the Cochrane Market, Guardian Drug store and Marr Road Irving
videos, if you find those are the same shorts and shirt he is seen wearing in those
videos;

118

 ix.

There is no physical evidence from a dress shirt similar to the one described by
Dennis Oland in his video statement and Dennis Oland testified to as has having
been worn by him at this father’s office that connects Dennis Oland to the bloody
crime scene; if you find it is the same shirt he was wearing at his father’s office as
seen in the Brunswick House videos. Except, you should also take into consideration
the evidence that this shirt was laundered after Richard Oland’s body was found and
the evidence associated to that laundering, which I have previously reviewed with
you.

But, as well, if you find that the since dry-cleaned brown sports jacket (Exhibit P-33) seized from
Dennis Oland’s home had also been worn by him that evening while he was at his father’s
office, you should also take into consideration and common sense assess the evidence of what
was found on that jacket and assess the significance of that evidence. You might want to take
into consideration, for example, the size and extent of the staining, their locations on the
jacket, what biological material was found at those locations, the results of the DNA testing
performed; and take into consideration any possible explanations you find in the evidence for it
all. I have previously reviewed this evidence with you at considerable length and see no need to
repeat it.

In the context of all the evidence in the case, what you find as facts from the evidence I have
just reviewed and the significance you place on your findings in helping you decide whether the
Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Dennis Oland who killed his father, is
entirely for you.

Section 16
I will now move to other evidence:
119

 As you know, considerable focus has been on the exit to the alleyway door on the 2nd floor;
more specifically, whether it was locked or not the morning of July 7 th. As you also know, that
door was not examined by Sgt Smith. Indeed, it was not even photographed by him at the time.
And, you know that RCMP Sgt Brian Wentzell was not asked to examine it.

The relevance of the evidence regarding the exit door, of course, is that it would be the most
direct and surreptitious way off the 2nd floor and out of the building for anyone who had just
killed Richard Oland, if, of course, that person or persons was actually aware of or had the
presence of mind to take note of the door and exit sign over it at some time before or
immediately after the killing. And, you have evidence of possible routes of access to streets
away from 52 Canterbury St. out of that back alleyway. That too will be for you to assess.
Recall, the evidence of John Ainsworth and Cst. Michael Horgan, among others, in these
regards.

Therefore, any finding you make of whether that door was locked or not the morning of July 7 th,
2011 may be an important piece of evidence for you to take into consideration in the context of
the evidence in the case as a whole in determining if the Crown has proven beyond any
reasonable doubt that it was Dennis Oland who killed Richard Oland.

On this, you know that the Defence has directly challenged the credibility of Cst. Stephen
Davidson’s testimony that the exit door was locked the morning of July 7 th. I will try to assist
you in your consideration of the question of that exit door by refreshing your memory of some
of the evidence pertaining to it. This evidence necessarily includes the various comings and
goings at the crime scene upon discovery of the body; too many comings and goings at a
homicide scene you may justifiably think.
120

 Sgt Smith gave evidence as to photographs he took this past summer of the inside and outside
of the 2nd floor exit door at 52 Canterbury Street (Exhibit P-5, Photos 98- 118). He took
measurements of the steps outside and the distance from the threshold of the door to the
ground in the alleyway. John Ainsworth, the building owner, testified that other than painting
the door nothing has changed regarding it since he purchased the building in 1999 - neither the
exit sign over the door on the inside nor the door handle on the inside nor the lock nor the
steps leading down to the outside.

Mr. Ainsworth explained that that door has a deadbolt operated from the inside and requires a
key to unlock from the outside. He was not sure he had given Far End Corporation a key for that
door. He had not given one to the earlier occupiers of the other office suite. Maureen Adamson
testified she never had one.

Mr. Ainsworth testified that the exit door has no outside handle. And, he agreed with Defence
counsel that anyone could exit that doorway by simply using the deadbolt and could close the
door from the outside by pulling on the side of the door. His only qualification was that this
assumed the door would remain closed that way. However, recall that Robert McFadden had
tested that door sometime last year at the request of the Defence and confirmed that the door
would remain closed that way.

Mr. Ainsworth also testified that he has done nothing to the exterior exit door steps seen in the
photographs since he bought the building. He did explain, though, that because the building is
on its own footprint, (i.e. there is no other land with it), the steps are steeper than normal so as
to accommodate the space limitation. As an aside, Mr. Ainsworth gave evidence that there was

121

 construction in the alleyway this past summer and the bricks you see outside the door in Exhibit
P-5 Photo #102 were not there in July 2011.

Robert McFadden testified that the steps seen leading outside from the exit door to the
alleyway were the same ones he had used prior to July 6 th, 2011 and that he had no difficulty
walking down or up those stairs.

Recall that Maureen Adamson said she checked to make sure that exit door was locked when
she left the office the evening of July 6th. There is no evidence she checked the exit door or
that Preston Chiasson took note of the exit door the next morning. Recall as well, though, that
when she arrived back the next morning the door at the top of the stairs leading into the 2 nd
floor (which was not locked) although closed, was not shut tight. Recall she grumbled to herself
about that.

Dennis Oland testified that he was aware of the back door but does not recall ever using it. He
said that it was open a lot of the times he had been to his father’s office but that it was not
open when he was there the evening of July 6th because he would have noticed if it was
because the foyer is only a small area.

As you know, police officer Squires, Shannon and cadet Fanjoy (now Cst. MacAlduff) were the
first responding police officers. The paramedics arrived minutes after. Acting Sergeant Miller
was the next to arrive. Each police officer testified as to what they observed and did after
arriving at the scene at around 9:00 a.m. the morning of July 7, 2011, including their lines of
entry into the Far End Corporation offices and their retreat out of the office after observing the
body and/or checking for any other occupants. None of them touched anything according to
their evidence.
122

 Cst. Shannon went back down to street level after he had cleared the 2 nd floor office and never
went back up to that floor the rest of the day. He also took information from potential
witnesses that morning (Ms. Adamson, Mr. Chiasson, Mr. Ainsworth, and Mr. Shaw) and passed
that along to the major crime officers, Constables Stephen Davidson and Tony Gilbert who had
arrived that morning as well. Cst. Shannon said he checked the 3rd floor of 52 Canterbury Street
also that morning on the instructions of Cst. Gilbert of major crime and found nothing. Cst.
Gilbert did not mention this in his evidence.

Cst Squires assumed responsibility for scene continuity, recording from the foyer outside the
office, the comings and goings of the various police officers, the coroner and the funeral home
personnel in and out of that office until approximately 2:35-2:45 p.m., when he then became
involved in removing Richard Oland’s body from the office. In that time frame Cst. Squires did
not recall any officer coming to the exit door on the 2 nd floor that leads to the back outside
alleyway. He testified that he doesn’t recall anyone examining that door or checking it for
fingerprints. When asked if he would have noticed if anyone had opened that door and jumped
out the door; he responded that he didn’t notice, he didn’t record it in his notebook and that he
was concentrating on the Far End Corporation Office. You may have noted that Cst. Squires
apparently did not observe then Inspector McCluskey and Cst. Oram enter into the Office of Far
End Corporation later on by themselves.

Cst Squires himself did not check the exit door nor did Cadet Fanjoy nor did Cst Shannon nor did
Acting Sergeant Miller who arrived after them. Cst Squires observed no sign of forced entry into
the foyer outside the Far End Corporation office or into the office.

123

 Recall that Cst. Davidson and Cst Gilbert were the two major crime officers who arrived at
around 9:30 that morning. Recall that of the two, Cst. Gilbert was the more experienced major
crime investigator and that Cst Davidson had just started in that position. Recall Cst Davidson
had only transferred from the RCMP plain clothes Integrated Crime Unit to the Saint John Police
plain clothes Major Crime unit on July 4th, 2011. He later became the lead investigator in the fall
of 2011 after Cst. Russell’s retirement. Recall that his practice as far as note taking went is that
he doesn’t note everything at the time, other than jotting certain notes if there is something
significant. His practice is to make a narrative report on a computer after.

Cst. Davidson testified that he and Cst. Gilbert met Cst. Shannon at the street level door of 52
Canterbury, were briefed by him, and then he and Gilbert entered the building. They met Cst.
Squires and Cadet Fanjoy on the 2nd floor in the foyer outside the Far End Corporation office.
Davidson and Gilbert then went into the office to view the body. He said he was in there for less
than a minute.

Both he and Cst. Gilbert went back out into the foyer. Cst. Davidson testified they then went to
the 3rd level. He noticed two padlocked doors and a washroom. He took a general look about.
He said he and Cst Gilbert then came back to the 2nd floor foyer.

Cst. Davidson testified that it was at this time that he noticed a back door with a dead bolt,
which he identified in the pictures as what we know is the exit to the alleyway at the rear of 52
Canterbury Street. He said he unlocked that door and looked out. He said he cannot recall if he
went out through the door into the alleyway on that day or later on July 9 th, but that he is
certain he unlocked that alleyway door the morning of July 7 th, opened it and then closed and
relocked it. He does not remember the exit sign over the door or its colour nor does he
remember seeing the engraved words that are on the locking mechanism. Recall there is
nothing in his hand written notes or anything in his later more extensive computer narrative
124

 about having checked the exit door. On the other hand, he made no note or narrative of having
checked the 3rd floor either, and Cst Gilbert confirmed that this was done by them.

Recall that the Major Crime Unit had daily briefings, at least in the early part of the
investigation, the purposes of which included the sharing of information among them in
furtherance of the investigation. The evidence is that Cst. Davidson first mentioned checking
that 2nd floor exit door at the Preliminary Inquiry held last year. And, he acknowledged in crossexamination that although he did not know where the double doors at the end of the hallway
led at that time (which we know is the entrance into the unoccupied office suite on that floor),
he did not check that door.

When he did go out the door into the alleyway, whether on July 7 th or on July 9th, Cst. Davidson
said he jumped down, about a 3 foot drop, took a general look around the alleyway, and then
boosted himself back up, which he described and demonstrated in the courtroom as using his
arms to lift himself up to go back inside through that door. During his testimony at this trial he
said, as I understood him, that he was referring to the stone ledge or step seen in the photos,
which you know, is about 2 feet below the threshold of the door. However, it was pointed out
to him that in his testimony at the Preliminary Inquiry he had given evidence that he had
jumped all the way to the ground, which you also know is about an inch shy of 6 ft. He testified
that he does not remember steps being there, which according to John Ainsworth, although
steeper than normal because of the footprint of the building, have been there unaltered since
he bought the building. When confronted about the existence of those steps Cst. Davidson said
he stands by his evidence that he jumped down and boosted himself up.

As with any witness’s evidence, if you find that a witness said something at an earlier time
different than his or her testimony at trial this is one of many factors you can take into
consideration in assessing that witness’s credibility. This is because when a witness says one
125

 thing in the witness box, but has said something you find to be quite different about the same
event or thing on an earlier occasion, your common sense tells you that the fact that the
witness has given different versions may be important in deciding whether or how much you
believe of or rely upon the witness’ testimony. Therefore, if you find that Cst Davidson gave an
earlier and a different version about his interaction with the alleyway door, you should consider
the fact, nature, and extent of any differences between the versions in deciding whether or
how much you will believe of or rely upon his testimony. You should bear in mind that not
every difference or omission will be significant. You should also take into account any
explanation he gave for any differences or omissions.

Cst. Davidson said that after he checked the exit door, Cst. Squires informed him and Cst Gilbert
that there were people for them to speak to down in the office of Printing Plus; so he and
officer Gilbert left the building. He said as they were leaving the building he saw Sgt. Smith of
the Saint John Police Identification Section arriving. All tolled he said they had been inside the
building for an hour (9:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.).

Constable Anthony Gilbert testified that when he and Cst Davidson arrived Cst Shannon was at
the street level door, and directed them to the 2nd floor. He met Cst Squires on the 2nd floor. Cst
Gilbert referred to Exhibit P-5, Photo #6 as the location where Cst Squires was when he got to
that floor, which photograph depicts the top of the stairs as you enter into the hallway/foyer
leading to the Office of Far End Corporation. Constable Squires directed them to the office. He
described his entrance into the office, with Cst Davidson following him. He testified as to his
surprise when he realized that this was a suspicious death, telling Cst Davidson: “not what we
expected”.

Cst Gilbert further testified that when they left the office and re-entered the foyer Cst. Squires
was still there, i.e. in the location shown in Exhibit P-5, Photo #6. Constable Gilbert then made a
126

 phone call to Sgt Brooker to apprise him of what they encountered. He didn’t know where Cst
Davidson was at that time. Cst Shannon came up the stairs where Cst. Squires was. Cst Shannon
told Cst Gilbert that there were witnesses down in Printing Plus. Cst. Gilbert testified that he
and Cst. Davidson then went up to the third floor level and looked around for under a minute.
He also said that after checking the 3rd floor they came back downstairs all the way to the street
level and went into Printing Plus to meet the witnesses. Recall that Cst Davidson said that after
he and Cst Gilbert went to the 3rd floor they came back down to the 2nd floor before they went
down to Printing Plus to meet the witnesses and that it was when they went to the 2 nd floor the
second time that he checked the exit door. Whereas Cst Gilbert’s evidence is that he and Cst
Davidson went directly down to the street level from the 3rd floor.

In any event, Cst Gilbert testified that while he was on the 2 nd floor of 52 Canterbury Street he
did not notice the exit to the alleyway door. Nor did he see Cst Davidson touch a door or open a
door and look outside. He said that even if he had seen such a door he would not have handled
it because, he agreed, you don’t know what evidence is available.

Staff Sergeant Michael King, who was the patrol division Watch Commander, arrived about 10
minutes after officers Davidson and Gilbert, arriving at 9:39 a.m. He too was directed by Cst.
Shannon to the 2nd floor. When S/Sgt. King arrived at what he referred to as the vestibule area
(the foyer), Cst Squires, Cadet Fanjoy and Officers Davidson and Gilbert were there. Cst Squires
directed him to the Far End Corporation office and he entered into it, made his observations,
and came back out.

He said the same officers (i.e. Squires, Fanjoy, Davidson and Gilbert) were still in the vestibule
when he came out of the office. He then received a call from the Chief of Police who was
inquiring what was going on. That call lasted about 30 seconds. He then spoke to either Cst.
Gilbert or Cst. Davidson (he wasn’t sure which one), about ensuring that the major crime unit
127

 Inspector and Sergeant were notified. Sgt King then sent an e-mail to Inspector Parks and the
Deputy Chief. He also spoke to Cst. Davidson. The gist of that conversation with Cst. Davidson
was that there was a pizza box in the office (which Sgt King had not noticed) and Sgt King
arranged for Acting Sgt Miller to go to that pizza place to inquire if there were video
surveillance cameras there.

At some point Sgt. King re-entered the office with Inspector McCluskey and Sgt Brooker under
the guidance of Sgt Mark Smith of the Identification Unit.

S/Sgt King said his own role while at the scene was to provide the assistance of his patrol
officers to the investigators. His role was not to investigate. S/Sgt. King testified that, apart
from at one point going outside to brief the media, he remained on the 2 nd floor until 2:43 p.m.
when he left the scene. At another point he looked out one of the windows facing the alleyway.
He did not do anything to the exit to the alleyway door. Nor did he hear any discussion about
the exit to the alleyway door. He said that door was shut during the time he was there. As I
mentioned, he said he was there until 2:43 p.m. When he returned the next day to relieve an
officer for lunch, he testified that that door was open.

