Truth and Honour

by Greg Marquis

  The defence called only two expert witnesses. The first was Patrick Laturnus, formerly a forensic specialist for the RCMP and now a consultant, who had been an observer during part of the 2014 preliminary inquiry. Basing his analysis on crime-scene photos, he theorized that the killer would have stood over Oland, repeatedly bludgeoning him, and would have ended up with significant amounts of blood on their hands, upper body, and even face. This challenged the testimony of Sgt. Wentzell (whom Laturnus had taught). Gold used crime-scene photos to remind the jury about the severe trauma to the victim’s head. The witness also opined that if the brown jacket had been worn during the attack, there would be blood spatter in photographs visible to the eye. He also advised the court that “no analyst with any certainty” could determine how the bloodstains were transferred to the jacket. In cross-examination, he was asked about the contradiction between evidence of no bloody footprints or “blood trail” leading from the scene and his opinion that the killer would have been soaked in blood.56

  The second expert witness for the defence was Geoffrey Fellows, a forensic-data expert and former police officer based in Great Britain. His task was to challenge the Crown’s suggestion as to why the victim’s computers fell silent soon after his son’s visit. The Crown was pushing the period 5:45–6:30 P.M. as the time of the murder. Yet it had failed to prove that July 6 was an atypical day for Oland’s computer use. Fellows, who had examined the data from three computers at the crime scene, told the jury that, based on patterns from June 13 to 17, 2011, there had been no sign of human interaction with the devices after 6:00 P.M. (or earlier). The point here was to reinforce in the minds of the jury that there was nothing sinister about the apparent lack of computer activity a few weeks later. Fellows agreed with Crown prosecutor Weaver that the June 13–17 data was not necessarily a “true reflection” of computer activity on those dates.

  Miller had announced that his client would testify, as would members of his family, as they had “lived under intense media coverage and scrutiny for over four years” and wanted to tell what they knew. The hint here was that family members might shore up the defendant’s alibi, or at least help reinforce his positive character to the jury. Either way, court watchers and members of the media eagerly awaited hearing from the family.

  According to one expert on juries, “appearance counts in the courtroom.”57 If this is the case, the defence appeared on December 1 to have a witness with many positive qualities. Dennis was well dressed, well mannered, and well spoken, seemingly likeable, and had no criminal record. But there was just one problem: he was on trial for murder. Although one can find media stories wherein legal experts refer to the positive side of defendants testifying in murder trials, it can be excessively risky and is not common in New Brunswick.58 This is the opinion of veteran criminal defence lawyer David Lutz, who is based in Hampton, New Brunswick, and has taken part in one-hundred jury trials, more of a third of them murder cases. Exceptions would be cases where the defence is relying on provocation or self-defence.59

  Combined with his July 7 police interview, the testimony of Dennis Oland would be the crucial personal evidence in the trial. At the end of the preliminary inquiry, the defence had complained that despite what Judge LeBlanc concluded, there was not enough evidence to justify a trial. Now that the Crown had concluded its case, the defence, despite Miller’s remarks in late 2014, must have changed its mind about not only about the weight of that evidence but also the credibility of the Crown witnesses, because it was agreeing to its client’s request to go into the witness box. Prior to the testimony, there was a voir dire on a new defence exhibit: a timeline document which attempted to track the defendant’s activities, through evidence already entered as exhibits, from 6:55 A.M. on July 6 to 1:28 P.M. on July 7. Over the objection of the Crown, the judge admitted the document on the understanding that it would be an aid for the jury, not new evidence. Veniot pointed out that Oland was “probably the most important witness of the trial” and that “the sequence of events” was extremely important. Before Oland testified, the judge explained that the absence of his family members from court that day did not mean they had abandoned him. Rather, as they were scheduled to testify after Dennis, they has been banned during his testimony by order of the court.

  One guide on direct examination advises lawyers to start with general background questions to establish the credibility of the witness. But Miller chose a dramatic opening: “We’ll start at the end. Did you kill your father?” His client replied: “No, I did not.”60 The goals of Miller’s direct were fourfold. The first was to allow Oland to explain anything that could appear incriminating or odd about his activities and whereabouts on July 6. The second was to bring out a human side to someone who, in three months, had spoken only two words in front of the members of the jury (before they were chosen and sworn in): “not guilty.” Next was damage control: the 2011 police interview, which stressed a negative father-son relationship, was a large part of the prosecution’s argument on motive. The defence had to convince the jury that the father and son had a more positive relationship than was depicted in the interviews of Dennis, his wife, his mother, and his sisters in 2011. Finally, the defence had to establish to a jury of average citizens that Oland, despite his background and lifestyle, and any inconsistencies in his story, was a credible witness.61

  Oland’s account of his timeline for July 6 and 7, and cellphone and surveillance-camera evidence that appeared to reinforce it, has been discussed in some detail in previous chapters. Miller examined his witness with the help of large maps depicting the uptown area centred on Canterbury Street, Oland’s alleged driving routes home, and the area of Rothesay between his residence and Cochran’s market. Miller also made liberal use of the grainy video clips that depicted Dennis leaving work, parking, driving and walking on Canterbury Street, and shopping and buying gas in Rothesay and Saint John on July 6 and 7. There was also an interesting use of the witness to identify himself and his own vehicle in the clips (he claimed he spent a week viewing surveillance footage). For the most part, Dennis appeared confident and relaxed and did not act like a person on trial for killing his father. The courtroom was packed and local media was reinforced by journalists from outside the province.

