Speaker 1: Lucky Land casino asking people what's the weirdest place you've
Speaker 1: gotten lucky?
Speaker 2: Lucky in line at the Delhi I guess ah, in
Speaker 2: my dentist's office more than once.
Speaker 3: Actually do I have to say? Yes? You do?
Speaker 1: In the car before my kid's PTA meeting? Really?
Speaker 3: Yes? Excuse me?
Speaker 4: What's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
Speaker 2: I never win?
Speaker 5: And tell well, there you have it.
Speaker 1: You could get lucky anywhere playing at lucky landslots dot com.
Speaker 5: Play for free right now?
Speaker 3: Are you feeling lucky? No, we just necessary boid.
Speaker 4: We we're going my long eighteen plus terms and conditions
Speaker 4: of plus one saterdails.
Speaker 2: With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 5: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 5: the bride and groom?
Speaker 2: Or sorry we're here.
Speaker 4: We were getting lucky in the limo when we lost
Speaker 4: track of time.
Speaker 5: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 5: quicker than a guess registered. But in that case, I
Speaker 5: pronounce you lucky.
Speaker 2: Play for free at lucky landslots dot com. Daily bonuses
Speaker 2: are waiting. No purchase necessary boid. We're prohibited by mock
Speaker 2: eighteen plus terms and conditions applaing See website for.
Speaker 1: Lupadian.
Speaker 5: You are now listening to True Murder, The most shocking
Speaker 5: killers in true crime history and the authors that have
Speaker 5: written about them Gasey, Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker BTK. Every
Speaker 5: week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and
Speaker 5: infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your
Speaker 5: host journalist and author Dan Zufanski. Good Evening, Truth and
Speaker 5: Honor explores the twenty and eleven murder of Saint John
Speaker 5: businessman Richard Oland of the prominent family that owns Moussaid
Speaker 5: Breweries will police investigation and the arrest, trial, and conviction
Speaker 5: of the victim's son, Denis Oland for second degree murder.
Speaker 5: Oland's trial would be the most publicized in New Brunswick history.
Speaker 5: What the trial judge called a family tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.
Speaker 5: This real life murder mystery included adultery, family dysfunction, largely
Speaker 5: circumstantial evidence, allegations of police incompetence, a high powered legal defense,
Speaker 5: and a verdict that showed and shocked the community. Today,
Speaker 5: the Oland family members maintains Denis Oland's Innocence. Author Greg Marquis,
Speaker 5: a professor of Canadian history at the University of New
Speaker 5: Brunswick Saint John, leads readers through the case from the
Speaker 5: discovery of the crime to the conviction and sentencing of
Speaker 5: the defendant. Offering multiple perspectives. Truth and Honor explores this question,
Speaker 5: was Denis Oland responsible for the death of his father?
Speaker 5: The book they were featuring this evening is Truth and
Speaker 5: Honor The Death of Richard Ohland and the Trial of
Speaker 5: Dennis Oland, with my special guest, Professor and author Greg Marquis.
Speaker 5: Welcome to the program, and thank you very much for
Speaker 5: agreeing to this interview. Greg Marquee, Hello, thank you very much.
Speaker 6: For agreeing to this interview.
Speaker 3: Welcome to the program. Thanks.
Speaker 6: I want to ask you how you came to be
Speaker 6: the author of Truth and Honor. Why you were interested
Speaker 6: in this case. Can you tell our audience about that?
Speaker 3: Sure? Well, I live in the city. I live near
Speaker 3: the city where the murder in the trial took place,
Speaker 3: and I teach at a local branch of the University
Speaker 3: of New Brunswick. I teach Canadian history, legal history, criminal
Speaker 3: justice history. So I sensed that it was going to
Speaker 3: be a big news story, and it was a current event,
Speaker 3: not a historical case. But I thought it would be
Speaker 3: interesting for an historian to sit in on a real
Speaker 3: life case.
Speaker 6: Certainly, let's get right to the matter at hand, because
Speaker 6: this is a complex case and for our largely American
Speaker 6: audience and international audience, this is an unusual unusual case
Speaker 6: in terms of compared to American jurisprudence. Let's talk about
Speaker 6: July six, twenty eleven, and you introduce a character named
Speaker 6: Maureen Adamson. She's Richard Olan's long serving secretary, and she
Speaker 6: arrives at work at eight forty five at the building
Speaker 6: where she works and Richard Olan does his business. Tell
Speaker 6: us who Maureen Adminson Adamson is, and tell us just
Speaker 6: what happens when she goes to the building that morning.
Speaker 6: What's her typical routine, and tell us what happens that day.
Speaker 3: Sure, she's an she is very capable of experienced, sort
Speaker 3: of an administrative admin assistant. So she was bringing in,
Speaker 3: you know, probably a bundle of papers that she takes
Speaker 3: work home the night before, I think it was actually
Speaker 3: the morning of the seventh of July, and also some coffee,
Speaker 3: some takeout coffee, and usually would be the first person
Speaker 3: to open up the office kind of a nondescript, modest
Speaker 3: three story building in an older street in the city
Speaker 3: that is kind of gentrifying. And so when she went in,
Speaker 3: the other door was open. That normally wasn't a big deal.
Speaker 3: But when she got to the top of the stairs,
Speaker 3: the sort of inner door to the office was open,
Speaker 3: which was not usual because usually she's the first one in.
Speaker 3: And when she entered the room, she immediately smelled a
Speaker 3: terrible smell, and she noted that a lot of things
Speaker 3: were out of place, and she soon glimpsed a leg
Speaker 3: on the floor sort of under her boss's desk, and
Speaker 3: she panicked and ran downstairs for help.
Speaker 6: Now you talk about getting the assistance of Preston Chiason,
Speaker 6: the owner of the building, and what does he do?
Speaker 3: What happens? Yeah, he was, he was a friend of
Speaker 3: the owner. Was he was there, He was hanging out
Speaker 3: down below. The building was owned by John and still
Speaker 3: is by John Ainsworth, and he he runs a printing
Speaker 3: and digital imaging company on the bottom floor and he
Speaker 3: I'm not sure John was there that early, but his friend,
Speaker 3: mister Chayson was. Often different people will drop by and
Speaker 3: hang out and do things there, and so he ran up.
Speaker 3: You know, at that point they thought maybe if someone
Speaker 3: had a heart attack or an accident, and he soon
Speaker 3: since that no, this is a fatality. As was revealed
Speaker 3: in court later, that had a real traumatic effect on
Speaker 3: mister Chason finding that body. He seems to have suffered
Speaker 3: from some post traumatic stress. They called nine one one
Speaker 3: within minutes, both emergency services sometimes called paramedics in Canada
Speaker 3: and the local police were in the building with two minutes,
Speaker 3: three minutes, and they soon determined that this was an
Speaker 3: individual who was dead and could not be revived.
Speaker 6: Now, in terms of immediate investigation looking for signs of
Speaker 6: forced entry or robbery, tell us what police found immediately
Speaker 6: and then what was their search entailing in terms of
Speaker 6: computers and other devices.
Speaker 3: Sure, yeah, well the case the case here as following
Speaker 3: great detail in Canada. Uh, they it revealed there were
Speaker 3: some lapses and police investigations, some basic things that weren't done.
Speaker 3: But you know, they did the usual visual search. One
Speaker 3: of the problems that day is that there were three
Speaker 3: forensic officers on the Sant John Police force. Only one
Speaker 3: was uly available, so he was They were kind of
Speaker 3: undermanned and so anyway, they they also had to deal with,
Speaker 3: you know, securing the body and and and removing the
Speaker 3: body eventually. So there was the crime scene on a
Speaker 3: second story office, but there was a front set of
Speaker 3: front stairs leading down to the fronts to the streets
Speaker 3: in the front Canterbury Street. But there was also a
Speaker 3: back alley on a back alley door. It turned out
Speaker 3: that no one thought to write down in their notebook
Speaker 3: whether that back alley door was opened or closed, or
Speaker 3: if it was closed, was it locked or unlocked on
Speaker 3: the morning of the investigations starting. The crime scene was
Speaker 3: only photographed a bit later. So they eventually did swab
Speaker 3: for blood on the i hoping that maybe some of
Speaker 3: the perpetrator's blood was there. Because the victim was attacked
Speaker 3: with blunt force trauma, there was a lot of blood.
Speaker 3: There were over forty injuries to his head, and so
Speaker 3: they hoped the investigators that there might be some of
Speaker 3: the attacker's blood there as well. They dusted for prints.
Speaker 3: There were simply too many prints in the office, which
Speaker 3: was a working office, to have anything distinct. But there
Speaker 3: were a few things, a few investigatory lapses for sure,
Speaker 3: in terms of things that weren't photograph, often time notes
Speaker 3: that weren't taken, gloves that were not worn, and also
Speaker 3: crime scene not being totally secure.
Speaker 6: Was there any sign of forced entry or robbery?
Speaker 3: No, No, there was no sign of force entry robbery.
Speaker 3: The only thing that I mean the victim had like
Speaker 3: a rollbocks watch. There was cash, He had his cash,
Speaker 3: credit cards, things like that, his car keys, his you know,
Speaker 3: his BMW was parked outside. The car keys were there.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 3: They identified him by finding his wallet in his pants. Uh.
Speaker 3: And the only thing that was missing, I mean, there
Speaker 3: was even an envelope of cash I think for a
Speaker 3: gardener on the on the desk. The only thing that
Speaker 3: was missing was his iPhone or cell phone, and that
Speaker 3: proved to be a crucial piece of evidence in the
Speaker 3: later trial or two trials, we should say.