Sgt Mark Smith testified that he arrived at 52 Canterbury at 10:06 a.m. When he got there
Constables Davidson, Gilbert and Shannon and the Coroner were outside 52 Canterbury at
street level. He was briefed. He testified that he was not told by Cst. Davidson then or later
anything about the exit to the alleyway door on the 2 nd floor. Sgt Smith then went in the
building and upstairs, checking as he went for any signs of forced entry. He testified that when
he got to the 2nd floor he took notice of an exit door with a handle and deadbolt. The door was
closed. He examined it for any signs of forced entry and observed none. He did not open the
door. When shown Exhibit D-39, which are two close-up photographs of the dead bolt locking
mechanism on the inside of the door, Sgt. Smith testified that he did not take note that
128

 morning of the word “locked” engraved on the mechanism as he was looking for pry marks and
paint chips. He intended to later fingerprint the handle and deadbolt and swab for DNA. He
agreed that a person could tell without opening that door whether or not it was locked and that
if a police officer in the circumstances of that crime scene were to have opened that door he
would have expected the officer to wear gloves.

Inspector Glen McCluskey (now Deputy Chief) testified that he was the Inspector in charge of
the Criminal Investigation Unit, which included the Major Crime Unit. He testified to walking to
52 Canterbury St the morning of July 7th with Sgt Brooker of the Major Crime Unit. He believed
he arrived (relying on notes of others because he did not keep notes to speak of) at 10:52 a.m.
and remained on the 2nd floor until he left after the body was removed that afternoon, which
you know was around 2:35 p.m. He testified to being inside the office of Far End Corporation on
two occasions before the body was removed. The first time was with Sgt Brooker, and S/Sgt
King, but under the direction of Sgt Mark Smith. The second time he and Cst. Oram of Major
Crime went inside alone. They went farther than he had when he had gone in with Sgt Smith;
stepping towards the curtains over to what we know was Bob McFadden’s office. According to
D/C McCluskey, Sgt Smith noticed them when they were around the curtain area coming back
out and was told to get out by Sgt Smith. Deputy Chief McCluskey admitted he had no purpose
for being in there the 2nd time, only curiosity. He testified he is now embarrassed that he did.

During his testimony, Deputy Chief McCluskey also eventually admitted that at some point
before the body was removed he “could have opened the door” that leads out into the
alleyway. He said he went outside for a few minutes and looked around. He said there should
have been someone who saw him go out the door, although he does not recall who was there
at the time he did go out. He thinks Cst Squires was on the 2 nd floor at the time. When he reentered the 2nd floor, he does not recall if he closed the exit door. You will have noted that Cst
Squires did not testify to having observed then Inspector McCluskey opening that exit door.

129

 Cst. Rick Russell, the most experienced homicide investigator, had been called in off holidays.
He arrived at 52 Canterbury St. around 1:00-1:30 p.m. He only stayed there for 10-15 minutes.
He did not enter the Far End Corporation office as he saw no value in it for him. As I
understood, he knew he would be briefed as to the scene by Sgt Smith later.

Adam Holly and Charlene MacDonald were the two funeral directors who arrived that
afternoon and assisted in the removal of the body. They too described where they went inside
the office with the stretcher and where they stood and watched while Sgt. Smith and Cst
Squires lifted the body with a sheet and placed the body face down into a body bag on the
stretcher. The body was then taken, with some difficulty, down the front stairs to the street.
Neither Mr. Holly nor Ms. MacDonald were told of another exit off of the second floor, nor did
either remember seeing one. Recall the layout of the 2nd floor - both funeral directors, along
with Sgt Smith and Cst. Squires, would have had to go by that exit door going to and coming
from the Far End office. None testified as to seeing the exit door open.

Recall Constable Weir also had a cadet with her. She relieved Cst. Shannon at the street level
door and was there when Mr. Oland’s body was removed from the building (but did not play
any role in the removal of Richard Oland’s body). She then relieved Cst Squires at 2:45 p.m.,
after the body was removed, and took her post in the foyer on the 2nd floor outside the Far End
Corporation office to ensure no unauthorized entry into the office. She testified that when she
went to the second floor to assume her post she observed that a loading door was open, which
as you know is the exit to the alleyway. Cst. Weir identified that doorway in Exhibit P-5, Photo
#100). She believed this door was completely open because while she was there she saw Cst.
Horgan walk by outside. Recall she said she saw him from the chest up. As I understood her
evidence, she believed you couldn’t exit or enter that door because it was too high up; but that
she never got close enough to the door to see the outside part of it. She said that the door
130

 remained open the whole time she was there. She was relieved by Constable MacLeod at 6:14
p.m. that afternoon of July 7th.

I again interject the evidence of Sgt Mark Smith. He testified that after securing the body at the
morgue he came back to 52 Canterbury Street, arriving at 3:40 p.m. It was when he up to the
2nd floor this time that he noticed the exit door open. He described it as being “half as open” as
what is depicted in Exhibit P-5, photo #102. He glanced out and believed he saw Constable
Horgan and his dog and two other officers outside. Because the door had been opened he
decided not to process the dead bolt for fingerprints or swab for DNA. He testified that he has
no idea who opened that exit to the alleyway door. He also testified he later overlooked
photographing that door.

Constable Ben MacLeod relieved Constable Weir and remained at his post until 6:47 the next
morning July 8th, except for being relieved about an hour during the night for a break. He
confirmed that the exit door on the 2nd floor was open when he arrived. He said it was a very
hot night and on some occasions he stood in that open doorway and viewed the alleyway
behind which leads to Grannon lane. He never went outside the doorway though, and gave no
evidence as to whether the outside steps were there or not.

This then has been a rather extensive review of the evidence that I recall directly or indirectly
touches on the question of the condition of that exit door the day Richard Oland’s body was
found. And, I point out to you that whether or not Cst Davidson went out that door that
morning or two days later, that evidence is linked to and should be considered in conjunction
with his evidence about that door having been locked the morning of July 7th.

131

 The veracity and reliability of Cst. Davidson’s testimony that that door was locked the morning
of July 7th, 2011 needs to be scrupulously examined by you.

You should consider what Cst. Davidson testified he did do, when he did it, and why he did it,
including considering his relative inexperience as a homicide investigator. You should consider
the surrounding evidence, such as Ms. Adamson’s evidence that the exit door was locked the
evening before when she left, and her evidence as to the condition of the other door that leads
off the 2nd floor that Ms. Adamson observed the next morning (i.e. the one at the top of the
stairs was closed but ajar). Also consider the evidence that a person would be able to close the
exit door if they exited without a key and that it would remain closed if shut for that purpose;
and how close Sgt Smith did get to that door that morning but without checking to see if it was
locked.

You should also consider the lack of a contemporaneous record having been made by Cst
Davidson in his notes or in his later narrative report (and any explanations for that); the
absence of any corroborating witnesses seeing the door having been checked by him (and any
reasons there may be for that); the apparent inconsistencies between his trial testimony and
his earlier testimony at the preliminary inquiry (and any explanations for that), and the inherent
probability or improbability found in his description of how he got out to and got back in from
that back alley, whether on July 7th or 9th, in light of John Ainsworth’s and Mr. McFadden’s
testimonies that the steps seen in the photos were there, and Mr. McFadden’s further
testimony regarding his own use of the steps in the past, but also that, according to Mr.
Ainsworth, the steps are steeper than normal. And consider Cst. Weir and Cst Macleod’s
evidence as to what they saw and perceived of the exit to the alleyway.

And, in assessing the credibility of Cst. Davidson on this issue (as you should do for any other
witness on any issue) you are also entitled to take into consideration the credibility of the
132

 evidence given by him overall during the trial. As an example, you are entitled to compare his
testimony at this trial of having gone unofficially to Canadian Tire to have a look at dry-wall
hammers against his earlier testimony at the preliminary inquiry that no one to his knowledge
had officially or unofficially checked out hardware stores for that purpose and consider his
explanations for the difference between what he testified to then and now.

There is, though, certain evidence of Cst. Davidson I suggest you may want to be more cautious
about putting on the scale in assessing his credibility. You will recall he was cross-examined
rather extensively of what he said to S/Sgt King during and after the preliminary inquiry. Recall
too he was cross-examined on what D/C McCluskey said he heard was a scolding that Cst.
Davidson had got by the Defence at the preliminary inquiry. First, it was not Cst. Davidson who
said he got a scolding. Second, what Cst. Davidson confided to his friend S/Sgt King and what he
expressed in this courtroom as to how he felt, is not, as a matter of law, evidence of a
contravention of any Court order that he not discuss his testimony. You should not believe that
it was. You might think that it was but a human being expressing his inner most thoughts and
feelings from that courtroom experience at the Preliminary Inquiry.

There is also evidence that S/Sgt King told Cst. Davidson about Sgt King’s issue with Deputy
Chief McClusky. Cst. Davidson did not record or report this conversation to his superiors. On the
other hand, I refer you to his additional evidence that he knew S/Sgt King was going to tell the
prosecutors so he knew it was going to come out. And, you know S/Sgt King did tell the
prosecutors and that the information did come out.

There may be other factors that you consider relevant to the assessment of Cst. Davidson’s
credibility on his assertion that the exit door was locked the morning of July 7 th. That is entirely
for you, as is the weight you place on any factors in assessing Cst. Davidson’s credibility,
whether I have mentioned them or not. And, as with the assessment of credibility for any
133

 witness, you should also apply your common sense. And, finally, recall my earlier instructions to
you on how you should go about assessing any witness’s evidence. That instruction, included
along with other instructions, will be given to you in writing so that you may refer to it in the
jury room if you find it helpful to do so in considering the credibility of Cst. Davidson’s evidence
and any other witnesses’ evidence in this case.

In the end, what you may find as to the condition of the exit door the morning of July 7 th and
what if any significance you put on it in the context of the evidence in the case as a whole is
entirely for you. It may be important or it may not. You decide.

In this vein, you have heard evidence and submissions suggesting that the police investigation
of this offence with which Dennis Oland is charged was inadequate. In deciding whether Crown
counsel has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Dennis Oland who committed
the offence with which he is charged, take into account, along with the rest of the evidence you
have heard, evidence that the police:
-

Failed to properly secure against too many unnecessary entries into the Far End
Corporation office crime scene thereby increasing the always potential risk of scene
alteration and/or contamination;

-

Failed to secure the washroom on the second floor by permitting the use of that
washroom by an unknown number of people over 2 days, resulting in the possible loss
of any evidence of clean-up by an attacker or attackers and/or the possible loss of any
evidence of the identity of the attacker or attackers if any had been left behind;

-

Failed to ensure that the exit to the alleyway door remained untouched until Sgt Smith
could examine it fully; and

134

 -

Failed to have the pathologist consider whether a dry-wall hammer could have been the
type of weapon used to inflict the injuries on Richard Oland and, if it could have been,
deprived the Defence of the full probative effect of there being no evidence connecting
Dennis Oland to the use or possession of a dry-wall hammer at any time in the past.

As you consider this evidence, along with the rest of the evidence, remember that a reasonable
doubt is based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that logically arises from the
evidence, or the lack of evidence. But it is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt based on
speculation, sympathy or prejudice.

Section 17
As you heard, around 1:00 p.m. on July 7th Sgt Brooker tasked Cst. Davidson and Cst. Gilbert to
go to the deceased’s home, along with a victim services person, to inform the family of Richard
Oland’s death. Constance Oland, Dennis Oland, Lisa Bustin (a daughter of the deceased) and
Dennis Oland’s wife Lisa were there, along with Jack Connell (Constance Oland’s visiting
brother).

Cst. Davidson said he did not provide them details of the injuries because of their gruesome
nature. He said that about all the family were told was of the death. They were there for about
a half hour. The officers did ask the family members to attend at the police station for
interviews because, they told them, the police wanted to find out as much as they could about
the deceased, the deceased’s life and any other information so as as to assist in the
investigation. Cst Davidson said they left the deceased’s home about 2:30 and went back to the
police station.

135

 Oland family members arrived at the police station while a police briefing was still in progress.
Cst. Davidson was the officer assigned to interview, among others, Dennis Oland.

I now intend to review for you the video statement Dennis Oland gave to the police
commencing at 6:01 p.m. on the evening of July 7th, 2011 (Exhibit P-75), including the two page
hand written statement he made at the outset of that video (Exhibit P-78) [As for the video, I
remind you that it is the video itself and the handwritten statement that accompanies it which is
the evidence and that the transcript of the video provided to you (Exhibit P-76) is but an aid that
was provided to assist you in watching and listening to the video]. At the same time, I will also
review the testimony Dennis Oland gave at this trial. I have already mentioned some parts of
his statement made to the police and some parts of his testimony at trial in the course of the
evidence review to this point.

In referring to Dennis Oland’s statement to the police and his testimony at trial I intend at this
time to go into more detail. As well, as I did earlier, I will on occasion refer to other evidence in
the case so as to hopefully assist you in your assessment of what Dennis Oland told the police
and later testified to at trial. But, I will not detail everything Dennis Oland said nor, obviously,
refer you to all the evidence in the case. Therefore, I might overlook some things that Dennis
Oland said in his statement or in his testimony that you find important to your deliberations or I
might not mention other evidence in the case you believe important in considering his
statement and testimony; or your understanding of what Dennis Oland said or your
understanding of the other evidence I refer you to may be different than mine.

However, as I have mentioned numerous times now, that is entirely for you. Please remember,
that in my review of this evidence and all the other evidence I mention at any time, I am only
trying to assist you, not tell you what to find or decide. I cannot begin to tell you how important
it is to remember this throughout my entire address to you.
136

 You assess the credibility of Dennis Oland’s evidence like you do for any witness’s evidence, in
the manner I instructed you on before. And just like any other witness’s evidence, you may
believe some, none or all of Dennis Oland’s statement to the police and/or his testimony.

In assessing his earlier statement to the police and his present testimony, on some aspects you
may notice some differences between them. In these regards, I have an additional legal
instruction for you to keep in mind:
The fact that a person charged has previously said something different from what she or
he testifies to at trial is one of many factors for you to consider when you decide how
much or how little you will believe or rely upon the evidence of the person charged in
deciding the case.
In this case, Dennis Oland admitted there were inconsistencies between his statement
to the police and his testimony to you. It is up to you to decide how much or little any
differences you find between his statement to the police and his testimony affects your
belief and reliance upon the evidence of Dennis Oland in deciding this case. Consider the
nature and extent of any differences you find between his earlier statement and current
testimony, and any explanations offered for them by Dennis Oland. Take into account,
as well, whether the differences relate to a matter of importance, or a minor detail. Use
your good common sense.
Unlike the out-of-court statements of any other witnesses, however, you may also
consider what Dennis Oland said previously as evidence of what actually happened,
even though Dennis Oland does not testify that what he said before was true. It is for
you to say how much or little you will believe and rely upon what Dennis Oland said
previously as evidence of what actually happened.

137

 In this review of Dennis Oland’s earlier statement to the police and his present testimony,
foremost I point out that in that statement and in his testimony Dennis Oland denied any
involvement in the death of his father. In this regard, the law requires a very important
instruction be given to you. This is required because of what I told you before about the
presumption of innocence, the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the onus on
the Crown to prove guilt on that standard and that this onus never changes. The instruction is
this:
1. If you believe Dennis Oland’s statement and testimony that he did not commit the
offence charged, you must find him not guilty.

2. Even if you do not believe Dennis Oland’s statement and testimony that he did not
commit the offence charged, if it leaves you with a reasonable doubt about his guilt, you
must find him not guilty.
3. Even if Dennis Oland’s statement and testimony does not leave you with a reasonable
doubt of his guilt, you may convict him only if the rest of the evidence in the case as a
whole that you do accept, including any portions of the statement Dennis Oland made
to the police and/or his testimony that you do accept, proves his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.

Keeping that instruction foremost in your mind, I will delve in greater detail into Dennis Oland’s
statement to the police and his present testimony, along with occasional references to some of
the other evidence in the case as a whole.

In his statement to the police and in his testimony before you, Dennis Oland discussed the
relationship he had with his father growing up and into adulthood and leading up to the death
of his father. You can make your own assessment of that relationship as described by Dennis
138

 and the type of person his father was according to his son; and consider any differences in his
description of that relationship he gave to the police and he gave in testifying before you.

