by Greg Marquis
It is interesting to note that the police and funeral directors, despite the existence of a nearby exit door, chose to carry the body down the stairs and out through the front door to the funeral-home vehicle on Canterbury Street. The back door gave access to an alley that was big enough to park a number of vehicles and which had access to Grannan Street, which runs from east to west between Canterbury and Germain Streets. For people familiar with the building, this would have been the logical way to take the body to the vehicle. (The back door would take on a larger significance during the preliminary inquiry and the trial.) The three-vehicle convoy consisting of the coroner, the police forensic van, and the funeral-home van, drove to the emergency department of the Saint John Regional Hospital, where a doctor pronounced the victim deceased at 3:03 P.M. Oland’s body was then put in the police locker in the morgue to await the next day’s autopsy. By 3:40 P.M., Smith had returned to 52 Canterbury to continue to process the scene.
Dennis Oland was the last member of the family to be interviewed, starting at roughly 6:00 P.M. At this point, investigators, who had been taking statements and obtaining and viewing security-camera footage, still lacked a lot of basic information. The crime scene itself had not been fully processed; the forensic examination of the clothing and the victim’s body at the regional hospital and the autopsy had yet to take place; cellphone data had yet to be secured, and hours of footage from several security cameras had yet to be viewed. RCMP technical-crime experts had yet to seize the hard drives of the several computers in the Far End Corporation office, and the financial and phone records of Oland’s son had not been requested. Despite this, a combination of training, experience, and intuition convinced the MCU officers conducting and monitoring Dennis’s interview that he was their suspect. In this situation, in contrast to high-profile cases like that of Colonel Russell Williams (the Royal Canadian Air Force officer who confessed to two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of sexual assault in 20109), police did not have much time to study their subject and present examples of incriminating evidence against him.
At 6:01 P.M., Const. Davidson, who had been on the force since 1999, started the interview. This would prove to be the tipping point in the investigation. Dennis Oland was not told on camera that the interview would be recorded (although he may have been informed of this before he entered the room). Also, he was not informed that he was free to leave at any point. The goal of these interviews is to elicit information about the victim that helps investigators to develop a theory of the crime, further leads, or identify a potential suspect. If the person being interviewed, either because of new evidence coming in, their behaviour, or their answers, arouses suspicion of involvement, then the goal may be to secure a confession. Davidson previously had interviewed Robert McFadden and Jacqueline Walsh. The monitoring officer for this interview, who took notes and helped develop strategy, was Keith Copeland. Although he allegedly had been impatient earlier and complained of misplacing some cash on the way to the police station, Dennis appeared polite and relaxed.10
In 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada, ruling on three different cases, confirmed that suspects have no right to counsel during a police interrogation. Five of the justices held that Section 10 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not trump the status quo in terms of police questioning suspects. In other words, the court refused to import American-style Miranda rights into Canada. A minority disagreed, and the president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association protested against police “holding people hostage” through extended, late-night interrogations where they are intimidated and especially vulnerable. Justice Ian Binnie objected to “an endurance contest in which the police interrogators, taking turns with one another, hold all the important legal cards.”11 Citizens being interviewed by police in Canada (in contrast to the stereotypical scene in American crime dramas) are on their own, unless they are legal minors, in which case a parent can be present. They are free to use the washroom, are offered water or coffee and even food depending on the circumstances and length of the interview, and can make a call to legal counsel. Interestingly, although anyone who is not under arrest is free to leave at any point, Canadians will endure hours of often-intense questioning by experienced and trained interrogators. Perhaps they do not want to appear guilty (especially to a jury later watching the video record) or they want to co-operate with the police.