Speaker 6: You just mentioned the forty five wounds in all tell
Speaker 6: us a little bit more about the attack itself. What
Speaker 6: did detectives find in terms of the crime scene and
Speaker 6: how they had been attacked. What could they assume and
Speaker 6: assess from that?
Speaker 3: Well, between the detectives and also the medical examiner, they
Speaker 3: determined that he died. A medical examiner determined that he
Speaker 3: died from almost immediately from blood force trauma. It was
Speaker 3: a pretty rapid and sudden attack. A lot of people
Speaker 3: mentioned that it's probably something personal overkill. Blows around the
Speaker 3: head with some sort of weapon, some sort of hammer
Speaker 3: or hatchet. There are two types of wounds. One was
Speaker 3: sort of like a hatchet type wound. Some of those
Speaker 3: actually penetrated into the skull, into the brain. Others were
Speaker 3: more superficial. They're also round, thatched patterned blows to the head,
Speaker 3: which could have been made by something like a dry
Speaker 3: wall hammer or a roofer's hammer. No murder weapon was
Speaker 3: ever found. There was a lot of blood around the body,
Speaker 3: particularly the head. There were defensive wounds to his hands,
Speaker 3: which suggested that he tried to fend off the attack.
Speaker 3: It looks like he was probably sitting at his desk,
Speaker 3: either reading or looking at his computer when attacked. His body.
Speaker 3: Depending on whose timeline you believe, his body was there
Speaker 3: either from uh six thirty in the evening until nine
Speaker 3: o'clock the next day, or that's the Crown that's his
Speaker 3: prosecutions theory. The defense theory is sometime after seven point
Speaker 3: thirty he was possibly he was attacked and anyway, the
Speaker 3: body was there for several hours, so they couldn't determine
Speaker 3: a cause of a time of death. And he had
Speaker 3: you know, massive blows, massive blows to his head. And
Speaker 3: again one of those mysteries about this case is that
Speaker 3: no murder weapon and a surprising lack of trace blood
Speaker 3: in the other parts of the office. There were no
Speaker 3: blood detected on the stairs, on the on the door handles,
Speaker 3: on the doorframes. You know, There's a lot of blood
Speaker 3: around the body. There's a lot of blood spatter, some
Speaker 3: of it you know, nine feet away from the body,
Speaker 3: but other than that, there was a one level a
Speaker 3: surprising lack of blood at the scene.
Speaker 6: Tell Us, Now, about Richard Oland, we mentioned that he's
Speaker 6: a wealthy person involved with the moose said breweries, and
Speaker 6: his family involved with that as well. Tell Us also
Speaker 6: his circumstances in terms of his marriage and his mistress
Speaker 6: right was almost immediately.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this was revealed to the public through you know,
Speaker 3: as media got hold of some of the court information.
Speaker 3: But it wasn't I mean, I think it might have
Speaker 3: been known to certain people. But Rachel Olan was married
Speaker 3: to the same woman who he dated when they were sixteen,
Speaker 3: Connie Oland, and they had three children. But it turned out.
Speaker 3: The police soon found that he had a mistress and
Speaker 3: Diana Sedletek, who was a realtor or a real estate agent.
Speaker 3: They had been involved for several years. It was kind
Speaker 3: of a bit of an open secret within the family.
Speaker 3: Richard still lived at home with his wife in a Ross,
Speaker 3: which is a sort of an upscale suburban community outside
Speaker 3: of Saint John, and he gone on trips with her
Speaker 3: and things like that, and people who worked in the
Speaker 3: office knew about the affair, but it was kind of
Speaker 3: a don't ask, don't tell situation. Richard Olan had been
Speaker 3: involved directly with the Moosehead Brewery. You can buy Moosehead
Speaker 3: in the United States. It's Canada's biggest independent brewery, located
Speaker 3: here in Saint John. Its roots go back to eighteen
Speaker 3: sixty seven. It has quite a brand recognition in Canada. Anyway.
Speaker 3: Richard had sort of had a fallen out with his
Speaker 3: own father in terms of control of that company in
Speaker 3: the eighties. He sort of lost out to his brother Derek,
Speaker 3: who recently has signed over the running of the company
Speaker 3: to one of his sons. But Richard did have shares
Speaker 3: in the company and also in the eighties, and I
Speaker 3: believe nineties. He had a very large trucking company that
Speaker 3: benefited by hauling moosehead beer to the United States and
Speaker 3: so forth, so he sort of benefited from that. He
Speaker 3: was worth about thirty five million dollars at the time
Speaker 3: of his death, and he was a fairly wealthy man.
Speaker 3: By New Brunswick's standards revolved. A lot of charities had
Speaker 3: been recognized by the government of Canada with an honor
Speaker 3: called the Order of Canada. So he's a pretty prominent victim.
Speaker 6: Now, investigators right away find out the dynamics of this family.
Speaker 6: You talk about the three children, tell us about Dennis,
Speaker 6: and what they find out in terms of just immediately
Speaker 6: the relationship between Richard and his son Dennis.
Speaker 3: Yes, Well, the investigators talked to the victim's wife, Dennis's
Speaker 3: wife Lisa, Dennis's sister Lisa, and sister Jacqueline, and eventually
Speaker 3: Dennis that same that same day, this is the day
Speaker 3: the body's found. And what they get from talking to
Speaker 3: those family members is a bit of a narrative about that.
Speaker 3: Richard was a hard man to deal with. He was
Speaker 3: he could be very he had bouts of anger, He
Speaker 3: was judgmental, sometimes could be quite callous he you know,
Speaker 3: towards people and created a lot of tensions at family
Speaker 3: gatherings and things like that. So one of the things
Speaker 3: that was stressed in those interviews was a lot of
Speaker 3: this pressure came on Dennis as the only son, and
Speaker 3: so the police were sort of given kind of a
Speaker 3: bit of a negative narrative about the father's son relationship.
Speaker 3: They also realized, or came through their own conclusion that
Speaker 3: Dennis was the last person to see the victim alive.
Speaker 3: Is Dennis, you know, admitted going to see his father
Speaker 3: the evening of the crime. Dennis also something that the
Speaker 3: police dug into a bit and it was certainly important
Speaker 3: in the later investigation. Dennis had been advanced money from
Speaker 3: his father. Dennis was an investment advisor, sort of a stockbroker.
Speaker 3: His income was up and down. He was trying to
Speaker 3: live an upper middle class lifestyle, living in his grandparents' house,
Speaker 3: which he had purchased with his former first wife, but
Speaker 3: his income was not always great. He was having some
Speaker 3: cash flow problems in twenty eleven, and the police determined
Speaker 3: that that may have been a factor in the crime.
Speaker 6: Now you talk about the money situation not being ideal
Speaker 6: and the relationship between Richard and the police discover is
Speaker 6: a serious thing to consider. When you police talked to
Speaker 6: the secretary that was there July sixth, at the end
Speaker 6: of the day and during the day, what was her testimony,
Speaker 6: what was her what did she say to the police
Speaker 6: about Dennis, about the frequency that Dennis would come around
Speaker 6: normally typically to the office to visit his father, and
Speaker 6: what happened that day and.
Speaker 3: That yes, and that's a good question because also that
Speaker 3: person Marine Adamson, as well as a co worker, Robert McFadden,
Speaker 3: who was sort of like the accountant in the office.
Speaker 3: They also both to the police early on. Marene testified
Speaker 3: that Dennis showed up to see his dad an unannounced,
Speaker 3: not planned. He did work nearby, he lived, you know,
Speaker 3: he worked in the building just five minutes away, and
Speaker 3: pleasant conversation. But she also testified that Dennis was not
Speaker 3: in the habit of visiting his father that often, at
Speaker 3: least at his place of work. And although Dennis did
Speaker 3: act as a bit of a financial advisor, you know,
Speaker 3: making investments for his father. Sometimes Dennis dropped by. He
Speaker 3: had a carrying a bag with him, a reasonable shopping bag,
Speaker 3: and she mentioned to him Richard was happy to see
Speaker 3: his son. Richard had just returned from a trip and
Speaker 3: what they were going to talk about was family history.
Speaker 3: So you know, Maureene within ten minutes of Dennis getting there,
Speaker 3: kind of did her closed down routine, you know, shutting
Speaker 3: off computers, walking the back door, things like that, and
Speaker 3: then she left the two men chatting, presumably about family history,
Speaker 3: which one thing the two men could talk on without
Speaker 3: quarreling apparently was genealogy, and she thought that things were
Speaker 3: going well. She she mentioned to Dennis that there was
Speaker 3: a log book, which it was basically a log like
Speaker 3: an entry log from a family camp that had been
Speaker 3: I think on the mother's side of the family nearby
Speaker 3: on an island in the Kenneba Cases River, very beautiful
Speaker 3: river uh in the area, and over the years, different
Speaker 3: visitors had signed their name in that camp log, and
Speaker 3: Richard had borrowed that from another family member to scan it,
Speaker 3: and he was a little late getting getting it back.
Speaker 3: So missus Olin, Richard's wife, had asked Uh Maureen to
Speaker 3: put her aside, and so Marine asked Dennis when he
Speaker 3: showed up, well, can you could you take this this
Speaker 3: this this family log book please and give it to
Speaker 3: your mother, and so you know that the logbook also
Speaker 3: had a role to play in the forensic evidence as
Speaker 3: it turned out.
Speaker 6: Now you talked about Marine Adamson and what did she
Speaker 6: notice or note about his appearance and clothing that day.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was wearing it was a pretty warm day,
Speaker 3: but he was wearing a Hugo Boss. Well, she didn't
Speaker 3: know the brand, but he's wearing a brown sports jacket
Speaker 3: and she thought it was a lot because it was
Speaker 3: so warm. The brown jacket, as would turn out in
Speaker 3: the investigation the trial, was another key piece of evidence
Speaker 3: and it focused on the issues of truthfulness and credibility
Speaker 3: of the accused as well. It would be the only
Speaker 3: real direct forensic evidence that, according to the prosecution, you know,
Speaker 3: place Dennis Owen at the crime scene in terms of
Speaker 3: blood in DNA.
