Did he do it? A real life murder mystery. UPDATED WITH VERDICT

[The Fake Cheap]

I have a slight obsession with a murder trial that is going on in a near by city.  A millionaire was found dead in is office, the son has been charged with the murder. The intriguing thing is that is no hard evidence, no witness, no murder weapon, but plenty of circumstantial evidence.  Did he do it???  I've listed some of the more interesting listed facts below, of course not everything is covered here.  I've also read a (very good) book about the trial.  The murder happened in July 2011.  The current trial is actually the re-trail, technically the 3rd trial, the defendant was found guilty in the first trail in 2015, which was appealed and overturned.   I've included some links below for anyone who wants more information, and wants to play along.  Oh and of course there is a financial aspect to this as well, in true antimustacian style, the defendant was (in my opinion) in a lot of financial trouble just prior to the murder.  Really, have a look at the spending history over the years.  In the period from Jan to July 2011 he spent 86K MORE than his income from his generous 100K annual salary. If you want more financials go see the tweets around Feb 5 from @BJMCBC on Twitter.  What do you think, guilty or not guilty?  I would love to discuss with anyone who wants to debate.

The facts:

Richard Oland was found dead in his office on July 7, 2011 in a pool of blood.  Massive head wounds from an apparent bludgeoning.

The son was the last known person to see his father alive, meeting his father at about 5:30, confirmed by a witness, the secretary.  The defendant claims he left his father's office at 6:30 pm on the day of the murder.

Noises (almost certainly the noise of the murder) were heard by two men working in the office below, however they are unsure of the time of these noises, they can only say that they know the noises were sometime between 6:00 and 8:00 pm.

The defendant told the police and his defense team he went to his father's office twice that day, it was later reviled during the first trial, he actually made three trips. There is video evidence of his car driving around the block multiple times.

The defendant was not a frequent visitor to his father's office, only going a few times a year.

The only thing stolen from the office where the body was found was a cell phone.  This cell phone last "pinged" off a tower at 6:44, at a location about 15KM away from the murder scene, very close to where the defendant was at the time.

"Activity" on the deceased's computer stopped at about 5:40 pm.  From what I understand, this means no new programs or webpages were opened after this time.

The defendant lied to police about color of the blazer he was wearing the day of the murder.   And the same blazer was also sent for dry cleaning the next morning.   Interesting side note: this is the reason the 1st trial was declared a mistrial on appeal.  The judge mentioned something to the jury along the lines of "if you think the defendant lied about the jacket intentionally then it may indicate he is guilty".  The exact legal reasoning why this would cause a mistrial is beyond me.

Small spots of blood/the victim's DNA were found  on the blazer mentioned above.

The police did a terrible job at investigating.  For example, waiting YEARS to interview some witnesses, and contaminating the crime scene.

Sources if you want more information.  I find the tweets (which I keep up with daily) are very good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Richard_Oland
https://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2014-2015/the-dick-oland-case-murder-in-the-family
Twitter -read the tweets from @BJMCBC for a very good following of all the court proceedings.  Feb 5 is when the financial info of the accused is discussed.

*******************************************************************************

The verdict was: NOT GUILTY.

Link to the news article which also contains a 150ish page pdf document of the judge's entire ruling:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-not-guilty-murder-retrial-decision-1.5216556

[fuzzy math]

Dude sounds guilty. The coat alone having DNA evidence on it should be a slam dunk case and hopefully no one saying dumb things like "If the defendant lied about the jacket.." will get him off again.

Other than the DNA evidence, stupid shit like driving around a bunch, not correctly stating how often he was there and stealing the cell phone and having it go off near him are all indicative of a criminal who is extremely bad at coming up with excuses, executing a plan and figuring out how to prevent evidence from biting him in the ass.

1) turn the cell phone off
2) or don't steal the cell phone
3) throw away the jacket
4) don't lie about anything that can possibly be verified on tape


Its a real shame when poor investigating leaves a giant window for the guilty person to walk free.

[The Fake Cheap]

Dude sounds guilty. The coat alone having DNA evidence on it should be a slam dunk case and hopefully no one saying dumb things like "If the defendant lied about the jacket.." will get him off again.

Other than the DNA evidence, stupid shit like driving around a bunch, not correctly stating how often he was there and stealing the cell phone and having it go off near him are all indicative of a criminal who is extremely bad at coming up with excuses, executing a plan and figuring out how to prevent evidence from biting him in the ass.

1) turn the cell phone off
2) or don't steal the cell phone
3) throw away the jacket
4) don't lie about anything that can possibly be verified on tape


Its a real shame when poor investigating leaves a giant window for the guilty person to walk free.

I've been trying to come up with a reason for him taking the cell phone.  Maybe his prints got on it during a struggle, and he figured he would just ditch it.  It was just bad luck for him that someone texted at about 6:44 so it pinged off that nearby tower. 

Throwing away the jacket would be too obvious IMO, saying it was a different jacket was probably a better idea, but he probably should have figured that he would be on video at some point during the day. 