  Dennis stuck to his initial account with one important exception. Despite what he told police on July 7, 2011, twenty-four hours after the events, he now explained that he had made not two visits to the office after work that day but three. In other words, he was now agreeing with the timeline suggested by the Crown during the preliminary inquiry. He told Miller that he had “a great time” discussing family history issues with his father, then left to go home. The Dennis of 2015 portrayed a much more positive image of his father than the Dennis of 2011. He explained that the 6:12 P.M. clip showed him walking back after making a wrong turn coming out of the main door. Around this time, he sent the text to his sister by mistake. He repeated his claim from 2011 that he had crossed the street away from his car because he was thinking about going to the drugstore on King Street. A few minutes later, his vehicle, as noted earlier, was captured on security camera heading east on King Street and three minutes later driving once more down Canterbury Street. It was at this point that he made the illegal turn on Princess Street and parked in the gravel lot. He now told the jury that he went back to retrieve the logbook, which he had forgotten. Dennis insisted that he and his father “would have gone through several pages.” The witness cited an entry from August 1956, when his parents were dating: “Dick Oland had to go home to shovel shit,” which provoked laughter in court. He testified that when he returned, the logbook was “at the end of the long table by the typewriter” and that Richard had been standing beside Maureen’s desk. Miller had his client note on a map of the office projected on the interactive screen where the log allegedly was positioned. After he left around 6:30 P.M., he received the corroborated call from his wife: “I knew she had a cold and we had to get some medication
.”62

  Given that it would take two minutes to reach the office from the parking lot, and that Dennis was on his phone at 6:36 P.M., if he was being truthful there would not have been time for much conversation during this alleged third visit. Especially as he now testified that he had not taken his BlackBerry to the office on his final visit, which meant that it was back in the car. There were no security cameras covering the lot or the stretch of the east side of Canterbury that connected it to number fifty-two, so two other unknowns are whether Dennis, who appeared in an earlier clip to have taken off his jacket, put it back on, or carried his trusty red “man purse.”63

  Having been asked by Miller to mark on a large map the routes of his three trips to the Far End Corporation, Oland used markers on another map to illustrate his route home, which started with a somewhat circuitous drive south to the end of Canterbury, where he turned left on Broad Street and followed on to the Highway 1 access ramp. He made the stop at the Renforth Wharf supposedly to see his children: “It’s not easy when you go through a divorce and you don’t see your kids...to this day if I find a way to run in to them, I do.” He did add one new bit of evidence: when at the wharf, he noticed broken glass on the ground (ironically from Moosehead bottles) and picked them up and put them in the red bag. He could not remember if he disposed of the glass at the park or at home. His account of the rest of the evening was similar to what he had told police in 2011 and was largely corroborated by surveillance-camera footage: trips to the drugstore and grocery store around 7:30 P.M. and a run for milk at 10:30 P.M. in Rothesay. There was no corroborating evidence of his whereabouts after 10:30 P.M.64

  On December 2, Miller continued the direct examination of his client, the purpose of which appeared to be to portray a more positive version of the father-son relationship and to offer other theories as to how the victim’s blood could have been transferred to the jacket. Dennis described his response to the question on July 7, 2011, about which jacket he had been wearing the previous day as a mistake, influenced by the fact that earlier on the day of the murder he had been wearing a navy blazer. He claimed to have realized “in the following days” after his interview that he made three trips to the office. Dennis also described the family’s frustration at not being given any information about his father’s death on July 7, 2011. Under questioning, he described his father’s habit of biting his fingernails down to the cuticles, his scalp condition, and his preference for close-in handshakes, all of which could raise reasonable doubt about the Crown’s theory of the bloodstained jacket. Oland testified that when work was being done on his house in 2010, he and his family had temporarily moved into the Almon Lane home when his parents were on vacation. During this time (which included a period when his parents were back in the house), the Hugo Boss coat allegedly had been kept in Richard’s clothes closet. The accused also recalled visiting his father in his workshop and taking off the coat before lending a hand. When he left that day, the jacket remained behind and his father supposedly had picked it up. Miller had key questions about Dennis’s visit to his father’s office: had he spoken to his father about the bad cheque, his financial problems in general, or Diana Sedlacek? The answer to all three queries was no. Then there was a series of questions and answers that portrayed Richard in a more positive light and suggested that the two men shared a love of tinkering and fixing things, skiing, and, of course, the family history project. Richard was an “old school” and at times judgmental father perhaps, but he was also an adventurous and interesting mentor who did not hold a grudge. Miller’s final questions to his client were whether he loved and missed his father. Oland, shedding tears, responded “yes” to both questions. His examination had lasted about four-and-a-half hours. Miller had completely sidestepped any questions about his client’s financial situation.65