Speaker 6: Now we talk about that, Maureen Adamson leaves, talks to
Speaker 6: her husband, mentions the event where she speaks to Dennis
Speaker 6: to her husband, and then they leave. Now police are
Speaker 6: trying to determine and obviously they need to speak to Dennis.
Speaker 6: You talk about that this looks like something very obvious
Speaker 6: that they would speak to Dennis. It looks like he
Speaker 6: is the last person to speak to his father.
Speaker 3: Sorry, he was the lost known person.
Speaker 6: Now how do police proceed in terms of questioning him
Speaker 6: and how much do they know? How much have they
Speaker 6: learned before they questioned him?
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're they're there. I think they're getting bits of
Speaker 3: information from some of the previous interviews that day, uh,
Speaker 3: from the family members, maybe about the father son relationship
Speaker 3: and things like that. They also through his really through
Speaker 3: his interview, he mentions, for example that after he left
Speaker 3: his father and he said his father was in fine
Speaker 3: form and it was a pleasant party. Of the ways,
Speaker 3: he he walked out of the building, took a call
Speaker 3: from his wife, and then he drove home. But on
Speaker 3: the way home he stopped at a wharf on on
Speaker 3: that Kenne of Cases River. And so once the police
Speaker 3: heard that, for example, they dispatched an officer that night.
Speaker 3: This is an hour into Dennis's interview. They sent an
Speaker 3: officer out just to do a quick sweep visual sweep
Speaker 3: of that wharf area. Later they would return with divers
Speaker 3: and search dog team and things like that. They also did,
Speaker 3: you know, routine things they ran his uh. They ran
Speaker 3: his name through the vehicle identification a system to get
Speaker 3: you know, the registration and plate of his car in
Speaker 3: case they could pick up any uh, visuals of a vehicle,
Speaker 3: you know, through cameras on the street. Uh. They also
Speaker 3: checked to see if he had a criminal record, you know,
Speaker 3: standard investigation, you know. So it wasn't that he was
Speaker 3: considered a suspect that early, but they were doing some
Speaker 3: routine things to check on him. And if you watch,
Speaker 3: you can watch that in the interview, it was all voluntary.
Speaker 3: You can watch that interview on YouTube. It's it's been
Speaker 3: posted there. But it was about a five hour interview
Speaker 3: where he came in at first to so of talked
Speaker 3: to the police about his father, see if he can
Speaker 3: come up with any people who might want to harm
Speaker 3: him and things like that, tell us about the victim.
Speaker 3: And about two and a half hours into the interview,
Speaker 3: it's clearly moving into more of an interrogation. The police
Speaker 3: investigators have determined that Dennis is a suspect and they
Speaker 3: give him a caution. They give him a caution. He
Speaker 3: has through the course of the evening he is allowed
Speaker 3: He's given two calls to his lawyer, actually wasn't a
Speaker 3: criminal lawyer, but a lawyer who advised him not to
Speaker 3: speak later, So for the second half of the interrogation
Speaker 3: he doesn't. He exercises his right to silence and they
Speaker 3: let him go. He's not you know, he's not charge
Speaker 3: of anything. One of the tactical mistakes the police made
Speaker 3: was not asking if they could have his shoes and clothing,
Speaker 3: because he claimed in an interview to have worn the
Speaker 3: same shoes and the same pants the day before. He
Speaker 3: also spoke about the jocket. We can talk about that later.
Speaker 3: The other thing that shows that he was a suspect
Speaker 3: by eleven o'clock that evening. This is the same day
Speaker 3: the body has found is that they put a tail
Speaker 3: on him. They put him under surveillance for the next week,
Speaker 3: although we didn't really hear anything in court about that
Speaker 3: surveillance in detail.
Speaker 1: Hello, it is Ryan and we could all use an
Speaker 1: extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we, just to
Speaker 1: make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes,
Speaker 1: counting or steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That
Speaker 1: is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino.
Speaker 1: Chumpbuck Casino has all your favorite social casino style games
Speaker 1: you can play for free, anytime anywhere, with daily bonuses.
Speaker 1: That's your brighten your day, Lowe, actually a lot, so
Speaker 1: sign up now at chumbuck Casino dot com. That's Chumbuck
Speaker 1: Casino dot com.
Speaker 6: Noe'd necessary day.
Speaker 2: Remember everybody lost in terms and conditions eating pluss.
Speaker 4: Judy was boring Hello, Then Judy discovered chumbacasino dot com.
Speaker 6: It's my little escape.
Speaker 4: Now Judy's the life of the party. Oh baby mama
Speaker 4: is bringing home the bacon. Take it easy, Judy. The
Speaker 4: chumber life is for everybody. So go to chumpacasino dot
Speaker 4: com and play over one hundred casino style games. Join
Speaker 4: today and play for free for your chance to redeem
Speaker 4: some serious prices. Jump chump a casino dot com.
Speaker 6: Necessary where comitted in my mind?
Speaker 4: Plus terms, condition to play whatever details you.
Speaker 6: Talk about this surveillance by police yep. But police find
Speaker 6: out soon enough that someone is his wife actually not someone.
Speaker 6: His wife delivered some clothing to a dry cleaner.
Speaker 3: The next yees tell us about time. Yeah, what they
Speaker 3: find is that they actually they apply for a search warrant,
Speaker 3: and it's probably similar in the United States, unlike you
Speaker 3: know the movies we watch and the TV shows where
Speaker 3: they get the search warrant over the commercial break in Canada.
Speaker 3: It contains it took the better part of a week
Speaker 3: because they have to have these documents called information to
Speaker 3: obtain where they have to give reasonable grounds caused to
Speaker 3: for judge to sign off. So they executed the search
Speaker 3: warrant a week after the murder on the residence of
Speaker 3: Dennis Old and a large team of officers. In his
Speaker 3: in the master bedroom, they found a dry they found
Speaker 3: and you know, the jacket. By this time they knew
Speaker 3: from video surveillance that he had been He had been
Speaker 3: wearing a brown jacket the day of the day of
Speaker 3: the visit to his father, where when he talked to
Speaker 3: the police the next next evening he claimed he had
Speaker 3: He insisted he had been wearing a blue blazer, so
Speaker 3: that came up at trial as a possible lie. But
Speaker 3: so the police had jackets on their mind, and this
Speaker 3: man was a professional. He had a large number of
Speaker 3: jackets and dress shirts and things like that in his closet.
Speaker 3: So when they when they the only thing of note
Speaker 3: that they found uh in his in the master bedroom
Speaker 3: was a brown jacket and a dry cleaning bag with
Speaker 3: a dry cleaning tag on it. They also found on
Speaker 3: the dresser, the corresponding tag and the sales slip, and
Speaker 3: it showed that the jacket had been taken to a
Speaker 3: dry cleaner in ross and New Brunswick, the community where
Speaker 3: the old Ones live, around nine o'clock the morning after
Speaker 3: the police interrogation that last that went to eleven pm.
Speaker 3: So that you know, looks suspicious to investigators. So they
Speaker 3: seized that jacket and they sent it away to the
Speaker 3: crime lab in Halifax, Nova Scotia, which is a nearby province,
Speaker 3: And the crime lab was run by the Royal Canadian
Speaker 3: Mounted Police, and they did a series of tests on
Speaker 3: that jacket looking for forensic traces. And what did they find.
Speaker 3: They didn't really confirm to twenty and twelve that they
Speaker 3: found four specs of blood on the jacket. And I
Speaker 3: don't always obvious places. I forget the exact places it
Speaker 3: might have been, like, you know, inside the cuffs on
Speaker 3: the lower back, that type of thing with very minute
Speaker 3: traces of of DNA in the DNA matched that of
Speaker 3: the victims, Richard Owens. So the prosecutors, however, still waited
Speaker 3: about a year before they pressed charges, so they were
Speaker 3: being you know, and the public was quite concerned. You
Speaker 3: know how come and arrest hasn't been made. We're now
Speaker 3: into twenty twelve, were now into twenty thirteen, but the
Speaker 3: prosecutors wanted to make very sure. In New Brunswick we
Speaker 3: have a policy where all prosecutions are cleared higher up
Speaker 3: the food chain, so to speak. If there's a good
Speaker 3: if there's if there's a good chance that you're not
Speaker 3: going to get a conviction, they will not prosecute. So,
Speaker 3: you know, they had to kind of sign off on that.
Speaker 3: So they so this was the key forensic evidence DNA
Speaker 3: evidence that was used in the in the subsequent prosecution.
Speaker 6: The prosecution decision not to charge for two years and
Speaker 6: to be very careful to make sure that they thought
Speaker 6: they had the sufficient of evidence to lay those charges.
Speaker 6: It was also dependent on the seemingly the seeming support
Speaker 6: of Dennis by the entire family and as a result,
Speaker 6: knowing the wealth of the family that this would they
Speaker 6: would mount about the best defense they could get in
Speaker 6: the country.
Speaker 3: This yeah, in their assessment, Yeah, it's a wealthy family.
