Truth and Honour

by Greg Marquis

  Veniot’s opening address to the jury, despite its serious content and implications, was delivered in a fairly straightforward and non-emotional manner. He spoke of the victim’s difficult personality and high expectations of, and tight-fisted approach towards, his own family as contributing factors behind the murder. The jury was told that Richard, one of the wealthiest men in New Brunswick, and who was planning to buy a new multi-million-dollar sailboat, allotted his wife of more than forty years a monthly allowance of roughly $2,000 (if she provided receipts). This and other evidence as to the character and behaviour of Richard certainly put a new gloss on the image of “Team Oland.” Veniot described Dennis as belonging to a family where “you were not given things.” He continued: “as time went by….the relationship between Richard Oland and the accused…evolved into one more like a client and a banker rather than father and son.” The senior prosecutor spoke of Richard’s extramarital affair, of which Dennis did not approve. In describing the crime scene, Veniot noted that there was no sign of a break-in and nothing was reported as missing except the victim’s iPhone.21

  Veniot stated that the Crown would prove Dennis was the last known person to see the victim alive and was in dire financial circumstances: “The accused, we submit, was a man living beyond his financial means.” Veniot pointed out the bounced postdated cheque which Dennis had written as part of his deal with his father. The court would hear that on the day of the murder, the accused’s main bank account had less that $300; the next day it was more than $600 in overdraft. His other debts included more than $30,000 on a credit card (in overdraft) and nearly $164,000 on a line of credit. His investment account had been depleted in March and his RRSP had only $20.13. In terms of regular expenses, he owed his ex-wife $4,300 in monthly alimony and child support and his father $1,666 in monthly interest. These commitments alone amounted to roughly $68,000 a year. At the time of the murder, Lisa, who was not working, was allegedly $90,000 to $120,000 in debt. The senior Crown also relayed to the jury that Dennis had told police he was wearing a navy jacket on the day of the murder, but security-video footage showed him in a brown blazer: “On that jacket, four areas of blood were found. DNA scientists will testify that at each of those locations, a DNA profile was found—it matched that of Richard Oland.”22 Veniot concluded: “We submit that the manner and cause of death point to an act committed by a perpetrator who, in a rage, intended to kill Richard Oland. But not in a simple, senseless act of one, two, or three strikes to the head—Richard Oland suffered no less than forty blows. The perpetrator continued way beyond what was required to cause death. We submit that Richard Oland, whatever faults and shortcomings he had, did not deserve to die in such a gruesome manner.”23

  Many who heard the Crown’s opening were immediately convinced that the defence would have an uphill battle. But the handful of people in the room who had attended the lengthy preliminary inquiry in 2014 sensed that the situation was actually reversed. According to the legal procedure, this was supposed to be the case anyway. Nothing Veniot had yet said was a “fact.” In addition to the key challenge of convincing a jury that Oland was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution was hampered by the lack of a murder weapon or witnesses to the actual attack, major gaps in its forensic evidence, an impressionistic theory of motive, and a possibly inadequate police investigation. And then there was what many had referred to as Oland’s legal “dream team” of Gold and Miller, two veterans knowledgeable in the law and well versed in courtroom tactics. With a circumstantial case based in part on forensic science, Gold’s track record seemed a particularly good fit. And the defence, through disclosure, had all of the documents, reports, photos, videos, and other materials on which the Crown had built its case.24

  Christie Blatchford was the first to raise what other media people were already wondering about: were exhibits being entered into evidence going to be made available to reporters? During a break in the proceedings, she broached the issue to one of the lawyers and soon it was taken up by the judge, who apologized for not dealing with it before the formalities began. He announced that exhibits would be released to the media at the end of each day, although later there was a discussion of whether this would exclude disturbing photographs of the crime scene. The feeling seemed to be that media outlets would exercise caution and not publish or post online images that would offend the community. Many of the released photos, videos, and even documents, which ended up on media websites where they can be viewed to this day.

  With the completion of the Crown’s opening address, the direct examination of its witnesses began. The goal of this process is to have evidence entered into the record and to paint a “mental picture” of the case for the jury.25 The first witness, who would be on the stand for almost three days, was Maureen Adamson; she explained that she had worked with the victim since the 1980s, starting with Brookville Transport. Adamson was an important witness and her testimony deserves special attention. She was the second-last known person to see the victim alive, was aware of both his family and mistress, knew his daily habits, and had an intimate knowledge of the office. She also had discovered the body. Adamson had a responsible position, worked long days, and often took work home. In fact, she continued working with Far End Corporation after the murder but retired in 2014. This meant that she had actually worked with the accused, Dennis Oland, in the very office where the Crown believed he had murdered his father. The hearsay rule of evidence prevented the prosecution from asking Adamson if Dennis ever discussed his father’s death after the fact (although Veniot attempted to do so before meeting an objection from Gold). At any rate, she testified that she had not even spoken of the events of July 2011 to her husband. In addition to assisting Oland with his investment and real-estate pursuits, she was involved in planning skiing and yachting trips (and trips with his mistress) as well as tasks relating to his new sailboat. Adamson was also aware of the monthly interest payments from Dennis to his father made by postdated cheques.26

