Lead investigator grilled at Dennis Oland trial about mystery sticky notes, other leads

Dennis Oland'sretrial on a charge of second-degree murder heard new details Thursday about evidencefound in a wooded area on Saint John's west side more than a month after his father Richard Oland was killed.

A man called police on Aug. 24, 2011, about some pieces of paper he found beside his residence with the victim's nickname,Dick, written on them.

The yellow sticky notes also included the namesof his father, Philip Oland, brother Derek Oland, the executive chairman of Moosehead Breweries, and his great-great-grandmother SusannahOland, the matriarch of the beer-makingfamily, the courtroom heard.

Defence lawyer Alan Gold raised the issueduring his pointed cross-examination of lead investigator Const. Stephen Davidson about the adequacyof the Saint John Police Force's homicide investigation.

Davidson met with the man and searched the property for any other evidencebut said he didn'ttest the weathered notes for fingerprints because he didn't see the value, given their deteriorated condition.

• On mobile?Get the latest details from our live blog

Gold suggested a hair was stuck to one of the notes and asked Davidson it was ever forensically tested. Davidson argued it wasn't clear it if was hair or lint, but said it wasn't sent for testing.

He acknowledged he didn't show the papers to the victim's secretary, Maureen Adamson, or business associate Robert McFadden to see if they recognized the handwriting or to ask if the multimillionaire used that type of sticky notes in his daily work.

"There was absolutely no followuptothese pieces of papers that were found, correct?" askedGold.

"Correct," replied Davidson.

The four notes, which were entered into evidence,include a jumble of scribblings, including "1865 SusannahOld [sic] sailed from England to NS with her recipe," "Cirque du Soleil," "alcoholic," "Transfer $429," and "Jon insured."

The names of "policemen"Mike, Stephen, andMarkare also listed.

Oland, 50, is being retried for second-degree murder in the death of his father.He was the last person known to have seen Richard Olandalive, during a visitto his father at his Canterbury Street office on the evening of July 6, 2011.

The body of the 69-year-old was discovered in the office the next morning, face down in a pool of blood, with45 sharp- and blunt-force injuries to his head, neck and hands.

A jury foundOlandguilty in December 2015, but the New BrunswickCourt of Appeal overturned his conviction in October 2016 and ordered a new trial, citing an error in the trial judge's instructions to the jury.

The retrial, which began on Nov. 21, is adjourned for the holidays until Jan. 7 at 9:30 a.m. It's expectedto last four months.

Report of 'loud shouting'

Gold spent most of Thursday going through a laundry list ofthings police failed to do in the investigationand challenging what steps they did take.

He argued policedidn't follow up on possible leads and didn't follow basic police academy training at the scene.

When police canvassed the area on July 8, 2011, a woman told them she had heard "loud yelling" thenight Olandwas killed. She said she heard the noisearound 7:30 p.m., while walking on Princess Street,between Canterbury and Germainstreets, said Gold.

But police did not follow up with her until Sept. 21, 2017 and never conducted a formal interview with her, he said. Instead,Davidsongot a statement from her via email on Oct. 16, 2017.

"The point of canvassing was to see ifpeople saw or heard anything relevant to the beating death of Richard Oland, right? Right?" asked Gold.

Davidson agreed.

Note from mistress never found

The court also heard that the victim's iPhone 4 might not have been the only thing that went missing from his office. Gold asked Davidson about a note from Oland's mistress, Diana Sedlacek.

The note was referred to in a text message from Sedlacekto Olandon the day he was killed, around 9:08 a.m."Did Zu find note? re Our Trip."

Police never found the note, said Davidson. He confirmedpolice didn't take an inventoryof the blood-spattered papers found on or around the victim'sdesk before releasing the scene back to the landlord.

'Have I been watching too much CSI?'

Officersdidn't treat the foyer or exit door outside the victim's bloody officeas part of the crime scene to prevent contamination of any evidence, Gold said.

They didn't examine the office floor where hisbludgeoned body was found splayed, or the office door the killer would have had to walkthrough, closely enough for evidence, he argued.

"Have Ibeen watching too muchCSI?" Gold asked Davidson. "Is that not what you're supposed to do at acrime scene to examine it as carefully as possible looking for trace evidence? Is that not what you're supposed to do?"

"Yes," replied Davidson.

Gold compared the crime scene search with the examination of the brown sports jacket Olandwas wearing when he visited his father. It was scrutinized "millimetre by millimetre," he said.

The jacket was found to have four areas of blood on it and DNA matching the victim's profile, the Crown has said.

Police also didn't test their theory thata drywall hammer may have been theweapon used to inflict the victim's wounds, said Gold.

They never used clay to try to replicate the circular injuries that had a cross-hatch pattern in them, for example, or visitconstruction sites to determine how prevalent the toolsare or who has them, he said.

"Anybody could have them," said Davidson.

"But it's almost as if unless you're guaranteed success in your investigation you don't bother investigating," said Gold. "You don't know what information you're going to receive until you ask it, do you?"

"That's right," the officer replied, maintaining an even tone through the barrage of questions.

Davidson was new to the major crime unit when police were called to 52 Canterbury St. on the morning of July 7, 2011, the court has heard.

He was one of the first officers on the scene and testified earlier in the trial that he unlocked and opened the exit door in the foyer, which was never tested for forensic evidence because it had been contaminated.

"You didn't follow the rules at this crime scene, did you?" asked Gold, referring to protecting it from contamination.

Davidson said he was careful not to touch anything in the office and retracedhis steps back out to the foyer. He did not consider the back door part of the crime scene, he said.

"Right or wrong, I opened it."

"It wasn't 'right or wrong,' it was wrong," Gold snapped.

"Yes," Davidson agreed.

"You wouldn't do that today, would you?" Gold asked.

"No," the officerreplied.

The defence had previouslyadvisedthe court that the quality of the Saint John Police Force's investigation will be a major issue inOland'sdefence at his second-degree murder retrial.

In pre-trial documents, the defence saidthey intend to argue "that the [Saint John Police Force's] investigationinto the homicide of RichardOlandwas inadequate and will also seek to impugn the conduct and credibility of variousSJPFofficers involved in the investigation."

It came up again on Wednesday during Crown prosecutor P.J.Veniot'sdirect examination ofDavidson about some security video fromThandi'srestaurant, located across the street from the victim's office, from the day of the killing.

WhenVeniotused a defence exhibit from the first trial to help Davidson describe the location of the two cameras and their coverage areas, Gold stood to address the court.

"Just to be clear, Justice, we produced this,' he said, referring to the aerial photo with shaded areas. "This was not part of the police investigation. This isn't something the officer did.

"As you know, the quality of thepolice investigation isgoing to be an issue in this case, so Ijust want to be clear what you're seeing thereand the officer's corresponding oral testimony is defence work product."