Speaker 3: We're not sure. Again, you know, I would love to
Speaker 3: know two things as a researcher. You know, what was
Speaker 3: a total legal bill A and B who's paid now
Speaker 3: the money, the victim's money, thirty five million dollars went
Speaker 3: the terms of the will. I couldn't find the will,
Speaker 3: but the terms of the will seems to be that
Speaker 3: the money went into trust to his widow, Connie olan
Speaker 3: uh And. But that trust could be dipped into. One
Speaker 3: of the little ironies is at Denis ol And was
Speaker 3: one of the trustees who helped manage that trust. He
Speaker 3: was also a co executor of his father's estate. So
Speaker 3: when missus Owen passes away, and she seems to be
Speaker 3: very healthy and very nice lady, then the will determines well,
Speaker 3: the dictates that the surviving children, Dennis and his two
Speaker 3: sisters would each inherit an equal share. Unless we have
Speaker 3: this long Canada, I think, unless he's convicted of murder
Speaker 3: of the dead man and in which I don't think
Speaker 3: he could inherit that share. But anyway, so we don't know,
Speaker 3: but certainly a very high profile legal team by New
Speaker 3: Brunswick standards, I mean, New Brunswick is a small province.
Speaker 3: It's located next to Maine. The state of Maine is
Speaker 3: very similar, you know, kind of rural, you know, population,
Speaker 3: small cities, that type of thing. So the typical trial here,
Speaker 3: it does not involved that sort of high profile legal team,
Speaker 3: you know. You know mister Allen Gold, one of the
Speaker 3: top criminal defense lawyers in Canada who's based out of Toronto,
Speaker 3: and for the second trial, Michael Wacey, another slightly younger
Speaker 3: but another very prominent and very skilled defense attorney. And
Speaker 3: outwardly the family was very supportive issuing statements to the media.
Speaker 3: Sometimes the lawyers would issue press releases. I mean, this
Speaker 3: is very very rare for Canada, where things tend to
Speaker 3: be a bit more on the British side of things,
Speaker 3: we're very understated. You know, prosecutors do not give interviews
Speaker 3: to the press, the issue very terse statements and everything
Speaker 3: is supposed to be sort of understated. And so we
Speaker 3: had a little here was a little bit more, a
Speaker 3: bit of a pub a bit of a pr war
Speaker 3: as well. I guess you could say.
Speaker 6: Police also gather evidence, so they're looking at forensic data,
Speaker 6: evidence from telephones and cell phone towers and computer searches.
Speaker 6: But they do get some interesting information from Anthony Shaw
Speaker 6: and I believe John Ainsworth of two talking about things
Speaker 6: they heard.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right, Well, these are the two we mentioned
Speaker 3: Ainsworth before owner of the building. So they were down
Speaker 3: below on the ground floor that evening July sixth and
Speaker 3: nice hot summer night, and John Ainsworth was working on
Speaker 3: some sort of layout for some sort of print job.
Speaker 3: He was having a problem, so his friend Anthony came
Speaker 3: and helped him. They worked on it, you know, for
Speaker 3: three hours. Every once in a while Anthony would go
Speaker 3: and have a smoke break, and they worked on it.
Speaker 3: And at some point in the in the early evening,
Speaker 3: before and before nine, they heard thumping from upstairs, and
Speaker 3: it came from the general area of Richard Olan's office,
Speaker 3: not only his office but his desk area. And of
Speaker 3: course Ainsworth knew the building because he had owned it
Speaker 3: since the eighties. Shaw was a little less familiar, but
Speaker 3: so they both but they didn't think it was important
Speaker 3: enough to go check out, you know, And then he
Speaker 3: went back to work. Another man looked at his watch,
Speaker 3: were at a clock. But they both told police and
Speaker 3: later in court that it happened sometime before eight o'clock
Speaker 3: that night, because at eight o'clock a young gentleman came
Speaker 3: in and asked if they would send a fact for him.
Speaker 3: Shaw was fairly certain that the thumping was took place
Speaker 3: between seven thirty and eight, maybe even more like seven
Speaker 3: forty five to eight. Ainsworth at first said that to
Speaker 3: the police, but then and then he said, well, you know,
Speaker 3: I'm a little less certain. I think it's some sometime
Speaker 3: between six and eight. So the significance of that is
Speaker 3: that the timeline is important because cameras and other evidence
Speaker 3: clearly shows that Dennis Olin is not in the office
Speaker 3: or in Saint John at seven thirty or eight forty five.
Speaker 3: He's he's been home since seven o'clock or so, and
Speaker 3: he's been captured on store cameras, you know, seven twenty five,
Speaker 3: seven thirty, you know, twelve twelve miles away in that
Speaker 3: Rossy area. So that that, in a sense, the testimony
Speaker 3: of Shaw is sort of an alibi for Denis Olin
Speaker 3: being involved in the crime. On the other hand, Ainsworth,
Speaker 3: it also works that Ainsworth says, you know, it could
Speaker 3: have been up to eight, but he also pushes it earlier,
Speaker 3: you know, six o'clock, and he's a little less certain,
Speaker 3: so he was That difference in those two witnesses was
Speaker 3: I think a very big factor in the first trial.
Speaker 3: Second trial it's a factor too, but it's more complicated.
Speaker 6: Now you talk about the eighteen months that the investigation,
Speaker 6: it proceeded slowly. They wanted to make sure, as you say,
Speaker 6: that they had everything so that they could make a
Speaker 6: successful charge and make a stick tell us about the
Speaker 6: charge and the arrest and the reaction media and family.
Speaker 3: Well, one of the things that's interesting is that before
Speaker 3: he was arrested in the fall twenty thirteen, a lot
Speaker 3: of people in the community kind of knew that their chief,
Speaker 3: the chief suspect of the Sant John Police was Richard
Speaker 3: Olin's son. And the reason why that media outlets we're
Speaker 3: going to court and asking judges to release certain aspects
Speaker 3: from the information to obtain documents that were used to
Speaker 3: get the search warrants, because there are other warrants as
Speaker 3: well that we're used here to seize computer equipments and
Speaker 3: things like that. So the argument being that once a
Speaker 3: warrant is served, then the information behind that warrant becomes
Speaker 3: public property. So normally this doesn't happen, people don't really care,
Speaker 3: but in this case, it was kind of a celebrity family, right,
Speaker 3: so we kind of knew things. You know. For example,
Speaker 3: the victim was the victim had lent five hundred thousand
Speaker 3: dollars to the suspect the victim. The suspect was the
Speaker 3: last known person to see the victim alive. So it's
Speaker 3: kind of like I call it, almost like illegal strip
Speaker 3: tease that over the months, more and more details were
Speaker 3: revealed without naming names, and finally you know it's the sun. Well,
Speaker 3: there's only one son. So he's charged with second degree
Speaker 3: murder because there is no proof of premeditation. In Canada,
Speaker 3: we don't have capital punishment anymore, so first degree murder.
Speaker 3: If you're convicted of first degree murder, it's a minimum
Speaker 3: of twenty five years in penitentiary before you can be
Speaker 3: considered for parole. Second degree murder, I think the minimum
Speaker 3: is ten years in prison before parole, but it can
Speaker 3: go up to twenty five case by case. So he
Speaker 3: was charged with second degree murder, so it was convicted.
Speaker 3: He's facing a minimum of ten years. He's a man
Speaker 3: in his forties at the time. One of the little
Speaker 3: interesting anomalies or weird things about the case is that
Speaker 3: first degree murder would have to be built on pre meditation,
Speaker 3: planning and that type of thing. But you know, the
Speaker 3: victim was killed with a weapon. The weapon was never found.
Speaker 3: It was deemed it was speculated to be a hammer
Speaker 3: or a hatch or something like that. Those types of
Speaker 3: tools or weapons are not normally laying around in investment offices.
Speaker 3: So you know, if someone had to bring that weapon,
Speaker 3: the killer had to bring that weapon into the office,
Speaker 3: that implies premeditation. Right. So again, but the best the
Speaker 3: prosecution can do was was second degree charge. Right.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Now, tell us tell us about we talk about
Speaker 6: normally people charged for murder, they don't even consider that
Speaker 6: that person might be then getting a bail while they
Speaker 6: await that their trial.
Speaker 3: So tell us about. Yeah, it varies from place to place.
Speaker 3: It's kind of rare in Canada, it so happens. It's
Speaker 3: probably the same of the states that you know. It's
Speaker 3: it's true that many murders are committed by people who
Speaker 3: you know, it's a crime of passion. Someone just loses
Speaker 3: it and kills someone or whatever, and they often don't
Speaker 3: have a criminal record. The big, the big thing with
Speaker 3: bail in Canada is with any issue is like does
Speaker 3: a person have a prior criminal record that could be
Speaker 3: really held against you? In the mail hearing, but there
Speaker 3: had been uh uh, there had been a kind of
Speaker 3: a pattern New Brunswick that you know, they didn't didn't
Speaker 3: think that an accused murderer, even though they had no
Speaker 3: prior chrominal record ever been released on bail, right, so
Speaker 3: uh and so so he you know, but he but
Speaker 3: he was released. Sorry I'm getting I'm geting ahead of
Speaker 3: myself a person who had been convicted but who was
Speaker 3: appealing their sentence. I got ahead of myself there. So
Speaker 3: basically he had he had a clean record, he was
Speaker 3: he was he was released on bail. Uh, we can't
Speaker 3: you know, I wasn't at the bail hearing and the
Speaker 3: and the mail. The judge who presided over the bail
Speaker 3: here hearing will not release the transcript. So I would
Speaker 3: have loved to have known him. Because this was all
Speaker 3: under a publication ban, everything prior to the actual trial.
Speaker 3: It probably works similar in the United States. Everything prior
Speaker 3: to the actual trial was under a publication ban, so
Speaker 3: so it wouldn't so nothing could leak out to prejudice
Speaker 3: the the defense. Right. So, but yeah, he was relucent
Speaker 3: bil but he had a surrenderous passport and he couldn't
Speaker 3: leave the country. But he was free to live, he
Speaker 3: was free to work. Ironically, as I point out in
Speaker 3: my book, one of the places he worked at was
Speaker 3: as a director of one or more of his father's companies,
Speaker 3: and so he you know, for a while he was
Speaker 3: going in and we don't know how long it lasted,
Speaker 3: but he was going in to the to the murder
Speaker 3: scene and right into the small office where his father
Speaker 3: had been brutally murdered and working there in some capacity.