As for his relationship with his father in business or personal activities, Dennis, who worked at
CIBC Wood Gundy, explained that he was one of his father’s investment advisors but that his
father was different than other customers because his father made all the decisions and he was
but an “order taker”. Dennis explained in testimony that how he characterized himself before
was not strictly correct. He said that although his father was not a very good investor he
thought himself to be and would not follow Dennis’s advice. To combat that, Dennis arranged
for his father to receive installments of an investment guru’s newsletters that his father started
to follow. Consequently, Dennis knew what his father was going to direct him to do before it
happened. Therefore, that Dennis was not strictly speaking an “order taker” was the gist of that
testimony.

Dennis said that they did share a common interest in the genealogy of the Oland family. As for
other interests, his father sailed and skied, but Dennis told the police he did not sail with him
anymore because: “he’s just a real hard guy to be on a boat with”, (meaning he “he barks and
barks”), “so we just stopped”, “it was just, it wasn’t good for our relationship”. However, when
Dennis testified he qualified that by explaining that what he meant was that he did not sail with
his father in races anymore for those reasons.

In his video statement to the police you also heard Dennis Oland talk about the extra-marital
affair his father was having with Diana Sedlacek and what he thought of her or heard about her.
Dennis said that at some point in the past he had discussed with one of his sisters that affair
and had left his sister to deal with it, but Dennis felt guilty about not telling his mother. He did,
however, ask Bob McFadden to speak to his father and tell him the affair should stop “because
people know”. You will recall that Bob McFadden testified that about a year and a half before
139

 Richard’s death, during the time he was assisting Dennis with his divorce, Dennis asked that if
he, Mr. McFadden, should have the occasion, to tell his father that the story is getting out and
he should cool it. Mr. McFadden said he never did get the opportunity. You might think that the
reason Bob McFadden did not do so is that Richard Oland was not the type of person to take
any such advice well. But that is for you.

In his police statement Dennis also spoke of his divorce. He said that a few years ago he was
going through a bitter divorce and it was clear that he was going to lose the family ancestral
home. This is the property at civic address 58 Gondola Point Road in Rothesay, N.B. He said that
his father was not going to allow this to happen and he “bankrolled the divorce”. Dennis said
that “basically I have a mortgage with him”, an “interest only mortgage”. As you have heard,
the interest payment required was $1,666.67 per month. As I understood him, his father loaned
him between $500,000 and $600,000 for which his father would have a mortgage on the
ancestral home. Recall the evidence of Robert McFadden on this that I reviewed with you much
earlier that the amount was $538,000; but that the interest is being paid only on $500,000 and
that the mortgage never did get signed. He testified that his father told him that the principal of
that loan was to be deducted from any inheritance. Recall that Dennis testified that when he
obtained his lines of credit from the bank he never told them about this money, did not believe
he had to tell them, and was not concerned that his father would find out that the Bank would
have security against the ancestral home in priority.

In his statement to the police Dennis also said that his father took the “farm” portion of the
property, which Dennis said was valued at about a $125,000, as part of the divorce financing
arrangements. Dennis said he was fine with that. Recall Robert McFadden’s evidence of the
purchase of this property by Richard Oland’s real estate holdings company Kinghurst. As I
understood Mr. McFadden this property was acquired in exchange for monies given to Dennis
by his father, which was after and separate from the divorce proceedings. In any event, Dennis
said in his statement that he was pleasantly surprised that his father had supported him during
140

 the divorce and he was grateful for the loan. In his testimony Dennis explained that what was
nice about that was that he did not have to ask his father for the help.

Dennis described the events leading up to his arrival at his father’s office late in the afternoon
of July 6, 2011. He was working that day at his office on the 5th floor of Wood Gundy in
Brunswick House on Chipman Hill in uptown Saint John. He worked through lunch. He then
received a call from his father about a stock trade his father wanted to make. There were
complications because of a stock split. He e-mailed his father about the trade and spoke to him
on the phone later, at about 3:00 p.m. In between, around 2:00 p.m., Dennis said he went
down to Tim Horton’s to get a sandwich. You have seen in Exhibit D-63 three e-mails sent by
Dennis Oland to his father the early afternoon of July 6 th regarding a trade and a stock split and
you heard more detail about that in his testimony.

In his statement to the police Dennis said that after work he drove to his father’s office at 52
Canterbury and parked next to his father’s car in the parking lot at the corner of Canterbury and
Princess Street. Dennis thought this was about 5:15 p.m. He then walked to his father’s office
building, went upstairs to the second floor, thought he might have used the washroom on that
floor, but then left the building without going into the Far End Corporation office. Dennis
explained he had a bag with him with “stuff” in it but he had forgotten “some of the stuff”. In
his testimony he also said he went upstairs but was not sure how far up he went or whether he
even went into the foyer. He does not now believe he went to the washroom.

As background to why he was there, Dennis identified in his police statement that the purpose
for his visit was to discuss the family genealogy project he and his father were working on. He
reiterated this purpose in his testimony. He added in his testimony that he was also there to
retrieve the family log book. Recall that I reviewed the relevance of that book with you much
earlier.
141

 As for the family genealogy purpose of the visit, I pause here to address the relevance of two
documents that were found on Richard Oland’s desk the morning of July 7 th. To understand the
relevance and the potential significance of those documents I first need to go back a bit.

You will recall that Dennis Oland and his wife had been in England earlier that Spring of 2011
and according to Dennis he had uncovered certain genealogical information he shared with his
father. Recall Robert McFadden’s evidence that Dennis had been at his father’s office a couple
of times, a month earlier (May or early June) about that discovery. I believe Dennis testified
that he went to his father’s office about once a month. The purpose here, as I said, is to address
the relevance and potential significance of certain genealogy documents found on Richard
Oland’s desk the morning of July 7th.

Dennis said in his police statement that over the last number of months he had been going over
and giving his father what he referred to as “family history stuff”. This, he said, was the kind of
material he had with him in the bag that day. Recall during his testimony Dennis referred to a
number of the items that had been inside the grocery bag Exhibit P-43 when it was seized by
the police. He said he went over some of those items with his father when at his father’s office
that evening, but that he only left two documents with his father, copies of which have been
entered into evidence as Exhibit D-15 and Exhibit D-16.

Exhibit P-5, photo #95 shows a blood splattered document, a copy of which is entered into
evidence as Exhibit D-15. In that photograph you can see the left side of the document is
positioned so that it is touching the blue computer mouse pad on Richard Oland’s desk. Ms.
Adamson testified that she had never seen that document before and agreed with Defence
counsel that it could have been brought by Dennis Oland to the office that day. Recall the
142

 original of that document was still on the desk when the office was turned back over to Mr.
McFadden by the police and copies were made of it, one of which is the exhibit in this trial.

Dennis said in his police statement that his father was particularly interested in the Will of a
person named Brice (who, you have seen, was Worthington Brice, and you have heard why that
was of interest to Richard Oland). Dennis said his father wanted that Will for a long time.
Dennis told the police that what he had with him that day was “basically a sheet of paper”,
which he qualified as being more than that. You might find (but this is for you) that what Dennis
was referring to in his police statement is Exhibit D-15 (found on Richard’s Oland’s desk next to
the blue mouse pad as seen in the centre of Photo # 95 of Exhibit P-5). Recall Ms. Adamson’s
evidence that Richard and Dennis were engrossed in a discussion of genealogy when she left
the office; Richard sitting at his desk and Dennis standing beside him hovering over the desk.
Recall in his police statement Dennis said that when he was at the office with his father they
basically went through the document he brought, particularly the Will part that Dennis had
written down. You will see in Exhibit D-15 that the reference to the Will of Worthington Brice is
in the latter pages of that document. And in his testimony Dennis told you that he and his
father had a” great time; “went through the Brice Will – who is he and what is his history”.

In considering whether Dennis Oland was present when his father was killed, if you find that
Exhibit D-15 was in fact the document that Richard and Dennis were discussing when Ms.
Adamson left the office, it is for you to weigh in the context of all the evidence in the case how
much or how little significance there is that the document is found the next morning in the
place it was on the desk and with blood spattered on it.

You should also consider Exhibit D-16, the genealogical document entitled W.O. of Marshfield,
located on Richard’s desk under the open New York Yacht Club book, which document Dennis
testified he also left with his father that same evening. Crown counsel in his closing submission
143

 argued that you should not accept Dennis Oland’s evidence that he left that document with his
father that evening as well because he did not specifically mention this specific document in the
statement he had given to the police. Recall the instruction I gave before, when I was
addressing the evidence of the coat at the workshop. Remember I told you counsel is not
required to cross-examine a witness on any particular subject matter, but that sometimes the
circumstances are such that the fact a witness was not cross-examined on a certain point is a
factor, among others, to consider in your assessment of the witness’s credibility. The fact there
was no cross-examination on Dennis Oland’s testimony that he also brought the document,
Exhibit D-16, to his father’s office that evening and also left it with his father is one such
circumstance.

In any event, Crown counsel also argued that, even if you find that Dennis did leave that
document with this father that evening, the fact that it was found under an open book
unrelated to genealogy does not mean that Dennis Oland did not kill his father given the
evidence of Dennis Oland the Crown does accept, that Dennis was inside the Far End
Corporation office on two separate occasions that evening. This is all for you to assess.

In his police statement Dennis said that when he went into 52 Canterbury Street the first time
he realized that he had forgotten other family tree material that his father wanted. He said: “I
had this stuff from Devon, that he wanted and I have this green book that somebody wrote
back in the early seventies I was going to give him that I left in my office and that was the thing I
wanted the most”. During his testimony he identified Exhibit D-85 (5 pages of information on
Oland Cottage), Exhibit D-86 (being a typed and handwritten copy of Worthington Brice’s Will)
and Exhibit D-87 (a green coloured genealogy book) as the actual material he had forgotten
back at his own office and the reason why he left the first time without actually going into his
father’s office, with the intention of returning to his office at Brunswick House and obtaining
the additional documents.

144

 However, you know that there is a significant difference between what Dennis told the police
and what he told you regarding the number of times he attended inside this father’s office on
July 6th. He told the police he went in there once. He told you he was there twice. There are
also differences between what he told the police and what he told you as to his routes of travel
and in what he did at certain times. At the same time, there are similarities between what he
told the police and what he told you.

I am about to summarize this evidence. However, in doing so I have considered that you have
been taken through a lot of it at trial multiple times and have heard about it again in the
lawyers’ closing submissions. I have also taken into consideration that you have a considerable
amount of guideline material to which you can refer. The consequence is that I will spare you
the minutia of that evidence. Instead, I will first refresh your memory as to the reference
materials available should you wish to consult it during your deliberations. I will then
summarize in broad strokes the relevant evidence pertaining to Dennis Oland’s whereabouts at
certain times and interject some of the other evidence when I come to a logical place to do so.

In considering what Dennis Oland said as to his movements going to his father’s office after
work and after he left his father’s office on July 6th, I refer you to Exhibit D-56, which you recall
is a USB containing a compilation of videos taken by various surveillance cameras. Recall that
Defence counsel extensively reviewed those videos with you during Cst. Davidson’s and during
Dennis Oland’s testimony. Recall that there are two main parts on that USB. The first part
contains 28 video segments from the afternoon and evening of July 6, 2011. Those are the only
ones I am referring you to at the moment. To refresh your memory, the various cameras are as
follows:
Two surveillance cameras at Brunswick House, including the camera looking across King
St. at a memorial clock;
145

 Two surveillance cameras at Brunswick Square;
Three cameras at Thandi’s Restaurant - one looking out in front of the restaurant; one
looking south on Canterbury St.; and one covering the adjacent parking lot. Exhibit D-53
may assist in reviewing those videos, as it is a schematic depiction of the respective
coverage areas of those three Thandi’s Restaurant cameras;
There are also 4 camera views at Guardian Drug Store in Rothesay;
One camera views at Cockrane’s Market in Rothesay; and,
Two camera views at the Marr Road Irving in Rothesay

As well, Photo #2 of Exhibit P-8 may be of assistance to you in placing the uptown Saint John
area videos in context, among other location evidence exhibits you may wish to refer. Recall
that photo #2 is an annotated map. You also have Exhibit D-58 to assist you in reviewing those
videos, which is an agreed Surveillance Time Line Guide that not only sets out the timestamp on
all 28 video segments and the location of the respective cameras, but also contains a brief
typed description of what is depicted on each video at the times indicated.

As well, you have Exhibit D-55, which is a one page document entitled Pedestrian Test Guide,
setting out specific times persons are seen in the Thandi restaurant cameras and the time of
appearance in the Thandi parking lot camera and the adjusted time difference between the
time stamps on the restaurant cameras and the parking lot camera (reflecting that the parking
lot camera is time stamped approximately 58 minutes behind the restaurant camera, it being
agreed that the restaurant cameras being roughly more accurate). I only caution that there is
one line at the bottom of the Pedestrian Guide (i.e. Exhibit D-55) that has not been agreed to –
in that it purports to state that Dennis Oland is seen moving from one camera to another at a
specific time. That determination is entirely for you.

146

 Beyond what has been agreed in the brief descriptions found in Exhibit D-58 of what is depicted
in the Exhibit D-56 videos and what has been agreed as the time of certain persons movements
and the time differential as set out in Exhibit D-55, it is for you to determine what is shown on
those videos and how much or how little any of the videos assist you. Recall the instruction I
gave you earlier in regard to video evidence. I will repeat it:
They are all exhibits in this case and will all be available to you to view in your
jury room. There, you may watch any or all of them as much or as little as you
consider necessary to help you decide this case.
As you watch the various videos, consider carefully whether any or each of them
are of sufficient clarity and quality and of sufficient length to help you decide
whether whatever persons, places or things are shown, or pointed out to you or
testified to as being seen in any of the videos is or are in fact seen in the video.
The same caution applies to the quality and clarity of any still photographs taken
from any video.
Remember, however, that these videos and any still photographs taken from
them are simply pieces of evidence to consider along with the rest of the
evidence and that it is solely for you to determine how much or how little the
videos and any still photographs taken from them assist you.

You also have available a document I admitted to assist you in following the chronology of
events (for which there is some supporting evidence) of Dennis Oland’s movements and
contacts on July 6th and into July 7th, 2011. This document was marked Exhibit D-80. Recall that
when it was entered as an exhibit I gave you a cautionary instruction about the use of that
document. I will repeat it in a more abbreviated form now:
I have admitted into evidence a 22 page document that is a Timeline for July 6 th and 7th
that Dennis Oland will be referred to on occasion during his testimony. Most of the
references set out in the Timeline are already in evidence and other references, I
expect, will be entered into evidence during Mr. Oland’s testimony. [You will recall that
this was done].
I have permitted this timeline as it will assist you in following the evidence. As you can
appreciate there is much evidentiary detail in this case. So this is a way for you to keep
the order of any events in mind, while at the same time concentrating on any evidence
147

 given in relation to them, whether in direct or cross-examination. The Timeline can be
thought of as a Chart to follow the evidence, not as a substitute for any evidence. It is, in
short, but a tool to assist you only in following certain evidence; it is not the evidence
itself.

I now go to some of the evidence.

In his statement to the police, Dennis said that when he left 52 Canterbury to retrieve the
genealogy material he had forgotten, he went back to where he parked his car in his father’s
parking lot. He also said he took his car when he left the office building at 52 Canterbury Street
the first time, instead of walking to his Brunswick House office (I believe Maureen Adamson
said it was about a 5 minute walk and Dennis testified it would take 2 or 3 minutes)), because
he wasn’t sure if he was coming back to his father’s office. In his testimony he said that the
reason he did not later just walk back to his office to retrieve the forgotten material is that
there is a convenient parking spot outside the elevator at this office building.

When he left 52 Canterbury without going into see his father, he said he left the parking lot and
drove down to the bottom of Princess Street (which would have required him to turn right on
to Princess after exiting his father’s parking lot) then onto Prince William and then on to King St.
and then came back onto Canterbury, where he parked across the street in the area of Thandi’s
restaurant. In his police statement he said he recalled sitting in his car texting or reading for 5
and 15 minutes, he wasn’t sure for how long. He said the reason he did not go back to his own
office was that at some point he realized he didn’t have his proximity card to enter his office as
the Wood Gundy office elevator is locked up at 5:00 o’clock.

