Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Dennis Oland not guilty of murder in retrial over 2011 death of multimillionaire father


Dazzle

Recommended Posts

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-murder-trial-decision-verdict-1.5215559

 

Anyone know about this case?

 

Personally, I know nothing about this guy's background nor this case. I don't have any inside info or what not, but I just have a feeling that this guy actually did it, but got away with it due to a technicality. (His murder conviction was overturned in the re-trial). Of course, I am still open to the fact that there might be other suspects (but there are NONE thus far)

 

The father was struck 40+ times, suggesting it was perhaps a crime of passion. Dennis Oland (the accused) was the last person to see his dad. There were four "small" specks of blood on accused's jacket that belonged to his dad's DNA. Defence said it was "innocent transfer", which could happen but that's total crap IMO. They worked at a job where 'specks of blood' were probably not likely to happen (brewery) AND it just so happens to have dad's blood on the jacket?

 

Something just tells me...that twisted smirk on his face in the photos suggests he's not innocent  (totally unscientific, baseless and presumptuous, I fully admit). I am only stating how I feel, not what I know. Regardless, he is free so he is considered "innocent".

 

I think it will interesting if evidence comes up where the killer is found - and that Dennis Oland was the killer after all. That'd be something.

 

Quote

 

 

 

N.B. Court of Queen's Bench Justice Morrison had been deliberating for 10 weeks in 2nd-degree murder trial

 

 

 

Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon · CBC News · Posted: Jul 19, 2019 5:00 AM AT | Last Updated: a minute ago
 
dennis-oland.jpg
Dennis Oland, forefront, and family members head from the Law Courts in Saint John after he was found not guilty of murdering his father on Friday. (Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press)

Dennis Oland has been found not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of his father Richard Oland, eight years to the month after the multimillionaire was bludgeoned to death, following his retrial in Saint John.

Justice Terrence Morrison of New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench delivered his decision at the Law Courts building on Friday morning.

"More than suspicion is required to convict a person of murder. Probable guilt is not enough," Morrison said.

In a circumstantial case such as this, there must be a "sufficient assembly of the pieces of the evidential puzzle to form a picture that is consistent with guilt — and only consistent with guilt."

Morrison, who had been deliberating for 10 weeks, said "there is much to implicate" Oland in the killing and noted "frailties" in his testimony.

But there are "too many missing puzzle pieces" in the Crown's case for him to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, he said.

After Friday's verdict in a packed courtroom, Oland, 51, wiped away tears and shared hugs with family and his defence lawyers. He also made his way through the crowd of supporters, sharing more hugs, handshakes and pats on the back. 

 
dennis-oland-march-12-2019.jpg
Oland, 51, had been free on bail and living in the Saint John area since Oct. 25, 2016, after the New Brunswick Court of Appeal overturned his murder conviction at his first trial and ordered a retrial. (CBC)

As he left the Saint John courthouse, he was greeted by applause from the crowd before he was whisked away in a waiting vehicle.

One woman cheered, "It's over," and another said, "We're going to celebrate." 

The body of Richard Oland, 69, of the prominent Moosehead Breweries family, was discovered face down in a pool of blood in his uptown Saint John investment firm office on the morning of July 7, 2011.

He had suffered 45 sharp-and blunt-force injuries to his head, neck and hands.

Dennis Oland visited his father in his office the night before and is the last known person to have seen him alive.

No weapon was ever found.

Oland's family won't be making any comments about the decision.

But at a news conference after the not guilty verdict came down, Oland's lawyer, Alan Gold, said it was an important day to "acknowledge the fact that Dennis did not kill his father." 

Gold said he was also uncomfortable with people saying it was a day to celebrate.

 

Leave him in peace and let him come to the wonderful realization that it's finally over.

- Alan Gold, Oland's defence lawyer

"Dennis lost his dad to a brutal murder eight years ago. The very same day that the body was found, before the police had even talked to Dennis, they were discussing putting 24 hours surveillance on Dennis, simply because he was the last known person to see his father."

Gold said it will be a day to celebrate when the actual perpetrators are finally caught and brought to justice.

"Based on a flawed investigation, they [police] never took their eyes off him," Gold said about his client. "I'm disappointed in a police force that demonstrated tunnel vision."
 
richard-oland.jpg
Richard Oland, 69, was found dead in his Saint John office on July 7, 2011. (Canadian Yachting Association)

A 'punishing 8 years' 

Gold said Oland will spend quality time with family throughout Friday and mentally trying to regroup. The lawyer said he feels bad for the family as they endured "a very punishing" eight years emotional and financially. 