Speaker 3: But again, that evidence didn't come into court directly, but
Speaker 3: we do know that Dennis was doing that because one
Speaker 3: of the things that happened to him after he was
Speaker 3: arrested is that he was fired by the company, the
Speaker 3: investment company where he worked. So he presumably got some
Speaker 3: sort of buyout and presumably sold his book of investments
Speaker 3: to another investment dealer or stockbroker. So he was basically,
Speaker 3: you know, he didn't have a job after his ear
Speaker 3: although he wasn't bail.
Speaker 6: Let's talk about preparation for that trial. What are the
Speaker 6: issues that the prosecution believes that they can bring up
Speaker 6: to prove and what is the defense strategy to counter those?
Speaker 3: Right? Well, the the the the first of all, it's
Speaker 3: pretty well going to be trial by jury. That's that's
Speaker 3: the typical thing in Canada unless something really strange happens.
Speaker 3: Uh So they're they're planning for a trial by by
Speaker 3: Jerry the The defense is using the fact that it's
Speaker 3: the last known person you know that the the accused
Speaker 3: is the last known person to see the the victim alive.
Speaker 3: They they they're using the the the somewhat fraud or or.
Speaker 1: Lucky casino, asking people what's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
Speaker 1: Lucky in line of the Delhi I guess high in
Speaker 1: my dentist's office more than once. Actually do I have
Speaker 1: to say?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: You do in the car before my kid's PTA meeting?
Speaker 1: Really yes, excuse me?
Speaker 4: What's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
Speaker 2: I never win?
Speaker 5: And tell well, there you have it.
Speaker 1: You could get lucky anywhere playing at lucky landslots dot
Speaker 1: com play for free right now?
Speaker 4: Are you feeling lucky? No, we're not necessary avoid long
Speaker 4: eighteen plus terms conditions plus everything.
Speaker 3: Or imperfect father son relationship based on three parts. One
Speaker 3: is the fact that Dennis has it sort of owes
Speaker 3: money to his father so to speak, because that that
Speaker 3: that advance on his inheritance that he got came of
Speaker 3: a condition that he pay a monthly interest payment on that.
Speaker 3: Again he was running a little lower cash. Secondly, possible
Speaker 3: resentment against the mistress in the family, and disrespect towards
Speaker 3: Dennis's mother, and thoroughly just the general negative personality of
Speaker 3: Richard Oldin from time to time. So that's a couple
Speaker 3: of things. The other one is that the missing the
Speaker 3: missing iPhone, the cell phone evidence and radio frequency engineer evidence,
Speaker 3: and that type of thing was introduced in the pre
Speaker 3: trial hearings and at the trial to suggest that the
Speaker 3: victim's phone registered on a cell tower in Ross, New
Speaker 3: Brunswick within a few minutes of Dennis leaving his self
Speaker 3: admitted time that he lost around six thirty pm. Within
Speaker 3: a few minutes an incoming text message from Richard's mistress
Speaker 3: made his phone ping or register off of cell tower
Speaker 3: in Rosse, which is quite close to the wharf where
Speaker 3: Dennis Oland had stopped, supposedly to see if his children
Speaker 3: were swimming either that night. So that sort of put
Speaker 3: that connects the missing foam with Dennis and his root home.
Speaker 3: And then things such as the dry cleaning, you know,
Speaker 3: taking the taking the the the jacket for dry cleaning.
Speaker 3: It seemed to suggest you know, a guilty mind. They crown,
Speaker 3: they called the prosecution. You hear the crown. You know,
Speaker 3: it's kind of the British connection, right, so the crown
Speaker 3: attorney Uh in Canada, you you were prosecuted by the
Speaker 3: Queen or the king. That's what it says in the document, right. So, Uh,
Speaker 3: it's not the people versus owen. It's it's our meaning
Speaker 3: Regina I think, meaning the Queen. So they also the
Speaker 3: Crown also suggested that he lied about which jacket he
Speaker 3: was wearing. He wasn't mixed up about the jacket. He
Speaker 3: he clearly knew he was wearing the brown jacket, but
Speaker 3: he wanted to you know, he wanted to cover that
Speaker 3: up at the investigation, right, and said and so instead
Speaker 3: he said he wore the blue jacket. And then and
Speaker 3: then the DNA on the jacket, right, the DNA evidence.
Speaker 3: So they kind of put it all together in a
Speaker 3: story that you know, would convince a jury that you
Speaker 3: know that Richard Olen was a difficult man. Often this
Speaker 3: was a crime of passion. There was some sort of
Speaker 3: dispute to escalate it into a violent encounter. Uh and
Speaker 3: uh and his son. You know, it's circumstantial, but all
Speaker 3: all these sort of bricks in the wall, so to speak,
Speaker 3: point towards Dennis Olan as the as the the killer.
Speaker 3: And again the real legal, real legal issues. You know,
Speaker 3: what's the identity of the killer. That's the old, real
Speaker 3: real issue in the crown or the prosecutors that it's
Speaker 3: Dennis Olan.
Speaker 6: We mentioned, but how strong was the financial incentive and
Speaker 6: how far did the prosecution frame it in terms of motive.
Speaker 6: We knew that they found out he was in dire
Speaker 6: financial straits, but was did they offer any theory on
Speaker 6: what that confrontation over finances may have been that day?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the motive this is all inferred because you know,
Speaker 3: it's if it didn't it didn't hold together in the
Speaker 3: second trial, but it obviously works in the first trial.
Speaker 3: The the the the prosecution was inferring that it wasn't
Speaker 3: that Dennis Owen, you know, uh, it was mad at
Speaker 3: he didn't go to see his father. Their their theory
Speaker 3: is that he went to see his father. The pretext
Speaker 3: was we're going to we're going to talk about this
Speaker 3: family history stuff because it's one of the few things
Speaker 3: we can talk about without getting into an argument. Right,
Speaker 3: they relax, they joke, They you know they both had
Speaker 3: turned into genealogy freaks that basically the only family had
Speaker 3: a connection with England, and Dennis had gone on a
Speaker 3: trip to England, he had documents, but the Crown, the prosecution,
Speaker 3: Dennis was using the visit as a pretext to engage
Speaker 3: in another conversation, Dad, I need money right now. There
Speaker 3: was no proof of that, no direct proof. There were
Speaker 3: no emails, letters, phone calls, uh, you know, other other
Speaker 3: people who could confirm or deny that. But that was
Speaker 3: what the Crown was asking the jury to believe. So
Speaker 3: they put together kind of a circumstantial evidence argument based
Speaker 3: on that, based on the situation, and and you know,
Speaker 3: get it, and you know that that was kind of
Speaker 3: a powerful argument I think put in front of the jury. Yes,
Speaker 3: and the father you know, and and again the inference
Speaker 3: of the father not refused and maybe said something nasty
Speaker 3: and things escalated and boom mm hmmm. Yes, us as
Speaker 3: an opportunity, Greg to stop for a second to talk
Speaker 3: about our sponsor, which is ship Station. When you're selling online,
Speaker 3: getting your orders out can be a real pain, time consuming, expensive,
Speaker 3: so many carriers to choose from. How do you know
Speaker 3: you're making the best choice that's why you need shipstation
Speaker 3: dot com. It's the fastest, easiest, and most affordable way
Speaker 3: to manage and ship your orders.
Speaker 6: Ship Station helps you get your orders out quickly, save
Speaker 6: money on shipping costs, and keep your customers happy no
Speaker 6: matter where you're selling Amazon see your own website. Shipstation
Speaker 6: brings all your orders into one simple interface, making them
Speaker 6: really easy to manage from any device, even your cell phone.
Speaker 6: Shipstation works with all of the major carriers, including USPS,
Speaker 6: FedEx Ups, even Amazon Fulfillment, so you can compare and
Speaker 6: choose the best shipping solution for you and your customer.
Speaker 6: They even offer big discounts on shipping costs. Now any
Speaker 6: business can access the same postage discounts that are usually
Speaker 6: reserved for large Fortune five hundred companies. You'll always know
Speaker 6: that you're getting the best deal the owner. Ship Station
Speaker 6: is the number one choice of online sellers. You'll ship
Speaker 6: more and less time with the best rates available and
Speaker 6: right now, true Murder listeners can ship can try ship
Speaker 6: station free for sixty days when you use promo code
Speaker 6: true Murder. There's absolutely no risk. You can start your
Speaker 6: free trial without even entering your credit card info. Just
Speaker 6: visit shipstation dot com. Click on the microphone at the
Speaker 6: top of the homepage and type in true Murder ship
Speaker 6: station dot com. Then enter promo code true murder ship
Speaker 6: station dot com Make ship Happen now, Greg, we were
Speaker 6: talking about the trial itself. Yeah, interesting feature of any
Speaker 6: trial is when a defendant takes the stand, tell us
Speaker 6: about this this first trial, tell us about his turn
Speaker 6: on the stand, right, And I just might interject to
Speaker 6: to explain to American listeners and people from other countries
Speaker 6: that in Canada you can't have any cameras in the
Speaker 6: courtroom right right point. And also you can't you can't
Speaker 6: talk to jurors after a trial, so it really makes
Speaker 6: a little more challenging to do the researching.
Speaker 3: Dennis. Yeah, So you often hear a season lawyers say well,
Speaker 3: I'm not going to put my client on the stand.