As for his route of travel after he left the 52 Canterbury building the first time, he said later on
in his statement to the police that he might be confused as he remembered turning up Princess
148

 Street (i.e. turning left off of Canterbury St. when he drove from his father’s parking lot) (which
he realized was the wrong way as he knew it to be a one way street) and went up Princess a
very short distance into a gravel parking lot. (You have seen the location of that parking lot
depicted on Page 3 of Exhibit D-19). Dennis believed he went there as he was trying to decide if
he was going to go home or go to his office. He said he was: “thinking at the time, I don’t need
to go back to the office, I can just park here and go back to the office, cause you can’t drive
down Canterbury Street, so … [I] had left where I was and I was sort of …. There were three
choices, go to my office and get stuff, go home, or go back to the office (meaning his father’s)
cause I had enough stuff”.

In any event, when he did arrive back at 52 Canterbury he said he parked, as noted before,
across the street from Printing Plus. He said he parked on the street in the area of Thandi’s
Restaurant. Dennis guessed it was around 5:30 when he arrived back. He again took the bag he
had before with him.

In his testimony he explained his route of travel after he left his father’s parking lot (shown on
the map Exhibit D-77 as a green line) back to a parking spot he found on the west side
Canterbury St. in front of the Famous Faces wall adjacent to the Thandi’s restaurant parking lot.
Recall the Thandi’s parking lot security video shows a car, which Dennis said was his
Volkswagen, temporarily pulling over to the east side of Canterbury Street so as to wait for a
vehicle to vacate the parking spot he then took on the west side of the street.

You will recall William Adamson’s testimony I mentioned earlier. Remember, he was parked
curbside on the east side of the street directly out from the Far End Corporation street level
door. Recall he first noticed a person in his peripheral vison coming from the left. As I

149

 understood, since Mr. Adamson was facing south on Canterbury, the person he saw would have
had to be coming from the north on the east side of the street. I expect you will readily infer
that this was Dennis Oland coming to his father’s office after having parked his car on the west
side of Canterbury Street adjacent to Thandi’s restaurant parking lot.

According to Dennis’s police statement, this time he went into the office of Far End
Corporation. His father and Maureen Adamson were there. Dennis believed that Ms. Adamson
was there for 5 or 10 minutes before she left. Recall Ms. Adamson put the time she left as 5:45
p.m. Dennis also told the police he got the family camp log book from Maureen before she left.

In his statement to the police Dennis said that after Maureen left there was just the two of
them there, he and his father. Dennis said they: “went through the document … particularly the
Will. We went through it and sort of read some things”. Dennis mentioned that the person who
died (you might infer is Worthington Brice) was owed 12,000 pounds (which you will see
referenced in Exhibit D-15) and that:
“we were going through that whole scenario and reading things and then getting to the
John Oland stuff, and why he was his son, and then … and he’s one of those people
(referring to this father) who was like, okay, okay, you got to explain this to me again
because you gotta feel it sink in”. “… “So we went through the whole Will …. And then
we got to talking about the Halifax Olands because this was the core of … somebody
back in the fifties did some family research and they didn’t like what they saw … so they
made up all these big stories …. And so Oland Breweries in Halifax created this sort of
family lore … things they had to create because they didn’t like what they saw …they
had this big claim that they were descendant from nobility or something like that, which
wasn’t true. So we went through you know, all those sorts of scenarios and how it
debunked all of them … that was it then I left …”

“We didn’t talk about anything else … and it was one of those things where the
conversation is starting to die off” and “you just sort of know when to go … and I had to
get home anyways, I knew it was late”.

150

 When asked by Cst Davidson what the last thing that would have been said between him and
his father, Dennis replied:
“the last specific conversation would have been specifically on that Halifax Olands and
their wooing of their wealth and doing these things. As far as the final words … it might
have been me saying got to go, time for me to go”.

Dennis’s memory was that his father: “just goes yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, yeah, you know, see
you.” He told the officer that when he left the office his father was sitting at his desk, and he
described on the video where that was in relation to the four computer screens and other
objects in the office. He said his father:
“… was sitting down. I think he just looked at me, I mean, he, generally when I leave, or
when he loses his interest, he either focuses on what he’s reading or he gets on his
computer … or on his phone or whatever. So I think he was engaged in what he was
reading”.

When asked if anybody had come in, or if anybody had called or if his father had picked up the
phone and had a conversation while he was there, Dennis answered:
“Nobody come in … I mean you hear noise, so like … cause there’s people upstairs, and
so, I mean I don’t hear well, I wear a hearing aid… so I don’t hear everything, but I mean,
you hear noise, so, you know, I might’ve heard doors opening, closing, but I don’t
know.”

When asked if he heard anything from upstairs, Dennis replied: “I think I did … but I don’t
know.” When asked if he recalled what it was, he said: “I remember hearing a door open, but I
don’t know if it was upstairs, or on the level we were on … I don’t recall”. When asked if what
he heard could have come from downstairs, he said:
“It sounded closer than that … but I don’t know. I don’t think I would have heard … the
front door open … you know, maybe the door that’s at the top of the stairs … or, I don’t
151

 know, maybe a door … I’ve never been upstairs, so I don’t know, or the other office, but
you know, I heard it … which, and it sounded like a door, it didn’t sound like a bang or
anything like that … It sound like a door”.

Dennis said he didn’t hear footsteps or voices.

He was also asked by the police if his father had gotten a text message and checked it, to which
Dennis replied: (I mentioned this to you before when addressing the computer evidence)
“Well, let me think of that, I mean he was definitely … geez … When Maureen was there,
he was checking his e-mails … because he was trying to get her to do something about
an appointment or something like that. And he was checking his e-mails but after that …
I don’t think he touched his computer at all … but I don’t … I don’t remember. I don’t
remember… I mean, he’s always on his phone, always talking on his phone, but I can’t
remember … imagine why he’d be texting if he had his e-mail open in front of him … so I
don’t really recall.”

In his testimony before you Dennis said that when he entered his father’s office Maureen
Adamson was there. He said he talked to her first and then went over to his Dad and they
shook hands. Dennis said that he and his father had not seen each other for a long period. His
father asked him how he was doing and how is the history stuff. Dennis testified, as I
mentioned before, that he and his father had a “great time”. That they “went through the Brice
Will – who is he and what his history is”. Dennis, as I also mentioned before, identified Exhibit
D-15 as that document. Dennis said he left that document with his father. He said that although
they mostly spent the time going over that document he also showed his father the W.O.
Marshfield document, Exhibit D-16. I also referred you to this before. Dennis said he left that
document with his father as well. Dennis also testified that he showed his father some other
things he had brought. Recall they included items he had picked up on he and his wife’s trip to
England in the Spring. They included some photos, a magazine, etc. Dennis said that he did not
leave those items with his father though.

152

 Dennis testified that he brought all those materials to his father’s office in the grocery bag that
was later seized by the police from the trunk of his vehicle, Exhibit P-43. Recall he said he uses
that bag as a kind of man-purse because he doesn’t favour a regular brief case. And, he said he
took the bag with the remaining contents with him when he left the office. But that he forgot to
take the Log Book. Recall in his testimony that he said it was one of the reasons he had gone to
his father’s office after work. Recall as well that he had told the police that he had gotten the
log book from Maureen Adamson when he first arrived at the office. In his testimony he does
not mention obtaining the log book from Maureen when he first arrived. As I understood his
testimony, he said Maureen reminded him about the log book when he first arrived.

In his testimony Dennis reiterated essentially what he told the police as to why he left when he
did; in effect saying that his father, as was his way, got bored with the conversation and was
turning his mind to other things. In his testimony Dennis mentioned that his father appeared to
be interested in something that was on the Television.

In his police interview, Dennis was asked what approximate time he left his father’s office.
Dennis told the police it was 6:30. He said he went down stairs and out into Canterbury Street.
As I understood, initially he turned left and started to walk towards his father’s parking lot
where he had parked the first time he had arrived, but then realized that his car was in the
other direction and on the other side of the street; so he went back to it. You have seen in the
Thandi’s restaurant security video Dennis Oland carrying a bag heading north on the west side
of the street and then starting to cross over Canterbury Street across from 52 Canterbury. He
explained both in his police statement and in his testimony that when he realized where his car
was actually parked, after having gotten close to his father’s parking lot, that he crossed the
street and headed back to his car, but then crossed in front of Thandi’s restaurant with the

153

 intention of going to the drug store in Brunswick Square to get something for his knee, changed
his mind and crossed the street once again, arriving back at his car.

You will have also noted that the time stamp on the video security camera when Dennis is seen
starting to cross back across to the east side of Canterbury St. is approximately 6:12 p.m. In his
testimony he said this is approximately the time he left his father’s office.

Dennis had told the police Dennis that: “… when I got in the car it was, I think six-thirty, cause
Lisa [referring to his wife] called me”; “so six-thirtyish”. He explained that earlier, about 6:10
p.m., while at his father’s office he texted his sister by mistake [who is also called Lisa] instead
of his wife Lisa, telling her he wouldn’t be much longer. I refer you to page 7 of Exhibit D-61,
where you see that at 6:12:05 p.m. on July 6th Dennis texted Lisa Bustin: “I am at my dads office
doing history stuff. I shud not be too long.” Exhibit P-138, which includes the Telus
Communication records for Dennis’s phone, confirms that as the time he sent that message. So,
in his statement to the police Dennis explained:
“as soon as I got in the car Lisa [referring to his wife] called me, you know, where the
hell are you… cause I sent the text to my sister, not my wife … so she didn’t know where
I was! She knew I was going there, she just didn’t know it was going to take me that
long.” … “

The Telus records show a phone call made from Lisa Oland’s phone to her husband’s phone at
6:36:41 p.m. Dennis said his wife told him she was not feeling well and that she needed him to
come home.

However, in his testimony before you he explained that he had been mistaken as to when he
left his father’s office for the final time. He said he later recalled that he left his father’s office
around 6:12 p.m., as seen by the time stamp in the Thandi Restaurant video; but when he
154

 drove away he then remembered that he had forgotten the camp log book and that because of
the importance of getting that book back to his uncle he decided to go back to the office.
Before driving away this time he remembers taking his sports jacket off and putting it in the car.
He also remembers being at the back of his vehicle reading an e-mail message. Recall the
Thandi’s restaurant parking lot security video and Dennis pointing out in that video where he
was parked and what he said you see him doing. He also remembers that the text message he
sent at 6:12 p.m. to who he thought was his wife and turns out was his sister was not sent by
him while in his father’s office as the text message says it was; but, rather, he said he sent it as
he was leaving his father’s office or the building, I am not sure which. He testified he only wrote
he was still at his father’s office as fudge against time with his wife.

He testified as to his route back to the office. He described that route to you by drawing it on
the map Exhibit D-77 with an orange coloured marker. As I understood him, because he was
having trouble again finding a convenient parking place he drove to the corner of Canterbury St.
and Princess St. and turned left up the wrong way on Princess St. for a very short distance and
into the gravel parking lot he mentioned to the police in his earlier statement; although he had
gotten the sequence as to when he arrived there confused when explaining it to the police.

He testified he then walked back to his father’s office along the east side of Canterbury Street.
You will recall that the Thandi video cameras do not cover that side of the street. Dennis said he
left his jacket and cell phone back in his vehicle as he was only intending to run into his father’s
office and get the log book. I point out (from Crown counsel’s closing submission) that the
Crown does not accept that Dennis did not have his jacket on when he went into his father’s
office the last time. As I have said before, Dennis Oland’s credibility will be for you to assess.
Like for any witness’s evidence, you can accept all, part, or none of it.

155

 As to what occurred when Dennis went into his father’s office this last time, recall that I
reviewed his testimony on this earlier. I will repeat it for convenience in going through the
chronology of events.

Dennis testified that when he went back into the office his father was over by Maureen’s desk
and his father told him he had noticed Dennis had forgotten the book. Dennis said the log book
(and 3 discs) was at the middle end beside the typewriter on the conference table. Recall he
marked the area L.B. on a sketch entered into evidence as Exhibit D-88. Dennis also said that his
father made him stay so as to go through the log book; his father pointing out to him that the
paternal side of the family also had a connection to the camp for which the log book had been
kept. Recall Dennis referred to some pages of that book that he had been referred to by his
father that evening. Dennis testified that he took the log book with him this time and that
although his parent’s home where his uncle was staying was close to his own home, he did not
drop it off that evening but did it the next morning.

Dennis testified that it was when he got back to his car and was leaving the gravel parking lot to
go home that he got the phone call from his upset wife wanting him to get home, which call
was confirmed as having been made at 6:36:41 p.m.

Recall Dennis Oland’s home is located at 58 Gondola Point Road in Rothesay, which is shown
situated on the maps marked as Exhibits D-78 and D-79. During his police interview he was not
asked the actual route he took in leaving uptown Saint John to go to Rothesay. Dennis was
asked, though, what the approximate travel time is for him to get home. He said it takes usually
20 minutes, but that he did not go straight home that evening. He stopped at the wharf in
Renforth. He guessed it would be 6:45 when he got there - “I’d take about 15 minutes to get
there” he said. As for these travel times, you also have evidence of drive time tests conducted
by Cst Davidson to reference, which are set out in Exhibit P-83 and the evidence of Robert
156

 McFadden, who lives a couple of kilometres away from Dennis in Rothesay - that it takes Mr.
McFadden generally less than 20 minutes to reach his own home. And, in his testimony before
you Dennis did describe the route he took home. This is illustrated on Exhibit D-78 by a blue
coloured line for your reference.

Dennis explained to the police that he stopped at the Renforth Wharf in Rothesay on his way
home because he was hoping his children (who were with his first wife that week) were there.
Although at the time he didn’t know where they were, he said the children kayak and after that
they can swim and that it was just such a nice day that he hoped they were hanging out there. I
refer you to Exhibit D-61, which is a series of text messages between Dennis Oland and others.
You will see references that indicate that Dennis was made aware earlier on July 6th that his
daughter Hannah had kayaking on July 6th. In his testimony Dennis explained that his ex-wife’s
home is close by and that he takes every opportunity he can to see his children when it is not
his turn to have custody of them.

I will now tell you about some agreed written evidence that was read into evidence from
written statements of Barbara Murray (Exhibit P-100) and Douglas LeBlanc (Exhibit P-101) who
were sitting in their vehicle at the Renforth Wharf the evening of July 6 th. Normally, the law
requires that a witness give evidence here in court so that he or she can be cross-examined in
front of the jury. However, the lawyers have agreed these two witnesses need not testify
before you. In Exhibit 102 the lawyers have agreed on certain facts in relation to what those
witnesses saw at the Renforth Wharf. In addition, in relation to the two witnesses they have
agreed to additional details regarding what the witnesses would say if they had testified.

In relation to the Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit P-102) you must accept those facts as
proved in this case. In relation to the additional details like any other piece of evidence, it is up
157

 to you to decide how much weight you should give to Exhibits 100 and 101. Please keep in mind
that while you did not have an opportunity to observe those two witnesses give their evidence
the parties are apparently agreed that it was not necessary for you to do so to adequately
consider these pieces of evidence. The Agreed Statements of Facts Exhibit 102 would appear to
contain the details of their evidence which counsel are agreed you should accept.

In that Statement of Facts the lawyers have agreed that on the evening of July 6, 2011 Dennis
James Oland was witnessed by Mrs. Barbara Murray and Mr. Douglas LeBlanc at the Renforth
Wharf:
a. Walking briskly behind their vehicle and then passing by the passenger side of their
vehicle towards the wharf;
b. Carrying a reusable grocery bag;
c. Wearing a sports jacket and slacks;
d. Bending down and picking something up near the start of the wharf;
e. Briskly walking to the very end of the wharf where he sat down;
f. Placing the object he picked up near the start of the wharf in the reusable grocery bag;
g. Walking back from the wharf very briskly to the parking lot, passing Mrs. Murray and
Mr. LeBlanc’s vehicle on his way to his silver Volkswagen Golf; and
h. Leaving the Renforth Wharf area in that vehicle.