  It was now up to veteran prosecutor P. J. Veniot to ask his most important questions of the trial. Compared to prosecutors in movies or television shows, he was non-confrontational and non-emotional—some would even say non-aggressive. A number of court watchers believed that the cross-examination was not only too gentle but also not sufficiently detailed. In fact, despite the experience at the Crown’s table, a number of tactical errors were made that would be mentioned, as required by law, during the judge’s final charge to the jury. On the other hand, Veniot did push Oland on his financial situation in 2011 and the years leading up to that period, and on how he had changed his story about his visits to 52 Canterbury between 2011 and 2015. His cross-examination lasted roughly three-and-a-half hours, punctuated by breaks.

  Veniot began by asking Oland if he thought he was a suspect when he began his police interview on July 7, 2011, and whether he had been truthful. Dennis explained that he handled 10–20 percent of his father’s investments and denied asking his father for financial aid in 2011. He was surprisingly nonchalant about his financial situation, although he did admit that his income was below his monthly expenses in early 2011 and his debts had totalled $700,000. He saw no need to tell the bank about the loan from his father and explained that since 2011 he had borrowed money, and that his house was now worth $650,000. He offered a cyclical theory of his income, claiming that the market—and his income—would have improved in the fall of 2011.66

  The prosecutor next asked questions about the visit to the Far End Corporation. Dennis had not informed anyone in advance. Interestingly, he claimed that the rear exit had been closed. During an exchange on Oland’s criss-crossing route at 6:12 P.M., Veniot informed Oland that the Lawtons drugstore was closed by this point. (Dennis had explained his irregular route on a contemplated trip to the pharmacy.) He denied having any role in taking the clothes to the dry cleaners and could not remember if he had actually worn the jacket during the week of the funeral. In terms of the inconsistencies between his 2011 statement and his new testimony, Dennis explained: “I was nervous, in shock and sad.” (Readers should watch the interview online to make up their minds on this issue.) The reason why he had worn his blazer on the wharf on a hot summer night was because he was “old-fashioned.” Veniot’s final question related to one of the quirkier moments of the interview, when Dennis, alone in the interview room, spoke out loud, attempting to retrace his steps: “Did you know you were on camera?” Oland replied that he would have “assumed so.” Most court watchers, and one veteran lawyer looking on, thought that Dennis had acquitted himself fairly well.67

  When court reconvened on the morning of December 3, Miller arose, addressed the judge, and simply stated: “We see no need to call any other evidence.” As one observer noted, with this low-key announcement, “You could feel the oxygen being sucked out of the room.” Court watchers were both puzzled and disappointed as they had looked forward to hearing from the Oland family members and one friend. Constance Oland, Lisa (Andrik) Oland, Jacqueline Walsh, Jack Connell, and Mary Beth Watt would not be testifying on behalf of the defendant. The issue no doubt had been intensely debated by the defence team on the previous evening. Almost immediately, people speculated that Dennis had performed so well in the witness box that there was no need for alibi or character witnesses. The other theory was that the defence feared that family members, especially if opened up to cross-examination, even by the respectful Veniot, would make a bad situation even worse. The decision remains one of the most-discussed tactical aspects of the case to this day, especially as it occurred just before the jury was sent home for a well-deserved break.68

  Justice Walsh announced that court was adjourned until December 14 and advised the jury to take advantage of the time to attend to pre-Christmas errands. In the meantime, the judge and the two legal teams would be hard at work on issues relating to his final charge to the jury. As he had already explained, the drafting of the charge would be a collaborative exercise and the document would be lengthy. As people left the Law Courts that day, one question was on their minds: where would Dennis Oland be spending Christmas?

  * * *

 
1Testimony, Oct. 1, 2015.

  2Testimony, Oct. 1–2, 2015.

  3Testimony, Oct. 5, 2015.

  4Testimony, Oct. 6, 2015.

  5United Nations Office on Drugs and Testimony, Crime scene and physical evidence awareness for non-forensic personnel, New York: United Nations, 2009, 10.

  6Testimony, Oct. 6, 2015.

  7Testimony, Oct. 7, 2015.

  8Testimony, Oct. 8, 2015.

  9Chris Morris, “Richard Oland’s skull ‘completely broken in attack,’ court hears,” Fredericton Daily Gleaner, Oct. 10, 2015. A3.

  10Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon, “Richard Oland survived only ‘minutes,’ murder trial hears,” CBC News, New Brunswick, Oct. 9, 2015.

  11Testimony, Oct. 8–9, 2015.

  12MacKinnon, “Richard Oland survived.”

  13Chris Morris, “Senior Officer Tried to Hush up Visit to Oland Death Scene, Court Told,” Telegraph-Journal, Oct. 14, 2015, A1.

  14Testimony, Oct. 13–14, 2015.

  15Testimony, Oct. 14, 2015.

  16Karissa Donkin, “Chief orders investigation into deputy chief,” Telegraph-Journal, Oct. 15, 2015, A1–2.