Speaker 3: You know, they don't have to. There's a there's a
Speaker 3: right to silence. You do hear about trials where people
Speaker 3: don't don't testify. But he wanted to testify. I wanted
Speaker 3: to sort of clear his name. And there were also
Speaker 3: some suggestions, actually more than suggestions. The defense did say
Speaker 3: that they were going to put Olden family members on
Speaker 3: the stand as well. That created a lot of interest
Speaker 3: because here we have an elite family whose intimate secrets
Speaker 3: you know, were being pried into by the media, and
Speaker 3: so we weren't sure if they were it was if
Speaker 3: it was going to be character witness sort of testimony.
Speaker 3: But in the end that didn't happen. Dennis himself went
Speaker 3: on the stand and he, you know, he was He
Speaker 3: was examined by one of the senior lawyers, Gary Miller,
Speaker 3: who was a new Brunswick lawyer, very seasoned, and it
Speaker 3: started with the first question was did you kill your father?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: And the last question was did you love your father? Yes? Right,
Speaker 3: And that testimony tried to revisit his timeline of where
Speaker 3: he went and what he did on the day of,
Speaker 3: in the evening of the crime, and possibly the next
Speaker 3: day as well. But also in contrast to the more
Speaker 3: negative father son relationship that was stressed by Dennis and
Speaker 3: his original police police interview back in twenty eleven, this
Speaker 3: right gave a kind of a rosy review of the
Speaker 3: father's son relationship that you know, old Dad was a
Speaker 3: bit of a character, but you know he was, he was,
Speaker 3: you know, at many levels I admired him. He was
Speaker 3: you know, you know, we had a lot in common.
Speaker 3: We love cars, we like you know, skiing boats, whatever. Right,
Speaker 3: So so that you know, I think that was trying
Speaker 3: to sort of repair that damage that possibly the defense
Speaker 3: saw the police interview having created. It's interesting in the
Speaker 3: second trial, the defense tried to have a whole interview excluded, right,
Speaker 3: So obviously they saw that as a problem. But the
Speaker 3: interview went in the first two and a half hours,
Speaker 3: one end, and again, as I mentioned earlier, after he
Speaker 3: had been cautioned and given you know, ready his rights
Speaker 3: so to speak, by the police, although he was not arrested.
Speaker 3: Uh then Dennis didn't talk very much. But you know,
Speaker 3: it's it's also possible to to you know, a lot
Speaker 3: of people like to read the body language and things
Speaker 3: like that. People have all different views of that. But
Speaker 3: you know, if anyone's interested, they can find that Dennis
Speaker 3: Olen interview on YouTube and latch it themselves and see
Speaker 3: what they think. Mm hmm.
Speaker 6: Let's get back to this first trial and his performance
Speaker 6: on the stand. But what happens as a result in
Speaker 6: that first trial, Well, what is is spoiler alert, it's
Speaker 6: a conviction and and and and the jury set sits
Speaker 6: for about three days, and uh, a lot of court
Speaker 6: watchers were, you.
Speaker 3: Know, thinking it was going to go the other way.
Speaker 3: At the time, I thought it was going to go
Speaker 3: the other way, just based on my sense. I mean,
Speaker 3: I am an academic, but I'm also not legally trained,
Speaker 3: and I thought that the defense put up a strong
Speaker 3: case and seemed to be more aggressive and the you know,
Speaker 3: so the the a lot of people, you know, even reporters,
Speaker 3: I think, you know, off the record, we're sort of
Speaker 3: expecting it was going to be an acquittal. But I
Speaker 3: was there in court that Saturday, just before Christmas, too,
Speaker 3: which is you know, added another layer of emotion perhaps
Speaker 3: to the outcome. The jury came in and announced that
Speaker 3: he was convicted, and you know, understandably some people in
Speaker 3: the family are quite upset. And the judge then, you know,
Speaker 3: ordered him to stand up and taken raid into custody
Speaker 3: and then to be brought back in the new year
Speaker 3: for sentencing because as in the States, I'm sure there
Speaker 3: had to be a pre sentenced reports and recommendations on sentencing, right,
Speaker 3: and so then he was whisked away and he was
Speaker 3: held in over Christmas in provincial jail, and then after sentencing.
Speaker 3: He was actually he was sent to a federal correctional institution.
Speaker 6: Now this is why this story doesn't it has so
Speaker 6: much more legs. Yes, in the story, what happens there
Speaker 6: and what by the way, we didn't mention the sentence.
Speaker 6: What is the sentence he received?
Speaker 3: He got the sentencing February. He had no prior record.
Speaker 3: He seemed to be a good candidate for reform. The public.
Speaker 3: The judge agreed that, you know, the public was not
Speaker 3: really in any danger from him and that type of thing.
Speaker 3: So he got in. The jury itself recommended a minimum right,
Speaker 3: the Crown asked for a little bit more, maybe twelve
Speaker 3: years or whatever. But in the end Justice Walsh agreed
Speaker 3: that ten years. Now ten years, you know, that's kind
Speaker 3: of close to a manslaughter sentence, right, So ten years,
Speaker 3: which still is quite a shock for a man. And
Speaker 3: is you know, a middle class man or anyone really
Speaker 3: to be to be heading in for ten years in
Speaker 3: federal correction where you're you're in there with convicted murderers, rapist.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 3: So he what happened to him? He for a while
Speaker 3: he was an All federal inmates in Canada are sent
Speaker 3: to a classification prison in Nova Scotia, a place called
Speaker 3: spring Hill which used to be a mining town. And
Speaker 3: then after after they after a certain time, they are
Speaker 3: sent to appropriate places. Now was as if someone convicted
Speaker 3: of murder. Uh, he's sent to a more maximum security
Speaker 3: place where there's a lot of hard cases. And that's
Speaker 3: that was a renewce in New Brunswick, which is a
Speaker 3: northern New Brunswick.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 3: It's it's called the Atlantic Institution. While he was there,
Speaker 3: he was assaulted by too young during a visit by
Speaker 3: friends or family in the visitor family visit room, he
Speaker 3: was assaulted by two young inmates from Nova Scotia, who,
Speaker 3: as I explained in one version of my book, were
Speaker 3: members of these loosely affiliated gangs in Halifax where there's
Speaker 3: Halifax Nova Scotia big enough to have a little bit
Speaker 3: of a gang scene because of the drug trade, and
Speaker 3: they assaulted him. He had to go into sort of
Speaker 3: a sick bay or whatever there and he didn't press charges,
Speaker 3: but to the institution pressed charges and eventually those two
Speaker 3: young men who were in their twenties, who were in
Speaker 3: for fairly serious crimes, they pleaded guilty to assault and
Speaker 3: they were sentenced to four months to be served concurrently
Speaker 3: with their much longer longer sentences. Dennis Olan did not
Speaker 3: put any put in any victim impact statement to that incident,
Speaker 3: So getting back to early so he's convicted December twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3: They prior to the sentencing as well hearing, the defense
Speaker 3: announced that it was applying for leave to appeal, and
Speaker 3: they did appeal to the New bruns Of Court of
Speaker 3: Appeal a number of grounds about the fairness of the trial,
Speaker 3: and the New bruns Of Court of Appeal agreed to
Speaker 3: hear that appeal, so that appeal was heard in Frederick
Speaker 3: and New Brunswick, which is the provincial capital in the fall,
Speaker 3: and by this time, of course, Dennis has been in
Speaker 3: federal prison for several months. They also launched the defense
Speaker 3: also launches an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
Speaker 3: because of an issue of bail. Memory. We talked about
Speaker 3: bail before, but Dennis was in prison having been convicted
Speaker 3: of second degree murder. It's always argued that when he's
Speaker 3: launching an appeal, she should be freedom on bail, and
Speaker 3: that had almost never happened in Canada, definitely not in
Speaker 3: New Brunswick, so that wasn't there. So there were two
Speaker 3: appeals underway. One was to try to get a new
Speaker 3: trial or to have the first trial overturned, and appealingly
Speaker 3: all the way to Supreme Court of Canada to establish
Speaker 3: a legal test for bail.
Speaker 6: Right now, regarding his appeal for another trial.
Speaker 3: What was a result that was successful? And I attended
Speaker 3: some of that. I mean, these appeal hearings are very
Speaker 3: it's highly specialized. The judges, aren't you know. The judges
Speaker 3: take briefs and read them and they don't talk about
Speaker 3: all the issues in the courtroom, but they issue a decision.
Speaker 3: He was granted a new trial. I mean, the defense
Speaker 3: had hoped that the the the condition to be overturned,
Speaker 3: but it was a new trial in stead. And it
Speaker 3: was based on a passage in the judges charge or
Speaker 3: instructions to the jury at trial. And it had to
Speaker 3: do a very technical thing. It had to do with
Speaker 3: reasons why a defendant might not be telling the truth.
Speaker 3: And a lay person would find this hard to maybe
Speaker 3: get the nuance of. But it had to do with
Speaker 3: there could be other reasons why someone is lying that
Speaker 3: aren't related to the crime. Right, So a very narrow thing.
Speaker 3: But that was the justices and the new Bruns of
Speaker 3: Court of Bile thought that the trial judge had made
Speaker 3: an error that the trial had not been there, so
Speaker 3: a new trial was ordered. In the meantime, both sides
Speaker 3: appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Crown or
Speaker 3: the prosecution wanted the Court of Appeal ruling to be
Speaker 3: overturned and wanted the conviction to be restored. They didn't
Speaker 3: want to fight a second trial, and the defense, although
Speaker 3: they had scored a win on one level with the
Speaker 3: Court of Appeal, they wanted the Supreme Court of Canada
Speaker 3: to say, wait a minute, now, this guy should be freed, right,
Speaker 3: no new trial, Let's just have acquittal. But the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court in the summer of twenty seventeen informed the two
Speaker 3: sides that they were not going to hear that case.