In his testimony before you, Dennis explained that before he got out of his vehicle he noticed
broken glass in a gap between boulders where people normally walk. When he got out of his
vehicle he put his sports jacket back on and retrieved his grocery bag from the vehicle. Recall
that Maureen Adamson had only remembered that Dennis was wearing a brown jacket when
he arrived at his father’s office after work because it was such a hot day. He was therefore
asked by Crown counsel why he would put his jacket back on to go out on to the wharf; the
Crown’s position being, you will recall, that Dennis had his jacket on when he went into his
158

 father’s office the last time, contrary to what Dennis testified to. As I understood, Dennis told
the Crown that he put his jacket back on before going out to the wharf because he was old
fashioned that way. As to that, you may have noticed that while he was wearing a sports jacket
at the Kent’s store the morning of July 7th, he had taken it off sometime before going into the
Canadian Tire Store that same morning. And, that he was not wearing a sports coat for his
police interview.

Dennis was also asked why he would take his grocery bag to the wharf. Dennis explained he did
that to have something to put the glass into until he could dispose of it. He said the bag has a
pouch of some sort he used. He couldn’t recall if he disposed of the glass in a garbage can at
the wharf area or later at home. He said it was necessary to go out to the end of the wharf
because you cannot see that area, where children do swim, without looking down.

Dennis told the police and you that after he left the Renforth Wharf he went home. Recall that
the time of the phone call from Lisa to her husband Dennis is at 6:36:41 p.m. as he was leaving
the gravel parking lot in uptown Saint John to drive home, first stopping at the Renforth Wharf
before arriving home. Dennis told Crown counsel during cross-examination that it would have
taken him about 15 minutes to drive to the Renforth Wharf, arriving there around 6:50 p.m. He
said he would have been at the wharf area for 5-10 minutes max and that it would have taken
him 5 minutes to get home from there. He agreed that this would place him arriving at his
house sometime between 7:00 and 7:10 p.m.

Section 18
This is a logical place to address more fully the relevance of Richard Oland’s missing IPhone 4,
which evidence I reviewed with you earlier. Recall that I told you I would return to the potential

159

 relevance of this evidence. There are three broad questions that you might find arise on that
evidence:
1. Why was Richard not responding to his mistress the evening of July 6 th,
particularly in the period of between 6:44 p.m. and 7:19 p.m.?
2. Where was Richard’s IPhone at those times and later?
3. Where was Dennis Oland at those times and later?

As a matter of logic, the first two questions are interrelated to some extent, since where the
phone was, might also inform why Richard was not answering calls and messages sent to it.
And, of course, there are only three possible answers open to you as to why Richard Oland did
not respond to his mistress at any of those times – he chose not; he could not; or he was dead.

In addressing this, it might be first helpful to refresh your memory regarding the legal meaning
of an inference and the distinction between an inference and speculation. Remember, that part
of my legal instructions to you very early on in this charge was this:
Where evidence is circumstantial, it is critical for you to distinguish between
inference and speculation. An inference is a deduction (finding) of fact that may
logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts you find
established in the trial;
Sometimes more than one inference, even different inferences, may be open to
you to draw from a fact or a group of facts you find established in the trial.
However, even if it might be open to you to draw an inference or inferences
from a fact or group of facts you find established in the trial, it is entirely up to
you to decide whether or not to draw the inference or inferences. You are not
required to draw the inference or draw any particular inference; that is entirely
up to you.
On the other hand, if there are no proven facts from which an inference or
inferences can be drawn, there can be no inference drawn, only impermissible
speculation and conjecture.

160

 The best way I believe I can assist you regarding the broad questions I mentioned that the
IPhone evidence raises, is to suggest some preliminary questions for your consideration. They
are only suggestions and only to help you, not to tell you.

Based on the evidence you have heard and seen you may want to consider:
-

Whether it is a reasonable inference that whoever or whomever killed Richard Oland
took his IPhone?

-

If so, should the very fact that the IPhone is missing, in and of itself, lead to the
drawing of an inference that Richard did not respond to Ms. Sedlacek’s 6:44 p.m.
text message because he could not or was dead?

-

If the noises Anthony Shaw and John Ainsworth heard were related to Richard
Oland’s death and if Anthony Shaw’s evidence is accurate and those noises were not
heard until between 7:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., maybe between 7:30 p.m. and 7:45
p.m. according to Mr. Shaw, why then did Richard not answer the text message sent
at 6:44 p.m., and the phone calls between then and 7:19 p.m.? Or, to rotate the
perspective, is Anthony Shaw’s evidence as to the time he heard the noises
inaccurate, since Richard Oland did not respond to the text message at 6:44 p.m. or
answer the phone calls between then and 7:19 p.m.?

-

Why did Richard’s cell phone, according to Ms. Sedlacek, go directly to voice mail
when she called him in the period between 6:44 p.m. and 7:19 p.m., particularly if
you accept the evidence from Cst. Davidson’s test of an IPhone 4 that messages go
directly to voice mail if the phone is powered off?

-

Did Richard simply choose not to answer Ms. Sedlacek’s text message at 6:44 p.m.
and the phone calls made by her to him in between then and 7:19 p.m., given the

161

 evidence of just days before when he did not respond to her quickly and given the
lack of any evidence as to their pattern and routine beyond that she was required to
respond to him within a period of time?
-

Why did Richard’s IPhone not receive Ms. Sedlacek’s 7:19 p.m. text message?

-

Why did Richard’s IPhone register (ping) off the Fairvale cellular tower in Rothesay at
6:44 p.m.?

-

Did Richard leave his office for a time after his son left, then return to his office
where he was then killed, given that his IPhone registered on the Fairvale cellular
tower at 6:44 p.m.?

-

Or was Richard still in his office with his cell phone after his son left, when it
registered on the Fairvale tower out in Rothesay at 6:44 p.m. because, even though
the phone registered at the Brunswick Square Tower earlier in the day, there are
other explanations for why that could happen? As you have heard (and seen
examples of it in the test calls report in this case), it is only a general rule that cell
phones register at the tower closest, because the basis of the general rule is that a
cell phone will register at the tower with the strongest signal, which is not always
the closest tower.

-

Why did the status of Richard’s IPhone come back as “roaming error” on the
afternoon of July 9th when Rogers Communication attempted to real-time locate it?
Given the Agreed Statement of Facts - was it because the phone was registered on a
foreign network (in which Rogers does not have a roaming agreement) or was it
because the phone’s location could not be obtained from the Rogers network for
some unspecified reason or was it because Rogers has no indication where on the
network to reach out to in order to request the location of the device as the record

162

 of the device’s location has been purged from the network databases due to a
period of inactivity (i.e. no calls, SMS’s or data access)?

The inferences, if any, that you draw and the significance of any such findings you might make,
in the context of all the evidence in the case, is entirely for you. As with all evidence, apply your
common sense and experiences of life in determining how much or how little the evidence
pertaining to Richard Oland’s IPhone helps you decide whether the Crown has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that it was Dennis Oland who killed his father.

Section 19
Recall that according to Dennis’s testimony he would have arrived at his house sometime
between 7:00 and 7:10 p.m. According to the Agreed Statement of Fact pertaining to the
evidence of Don Calpito of Telus Communications (Dennis Oland’s phone service provider)
(Exhibit P-138), Dennis’s phone called his wife Lisa’s phone at 7:24:54 p.m. (but they were
calling each other at the time so both went to voice mail) and Dennis’s phone called his wife’s
phone again at 7:26:23 p.m. that also went to voice mail. And, that at 7:28:52 p.m. Lisa Oland’s
phone called Dennis Oland’s cell phone and connected at 7:28:52. In cross-examination Dennis
explained that these calls were not being made as he was heading home but, rather, after he
got home, because he did not locate his wife immediately upon arriving home. In his earlier
statement to the police he also mentioned locating his wife through a phone call.

In that police statement Dennis said that when he arrived home he “went around the house
and walked in through the living room”. He explained that the house is an open concept style
“so that when you walk in you can actually see every single room”. To the extent you may or
may not find them helpful to picture the layout of that home, you have the photographs in

163

 Exhibit P-79 to reference. I refer you also to the testimony of Sgt. Jay Henderson and Cst.
McDonald. Recall they participated in a search of that home.

Dennis said he looked around and did not see his wife so he went upstairs assuming she was up
there. She was not, so he changed his clothes. In his testimony he said he put his clothes on the
bed and changed into the shorts and shirt you later see him wearing in the videos at the drug
store, market and at the Irving. In his police statement he said he then came back down stairs
and went out to the vegetable garden. His wife was not there either, so he started back into the
house. He told the police that this is when his wife called him.

In his statement to the police he said that his wife: “was in the sun room all wrapped up”. Recall
Sgt Henderson agreed there was a day-bed in the sunroom. Dennis also said his wife was mad
at him that he had not come home right away, but he didn’t tell her he stopped at the wharf in
hopes his children were there, only that he had been at his father’s office. When he testified, he
said that his wife went upstairs and seeing his clothes on the bed told him to put them away.

Dennis said he and his wife then went to Guardians drug store and to Cochrane’s market,
(which you know are in Rothesay), and then went back home and had dinner. They watched a
movie, but not the whole thing. He did a little gardening and around 9:00 p.m. put the hens he
keeps on the property away for the night. At some point he went out to the Irving to get some
milk. (You will recall the Marr Road Irving video which Grant Frederick’s analysed to compare
the shorts Dennis is seen wearing). Dennis said he went to bed shortly after 11:00 p.m.

You will also recall the store camera videos from the drug store and the market in Rothesay.
Those videos, as I mentioned before, you will find on the USB Exhibit D-56. The time stamp on
the drug store video show’s Dennis and his wife’s time there as between 7:38 and 7:40 p.m.
164

 and Dennis Oland’s and his wife’s arrival at Cochrane’s Market at approximately 7:38 p.m. and
that he was in the market until approx. 7:42 p.m. Obviously the times between the two
different store cameras are not exactly in sync. However, it does not appear to be disputed that
those times are close to accurate.

When Dennis arrived at Cochrane’s Market you see him talking to a lady at the check-out
counter. It has been agreed that this person is his father’s sister, his Aunt. Dennis and his Aunt
appear to have a brief conversation. He is in the store for several minutes afterwards,
purchases something, and then leaves.

At this point, I direct your attention to the evidence of John Ainsworth (the owner of 52
Canterbury St. and the proprietor of Printing Plus) and particularly to the evidence of his friend
Anthony Shaw. I do so here in light of the Guardian Drug Store and Cochrane Market videos.

John Ainsworth described the layout of his business Printing Plus, which occupies the entire
first floor at 52 Canterbury St. He pointed to where you enter, where the blue sign is on the far
right of the building as you view it in photo #1 of Exhibit P-5. This you have seen. He explained
that one then enters into a small reception area that has a counter with a Dutch door dividing
the reception area from what he described as the digital side of his office. The two double
doors seen in the middle of the front of the building he referred to as the loading doors, behind
which a hallway (corridor) runs from the front to the back of the building. As you enter those
loading doors there are walls on the left and right that delineate the hallway. The wall on the
right forms the back wall of the digital office part. The hallway wall on the left separates the
printing press, binding side of the Printing Plus office, which part of the office is on the left side
of the building as you view it in Exhibit P-5, Photo #1. The left wall of the hallway (or corridor)
as you enter through the loading door, he explained, is super insulated to prevent noise from
the presses and other operations going on there getting into the digital side of his office. For
165

 this reason, Mr. Ainsworth said, you cannot hear from inside the digital side of his office anyone
going up or coming down the stairs that access the 2nd or 3rd floor. He also told you that at the
back of that hallway that divides the press and digital sides of his office you can turn left and
access an elevator.

Further, Mr. Ainsworth showed you that, as you view the building (again, as seen in Exhibit P-5,
Photo #1), there are 9 windows fronting Canterbury St. on the second floor – the first 3 on the
right are for an office suite that was unoccupied in July 2011 9 (recall a business called Net
Difference had been there). The other 6 windows are associated to the Far End Corporation
office. And, you know that the air conditioner seen in photo #1 is actually roughly in line with
where the right side of Richard Oland’s desk is located as it faces the windows overlooking
Canterbury St. (See: Exhibit P-5, Photo # 22).

On the evening of July 6th, 2011, Mr. Ainsworth was in his digital office space working on a
project on his computer. The computer program was not working correctly. By the time his
friend Anthony Shaw showed up at 6:00 p.m., Mr. Ainsworth had been at the project since 4:30
p.m. Mr. Ainsworth said he was not in a sociable mood. He wanted to get the project done. At
one point in his testimony he said he was “super pre-occupied”. At another point in his
testimony he said he was “transfixed” with the job. He enlisted Mr. Shaw to help him. Mr.
Ainsworth testified he was sitting at a desk that faced the wall adjoining the building next door
on the right as you view 52 Canterbury from the street. Mr. Shaw was beside him.

While working on the computer there, he heard banging and thumping on the floor above,
coming from off over his right shoulder from the wall that separates the digital office space
from the hallway (corridor). He clarified what the noises were that he heard - that there was a
thump, followed by a lag time, and then a rapid fire 8-10 thumps. He said it lasted about 10
seconds. He said it was quick, not prolonged. He elaborated that the noises sounded like
166

 someone thumping on something that was on the floor, not thumping on the floor directly. He
said that something was slightly muffling the sound between the floor and what was doing the
striking. And he said that the noises were stationary, i.e. coming from one location, not like
when he used to hear children running back and forth on the floor of the previously occupied
Net Difference office which would be directly above his digital office space. He testified that
when he heard the noises he and Mr. Shaw “kinda looked at each other”. They then continued
on with their work when the noises stopped. He did not hear any other noises at any other
time. He never heard yelling or screaming, shouting or arguing.

Mr. Ainsworth elaborated further that the sounds came from just above the hallway corridor
underneath the window to the right of the air conditioner where the wall meets the ceiling. He
explained that he could tell that the sound was coming from the Far End Corporation office
space and not from the other unoccupied office suite. But, he said, he could not tell where
inside the Far End Corporation the noises were coming from. However, on cross-examination
he had his memory refreshed and accepted that at the Preliminary Inquiry he testified that in
relation to Richard Oland’s computer desk (with which location he was familiar having been
inside the Far End offices a number of times before July 6 th, 2011), the noises he heard sounded
like they came from just off to the left ever so slightly, maybe a foot or two, in back of where
Mr. Oland would sit. He agreed that this was his recollection of where the noises came from, as
he interpreted the location of the noises as they transmitted through the building.

As for when Mr. Ainsworth heard the noises, he is only sure that it was after 6:00 p.m. and
before a young man had come into the office requesting help to send a fax, which, according to
Exhibit D-50, would have been a little before 8:11 p.m. Mr. Ainsworth admitted in crossexamination that he had told a police officer (who we know is Cst. Davidson) the next morning
that he heard the noises at 8:00 p.m. Cst. Davidson testified that on the morning of July 7 th
while at the office of Printing Plus, Mr. Ainsworth told him that he had heard 5 or 6 stomping

167

 noises on the floor at 8:00 p.m. the evening before. Cst. Davidson also testified that Mr.
Ainsworth did not qualify the time as a guesstimate.

But, Mr. Ainsworth testified under cross-examination that when he told the officer this he was
only trying to put a time out there, and the certainty behind it is pretty negligible, he said. As I
understood Mr. Ainsworth, 8:00 p.m. was what he thought when he told the officer that
morning, but in hindsight he was only guessing under pressure as to the time he heard the
noises.