"Right now he's entitled to as much private time with his family, and lie there and finally convince himself that it's finally over," he said.

"Leave him in peace and let him come to the wonderful realization that it's finally over."

 

According to the Public Prosecution Services, there will be no immediate decision on whether there will be an appeal, since prosecutors need to "carefully study and review Mr. Justice Morrison's reasons for judgment.

 

"Public Prosecution Services has 30 days to file an appeal and no other comment will be made at this point," it said in a statement out of Fredericton

For the retrial, which lasted 44 days and spanned four months, 61 witnesses testified and 309 pieces of evidence were submitted.

 
dennis-oland.jpg
Oland and his wife Lisa arrive at the Law Courts in Saint John on Friday to hear the judge's decision in his retrial over his father's 2011 death. (Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press)

A key piece of evidence in the Crown's case was the brown sports jacket Oland wore when he visited his father. It was later found to have four small bloodstains on it and DNA matching his father's profile.

The defence argued it was "innocent transfer" and could have predated the homicide.


Read Justice Morrison's full-written decision here: 

Mobile users: View the document
(PDF KB)
(Text KB)
CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content

The high-profile case has gripped the public's imagination from the beginning. It has been described as the O.J. Simpson case of the Maritimes, in reference to the former American football star who was found not guilty in 1995 of the killing of his wife.

On Friday, court staff set up overflow seating in an adjacent courtroom for the anticipated large crowd of spectators. Each courtroom can accommodate about 125 people.

When a jury found Oland guilty at his first trial in December 2015, he collapsed into his chair and wailed uncontrollably. He was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 10 years.

Oland served about 10 months before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial, citing an error in the judge's instructions to the jury.

Oland has maintained his innocence and members of his extended family have stood by him.

 

 

Edited by Dazzle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.advocatedaily.com/dennis-oland-told-police-he-had-no-involvement-in-fathers-murder.html

 

Quote

 


 

SAINT JOHN, N.B. – During an interview with police the day Richard Oland's body was found, Dennis Oland said he wasn't involved in the murder and had no reason to kill his father.

The jury in the younger Oland's murder trial is being shown video of the interview conducted by officers with the Saint John Police Force on July 7, 2011, the day Richard Oland's body was found lying face down in a pool of blood in his Canterbury Street office.

Dennis Oland, 47, has pleaded not guilty to a charge of second-degree murder.

In the video, Oland said his father would often argue with him and say hurtful things.

But when Const. Stephen Davidson of the Saint John Police Force asked whether he had any involvement in his father's death, Oland replied, ``No.''

``I have no reason to want my father dead.''

Oland said his father had ``pissed off a lot of people,'' but he couldn't think of anyone who would want him dead.

Asked to describe his movements the day before Richard Oland's body was found, Dennis said he first arrived at his father's office around 5:15 p.m. on July 6, 2011, but realized he had forgotten some genealogy documents at his own office.

He left, but realized that he didn't have the pass to get back into his office building and decided he had enough documents for his meeting with his father.

He said he arrived again at his father's office at about 5:30 p.m., where his father's secretary, Maureen Adamson, was finishing up for the day. She left 10 to 15 minutes later.

Oland said he left about an hour later, making one stop at a local wharf, and then went home.

Asked if he could suggest who might have killed his father, Oland told Davidson perhaps a vindictive ex-girlfriend or a crack-head looking for money.

Davidson asked Oland what he had been wearing that day. Oland said tan pants, dress shirt and navy blazer.

The jury also heard Crown attorney P.J. Veniot read an agreed statement of facts into the record, telling them that by 8:22 p.m. on the day of the police interview Oland became a suspect in the murder. After becoming a suspect, Oland was told that search warrants would be issued for his home.

Court has heard that Richard Oland, who was 69, was struck more than 40 times in the head with a hammer-type instrument and a blade-like weapon.

 

 

To me, his answers are wack. A crack-head looking for money? That's BS and couldn't be more vague. LOL. It should be noted that Dennis Oland was "deeply in debt", so there is a financial motivation, albeit circumstantial.

