Dennis Oland was warned his statements would be verified by videos
Accused told police he was wearing navy blazer when he visited Richard Oland, video shows it was brown jacket
Dennis Oland was warned several times during his police statement that whatever he said could and wouldbe verified by video surveillance, his murder trial heard on Friday.
Defence lawyer Gary Miller pointed out at least five occasions Const. Stephen Davidson toldOlandabout video cameras, including some that didn't exist.
- Live blog:Dennis Oland's second-degree murder trial: Oct. 23
- On mobile? Get live coverage of the trial
- Dennis Oland trial hears investigator knew of allegation against deputy chief
Miller also noted that at least one of those cautions came before Davidson askedOlandwhat he was wearing when he visited his father, RichardOland,at his office on July 6, 2011 the day before his bludgeoned body was discovered.
Dennis Oland, who was the last known person to see his father alive, told Davidson he was wearing the same pants and shoes he had on during the interview, a dress shirt and a navy blazer.
"Yes," Davidson replied.
Video surveillance submitted into evidence shows Oland was wearing a brown jacket earlier that day. Richard Oland's secretary also testified earlier in the trial that she saw the accusedwearing a brown jacket when he visited the office.
Police later seized a brown jacket from DennisOland's bedroom closet. The Crown says it had four areas of blood on it that matched Richard Oland's DNA profile.
The prominent businessmansuffered 45 sharp and blunt force injuries to his head, neck and hands. His body was found lying face down on his office floor ina large pool of blood, with "hundreds" of blood spatter stains in every direction.
He voluntarily gave police a statement to Davidsonon July 7, 2011, around 6 p.m.
Miller read segments of the transcript of that video aloud in court on Friday, during his cross-examination of Davidson.
"OK. And what were you wearing? 'Cause we I just want to make sure who was coming in, who was going out. When we lookat the surveillance I can say that's Dennis, and that's this guy," Davidson had askedOland.
"Um, these pants, these shoes, a dress shirt, and a navy blazer," Olandreplied.
The defence has not yet laid out its case for the jury, but it appears Miller is arguing it doesn't make any sense thatOland would lie about what he was wearing if he knew police could check through video surveillance.
He was well aware that whatever answers he gave you could be contradicted by video of it?- Gary Miller, defence lawyer
He did not, however, put forward an alternative explanation for the discrepancy.
"He's put on notice about video surveillance being able to see where he went andwhen," stressed Miller.
"So he was well aware that whatever answers he gave you could be contradicted by video of it?"
"Yes," replied Davidson.
Miller also pointed out that Davidson mentioned during the interview with Oland that there were video cameras inside his father'soffice building at 52 Canterbury St., when, in fact, there weren't any.
"So you lied to him to get his reaction?"
"Yes," said Davidson.
Deemed suspect before jacket discrepancy
Miller asked Davidson ifhe knew about the video footage showing Oland wearing a brown jacket instead of a navy one when he interviewed him. He said he did not.
"So he became a suspect based on what we saw" and heard in his 2-hour statement,asked Miller. Yes, Davidson confirmed.
By the end of the interview, however,he was deemed a suspect and informed search warrants would be executed against him.
Davidson made attempts to find out more about the brown jacket by contacting Hugo Boss to ask when it was manufactured and sold, the court heard.
Miller introduced one ofOland'sVisa statements from 2009, which were part of his financial records seized by police. The statementshows an April 27 purchasefrom Hugo Boss in Orlando, Fla.,for $860.47 US ($1,079.26 Cdn).
It's unclear whether that purchasewas related to the brown jacket. Davidson said he did not attempt to find out.
Noises coming from victim's office probed
Miller also asked Davidson about statementshe took from two menwho believe they heard Richard Oland being murdered.
John Ainsworth, who ownsthe building Richard Oland'ssecond-flooroffice was located in, and also operates the Printing Plus business downstairs, told Davidson on the morning Oland's body was discovered that he heard noises coming from his office the night before.
Davidson had marked in his notes: "8 p.m. stomping five to six times on floor."
Ainsworth "didn't describe it as a 'guesstimate?'" asked Miller.
"Not to my recollection," Davidson replied.
Earlier this week, Ainsworth testified that he couldn't say for sure what time he heard the noises. He said he was distracted by a computer project he was working on and wasn't paying much attention to anything else.
The best estimate he could offer was sometime between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m.
Anthony Shaw, who was with Ainsworth that night, testified he heard "thumping" noises around 7:30 p.m. or 7:45 p.m. before a customer came in to have a document faxed.
The document was time-stamped 8:11 p.m.
Davidson made several unsuccessful attempts to identify and locate the customer, the court heard.
He also ran tests on the Printing Plus equipmentto check whether the time stamp was accurate.
He also followed up in 2013 on information that the business located next to Richard Oland's might have been moving on July 6, 2011. But it turned out Net Difference had moved out in May or June.
Miller suggested police considered the noises "serious." Lead Crown prosecutor P.J. Veniot objected and Justice John Walsh asked the jury to leave for a few minutes.
Once the jury was back, Miller said: "The long and short of it Const. Davidson is that you followed up on these noises quite thoroughly?"
"Yes, that's correct," Davidson replied.
The trial resumes on Monday at 9:30 a.m. It is scheduled to run until Dec. 18.
_(720p).jpg)
 OFFICIAL HD MUSIC VIDEO.jpg)
.jpg)