In considering all of Mr. Ainsworth’s evidence as to the time he heard the noises, including his
explanations for what he said to Cst Davidson only approximately 14 hours after he heard the
noises, you should also consider his evidence as to his preoccupation with the computer project
he was working on that evening. Of course, that assessment is entirely for you. In that
credibility assessment, if you find that Mr. Ainsworth gave an earlier and different version
about the time he heard the noises, you should consider the fact, nature, and extent of that
difference in deciding whether or how much you will believe of or rely upon the witness’s
testimony in deciding this case. You should bear in mind that not every difference or omission
will be significant. You should also take into account the explanations Mr. Ainsworth gave
regarding what he told the police and what he told you regarding the time he heard the noises.
Keep in mind though that you must not use the statements Mr. Ainsworth made to the police
officer the morning of July 7th as to when heard the noises as evidence of the time he actually
heard the noises, because Mr. Ainsworth did not accept as true his earlier more specific version
of the time he heard the noises.

Anthony Shaw is a friend and former employee of John Ainsworth. You might find him to be an
important witness. Mr. Shaw too was familiar with the layout of the building, except he had not
been into the office of Far End Corporation itself. It was not unusual for him to drop in to the
168

 Printing Plus premises to visit his friend Mr. Ainsworth. This is what he did the evening of July
6th, 2011 at around 6:00 p.m. He testified that his friend was working on a project on a
computer and recruited Mr. Shaw to help him because of problems he was having with the
computer program. Mr. Ainsworth was sitting at a desk with Mr. Shaw sitting beside him. The
desk was behind the counter and to the right in the street level digital office space that is seen
on the right hand side of 52 Canterbury as pictured in Exhibit P-5, Photo #1. He was there until
around 9:00 p.m. During his time there he had gone outside onto the sidewalk in the front of
the entrance to Printing Plus a few times to have a smoke. During those times he never saw
anyone leave or enter the other entrance of 52 Canterbury that leads up to the 2 nd and 3rd
floor.

Mr. Shaw testified that as he and Mr. Ainsworth were working he heard noises coming from the
2nd floor, which noises he located in relation to the air conditioning unit seen in Exhibit P-5,
Photo #1. As I understood him, he said the origin of the noises was 15 feet past (i.e. in behind)
the air conditioner in the middle of that room. This, as you know from the layout of Far End
Corporation, would place the noises in the general area behind Richard Oland’s desk. Mr. Shaw
testified that the noises were loud and unusual, causing both he and Mr. Ainsworth to pause
what they were doing, look at each other, wait, and then continue working after the noises
stopped. He estimated the noises lasted 10-15 seconds. He variously described the noises he
heard as follows:
-

“ loud, thumping, pounding sounds upstairs”

-

“a loud crash and then many thumping sounds thereafter; one big crash, repeated
thumping sounds- like hammering a nail or hitting a wall”;

-

“One loud crash and 8-10 repeated sounds thereafter – swift, quick”.

Mr. Shaw was asked why he did not investigate the noises. He explained, as I understood, that
he owns a big hollow brick apartment building similar to 52 Canterbury St. and at one time
169

 investigated a noise complaint in his apartment building. It turned out the noises were caused
by a tenant putting together furniture on the floor and the noises he heard the evening of July
6th were similar sounds. These were the only sounds Mr. Shaw heard coming from the 52
Canterbury St. building over the 3 hours he was there that evening. He did not hear any voices,
arguing or screaming and agreed that he had said in his statement to the police that he has a
pretty good ear for that because he owns an apartment building.

As I understood Mr. Shaw, he used the time a young man came into the office to have
something faxed as a base from which to recollect the time he heard the noises. As I
mentioned, that fax, the evidence shows, was sent through a fax program on the Printing Plus
office computer at 8:11 p.m. that evening (See: Exhibit D-50). Mr. Shaw said it was before that
young man came into the office; more particularly that he heard those noises between 7:30
and 8:00 o’clock, maybe between 7:30 p.m. and 7:45 p.m. He agreed that he had told a police
officer the next morning that he heard 5 or 6 stomping noises the evening before and that the
noises were quite loud and that he guesstimated the time as 8:00 p.m.

You will have noted that Mr. Ainsworth’s and Mr. Shaw’s testimonies, both as to where the
noises were coming from and what they heard, are consistent with each other’s. Both
individuals, to differing extents, were familiar with the layout of 52 Canterbury St. at the time.
Both individuals, you might find, place the noises as coming from the office of Far End
Corporation and in the vicinity of Richard Oland’s desk and the location of his body. And, it is
also open to you to find that those noises are consistent with the pathology and blood spatter
evidence. Recall some of the evidence of Dr. Nassemuddin:
I.

A separate fracture to the roof of the eye socket is an egg like fracture,
caused by a frontal blow. This could have occurred, the Doctor agreed, if
Richard Oland fell to the floor face first;

170

 II.

Given the number and incapacitating nature of the blows to the head, the
Doctor also agreed it would be logical to conclude that some of the blows
were struck while Richard Oland was low to the floor or while he was on
the floor and that in their totality would be completely disabling,
rendering Richard Oland incapable of movement. The Doctor further
agreed that something solid striking the skull would make some noise.

III.

Some of the sharp force injuries appeared to have been made in quick,
rapid succession as they were parallel to each other, on the same axis
and same plane. Recall Exhibit 30, Photo #17 which shows those injuries
behind Richard Oland’s right ear; and

IV.

Death would have been rapidly fatal given the nature and number of
blows to the head;

And, recall that based on the location of the blood spatters, the types of spatter and the
directionality of some of that spatter, Sgt Wentzell identified two places of origin for the
spatter:
i.

Originating from the sitting area of Richard Oland’s desk;

ii.

Originating on or near the floor in the location of where Richard Oland’s
body was found;

In other words, there is evidence from which you could reasonably infer that the noises that
John Ainsworth and Anthony Shaw heard the evening of July 6th were the sounds of Richard
Oland’s death - whether you draw that inference is entirely up to you.

171

 If you do draw that inference, then I have a special legal instruction for you.

Obviously, given the Crown’s theory of its case, in attempting to prove beyond any reasonable
doubt that Dennis Oland killed his father, it is Crown counsels’ responsibility to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Dennis Oland was at the Far End Corporation office when Richard Oland
was attacked. It is not Dennis Oland’s responsibility to prove that he was someplace else when
the offence was committed.

There is no evidence challenging the general accuracy of the time that Dennis Oland is seen at
the Guardian Drug Store and at Cochrane’s Market out in Rothesay the evening of July 6th. And
you have the time on a receipt of purchase made at Guardian Drug store that evening to
support the general accuracy of the videos (See: Exhibit P-91). Those videos would therefore
place Dennis Oland elsewhere at the time Anthony Shaw said he heard the noises coming from
the office of Far End Corporation in uptown Saint John.

If you accept that the noises heard by Mr. Ainsworth and Mr. Shaw were related to Richard
Oland’s death, this might mean, as a matter of logic and common sense, that Dennis Oland
could not have been present when his father was attacked and killed. I said might, because this
would hinge on your assessment of Mr. Shaw’s testimony as to when he heard the noises that
evening; the veracity (truthfulness) and reliability (accuracy) of Mr. Shaw’s evidence, like any
other witnesses evidence, being entirely for you to assess in the manner I described much
earlier in my instructions to you. In other words, for every witness you need to assess not only
whether the person is endeavouring to tell the truth but also whether their evidence is reliable.
Even if a witness is honestly endeavouring to tell the truth, that person could be mistaken. And,
as I have told you before, you can accept all, part or none of any witness’s evidence.

172

 As for your assessment of Mr. Shaw’s credibility, his evidence as to the time he heard those
noises appears to have been relatively straightforward; and, at least as far as I could see, he did
not contradict himself during his testimony in any meaningful way. I also point out that Mr.
Ainsworth’s evidence, broadly speaking, does not contradict Mr. Shaw’s time estimate. Nor did
Mr. Shaw, like Mr. Ainsworth did, later at court significantly qualify the time estimate he gave
the police the morning Richard Oland’s body was found. Nor did Mr. Shaw appear to have been
as pre-occupied with the computer project as Mr. Ainsworth was; therefore, you might think he
was less prone to be distracted and therefore was more likely to have a better estimate of the
time of the noises. And, although Mr. Shaw, like Mr. Ainsworth, would have no reason to
specifically note the time on that evening, Mr. Shaw’s memory of the event, as you heard, was
jogged the very next morning, not days, weeks, months or years later; and when it was jogged
the next morning Mr. Shaw had a reference point, being the time a young man came in to have
a fax sent. And, there is no evidence that Mr. Shaw was impaired by alcohol or drugs the
evening of July 6th; nor is there any evidence that he was suffering under any other kind of
disability that might make his recollection faulty or suspect; nor is there any evidence calling his
character into question.

However, there may be other important factors to consider as well; such as the extent to which
Mr. Shaw’s evidence is consistent with or inconsistent with other evidence in the case that you
assess. For example, recall the evidence that Richard Oland, for some reason or reasons, was
not responding to text messages and phone calls on and between 6:44 p.m. and 7:19 p.m. that
evening, which is approximately 45 minutes to an hour before the time Anthony Shaw said he
heard the noises coming from Richard’s office.

To repeat, the credibility of Anthony Shaw’s evidence as to the time he heard those noises, like
the entirety of his evidence, is for you to assess taking into consideration all of the evidence in
the case.

173

 The special legal instruction I mentioned is as follows:
If you find that the noises John Ainsworth and Anthony Shaw heard the evening
of July 6th were connected to Richard Oland’s death and if you accept Anthony
Shaw’s testimony as to the time he heard the noises, which would mean that
Dennis Oland was elsewhere when the offence was committed, you must find
Dennis Oland not guilty.
Even if you do not accept Anthony Shaw’s evidence as to the time he heard the
noises but that evidence raises a reasonable doubt in your mind, you must find
Dennis Oland not guilty.
Even If you do not accept Anthony Shaw’s evidence as to the time he heard the
noises and that evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt in your mind that
Dennis Oland was elsewhere when the offence was committed, you must
consider whether the rest of the evidence in the case that you accept satisfies
you beyond a reasonable doubt that Dennis Oland committed the offence
charged.

Section 20
The last aspect of Dennis Oland’s statement to the police that I will refer you to, is what he said
when asked what he was wearing when he attended at his father’s office after work on July 6 th.
You may find the relevance of that question put to a person who is the last known person to
see Richard Oland alive rather obvious, given the evidence of the number of blows that Richard
Oland suffered and the blood spatter evidence and your own common sense. Dennis told the
officer he had been wearing the same pants and shoes he was then wearing, and a dress shirt,
which he described as a blue and white stripped or checked button down collared dress shirt,
and a navy blazer.
174

 You also heard other evidence that before Dennis left the police station that evening he was
told that the police intended to execute search warrants against him.

And there is the evidence that someone dropped off under Dennis Oland’s wife’s name at a dry
cleaners the very next morning a browns sports jacket, along with other clothing, including
numerous dress shirts. Dennis testified that it was not him but his wife who did that because of
the upcoming ‘wake’ and funeral for his father. He also said his brown jacket was being
considered for his step-son to wear. It turned out he didn’t wear it.

In these regards, evidence of what a person said or did after an offence was committed may
help you decide whether it was that person who committed it. It may help or it may not. For
examples, an intentionally false or misleading statement made by a person after a crime has
been committed or conduct that involves attempting to destroy or hide potential evidence
after a crime has been committed will, in some circumstances, be evidence from which it can
be inferred that the person is attempting to mislead the police and deflect suspicion away from
himself or herself because the person actually committed the offence.

What a person said or did after an offence was committed is a type of circumstantial evidence.
Like any circumstantial evidence, it is for you to say what inference should be drawn from afterthe-fact evidence. You may use this evidence, along with all the other evidence in the case, in
deciding whether Crown counsel has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But you must not
infer guilt from this evidence unless, when you consider it together with the rest of the
evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that guilt is the only rational inference
that can be drawn from all the evidence.

175

 As circumstantial evidence, evidence of after-the-fact statements or conduct has only an
indirect bearing on the issue of guilt. You must be careful about inferring guilt on the basis of
evidence of after-the-fact statements or conduct because there might be other explanations for
that statement or conduct; something innocent, unconnected with participation in the offence
charged. You may use evidence of after-the-fact statements or conduct, along with other
evidence, to support an inference of guilt only if you have rejected any other explanation from
any such statements or conduct.

As I have mentioned, you have heard evidence that, after Richard Oland’s body was found the
morning of July 7th, Dennis Oland was interviewed by the police that evening, commencing at
approximately 6:00 p.m. During his interview he described the clothing he was wearing while at
his father’s office on July 6th, including telling Cst. Davidson that he was wearing a navy blazer.

The evidence is also that Dennis Oland left the police station at approximately 11:00 p.m., but
before he left he was told by the police that he was a suspect and that search warrants would
be executed against him. And, the evidence is that the next morning two sports jackets, along
with one pair of pants and sixteen shirts were dropped off at VIP Dry Cleaners in Rothesay. Mr
Nam, one of the owners of the business, would have taken receipt of the clothes but cannot
remember who dropped them off.

The receipt found in the master bedroom of the residence at 58 Gondola Point and the store
copy held by the drycleaners shows that the clothing was deposited for dry cleaning at 9:08
a.m. on July 8, 2011, which was a Friday, under the account of Dennis Oland’s wife. The preprinted form used to record the deposit of clothing shows that pick-up was to be Monday July
11th, but then the initials for Monday are crossed off and the initials for Saturday are written in.
Mr. Nam identified it as his writing. Mr. Nam’s wife, Ms. Jinee Choi’s evidence is that if the
customer asks before the form is printed, they could get next day service, or, for that matter,
176

 same day service and all without extra cost and their pre-printed forms could reflect that as
well. Her husband, Mr. Nam’s evidence is that the slip is automatically printed out, as the
default on the computer, to reflect a pickup two days later after 3:00 p.m.

Ms. Choi testified that Dennis Oland’s wife came in on that Saturday (July 9 th) in the afternoon
to pay because the clothes had already been picked up by someone from Ms. Choi’s husband
earlier that day without payment having been made. Mr. Nam does not remember who had
picked up the clothes. Ms. Choi said she noticed Dennis Oland outside in a vehicle at the time
Mrs. Oland was paying.

And the evidence is that on July 14, 2011 the police did in fact execute a search warrant at
Dennis Oland’s home and seized, among other items, two sports jackets (one navy and one
brown) and that a dry cleaning tag was affixed to the brown sports jacket (Exhibit P-33) which
matched the dry cleaners store copy and you have also heard and seen that the brown sports
jacket seized was later subjected to trace examination and forensic DNA analysis (which I have
addressed earlier).

And, it is accepted by the parties and supported by the evidence that Dennis Oland was wearing
a brown sports jacket the evening of July 6th when he attended his father’s office and it was
that jacket that found its way to the dry-cleaners the morning of July 8th along with other
clothing. It is also obviously accepted that Dennis told the police during his interview that he
was wearing a navy blazer when at this father’s office the evening of July 6 th.

The two pieces of evidence that the Crown refer to as after-the-fact evidence from which they
ask you to draw an inference against Dennis Oland are:

177

 1. The direct evidence that during his interview he told the police he was wearing a navy
blazer when in fact he was wearing a brown one; and

2. The circumstantial evidence that the brown jacket was dropped off the very next
morning following that interview, after he had been told that the police suspected him
in the crime and were intending to get search warrants against him, and that blood and
his father’s DNA was later found on that jacket.

You should consider the issue in steps.

As for what he told the police, you must first consider whether what Dennis said was related to
the commission of the offence charged or to something else. You must be careful not to
immediately conclude that what he said was related to the commission of the offence charged
rather than to something else.