 

I hope new evidence comes up either to clear him or to put him back in jail. Either way, the real killer shouldn't be allowed to roam around.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guy did it, but his lawyers worked the system and got paid well doing it. The system's fault on this one. Just look at the woman's face who is holding his hand leavubg the courthouse, that is the face of someone who has just witnessed a miscarriage of justice. 

Edited by Aladeen
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, gurn said:

Yep, just looking at someone's face tells you all you need to know about hockey trades, and whether some one is innocent or not.

No need for a trial at all.

 

:picard:

We both know the OP did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, gurn said:

Yep, just looking at someone's face tells you all you need to know about hockey trades, and whether some one is innocent or not.

No need for a trial at all.

 

:picard:

Did you even read the story? He had a trial was found guilty and then had a retrial because of these factors:

 

1. There was a footprint at the crime scene which wasn't presented in the first trial which may or may not have had blood on it.

2. The victim had a small amount of alcohol in his system that wasn't presented at the first trial

3. Some random notes found later in the woods had the name "Dick" on it which was the nickname the victim sometimes went by

4. A new witness stated he saw a man leave the building but didn't know if it was on the day of the murder or not. 

5. The lead investigator admitted to making mistakes at the crime scene - but swears he did not fabricate any of the evidence against he defendant 

6. Several police officers entered the scene of the crime without the proper gear on. 

 

Literally the only difference from the first trial to the second is his lawyers did a better job of saying there was a possibility that it was someone else. NOT THAT HE WAS INNOCENT!!!

 

The initial conviction was a result of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and the inability to show that it could possibly have been anyone else. All the second trial did was show that it COULD Have been someone other than the son. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Did you even read the story? He had a trial was found guilty and then had a retrial because of these factors:

 

1. There was a footprint at the crime scene which wasn't presented in the first trial which may or may not have had blood on it.

2. The victim had a small amount of alcohol in his system that wasn't presented at the first trial

3. Some random notes found later in the woods had the name "Dick" on it which was the nickname the victim sometimes went by

4. A new witness stated he saw a man leave the building but didn't know if it was on the day of the murder or not. 

5. The lead investigator admitted to making mistakes at the crime scene - but swears he did not fabricate any of the evidence against he defendant 

6. Several police officers entered the scene of the crime without the proper gear on. 

 

Literally the only difference from the first trial to the second is his lawyers did a better job of saying there was a possibility that it was someone else. NOT THAT HE WAS INNOCENT!!!

 

The initial conviction was a result of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and the inability to show that it could possibly have been anyone else. All the second trial did was show that it COULD Have been someone other than the son. 

And those factors were critical to a fair trial, thus based on the evidence that was NOT entered in the first trial; the accused is found not guilty, just like he would have been if the first trial was held properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Did you even read the story? He had a trial was found guilty and then had a retrial because of these factors:

 

1. There was a footprint at the crime scene which wasn't presented in the first trial which may or may not have had blood on it.

2. The victim had a small amount of alcohol in his system that wasn't presented at the first trial

3. Some random notes found later in the woods had the name "Dick" on it which was the nickname the victim sometimes went by

4. A new witness stated he saw a man leave the building but didn't know if it was on the day of the murder or not. 

5. The lead investigator admitted to making mistakes at the crime scene - but swears he did not fabricate any of the evidence against he defendant 

6. Several police officers entered the scene of the crime without the proper gear on. 

 

Literally the only difference from the first trial to the second is his lawyers did a better job of saying there was a possibility that it was someone else. NOT THAT HE WAS INNOCENT!!!

 

The initial conviction was a result of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and the inability to show that it could possibly have been anyone else. All the second trial did was show that it COULD Have been someone other than the son. 

Its not a lawyers job to prove innocence, its the state's job to prove guilt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, gurn said:

I'm reasonably sure that Dazzle didn't do it.

idle speculation on your part

has he been conclusively ruled out yet? i think not

we are all aware of a known trend in many crimes

that the criminal often revisits a past crime (scene)

Dazzle cannot leave this one alone

:bigblush:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, gurn said:

And those factors were critical to a fair trial, thus based on the evidence that was NOT entered in the first trial; the accused is found not guilty, just like he would have been if the first trial was held properly.

Maybe for a second degree murder conviction but I bet the evidence would have been easily sufficient for manslaughter. Just because he is acquitted on the charges at hand does by no means make him NOT GUILTY of the crime. 