The interview started with a friendly request for Dennis to write a pure version statement (uncontaminated by police questioning) of his activities and whereabouts on the day and evening of the murder. Investigators are trained to check these statements for potential clues and alibis and for insights into witness credibility. Although research does not always back up their specific approach, police are instructed to detect potential deception by studying word usage and other aspects of the statements, according to psychology professor Mary Ann Campbell. People who view Oland’s posture during the interview may have opinions on its significance, but Campbell explains that police interrogators are not always trained according to evidence-based methods of evaluating verbal and non-verbal signs of truth or deception such as body language.12 Police may ask a witness, a suspect, or even a victim for a written account of the event or a summary of their activities during the last day or some other time period. The statement is then subjected to a form of analysis known as SCAN (Scientific Content Analysis) which aims to help investigators develop leads by sorting out imaginary details from facts. Although a popular investigative tool, SCAN does have its critics. It is not known, without having access to the case’s full disclosure, if other members of the family had been asked to write their statements, but it is probable.13
In his written statement, Dennis claimed he awoke at 8:15 A.M., drove to work, and stopped for coffee before heading to the CIBC Wood Gundy office in Brunswick House. He spent most of the day at work, grabbing lunch at Tim Hortons in the Brunswick Square pedway. He spoke to his father a few times on the telephone as “we were selling a stock that he owned.” After work, Dennis wrote, “I went (drove) to my father’s office to go over family history stuff and to give him my copies of documents that I had.” He recalled that he went to his office two times: “On the first try I got into the office foyer and realized I forgot some family history papers so I left and headed back to my office to get them.” He then claimed that he realized he did not have after-hours access to the CIBC Wood Gundy elevator so he returned to his father’s office. Dennis recalled that he had arrived at the office around 5:30 P.M. and that “Maureen left about 5–10 min after I arrived.” He wrote that he stayed at 52 Canterbury Street until about 6:30 and that he spoke with Richard about family history and in particular a research report on an old will from England. After he left “dad’s office,” he headed for Brunswick Square “to get meds for my knee but my wife Lisa called me and was ill so I headed for home.” He wrote that he drove “straight home with the exception of a quick stop at Renforth Wharf/beach to see if my kids were there swimming. They were not.” After returning home, he changed and went to the drugstore “to get cold meds” and then to Cochran’s “for dinner food.” Later, he and his wife watched a movie and he went back out to an Irving convenience store in Rothesay for milk. Returning home, he did chores such as putting his chickens away for the night and retired to bed around 11:00 P.M.14
During the first hour, the investigator and Dennis have a fairly friendly chat about the victim and his relationship to the rest of the family. Then the questions turn to the whereabouts of Dennis prior to his meeting with his father. Another curious feature of the interview is its subject’s apparent lack of emotion or concern despite the fact that his father had met his death by means of some type of undisclosed foul play. In a matter-of-fact and emotionless fashion, Dennis speculates that a “crackhead” had perpetrated the deed during a robbery, but does not ask if any arrest had been made or even how his father had been killed. Davidson initially adopts a friendly, professiona
l, and non-accusatory tone. In this initial stage, the suspect does most of the talking. This part of the interview stressed the negative aspects of Richard’s personality and the difficulties this posed for the family and especially its only son. Oland offered some perspective on his father’s nature, claiming that things had gotten worse after Richard was denied being made head of Moosehead Breweries back in the 1980s and that he probably suffered from a personality disorder. The narrative was not entirely negative, as Dennis revealed how his father, of his own volition, had helped him financially through his divorce. The amount was $500–600,000 and Richard’s intervention was portrayed as a spontaneous and generous act. The reality, as would be heard at trial, was more complex. And these financial issues would became a central theme of the Crown’s case against Dennis.
When asked by Davidson if he had any involvement in the crime, Dennis replied that he had “no reason” to kill his father. This was delivered with little emotion—a factor, which, based on the example of other cases, can complicate things for both the innocent and the guilty.15 When asked to name a possible suspect, Dennis replied: “He’s pissed a lot of people off.” Then he became more specific, mentioning his father’s mistress, whom he discussed in negative terms as a “bitch,” a “dragon lady,” and possibly “that fatal attraction kind of person.” This detail and the emotion behind it appeared to convince investigators that resentment towards Richard’s affair was part of the motive behind his death. (Sedlacek, incidentally, would also be interviewed that night.) In addition, they were now hearing from a fourth family member that the deceased was a difficult person to deal with, a man whose judgmental nature and short fuse could ruin a sailing race, a family Christmas dinner, or the wedding of a family friend. Dennis explained that his father was a product of his generation and had suffered from a poor relationship with his own father.
In police interviews, details are significant not only in themselves but also because investigators are trained to look for inconsistencies as indicators of deception. Yet the police can use deception, although they are not permitted to invent evidence in order to secure a confession. This pressure tactic was utilized by Davidson when he asked Dennis about his visit to 52 Canterbury Street and added the false claim that the office was monitored by security cameras. Another statement that may not have been true is when Dennis was told that investigators had noticed that none of the family seemed particularly upset by the news of Richard’s death.