To decide the reason why Dennis said he was wearing a navy blazer, you should consider all the
evidence. Of particular importance is any evidence that offers other explanations for what
Dennis said. In his testimony he acknowledged that he was mistaken. He explained to the effect
that he was under the stress of the interview and the very recent loss of his father. He
attributed him saying it was a navy blazer to having worn a navy blazer the morning of July 7th,
which is confirmed by the security video at the Kent’s store. He also said that the brown sports
jacket and navy blazer are his go-to jackets in the summer. And, he said that when you look
down and see khaki pants (as he was then wearing) you naturally think of a navy blazer. At least
that is how I understood him. As well, in considering whether what Dennis said was an
intentional lie or an honest mistake, you have the evidence that Dennis was advised by the
police, before he was asked about what he was wearing, that they would be looking at
surveillance video.
178

 On the other hand, you have to consider that he was only being asked to remember what he
wore the day before, not some time well into the past. And, you might also consider that when
he was asked by the police what he was wearing he did not appear to hesitate and, apparently,
got everything else correct including the description of the shirt he would have been wearing.
In other words, you may think that of the articles of clothing he might have difficulty
remembering it would have been the shirt, particularly given the number of dress shirts that he
appears to have possessed. And, you are also entitled to consider what was later found on the
brown jacket in the overall consideration of whether Dennis Oland was genuinely mistaken or
was attempting to mislead the police.

You must not use this evidence about what Dennis Oland said about the colour of the jacket in
deciding or helping you decide that Dennis Oland committed the offence charged unless you
reject any innocent explanation you may find for it.

If you do not or cannot find that what Dennis Oland said was related to the commission of the
offence charged, you must not use this evidence in deciding or in helping you decide that
Dennis Oland committed the offence charged.

On the other hand, if you find that what Dennis said about the jacket he was wearing was
related to the commission of the offence charged, not to something else (an innocent
explanation), you may consider this evidence, together with all the other evidence in the case,
in reaching your verdict.

179

 As for the after-the-fact evidence of the dry-cleaning of the brown jacket, you approach the
issue the same way. Except, here there is no direct evidence that Dennis Oland was the one
who either dropped off the clothing at the dry cleaners the next morning or directed or
arranged for it to be dropped off at the dry cleaners the morning after he had given his
statement to the police the evening before, having been told before he left the police station
that the police intended to execute search warrants. Indeed, Dennis Oland testified that had
nothing to do with any of the clothing having been dropped off at VIP drycleaners. He said his
wife did that because of the pending wake and funeral. I mentioned this evidence before.

On the other hand, there is also evidence that Dennis Oland was placed under surveillance by
the police after he left the police interview that evening and remained under surveillance until
the search warrant for this home was executed on July 14 th. Therefore, you might think that
having someone else drop the clothing off would be a reasonable step to avoid detection.
Except, you would also have to consider that there is no evidence that Dennis knew of the
surveillance, which, when you think about it, would be counterproductive for the police to let
him find that out. But, of course, all of this is for you to decide, taking into consideration all the
evidence, including your assessment of Dennis Oland’s credibility. Like any witness’s evidence,
you can accept all part or none of that evidence.

If you find that Dennis Oland did not do, direct or arrange what he is alleged to have done
regarding the dry cleaners, you must not consider this evidence in deciding or helping you
decide that Dennis Oland committed the offence charged.

Even if you find that Dennis Oland played some part in the jacket having been dropped off at
the dry-cleaners you must be careful not to immediately conclude that this was related to the
commission of the offence charged rather than to something else. You must not use it in
deciding or helping you decide that Dennis Oland committed the offence charged unless you
180

 reject any innocent explanation you may find for it. You should consider all the evidence. Of
particular importance is any evidence that offers other explanations for what Dennis Oland did,
if you find he did.

As for any evidence of an innocent explanation you should consider that if the purpose was to
hide from the police the fact the jacket was dry-cleaned, you can rhetorically ask why a person
would leave a dry cleaning tag on the jacket and the other clothes that had been taken to the
cleaners. And, you would have noticed that even for those articles of clothing that had been
since worn the evidence of the tags was found in the waste bin in the bathroom and the actual
store receipt was found in the bedroom. Moreover, you may find that the pending ‘wake’ and
funeral to be a rational explanation for the clothing having been taken to the dry-cleaners and a
rational explanation for a next day pick-up date being requested. But all of that is for you to
decide, if you find that Dennis Oland played some part in the jacket being deposited for
cleaning.

If you do not or cannot find that what Dennis Oland did was related to the commission of the
offence charged, you must not use this evidence in deciding or in helping you decide that
Dennis Oland committed the offence charged.

On the other hand, if you find Dennis Oland played a part in the brown sports jacket being
deposited for dry-cleaning and you find it was related to the commission of the offence
charged, not to something else (an innocent explanation), you may consider this evidence,
together with all the other evidence in the case, in reaching your verdict.

This concludes my review of the evidence from Dennis Oland’s statement to the police and
from his testimony and the associated evidence.
181

 Section 21
The final matter I will refer to in my evidence review is that related to the Crown’s allegation
that Dennis Oland had motive to kill his father.

Motive is a reason why somebody does something. It is not one of the essential elements that
Crown counsel must prove. In other words, you do not need to find that Dennis Oland had a
motive in order to find him guilty of the offence charged. It is just part of the evidence – one of
the many things for you to consider as you determine whether or not Dennis Oland is guilty.

Evidence of motive may help you decide this case. For example, if a person had a reason for
doing something, you might conclude that it was more likely that he or she did that thing and
did so intentionally. On the other hand, if you find that a person had no reason to do
something, you might have a doubt about whether that person did that thing or did it
intentionally.

A person may be found guilty of an offence like 2nd degree murder whatever his or her motive.
Absence of proven motive however, is a circumstance for you to consider – one which, you may
find, tends to support the presumption of innocence and Dennis Oland’s denial of guilt. A
person may also be found not guilty of an offence, even with a motive to commit it.

182

 In this case Crown counsel relies on a constellation of factors it in effect says acted as the
combustion for Dennis killing his father. The Crown points in support to what it says are the
rage-like infliction of injuries upon Richard Oland – those precipitating factors being Dennis’s
precarious financial situation at the time of his father’s death, implicitly raising the question of
where else Dennis would have been able to turn in early July 2011 for financial help other than
to his wealthy father; the stress on Dennis reasonably expected to be caused by it all; the
significant nature of the financial help Richard had already provided to Dennis in the not too
distant past and the expectations of his father for the giving of security in return by Dennis and
the fact that no security was ever given and that Bank security in the form of a collateral
mortgage for $163,000 would now rank in priority over the ancestral home; all placed in the
context of both his personal relationship with his father (as described by Dennis himself) and
against the backdrop of the type of person Richard Oland was and how his father acted toward
him and treated the family in general (also as described by Dennis himself), including the fact
that his father was having an extramarital affair.

The Defence, on the other hand, point to the evidence that the concerns, such as they were,
that Dennis expressed about his father’s affair was a considerable period of time before Richard
Oland was killed. The Defence also point to the lack of any evidence that Dennis’s financial
troubles were even a topic discussed between father and son at any time in the months before
early July 2011 or on the evening of July 6th, 2011. And, the Defence point to Dennis’s financial
situation in previous years, which the Defence says puts into question whether his financial
situation in 2011 would have exerted the pressure one would normally expect. Furthermore,
the Defence point to the evidence that nowhere did the forensic accountant, Eric Johnson, find
evidence where Dennis had been refused financial assistance by his bank and that Dennis
testified that he did obtain financing from his Bank after his father’s death.

The Defence also point to the lack of any evidence of existing animosity between Dennis and his
father; the lack of any evidence that Dennis ever raised his finger to his father in the past and to
183

 the lack of any evidence that Richard ever refused his son financial help in the past. The
Defence also point to the lack of any computer record or writings where Dennis ever expressed
anything remotely resembling a motive to kill his father, before or after his father’s death, and
they point to the obvious fact that the biological/familial relationship itself (i.e. one of father
and son), makes it even more unlikely that one would intentionally take the life of the other.

I have reviewed with you previously in greater detail some of the evidence relevant to motive
or the absence of motive. As to the evidence of Dennis’s financial relationship with his father
and Dennis’s own financial situation, recall, among others, Robert McFadden’s, Eric Johnson’s
and Dennis Oland’s own evidence. As for Dennis’s personal relationship with his father, recall,
among others, Dennis Oland’s own evidence, along with Maureen Adamson’s, Robert
McFadden’s and John Travis’s evidence. I have also reviewed some of the results from searches
of computers and paper’s seized at Dennis Oland’s home, of his Blackberry phone, and of his
work place computer. There may be other evidence I have not mentioned now or earlier that
you consider relevant. That, again, is entirely for you.

And, it is for you to decide whether Dennis Oland had a motive as the Crown alleges, or any
motive at all, and how much or little you will rely on it to help you decide this case.

This concludes my review of the evidence.

184

 CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE

You will recall my much earlier instructions to you on the onus of proof on the Crown and on
the meaning of reasonable doubt. You will have those instructions in writing as part of the
materials I will give you to take to the jury room to assist you in your deliberations.

This case is in its totality a circumstantial one. In order for you to find Dennis Oland guilty of the
offence charged on the basis of circumstantial evidence, you must be satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that his guilt is the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the whole
of the evidence.

185

 SUMMARY OF THE POSITIONS OF THE CROWN AND DEFENCE

You heard the able addresses of Defence counsel and Crown counsel as to why Dennis Oland
should be acquitted or convicted. I will now summarize their positions. However, before doing
so, I instruct that when deciding whether Dennis Oland is guilty or not guilty, you should not
weigh the position of the Crown against the position of the accused, since it is always the duty
of the Crown to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt before he can be
convicted.

Position of the Crown
The position of the Crown is that:
Richard Oland and the Accused did not have a normal father and son relationship. They were
not close and certainly were not friends. The Accused grew up in a home of high expectations;
a home where it was easier to keep your distance from Richard Oland because it kept the
peace.
Richard Oland was a meticulous detailed man very much in control of his finances. Despite his
considerable wealth, he was not the type of man to simply give things away, even to his own
family.
A perfect example is the Accused’s 2009 divorce. With the Accused being at risk of losing the
ancestral home, Richard Oland provided financial support to a total of $538,000.00 to the
Accused. This, of course, did not come without strings attached.
In exchange for his assistance Richard Oland requested in return promissory notes to be signed,
the loan to be secured against the ancestral home, monthly interest only payments of
$1666.67, a right of first refusal on the ancestral home and a domestic contract to be signed by

186

 his new wife. These requests are indicative of Richard Oland’s desire to protect against
potentially losing the ancestral home again.
By the end of the divorce Richard Oland wiped out the Accused’s debts and became his largest
creditor.
Over the next two years, the Accused continued to spend well beyond his means. To support
his spending habits he cashed out investments, increased his credit card limit and encumbered
the ancestral home with a collateral mortgage.
Through this period the Accused’s income declined and he resorted to seeking an advance from
his employer.
By July 6, 2011, the Accused had surpassed the $27,000.00 limit on his credit card and
surpassed the $163,000.00 limit on his collateral mortgage. In fact, the last payment on the
collateral mortgage, secured against the ancestral home, had bounced.
The Accused was two months behind his interest only payments to Richard Oland and, despite
asking for a delay in cashing the next payment, on July 5, 2011 the payment is returned NSF.
By July 6, 2011, the Accused had nowhere left to turn for financial assistance but Richard Oland.
On top of that Richard Oland had been having a lengthy affair behind the Accused’s mother’s
back to the disapproval of the Accused. The Accused had attempted through Robert McFadden
to put an end to the affair.
On July 6, 2011, against the backdrop of the relationship between Richard Oland and the
Accused, their diametrically opposed financial situations and Richard Oland’s affair, the Accused
made an unannounced visit to Far End Corporation. The Accused was the last known person to
see Richard Oland alive that day.
The Accused made three visits to the office that day. On the first visit the Accused made it into
the building but not into the office, showing the Accused’s hesitation in visiting Richard Oland
that day.
187

 The second visit at approximately 5:35pm, the Accused initially approached Richard Oland with
genealogical material, a topic that Richard Oland was quite passionate about; a topic that
would, perhaps, soften the blow of the coming discussion.
The Crown says you should infer that the accused at some point in that second visit, knowing he
had nowhere left to turn, raised his dire financial straits with Richard Oland; dire financial
straits that included the ancestral home, and that this discussion did not go as the Accused had
planned.
Upon leaving the Far End Corporation office the Accused was distracted and distraught from
the discussion that he just had with Richard Oland. He mistakenly sent a text message to his
sister meant for his wife, he wandered the wrong way on Canterbury Street, crossed over to the
side of the Street of his vehicle, crossed over again to the side of the street of Far End
Corporation, crossed back over to his vehicle and he drove the wrong way on an one way
street.
The Crown says that the Accused, having nowhere left to turn, returned to Far End Corporation
for one last time. It was upon this visit that Richard Oland was killed. The viciousness of the
attack could only demonstrate that this was a crime of passion born of an enraged mind.
Richard Oland’s iPhone received its final text message at 6:44pm; a question from his mistress
“U there??”. There was no response to this message or any other subsequent message. Nor
was there a response to the many calls made that evening to Richard Oland’s iPhone; they
immediately went to voicemail.
The Crown says that this was because Richard Oland had been killed by 6:44pm and his iPhone
had left the office with his killer. It was now located in the general area of the SJFV Rothesay
Cell Tower. The same general area the Accused travelled after he left Richard Oland’s office
that final time.
Upon discovering Richard Oland’s body the next morning, the investigation, logically, required
interviews of the family members. The Accused, not yet a suspect, provided a statement.

188

 After being advised there may be video surveillance reviewed from July 6, 2011, the Accused,
when asked what he was wearing when he visited Richard Oland’s office, told the police he
wore a Navy Blazer. The police did not know the truth at that time. It was later discovered,
however, that he was in fact wearing a brown sports coat. The Accused’s response was
designed to mislead the Police in their investigation.
The Crown says we don’t know what occurred with the brown sports jacket that evening. We
do know the very next morning after the Accused’s interview, that brown sports jacket was
taken to be dry-cleaned; which the Crown says was an attempt to destroy any potential
evidence on that jacket.
Once the brown jacket was eventually seized and analyzed, forensic evidence was located
linking the Accused to the offence; Blood and DNA matching that of Richard Oland.
It is the Crown’s position that on July 6, 2011, the Accused had nowhere left to turn financially.
He reached out to Richard Oland who was not willing to reach back with his considerable
wealth. The Accused did not meet those high expectations of Richard Oland. The Accused
would no longer live paycheck to paycheck while his father sat on a fortune.
It is the Crown’s position that, upon review of all the evidence, the Accused should be found
guilty of the offence charged.

The Defence Position
The position of the Defence is that:
Applying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and in accordance with the
presumption of innocence, the circumstantial evidence is such that you must find Dennis Oland
not guilty.