Speaker 3: So then the two sides started planning for round two.
Speaker 3: In the meantime. Dennis, he's out unbailed, doesn't have his passport,
Speaker 3: can't travel out of the country, but he's free to work,
Speaker 3: uses both whatever he wants to do with his family
Speaker 3: and friends.
Speaker 6: You write about the support of the family for his defense,
Speaker 6: but also that this person that was flat broke, this
Speaker 6: couple that was destitute. It was a different thing after this,
Speaker 6: after his father died.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what's interesting that. I mean, this was not ever
Speaker 3: entered into evidence at trial, only indirectly through some of
Speaker 3: the documents at sentencing. But you know, Dennis, again, to
Speaker 3: be fair, he probably did get some sort of buy
Speaker 3: out from his job and things like that. But you know,
Speaker 3: in the months after the father died, they bought a building,
Speaker 3: an older building ironically one street over, you know, connected
Speaker 3: by back alleys from the building where the crimea taking place.
Speaker 3: Lisa set up a vintage clothing business which seemed to
Speaker 3: be successful for a bit high end. I say vintage,
Speaker 3: you know, it's gently used things like Louis Vauton handbags
Speaker 3: and you know, Hermie scar office or whatever. And they
Speaker 3: and he bought a boat. He bought a used cabin cruiser,
Speaker 3: I forget the brand, but a fairly big boat. And
Speaker 3: he went on some trips, you know, several trips. And
Speaker 3: so again it for a guy who's body was broke,
Speaker 3: it just seemed a little jarring from the point of
Speaker 3: view or researcher that he was doing these things before
Speaker 3: he was arrested, so he wasn't laying low. And we
Speaker 3: don't know where the money came from, but again, he
Speaker 3: probably had some sort of buyout and wife went on.
Speaker 3: His kids were you know, in high school and university,
Speaker 3: and his wife was involved in the business. She also
Speaker 3: got involve with an art gallery in uptown Saint John
Speaker 3: and the other owner and manager of that gallery was
Speaker 3: the wife of Dennis's cousin. I think possibly Andrew Owen,
Speaker 3: who's his cousin who eventually took over Moosehead. I think
Speaker 3: I'm correct on that one anyway, So you know, life
Speaker 3: went on and the the family, you know, Dennis and
Speaker 3: his wife attended social events, They're involved in different things,
Speaker 3: and they belonged to two yacht clubs, and they had
Speaker 3: their boats. They had their circle of friends at least
Speaker 3: that was involved in these two businesses. So they didn't
Speaker 3: seem to be sort of hiding out before or after
Speaker 3: the arrest right in thirteen.
Speaker 6: What do you make of the families unabashed support of
Speaker 6: Dennis despite this trial, despite this evidence, Yeah, and then
Speaker 6: with this financial support. What's your take on this?
Speaker 3: Well, again I mentioned earlier, we don't really know you know,
Speaker 3: who's paying and what the bill is, but it certainly
Speaker 3: it's you know, two trials, all the pre pre preliminary hearings,
Speaker 3: and we don't have grand jury's here to send things
Speaker 3: a trial, but we have there was a preliminary hearing
Speaker 3: which is sort of sort of by a judge in
Speaker 3: it decides what were the send things a trial. We
Speaker 3: have pre trial hearings on evidence called varniers, and we
Speaker 3: had at least seven, at least six of those for
Speaker 3: the second trial, and you know, so it adds up.
Speaker 3: So we don't know. But the family that you know,
Speaker 3: we haven't There hasn't been any you know, we haven't
Speaker 3: heard of anyone in the family or the family circle
Speaker 3: saying anything in public about doubting Dennis's innocence, and he's
Speaker 3: had shows of support from friends and things like that.
Speaker 3: At the sentencing hearing in February of twenty sixteen, he had,
Speaker 3: you know, there were a number of prominent people there,
Speaker 3: including he didn't come into the building, but standing on
Speaker 3: the steps outside was a person who was a Canadian
Speaker 3: senator at the time, just speaking more about what the
Speaker 3: family was going through. So a lot of the attention
Speaker 3: at times seemed to go on Dennis, and sometimes some
Speaker 3: people pointed out that there wasn't much attention to the victim,
Speaker 3: although with the second trial, I think the family tried
Speaker 3: to pay more attention to the victim who was a
Speaker 3: member of the family.
Speaker 6: Tell Us, Yes, tell us about the latest surprise twist
Speaker 6: in this not in the book, but this is the
Speaker 6: latest development in this case.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Well, there's two surprise twists. One was that after
Speaker 3: a lot of hard slogging, the the things started. The
Speaker 3: trial was slated to take place in the fall of
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen, and one of the things that the defense
Speaker 3: tried to get was they wanted first of all, change
Speaker 3: of venue to another city and or judge alone, because
Speaker 3: they argued there was so much advanced publicity. There were
Speaker 3: two books, there were lots of social media, There was
Speaker 3: tons and tons of newspaper, TV and radio reporting. There
Speaker 3: was a national broadcaster, CBC Canada had a one hour
Speaker 3: long documentary the Fifth Estate called Murder in the Family.
Speaker 3: There's a documentary film crew working in the case now, right,
Speaker 3: So they get, you know, we can't get a fair
Speaker 3: trial in Saint tom. So they did some polling. They
Speaker 3: hired a company again hit the speaks to the deep pockets.
Speaker 3: They hired a company to do polling of opinion on
Speaker 3: what I think of Dennis Olan. They try to get
Speaker 3: judge alone, and they couldn't. The judge ruled against them.
Speaker 3: Then just oh yeah. What they did get though, they
Speaker 3: got more robust, robust questions to ask potential jurors. It's
Speaker 3: called challenge for cause we have a different system in
Speaker 3: the States. Yours is way more intense and laborious we have.
Speaker 3: You know, it's a kind of old school. The jurors
Speaker 3: come in, they're asked three or four questions. The two
Speaker 3: sides get us a few challenges get you know, how
Speaker 3: many defense gets and how many the Crown the prosecutors get.
Speaker 3: But you know, it's a somewhat I wouldn't call amateurish,
Speaker 3: but it's an old fashioned jurors screening system here. What
Speaker 3: they wanted was to bring in social science evidence the
Speaker 3: defense to try to do to allow the people who
Speaker 3: were quote trying jurors or selecting them to screen them
Speaker 3: for potential bias. And so they did win that. They
Speaker 3: got a more robust system of juror selection questions, so
Speaker 3: they got a jury. They also they called five thousand
Speaker 3: people to get a jury of fourteen and two spares.
Speaker 3: That's a large number of people by Canadian standards. Then
Speaker 3: the twist, there's two twists coming. The big twist is
Speaker 3: just before trial was was going to begin with this
Speaker 3: new carefully screened jury, the Crown the defense found out
Speaker 3: that the police officer, who was kind of like the
Speaker 3: file officer records officer in the case, had overstapped himself
Speaker 3: by using a crime management system database to check on
Speaker 3: the jurors. Now, it's perfectly legal and appropriate for the
Speaker 3: police to check jurors to see if they have a
Speaker 3: criminal record, because sometimes they will not always say right
Speaker 3: and Canada, you're not supposed to be on a jury
Speaker 3: if you have a Corona record. So he was just
Speaker 3: doing his due diligenary double checking, but he went a
Speaker 3: step above and used this internal database which showed any
Speaker 3: involvement with the police at all as a victim, as
Speaker 3: someone who phoned in that there was a cat in tree,
Speaker 3: someone who was pulled over for having a bad tailwight,
Speaker 3: you know, that type of thing, and so so there's
Speaker 3: a whole issue of disclosure there and that type of thing,
Speaker 3: and then possibly painting the process. So turned into a
Speaker 3: bit of a drama. So it was all behind the scenes.
Speaker 3: Of course, the lawyers and the judge conferred, and so
Speaker 3: when the juror walked, jury walked into the room day
Speaker 3: in November to start with, to begin what they thought
Speaker 3: was going to be a trial that would last several
Speaker 3: months and possibly deprive a man of his liberty for
Speaker 3: several years. After they were thanked by the judge and
Speaker 3: told that they could go home, and he declared a mistrial.
Speaker 3: And so the option was either do you start over
Speaker 3: to try to get another jury and call another five
Speaker 3: thousand people, or do you go to judge alone? And
Speaker 3: they in the crown, with great reluctance, agreed, because in Canada,
Speaker 3: the Attorney General has to sign off in any request
Speaker 3: for judge alone, right and so, and that wasn't being
Speaker 3: done so anyway, so they decided they're going to go
Speaker 3: hit judge alone. And the trial started judge alone, which
Speaker 3: is exactly what the defense had wanted the second time.
Speaker 3: And so this missed up by the officer sort of
Speaker 3: gave them an early Christmas presence, you know, to use
Speaker 3: that sort of figure speech. So then the trial went on.
Speaker 3: It stretched over several months. It didn't sit as many
Speaker 3: days as the first trial, but it stretched over a
Speaker 3: longer period of time judge alone trial. They did a
Speaker 3: lot of mutual agreed upon statements of fact. They replayed
Speaker 3: video evidence rather than bringing witnesses. They actually just replayed
Speaker 3: some of the video of witnesses from the first trial.
Speaker 3: They had more exhibits, right, there were a few things
Speaker 3: that were different, but from the Crown it was basically
Speaker 3: the same case. By the Crown. There were a few
Speaker 3: different tactics, a few different witnesses and in the end
Speaker 3: Terrence Morrison rendered his decision. It was about one hundred
Speaker 3: and forty page written decision. So that's different because the
Speaker 3: jurors juris here don't give reasons why they e quit
Speaker 3: or convict. In the fact that they do, they can
Speaker 3: be arrested. Here you have one hundred and forty page
Speaker 3: document explaining every aspect. And the judge ended up acquitting
Speaker 3: Dennis Olan of first degree murder and he was a
Speaker 3: free man. And that was you know, just recently, right. Yeah.