The full interview would be played at Dennis Oland’s preliminary inquiry but not at the second-degree-murder trial. Dennis, like most people in police interviews, remained in the small room for several hours. He was occasionally impatient, but never rude. He allegedly had avoided telling his mother about the affair and relied on his sister and Robert McFadden to speak to his father on the matter, which suggests a non-confrontational personality. When things became more intense, Dennis turned partly away from the interrogator, and when he spoke, which was rarely, he was low key, almost childlike. He adopted a passive, defensive posture, and at one point closed his eyes while being harangued by the interrogator. A more forceful response or demeanour may have helped him in the long run, as police officers often believe that the innocent display more emotion during interviews.16
When questioned in detail about his exact movements, Dennis appeared confused, telling Davidson that he had arrived outside 52 Canterbury at 5:15 P.M. but did not enter his father’s office because he had forgotten family-history materials at Wood Gundy. He claimed to have climbed the stairs to the foyer, possibly used the bathroom, and then left. Dennis explained that he parked his car in three different places after leaving work: in the same lot as his father’s car, in the gravel parking lot at the intersection of Canterbury and Princess, and on the street near the Thandi’s parking lot. After he left the Far End entrance, he returned to his vehicle and thought about returning to his office at Brunswick House, visiting his father anyway, or simply driving home to Rothesay. At one point, he recalled, he contemplated stopping first at a nearby drugstore at Brunswick Square for pain medication for a sore knee (which he is seen favouring in the video of the interview). Allegedly, he sat in his car checking text messages for a few minutes. Remembering that he lacked a pass card to access CIBC Wood Gundy, he explained that he decided to return to 52 Canterbury and parked his car on the street nearby at roughly 5:30 P.M. His visit with his father ended at around 6:30 P.M. When Davidson pressed Oland for his exact route, he replied: “What I believe I did was leave my office and drive down Chipman Hill, drive up King Street, park in the parking lot, go up to the top of the stairs, down the stairs, leave…drive somewhere…being challenged of whether to go home or go back to my office or go back to dad’s office...um…going back and parking on Canterbury Street, ah, sitting in the car for a while.” After pondering the question further, he stated: “You have intimidated me now, so now I’m getting a mental block.”
Dennis’s inconsistent and convoluted tale of his visits to his father’s office and his movements in general were a trigger, and subsequent video-camera evidence of his vehicle circling the block only added to police perceptions that he was acting suspiciously. Near the end of the portion of the video viewed in court in 2015, Oland is alone in the small interview room. Speaking to himself in a low voice, he tries retracing in his mind where he drove, parked, and walked just over twenty-four hours earlier. More than two hours into questioning, the small inconsistencies in his story prompted investigators to decide that he was no longer simply a person of interest but a suspect in his father’s murder. Davidson cautioned Oland against making incriminating statements and advised him that he had the right to call a lawyer. Oland was given a secondary Charter of Rights caution to sign. He was not under arrest, yet he was not told that he was free to depart. Oland did leave the room to speak to his counsel, Bill Teed, by phone, and then returned to a decidedly different atmosphere. At 8:25 P.M., Davidson (later dismissed by Oland’s defence as a “rookie homicide investigator”) was replaced by seasoned veteran Keith Copeland.
Citizens in the hands of the police in Canada but who are not yet arrested are often subjected to a widespread but controversial interrogation technique known as the Reid method, named after the American company that trains police investigators across North America. It is taught by the RCMP at the Canadian Police College. Its critics have included judges and academics. The approach is manipulative, blunt, and accusatory, and often suggests that if the suspect can convince the interrogator that they are basically a good person, the penalty for the crime in question may be less severe. The object of the Reid Technique is to obtain a confession.17 Media reports in recent years have suggested that the method can produce false testimony and confessions and violate legal rights. According to Canadian criminologist Brent Snook, the Reid approach can lead to police tunnel vision; by being overly confident and aggressive, interrogators also risk forcing subjects to go mute. Snook and other critics see the Reid Technique as a projection of traditional police culture with its emphasis on intuition, and warn that it is not backed up by empirical research. Another abuse of the technique, featured on the CBC program The Fifth Estate in 2014, is to induce witnesses to change their testimony.18 In contrast, the PEACE (Planning, Engage, Account, Closure, Evaluate) method, as employed in Britain, aims not at manipulating a subject into a confession but at uncovering the truth.19 The goal of the interrogation is “to peel away the layers” and, ideally, extract a confession. Being non-confrontational and rational, according to Snook, is the key to a professional and successful interrogation.20
With the arrival of the more intense and accusatory Copeland, Dennis’s interview became an interrogation. According to Reid training, the interrogator acts as the bad cop, declares that the suspect is guilty of the offence, and ignores claims of innocence. This is called the “positive confrontation.”21 Yet, in this case, the officer revealed no details of the event; Dennis had not been informed of the method of deat
h or the circumstances of the crime. Instead, Copeland relied on “theme development,” where the interrogator suggests why the crime was carried out. Later, the bad cop may try minimization tactics: they attempt to build a rapport with the interviewee, encourage them to get things off their chest, and offer them the best deal possible. This stage can include a “moral justification” or “a better justification” for the offence.22
Copeland employed various strategies to uncover information and to elicit a reaction. One was to appeal to Oland’s education and social status, by telling him that he did not match the profile of the typical suspect in a violent crime, who usually sat “picking their scabs.” (The low socio-economic status of the typical violent offender is not a phenomenon unique to Saint John; criminology studies suggest risk factors for perpetrators of homicide include involvement in drug trafficking, peer delinquency, conduct disorder, poverty, and violent surroundings.) He also appealed to Dennis as a parent, a son, and a husband, and attempted to get a response by asking if his wife was involved in the crime. Another minimization tactic used was when Copeland stated that he did not view Dennis as a calculating, cold-blooded killer. Rather, he was a normal guy under tremendous pressure who just snapped.23