189

 The murder of Richard Oland was planned and deliberate. Whoever killed him must have
brought the weapon or weapons with them to the office. If Dennis Oland was the killer, he
would not have allowed himself to be seen by Maureen Adamson.
The noises heard by Anthony Shaw and John Ainsworth were obviously the killing of Richard
Oland – their description fits perfectly with the location and the manner in which he was killed.
Anthony Shaw was unequivocal that he heard the noises between 7:30-8:00 pm. Dennis Oland
was confirmed to be in Rothesay at that time (at one point shown on security footage engaged
in casual conversation with his aunt, his father’s sister). Therefore he could not have been the
killer.
Dennis Oland testified in his own defence and denied killing his father. He was frank and
admitted inconsistencies in his police statement and details about which he was confused.
There is nothing suspicious about his confusion in his statement to the police in relation to the
specifics of where he parked, or which route he took to get to and from his father's office. If he
was the killer, he would have been prepared with a rehearsed, easy flowing story. The
important details of his visit – how many times he parked, where he parked, and when he
arrived and ultimately left – have stayed the same throughout.
Dennis Oland’s statement that he wore a navy jacket on the evening of July 6 was a simple
mistake, not an intentional lie. Why would he lie to the police about the colour of his jacket,
knowing they would be reviewing security camera footage, and that Maureen Adamson had
seen what he was wearing?
The dry cleaning brought in by Lisa Oland and the request for one day service was
unexceptional given the impending visitations and funeral of Richard Oland. The dry cleaners
(who checked the clothing both before and after it is dry cleaned) did not notice any stains on
the items that were brought in, and no blood stain remover was used. Dennis Oland clearly did
not try to conceal that the brown jacket had been cleaned because the dry cleaning tag was still
attached when it was seized. If he was trying to get rid of evidence, he would not have kept the
jacket; yet he made no effort to get rid of the jacket, keeping it in the closet of his master
bedroom.
190

 The evidence shows that Richard Oland not using his computer past the time when Dennis
Oland left the office is consistent with his pattern of computer usage during the week of June
13-17, his last full week in the office before July 6.
The evidence shows that Richard Oland was typically not prompt in answering Diana Sedlacek –
sometimes he did not respond at all – and every single phone call he received from anybody
throughout the day on July 6 went to voicemail. His phone activity on July 5 shows that failing
to respond to Diana before the 7:30-8:00 pm timeframe on July 6 was not unusual. He may
have deliberately ignored her, he may have turned his cell phone off, or his cell phone may
simply have run out of battery.
The Defence says that with respect to the incoming text message at 6:44 pm, Richard Oland
may have left his office shortly after Dennis Oland’s departure (which may explain his otherwise
unexplained alcohol consumption, as set out in the pathologist’s report), or it may be that he
was in his office and the Fairvale tower happened to have the strongest, most available signal
based on network circumstances or the specific position of the iPhone at the time.
Joseph Sadoun testified that it would have been possible for Richard Oland’s iPhone to connect
with the Fairvale tower from Uptown Saint and admitted that:
1. the propagation maps do not pinpoint the location of a phone at a given time;
2. the maps assume the phone is 1.5 metres from the ground, which we know would
not apply to a phone in Richard Oland’s office;
3. the best way to assess the likelihood of Richard Oland’s iPhone connecting with the
Fairvale tower would have been to gather a reasonable amount of data involving a
phone receiving text messages at the same time of day at Far End Corp., and that he
did not do this;
4. he did not have drive test data available to support the predictions of his maps; and
5. notably, the maps incorrectly predicted that all of the test calls from the Renforth
Wharf would connect with the Fairvale tower. In fact, they all connected with the
Mt. Champlain tower, located 21 km away from the Renforth Wharf – much further
than the 12 km distance between the Fairvale tower and the Far End Corp. offices.
191

 There is no evidence explaining why Dennis Oland would have taken Richard Oland’s iPhone,
and nothing on the backup of the iPhone to incriminate Dennis Oland. When Rogers attempted
to locate the iPhone on July 9 by performing a forced registration, they received the message
“Roaming Error”, which could have meant the phone was alive and well on a foreign network.
There is no evidence that police followed up on this lead.
There is no evidence that Dennis Oland would have a motive to kill his father, or that he had a
spontaneous confrontation with him about finances or Diana Sedlacek, or for any other reason.
The murder weapon belies any theory of spontaneous or situational rage.
Dennis was welcomed warmly by Richard Oland when he arrived on July 6. The meeting was
jovial and good-natured, and they discussed genealogy, a topic they both enjoyed. Anthony
Shaw and John Ainsworth heard no yelling, screaming, or arguing at any time that evening.
The financial evidence simply does not support in any reasonable or sensible way any motive to
plan and brutally kill his father. There is not a shred of evidence – on any of Richard Oland’s
computers, the backup of his iPhone, Dennis Oland’s home or work computers, or Dennis’s
BlackBerry – of financial desperation or any pre-existing feelings of antagonism or animosity as
between Dennis and Richard Oland over financial matters, Diana Sedlacek, or any issue.
There was no evidence discovered on any of Dennis Oland’s home or work computers or on his
Blackberry phone indicating that he was responsible for killing his father.
There was a complete lack of any trace evidence on items and in places where it should have
been if Dennis Oland was the killer, particularly given that there was no evidence of cleanup at
the scene: the Logbook, the Volkswagen (even though it was obvious no effort had been made
to clean the vehicle), the grocery bag, Dennis’s shoes, his shirt (which the Crown’s expert
testified was indistinguishable in class characteristics from the shirt he was seen wearing on
July 6), or the BlackBerry (which the evidence shows he answered at 6:36 pm, when his wife
called, even though on the Crown’s theory it must have been used by Dennis proximate to the
bloody murder).
Dennis Oland’s DNA was not detected in any of the samples taken at the autopsy.

192

 No evidence implicating Dennis Oland was found during the multiple searches of the Renforth
Wharf area, including a canine search and multiple dive searches. The Crown admits Dennis
Oland went to the Renforth Wharf after leaving his father’s office, and Dennis Oland himself
informed the police of this fact during his police statement. Mrs. Murray and Mr. LeBlanc did
not see Dennis throw anything away at the wharf. There was also no evidence implicating
Dennis Oland found as a result of the search of the Loki or the concurrent dive search near that
boat, where Dennis Oland had carried out a repair job on the morning of July 7.
Police surveillance of Dennis Oland following his police interview on July 7 until the search of
his house on July 14 also revealed no evidence that Dennis Oland was the killer.
The Defence says that the blood and DNA evidence on Dennis Oland’s brown jacket does not
support the conclusion that he brutally killed his father while wearing the jacket.
1. The bloodstain pattern and DNA experts could not say how the blood or DNA
was deposited on the jacket or how long it had been there – it could have been
there long before July 6.
2. The stains are tiny and would easily be overlooked by a casual observer. That
mere specks were discovered is entirely inconsistent with the massive bloodletting that occurred as Richard Oland was battered 45 times. If the jacket had
been worn during the killing, it would have received a significant amount of
blood spatter, but there is no evidence that the stains are even spatter. Their
appearance is nothing like the spatter stains found on Richard Oland’s shirt
collar.
3. The specks are instead consistent with events unrelated to the homicide. Dennis
Oland’s evidence regarding events or opportunities when Richard Oland’s blood
or DNA may have been transferred to the brown jacket was not challenged by
the Crown through cross-examination. Other witnesses confirmed, and photos
of Richard Oland show, that it was his habit to make physical contact when he
interacted with people.
193

 4. Modern DNA testing is so sensitive that profiles can be generated from tiny
stains deposited through ordinary contact. There is no evidence as to the base
rate of innocent transfer of blood or DNA through ordinary contact among family
members.
5. The Crown’s experts also could not give evidence as to the effect of dry cleaning
on bloodstains, but it is clear that no bloodstains were seen by the cleaners
before or after dry cleaning and no bloodstain remover was used.
There is no evidence of any connection between Dennis Oland and any possible murder
weapon. The police failed to properly investigate what the weapon may have been, and did not
ask the pathologist about the apparently only item – a drywall hammer –they theorized could
have been the weapon.
The police failed to properly investigate the crime scene at 52 Canterbury St. They allowed the
second floor washroom to be used by an unknown number of individuals, potentially resulting
in the loss of evidence. Neither the front nor the back door was checked for fingerprints, blood,
or DNA, and they allowed the back door – the least conspicuous, most surreptitious escape
route for the killer – to be contaminated before it could be properly examined.

I have now completed giving the summary of the Crown and Defence positions on the case.

I now move to the final part of my instructions to you.

194

 PROCEDURE FOR QUESTIONS

If, during your discussions, you have any questions, please have your foreperson put it in
writing in a sealed envelope and give them to the Court constable, who will be outside the door
of your jury room. She or he will bring the envelope to me. In your question or in any other
note you send out to me, please do not disclose the results of any votes you may have taken
during your deliberations.

After I have received your question, I will discuss the answer to it with the lawyers in your
absence. After that, you will be brought back into the courtroom, and your question read out
followed by my answer. I will answer every proper question you have, as quickly and
completely as I can.

If you do send out a question, you can go on to discuss the case in the jury room; but do not
make any final decision on the case before getting your answer to the question you asked. The
case law reports show that on a rare occasion this has actually happened – a jury has sent out a
question but before getting an answer advised the Court that it had decided on a verdict. This,
as you can imagine, would be very problematic.

195

 REQUIREMENTS FOR A VERDICT

To return an effective verdict in this case, whether of guilty or not guilty, requires that all of you
agree on your decision. A verdict, whether of guilty or not guilty, is the unanimous opinion of
the whole jury.

As I said, to return a verdict requires that all of you agree on your verdict. Although your
verdict must be unanimous, the path each of you takes to reach that conclusion need not be
the same. All of you may be satisfied of Dennis Oland’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even
though, individually, you have different views of the evidence. Or, in a similar way, all of you
may have a reasonable doubt about Dennis Oland’s guilt but do not agree why. It matters not
as long as your verdict is unanimous.

Sometimes however, a jury may be unable to reach a verdict. Jurors have the right to disagree.

You should make every reasonable effort, however, to reach a verdict. Consult with one
another. Express your own views. Listen to the views of others. Discuss your differences with
an open mind. Try your best to decide this case.

Everyone should give fair, impartial and equal consideration to all the evidence. Your goal
should be to reach an agreement that matches the individual judgment of each juror. You must
not agree, however, only for the purpose of returning a unanimous verdict.

If you reach a unanimous verdict, your foreperson should record it on your verdict sheet and
notify the Court constable that you have reached a verdict. We will come back into court to
receive it. Your foreperson will tell us your verdict in the courtroom when I ask for it. I will tell
you about how to complete the verdict sheet and how to announce your verdict shortly.

196

 If you cannot reach a unanimous verdict, you should notify the Court constable in writing. The
constable will bring me your message. In your message please do not disclose the results of
any votes you have taken during your deliberations or anything else - just that you cannot reach
a verdict. I will discuss what has happened with the Crown and Defence counsel. We will then
return to the courtroom to see what we should do next.

197

 JUROR CONDUCT DURING DELIBERATIONS

When you go to your jury room, your duty is to consult with each other and to deliberate with a
view to reaching a just verdict. Your verdict must be based on the facts as you find them from
all the evidence introduced at trial, and on the law that I have told you applies in this case.

You will have a number of things provided for you during your deliberations. I have already
mentioned the exhibits. You will also have the witness list, the exhibit lists, the Indictment, a
copy of these Final Instructions, a Verdict Sheet, and such technical equipment (and
accompanying instructions for its operation) as is necessary to review any evidence. Should you
experience any difficulties in operating any of that equipment, please send a note to me
through the Court constable and I will have the equipment fixed or replaced as quickly as I can
arrange.

When you begin your deliberations, you should not start out by emphatically expressing your
opinion or declaring your intention to stand for a particular verdict no matter what others may
think or say. To proceed like that makes it very hard for you to take into account the views and
wisdom of your fellow jurors. Keep an open mind, but not an empty head. Don’t just talk.
Listen too. Put forward your own views in a reasonable way. Listen in a calm and impartial
manner to what your fellow jurors have to say.

Jurors are not advocates who have a duty, like the lawyers here, to argue the case for the
Crown or for the Defence, as the case may be. Jurors are judges. If you approach your
deliberations calmly, putting forward your own views and listening carefully to what others
have to say, you will be able to reach a just and proper verdict.

198

 During your deliberations, you must not communicate with or provide any information to
anyone by any means about this case or your deliberations. You may not use any electronic
device or media, such as any type of phone, any instant messaging service, any blog or website,
to communicate to anyone any information about this case or to conduct any research about
this case until you give your verdict. And, you can only discuss the case in the jury room with
your fellow jurors during deliberations and at no other times. I expect you to tell me if and as
soon as you become aware of another juror’s violation of these instructions. After this long a
trial and having heard me periodically preach to you about this, I would not expect any
difficulties in these regards will arise.

The reasons for the rules are simple. First, it is absolutely essential that you decide this case
solely on the evidence you have seen and heard given in this courtroom during this trial.
Internet information, news broadcasts or information available through social media might be
wrong, incomplete, inaccurate, or have a spin placed on it. Second, you are only permitted to
discuss the case with your fellow jurors when you are all together during deliberations because
all of you have heard and seen the same evidence.

Our law considers it fundamental that those who decide cases, like jurors, not be influenced by
anyone or anything outside the courtroom. If that were to occur, the trial would be unfair and
cause a miscarriage of justice.

Before you begin your deliberations any communication devices you may have must be turned
over to the Court constable to be returned to you at the end of the case after your verdict is
announced in the courtroom. The Sheriff has already discussed arrangements with you in case
of an emergency. If during your deliberations it is necessary for anyone to go outside to get
some air or if there are one or more jurors who smoke and need a smoke break, all jurors must
199

 go outside together under the supervision of the Court constables. Notify the constable
stationed outside your door if this becomes necessary. Under no circumstances, at any time,
can a juror mention anything to the Court constables related to your discussions. If you were to
do so, it would be reported to me. Again, I would not expect that to happen. For greater clarity,
during any break taken outside the jury room your deliberations are to cease until all jurors are
assembled back in the jury room.

The first order of business when you leave the courtroom and enter the jury room to deliberate
is to select your foreperson. The responsibility of the foreperson is to be the chairperson of the
meeting, to guide the deliberations along, to prevent them from becoming protracted or
descending into unnecessary repetition of matters already decided. Be firm in your leadership,
but be fair to everyone. And, as mentioned, it will be the foreperson who announces your
verdict in the courtroom later.

If necessary, you are expected to also deliberate during any evening periods, i.e. after you have
had your supper. However, it is for you to decide how late into any evening you want to
deliberate, unless, of course, you have reached a verdict. We recognize that your health is
important and that rest is conducive to good decision making. When you decide to stop
deliberations and to return to your accommodations let the Court constable outside your door
know.

200

 USE OF VERDICT SHEET

As I mentioned before, included in the things that will go with you to the jury room is a verdict
sheet. On this sheet, I have listed the verdicts that you may reach in this case. There is no
significance to the order in which the verdicts are listed.

If you reach a verdict, your foreperson should place a check mark in the box opposite the
verdict you have reached. The evidence and the issues raised in this case leave only two
verdicts for you to consider:

Not Guilty of Second Degree Murder

Or

Guilty of Second Degree Murder

You shall find, record and return a verdict of Not Guilty if you are not satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that it was Dennis Oland who unlawfully killed Richard Oland.

You shall find, record and return a verdict of Guilty if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt that it was Dennis Oland who unlawfully killed Richard Oland.

201

 RETURN OF VERDICT

If you are able to reach a verdict, please tell the Court constable that you have made your
decision, but do not tell the Court constable what decision you have made. The Court constable
will notify me. We will reconvene court and bring you back into the courtroom to hear your
decision.

As I mentioned before, your foreperson should bring the verdict sheet into court with him or
her when we reconvene. It is the foreperson’s responsibility to announce your verdict in the
courtroom, and turn over the completed verdict sheet. You do not give reasons for your
decision.

For clarity, the procedure in the courtroom if you have reached a verdict will be as follows:

1)

The Clerk of the Court will ask who your foreperson is and ask that person to stand;

2)

The Clerk will then ask the foreperson if the jury has reached a verdict on the charge
of second degree murder;

3)

The foreperson will stand and answer “yes we have”;

4)

The Clerk will then ask the foreperson to announce the verdict;

5)

The Clerk will then ask for the Verdict Sheet; and

6)

I will record the verdict and ask if all members of the Jury are agreed on the verdict,
at which time all of you have to indicate to me whether you are agreed.

202

 REQUIREMENTS FOR VERDICT

For there to be a verdict in this case, it is necessary for all twelve jurors to agree about the
decision. In other words, a verdict, whether of not guilty or guilty, expresses the unanimous
opinion of the jury.

Sometimes jurors are unable to reach a verdict. Under our law, jurors have the right to
disagree. No jury, however, will ever be in any better or different position to decide this case
than you are now.

203

 FINAL REMARKS

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury - You have taken an oath, or made a solemn affirmation, to
well and truly try this case and to render a true verdict according to the evidence. If you
honour that oath or affirmation, as I am sure you will, you will have done everything that is
expected of you as jurors in this trial. We ask for nothing more. We expect and are entitled to
nothing less.

204