 

I bet you think OJ was innocent cause the law never makes mistakes. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Toews said:

Its not a lawyers job to prove innocence, its the state's job to prove guilt. 

Never said it was, but a Not Guilty verdict by no means makes this man innocent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aladeen said:

Did you even read the story? He had a trial was found guilty and then had a retrial because of these factors:

 

1. There was a footprint at the crime scene which wasn't presented in the first trial which may or may not have had blood on it.

2. The victim had a small amount of alcohol in his system that wasn't presented at the first trial

3. Some random notes found later in the woods had the name "Dick" on it which was the nickname the victim sometimes went by

4. A new witness stated he saw a man leave the building but didn't know if it was on the day of the murder or not. 

5. The lead investigator admitted to making mistakes at the crime scene - but swears he did not fabricate any of the evidence against he defendant 

6. Several police officers entered the scene of the crime without the proper gear on. 

 

Literally the only difference from the first trial to the second is his lawyers did a better job of saying there was a possibility that it was someone else. NOT THAT HE WAS INNOCENT!!!

 

The initial conviction was a result of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and the inability to show that it could possibly have been anyone else. All the second trial did was show that it COULD Have been someone other than the son. 

And based on your original post below he did it. Which is it? Guilty or not innocent? Dumb statement that maybe is misconstrued here, but people will call u on it.

 

2 hours ago, Aladeen said:

Guy did it, but his lawyers worked the system and got paid well doing it. The system's fault on this one. Just look at the woman's face who is holding his hand leavubg the courthouse, that is the face of someone who has just witnessed a miscarriage of justice. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Never said it was, but a Not Guilty verdict by no means makes this man innocent. 

In your opinion yes. But I wouldn’t make this statement based on what I read in the press. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Maybe for a second degree murder conviction but I bet the evidence would have been easily sufficient for manslaughter. Just because he is acquitted on the charges at hand does by no means make him NOT GUILTY of the crime. 

 

I bet you think OJ was innocent cause the law never makes mistakes. 

Reasonable doubt was proven for the 2nd degree murder charge, in which case they can’t pursue manslaughter 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, CaptKirk888 said:

Reasonable doubt was proven for the 2nd degree murder charge, in which case they can’t pursue manslaughter 

Dude you are arguing absolutely nothing, just for the sake of arguing, I NEVER said they could pursue manslaughter... so wtf are even talking about. 

 

58 minutes ago, CaptKirk888 said:

And based on your original post below he did it. Which is it? Guilty or not innocent? Dumb statement that maybe is misconstrued here, but people will call u on it.

 

 

No, only you have called me out on it because you are looking to argue about nothing at all.

 

Fine you believe he is innocent that is up to you, but I believe that he had some damn good lawyers to raise reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law that it could have been someone else, therefore  making the conviction criteria not met when taking the law at it's exact stated word. 

 

53 minutes ago, CaptKirk888 said:

In your opinion yes. But I wouldn’t make this statement based on what I read in the press. 

That is not opinion that is fact... Not guilty does not equal innocent because they are not the same thing. So again I don't know what you are trying to argue. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gurn said:

And those factors were critical to a fair trial, thus based on the evidence that was NOT entered in the first trial; the accused is found not guilty, just like he would have been if the first trial was held properly.

 

1 hour ago, CaptKirk888 said:

And based on your original post below he did it. Which is it? Guilty or not innocent? Dumb statement that maybe is misconstrued here, but people will call u on it.

 

 

We have to remember. "Not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it. It's just that the Crown was not able to establish that he did it. There IS a distinction, but that distinction is irrelevant when it comes to criminal law.

 

I'll say it again. Not guilty does not mean he is innocent.

 

Aladeen and I are not disputing the fact that he was found "not guilty" in the re-trial. We just have suspicions that he was probably the killer (which has no bearing on the law). Based on what I've seen, we are both aware that circumstantial evidence CAN be misleading.

 

Remember the OJ Simpson case? He was found criminally not responsible. It doesn't mean he did it or didn't do it, except most people do think OJ SImpson really did do it.

 

The law isn't perfect obviously and I feel like this is one of those examples where it would rather let go of a 'suspected' criminal than to wrongfully jail an innocent man.

 

The blood on the jacket i think was the 'proof' that he did it, but the defense was successfully convince that there was reasonable doubt that it could've happened at an earlier, unrelated time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...