  In his examination of Adamson, Veniot started by revealing her early morning office routines on July 6, 2011, such as turning on the air conditioner, and the specifics of that day, such as the insurance meeting with Gordon Graham and Barry Prosser. Her testimony also served to give the jury the basic layout of the office. There was an empty suite next to Far End Corporation where remodelling work was being done; she was not familiar with the third floor where rock bands practised at night. The court heard that Adamson had no key to the back door, but that it was open from time to time and that she always checked to ensure it was locked at the end of the day. On July 6, as she was preparing to go home, her boss advised her to leave the air conditioner running as he planned to keep working for a while. That afternoon she prepared a memo regarding the recent meeting on the cathedral-restoration project, looked into upcoming yacht races, and prepared a memo to owners of boats of a similar class as Vela Veloce. She testified that Dennis appeared, apparently without prior notice, around 5:30 P.M. Adamson had no memory of him carrying a bag or books but recalled that he was wearing, on a hot day, a brown sports coat. They had a brief chat about his daughter’s basketball tournament in Newfoundland and she asked him to take the camp log and CDs home to his mother. Richard had seemed happy to see his son, and when Adamson left they were absorbed in a discussion of family history. Her last memory was of Dennis standing over his father who sat at his desk, looking at documents. When she departed at c. 5:45 P.M. to meet her husband who was parked on the street below, she did not lock the outer door as this was customarily the responsibility of the last person to leave for the day.

  Adamson next recounted the following morning, when Oland’s body was discovered. She explained that the street-level door, the door at the top of the stairs, and the door to the office all had locks, with different keys. Arriving just before 9:00 A.M., she was surprised that the second door was not quite closed. When she reached the third door, which connected the foyer to the inner office, it was
closed but she was not sure if it was locked, having automatically placed her key in the lock. When she entered the office, she encountered “a terrifically vile odour” and put the coffee and papers she carried on a desk. Then she saw “two legs protruding on the floor” from under Oland’s desk and “panicked.” Beside the body was an overturned wastebasket. She recalled hurrying to Printing Plus for help, going back to the office with Preston Chiasson and then waiting for and speaking to the police. She also called Robert McFadden and, without providing details, told him to come directly to Printing Plus.

  The witness was asked more specific questions about the victim, his financial arrangement with the accused, and (with the aid of photos displayed on screens) specific items in the office. She explained that her boss was a “techie” and tended to update his iPhone late each afternoon by connecting it to his computer. Adamson testified that Oland did not leave the office that day when she was present and that it was not his habit to drink alcohol at work. Many of the objects in the images displayed in court were stained with blood droplets. The items displayed or discussed included a Canon camera, a printed investment report on the victim’s desk, and an empty pizza box. Another item on the desk was a publication of the New York Yacht Club, which Oland was considering joining. She did return to the office several days after the crime to do a walk-through with police, but could not notice anything missing.

  Adamson testified that she returned to work roughly two weeks after “the incident,” as Far End Corporation carried on in the unoccupied office next door until the crime scene was cleaned up and the office repainted. Until she retired, she worked with McFadden, who was now the president of Far End. In 2011, many of her duties involved settling the estate of Richard Oland. The other change was that Dennis, using the previous office of McFadden, occasionally worked in the office as a director of the company. She was also asked about travel she had helped arrange for Oland. These included ski and yacht-racing trips. She had made arrangements for Richard, Robert McFadden, Oland’s daughter Jacqueline and her husband, and Diana Sedlacek. She first became aware of Sedlacek in 2008 when the former mistress was handling draperies, paint, and furniture for the Olands’ home renovation. Sedlacek was “frequently in the office” during this period and would drop off CDs or DVDs and would also call Oland. That year, Adamson booked a trip for Sedlacek to go to Toronto to shop for furniture (Oland made the trip as well). Up to a dozen trips, to Toronto, Montreal, the United States, and Spain, were booked. According to other evidence, the affair between Oland and Sedlacek had started well before 2008. If so, hiring his mistress as the interior decorator for his home on Almon Lane was like something out of a soap-opera plot.27

  Gary Miller began his cross-examination of Adamson on September 17, using the opportunity to bolster his client’s alibi that he had been in Rothesay at the time of the murder and that the DNA transfer evidence was totally explainable. This was done with a series of video clips from July 6 that depicted Dennis’s movements and photos of Richard in social settings. She was asked various questions: Was Richard Oland a drinker? Did he wear a hearing aid? Did he have a skin condition on his scalp? Although no medical evidence was entered about this alleged condition, Adamson stated that Richard did have scalp sores that appeared to be bloody from time to time. She was also queried about his habit of standing close to people and touching them when he was speaking to them. Miller asked about Oland’s work habits and trips taken prior to his death. In terms of visits by Dennis, Adamson admitted that it was not unusual for him to drop in without calling first. Miller ran the video clips of a casually dressed and seemingly relaxed Dennis shopping in Rothesay with his wife and speaking to his aunt within an hour or so of leaving his father’s office. As Blatchford wrote in the National Post, the Crown was suggesting that Dennis had been transformed from an enraged murderer to a suburban “happy shopper” in “68 minutes.”28