Speaker 6: What was interesting though, is the statements by the judge
Speaker 6: about this, you know, beyond reasonable doubt of his innocence,
Speaker 6: tell us what he said considering.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was interesting for me, as again a non
Speaker 3: legally trained person, but I guess there's case law on
Speaker 3: this as well, because he cites it. And the first
Speaker 3: judge in the jury trial did cite some of these
Speaker 3: court cases to try to explain reasonable doubt and the
Speaker 3: difference between you know, suspicion and probable and that type
Speaker 3: of thing, and this Terence Morrison actually incorporated some of
Speaker 3: the same language. But he said, remember the first judge
Speaker 3: said something similar that he told the jury, if you
Speaker 3: think he might be guilty, that's not good enough. Right.
Speaker 3: So the judge in the second in this decision actually
Speaker 3: has several passages in his written decisions saying I didn't
Speaker 3: totally believe Dennis Olan on this point. That point, on
Speaker 3: this point, he was incredible, you know, on that point
Speaker 3: he was incredible. However, overall, I believe that the prosecution
Speaker 3: did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and
Speaker 3: he picked apart different aspects of the prosecution's case. For example,
Speaker 3: he thought their theory of motive was not really proven
Speaker 3: by the evidence introduced in court. He believed that the
Speaker 3: blood the blood expert for the defense, was more credible
Speaker 3: than the blood spatter expert for the for the prosecution.
Speaker 3: And the difference being there is that the blood expert
Speaker 3: for the defense said, well, wait a minute, based on
Speaker 3: my many years of experience working for the RCMP, you
Speaker 3: would have more blood at the scene. And also the
Speaker 3: attacker would have been covered in blood, their clothing, their
Speaker 3: shoes would have been covered in blood, Whereas the crown
Speaker 3: witness said, well, there have been cases where someone gets
Speaker 3: close in with a close in weapon, there's an attack
Speaker 3: and it's and the attacker is not always covered in blood.
Speaker 3: They also the judge also believe that the cell phone evidence,
Speaker 3: which many people thought was very crucial, was not that credible.
Speaker 3: He didn't, you know, he agreed with He agreed with
Speaker 3: a lot of the defense counterattack on that cell phone
Speaker 3: evidence because a lot of that cell phone evidence was
Speaker 3: based on modeling and predictive mapping of how cell towers
Speaker 3: communicate with with with cell phones in their radius, and
Speaker 3: it's not one hundred percent accuracy, it's more of a forecast,
Speaker 3: and so that created doubt in the judge's mind as well.
Speaker 3: He found that the financial aspect as well. He says
Speaker 3: something like, well, maybe the average person would have been
Speaker 3: upset and stressed by their financial situation if they found
Speaker 3: themselves in the same situation at Dennis Oland, but it's
Speaker 3: not proven that Dennis Oland was actually upset. Right, So
Speaker 3: those are three or four key sections in his decision
Speaker 3: that think was interesting to a lot of people in
Speaker 3: the community. Of course, the defense was always attacking the
Speaker 3: police investigation for being inadequate and insufficient and amateurish and
Speaker 3: that type of thing. The judge did acknowledge some of
Speaker 3: that in his decision, but he said ultimately that didn't
Speaker 3: that that's a neutral factor in my decision. Incredible.
Speaker 6: One last thing, how did the judge dismiss the blood
Speaker 6: droplets on the jacket? How did he explain or how.
Speaker 3: Did you account for that? That that that's an interesting
Speaker 3: one too, because you know, again I said, everyone loves
Speaker 3: DNA right to follow that. But he he agreed with
Speaker 3: the defense that there could have been other reasons to
Speaker 3: explain why how that blood in DNA material got there,
Speaker 3: nose bleeds whatever, right, So so he didn't he again,
Speaker 3: I think with him that the lack of evidence, the
Speaker 3: lack of visible blood right on the victim's clothing, on
Speaker 3: his shoes, in his car, because you know, he you know,
Speaker 3: he got immediately after seeing his father, you know, he
Speaker 3: left the building, took a phone call, you know, at
Speaker 3: six thirty five, got in his car and drove home.
Speaker 3: There was nothing in the car. The car was searched
Speaker 3: for fifteen or sixteen hours. There was nothing in the
Speaker 3: red grocery bag, no blood or DNA. So, you know,
Speaker 3: I think a few people might scratch their heads at
Speaker 3: that passage in the decision. But he argued that this
Speaker 3: other evidence seems to kind of almost wipe out or
Speaker 3: undercut the DNA and the DNA. It's yes, it is
Speaker 3: the victims DNA, but there's no proof how it got
Speaker 3: there and how long it had been there, and of
Speaker 3: course those two things are impossible to prove of current
Speaker 3: DNA science. The timeline is also the timeline. I don't
Speaker 3: want to take up one last thing. The judge was also,
Speaker 3: he said, because the timeline is so conflicted, he can't
Speaker 3: determinate time of death, and that's a very crucial reason
Speaker 3: in his decision.
Speaker 6: Yeah, very very interesting. It's very interesting too the interpretation
Speaker 6: when we talk about circumstantial evidence and people saying that
Speaker 6: there's only circumstantial evidence. Canada, the Canadian judicial system seems
Speaker 6: to put much more weight on the solving or the
Speaker 6: answering of certain questions almost to seem the reversal of
Speaker 6: how a prosecution or a judge might view It's this
Speaker 6: judge almost seems to dismiss some of the evidence brought
Speaker 6: by the prosecution, like you say in favor of the
Speaker 6: defense and says, well, there isn't proof.
Speaker 3: There isn't proof.
Speaker 6: Yeah, like we just mentioned on an alternative reason why
Speaker 6: the DNA. I mean, of course you could look at
Speaker 6: it that way and say there's no evidence why that
Speaker 6: was there. But I think in an American judge and
Speaker 6: jury and even media would look at this much differently.
Speaker 6: And I apply this case and this story quite shocking.
Speaker 3: Actually, yeah, it's interesting because we people need time to
Speaker 3: digest this, and as well, it'd be interesting some more
Speaker 3: legal commentators, you know, look at that the proof, and
Speaker 3: the proof will be like within a few days. The
Speaker 3: prosecution has a deadline to apply for an appeal of
Speaker 3: the ruling, although the grounds for an appeal from the
Speaker 3: prosecution are quite narrow compared to the compared to the
Speaker 3: the the defense. But you know, I think you've hit
Speaker 3: on the possible area that they might look at. Who knows,
Speaker 3: but you know, because this is one case, I can't
Speaker 3: say how it stacks up against other DNA cases. Uh
Speaker 3: and uh, because you know DNA is supposed to be
Speaker 3: the magic bullet. But obviously, you know, in this judge's mind,
Speaker 3: all the all the all the pieces of the puzzle
Speaker 3: are not sufficiently strong for you know, for uh, for
Speaker 3: a conviction, although he sees a lot of merit in
Speaker 3: in aspects of it. Uh. And again Uh, all the
Speaker 3: language in both cases was his idea of building building
Speaker 3: a wall with bricks. Like circumstantial evidence by itself is
Speaker 3: is it can be good evidence, but there has to
Speaker 3: be enough of it, right. And obviously the jury in
Speaker 3: the first trial thought there was enough. Right. The jury
Speaker 3: in the first trial thought there was enough. Uh. This
Speaker 3: judge uh disagreed. Right, So interesting, same evidence jury in
Speaker 3: one case, judge in the other.
Speaker 6: Absolutely, you know, it's a very very very very fascinating case.
Speaker 6: And uh and verdict Actually yes, and it's.
Speaker 3: You know, there may be more to the story. We'll
Speaker 3: find out soon with the appeal process. Yes, very very
Speaker 3: very interesting.
Speaker 6: I want to thank you very much Greg for coming
Speaker 6: on and talking about truth and honor. The death of
Speaker 6: Richard Olland and the trial of Dennis Ollan has been fascinating.
Speaker 6: Is there a Facebook page or website where might people
Speaker 6: look for this book?
Speaker 3: Specifically? You can get it through Amazon. It has been
Speaker 3: released in the States. Also, it's on a couple of
Speaker 3: it's on a couple of talking book platforms. I forget
Speaker 3: which one's audible is one and maybe another. So the
Speaker 3: twenty and sixteen version is hardcover. The twenty seventeen version
Speaker 3: is paperback, and that is the version that's been made
Speaker 3: into a talking book. And I just found out last
Speaker 3: week that we're doing an updated version, an updated paperback
Speaker 3: that this sounds crazy, will be out in October because
Speaker 3: they just asked me to do it last week. So
Speaker 3: so there'll be you know, there'll be a kind of
Speaker 3: a third edition. I also, you know, if you Google
Speaker 3: you'll find you know, different aspects of YouTube and things
Speaker 3: like that, and in different news clips and things like that.
Speaker 3: But yeah, so there's still be sort of three at
Speaker 3: some point soon, there'll be three different editions of my book.
Speaker 3: I think it was released in the States. I know
Speaker 3: I've done a little bit of radio promo there in
Speaker 3: the past. So, uh, you can order from from from Amazon,
Speaker 3: you could order from the publisher, or just ask your
Speaker 3: local bookstore.
Speaker 6: Absolutely thank you very much, Greg Marquis for truth and
Speaker 6: honor the death of Richard Olan and the trial of
Speaker 6: Dennis Ollen. It has been a pleasure. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thanks for the chat. Thank you, good night, thank you.