  Miller spent some time on the issue of the Camp logbook that Adamson had given to Richard on July 6, 2011. She told the court that she knew it had to be returned to Mrs. Oland as her brother was in town. Her memory was that she left it close to a typewriter on the end of the table near the victim’s chair. In a show-and-tell exercise, Miller entered the actual log as a defence exhibit and also brought the small Brother typewriter to court in order to demonstrate how much space the book would have taken up on a table. He showed the court a crime-scene photo of the table dated July 12, 2011, with circles depicted on the surface. Adamson agreed that if the book had been present on the table on July 6, it would have covered the circles (the circles depicted blood spatter, and one inference from this exchange was that the book had not been on the table during the bloody attack).

  Additional cross-examination explored whether the father had ever complained about Dennis—Adamson thought only if he was absent from Wood Gundy when Richard called—or if at the time of the murder he had been aware of the bounced cheque from Dennis. She replied that Richard was unaware of the cheque problem. Rather than a loan or a debt, Miller spoke of the $500,000 in aid to Dennis as an advance on his inheritance. His questions attempted to show the generous side of Richard, such as an incident a decade earlier when Dennis had been allowed to skip a major mortgage payment to his father in connection to property he had purchased adjacent to 58 Gondola Point Road. Miller asked if Oland had more money at his disposal after he sold his shares in Moosehead, to which she answered in the affirmative. Despite this, he remained obsessive and somewhat controlling with the monthly expenses Mrs. Oland incurred in running their home. Miller also asked questions about the genealogy hobby of the father and son, and how their research challenged some of the pretensions of the Halifax Olands. One crime-scene photo displayed on the court monitors was a family history document on “W. O.” of Marshfield, Gloucestershire, which Dennis allegedly had brought to the office on July 6, 2011. It was marked by blood spatter.29

  On September 18, Maureen’s last day in the witness box, her husband, William, also testified. Examined by Derek Weaver, he repeated what he had told police in 2011. He had been parked in his Saturn Astra on Canterbury Street facing south near the end of business hours on July 6, waiting to pick up his wife. He testified that at roughly 5:20 P.M., as was his custom, he sounded his car horn to alert Maureen. He saw Robert and Galen McFadden leave the building and acknowledge his presence. Sometime after this, he noticed a man approaching along the east side of the street from the direction behind his left shoulder. He could not identify this person but told the court that he carried a red reusable grocery bag and wore a brown sports coat. William Adamson, cross-examined about the bag by defence counsel Jamie McConnell, evoked some laughter when he admitted to parking in a loading zone.30

  The first witness on September 21 was Preston Chiasson, who had responded to Adamson’s call for help on the morning of July 7, 2011. This friend of John Ainsworth, on-site since 8:00 that morning, testified about encountering Richard “on the floor, slaughtered,” calling 911, and then helping a distraught Adamson down the stairs. This witness had a difficult time in court, especially when examining photos of the victim. It was clear that he thought highly of Richard, whom he used to visit in his office. The next witness was Constable Duane Squires, one of the first officers on the scene, who was asked about his timeline and movements that day. He described the arrival of several officers by 11:07 A.M., his role in the removal of the body, and the canvass of the neighbourhood later. He was cross-examined by Gold, speaking in front of the jury for the first time (and in a loud voice), who asked about blood and whether the attacker would have gotten close to the victim. The cross-examination introduced two recurring defence themes: the back door and the actions of Const. Davidson. Squires was followed by Constable Trinda (Fanjoy) McAlduff, who had arrived with Squires. McAlduff, a cadet at the time, had been sent to locate the victim’s BMW and help in the exterior search. Gold also asked her about the back door and Davidson. The final witness for the day was Constable S
tan Smith, who was asked about his role in asking for security-video footage at Pizza Hut and Thandi’s. Cross-examined by Miller, he too was queried about Davidson’s actions at the scene.31

  On September 24 the Crown examined Constables Don Shannon, Ben MacLeod, and Shanda Weir, paramedics Phil Comeau and Chris Wall, and funeral directors Adam Holly and Sharlene MacDonald. Their testimony revealed how the body had been first encountered, the state of the inner office, how the body had been removed, and how officers had searched the area. Shannon, who had also checked the unoccupied third floor, testified that officers were trained to avoid contaminating a scene. He also reported conducting initial interviews with Adamson and Chiasson. Comeau, who had responded to dozens of crime scenes, testified that they had been told they were dealing with “Code 2 trauma: gunshots, penetrating and stab trauma.” Defence questioning continued with its now-established theme: was the rear exit door open? Were gloves and other protective gear worn? Weir testified that she saw the door open at 2:45 P.M. on July 7, 2011. The paramedics, who had been in the inner office for only one or two minutes, had worn protective gloves, as had the funeral directors.32