[radram]

The facts:
The son was the last person to see his father alive, meeting his father at about 5:30, confirmed by a witness, the secretary.  The defendant claims he left his father's office at 6:30 pm on the day of the murder.

The only ways I can think of where the bold is a FACT:

1. Son did it.
2. Non-son murderer didn't look at the man he/she killed. (blindfold, closed eyes, or a blind person).
3. Suicide.

At this time, the son is the last KNOWN person to see his father alive, according to the witness confirmation.

[The Fake Cheap]

The facts:
The son was the last person to see his father alive, meeting his father at about 5:30, confirmed by a witness, the secretary.  The defendant claims he left his father's office at 6:30 pm on the day of the murder.

The only ways I can think of where the bold is a FACT:

1. Son did it.
2. Non-son murderer didn't look at the man he/she killed. (blindfold, closed eyes, or a blind person).
3. Suicide.

At this time, the son is the last KNOWN person to see his father alive, according to the witness confirmation.

Fair enough.  I've updated the original.  Any other thoughts?

[HPstache]

Sounds guilty to me

[Dee18]

I went down the rabbit hole a bit reading the links, but a couple things are not clear to me.  Is the current trial a continuation of the one begun in November?  Is the case being tried without a jury?  I was intrigued to read that the defense wanted a judge only trial, as that is rare in a U.S. murder case.  I think it sounds like he is guilty, but there are enough doubts (such as the noises being at a time when the defendant was elsewhere) that I think the jury might have reasonable doubt.

[The Fake Cheap]

I went down the rabbit hole a bit reading the links, but a couple things are not clear to me.  Is the current trial a continuation of the one begun in November?  Is the case being tried without a jury?  I was intrigued to read that the defense wanted a judge only trial, as that is rare in a U.S. murder case.  I think it sounds like he is guilty, but there are enough doubts (such as the noises being at a time when the defendant was elsewhere) that I think the jury might have reasonable doubt.

Sort of, sorry for the legal jargon :) The retrial started in November with a jury, however after maybe about 2 weeks, that trial was declared a mistrial because of a screening process used by the crown to select potential jururs.  So the judge decided (with approval from the defense and crown I believe) to continue on as a judge only trail, so they wouldn't have to start at ground zero selecting a jury again, which is quite a process consdierng the high profile of the case.  I can only guess as to how common the judge only trails is in Canada, and I think in most cases it is not common, since I assume most defendants woud want jury, (I think they get to choose a judge only or jury trial) hoping to have at least one juror see reasonable doubt.  I think what will happen in this case is that the judge will find the defendant not guilty simply because there is no hard evidence.  I would also be interested in knowing how common a judge only trial is in Canada, maybe someone with some legal background could jump in and comment. 

[Blueberries]

I think he's guilty.

1.)  Stolen cell phone pinging near the suspect.
2.)  Video footage of son being there despite not visiting often.
3.)  Read the son owed the dad $500K and bounced a check on the day in question.
4.)  Lack of computer evidence during the time of the murder.  On its own, not noteworthy, but added together, not good.
5.)  Blood stains on the jacket.
6.)  Last known person to see him alive.
7.)  Stabbing - while not always the case, it is typically personal.

Seems the only issue is the discrepancy on the time the murder was committed.  One man changed his story on the time and the other thought it was later than the time the son was there.  Personally, I wouldn't weigh this heavily in my decision.  The police work was poor and I didn't see when these two men were questioned, but unless they were 100% certain on the timing and it was confirmed by more than one person, I wouldn't trust memory over scientific evidence.

[Johnez]

All of the evidence is circumstantial. I vote probably guilty based on it all, but wouldn't vote guilty at trial.

[Dee18]

Please post the verdict when the trial ends!

[radram]

Any other thoughts?

Not really. I am not informed about Canadian law. In the US, it sounds like it would be hard to convict, but the phone thing is pretty damning. Sounds strange to ask for only 1 person to determine your fate. Is that an attempt to have grounds for appeal?

[Linea_Norway]

Those cases are very difficult. Lots of circumstantial evidence, but no hard evidence. But if he didn't do it, who then did it?

Blood on the jacket should be counting as evidence, one would think?

Maybe the son took the phone to transfer money to himself through a banking app on the phone?

[honeybbq]

what is the book? Sounds interesting.

[partgypsy]

So, what I would consider is damming evidence, is that there is blood on his jacket. Did he say he came across his father dead, and ran out and didn't tell anyone? Does the defense have any kind of alternative explanation of how the father's blood got on the jacket?. Not only does that place the defendant  him at the scene of the crime, but places him during/after the crime took place. 

The cell phone is damning if he said he didn't steal it. Not so damning if he said he took the phone for some reason, or it was his phone.

It sounds like they have the basics: placing him on the scene of the crime, no other reasonable alternative explanation for either the man's death (say suicide), or even a shadow of explanation who else would have killed him (opportunity, motive, etc).

Downside they do not have a eyewitness to the murder. They do not have the murder weapon that is tied to the defendant. 

[robartsd]

If I were judging this as a US criminal case (reasonable doubt), I haven't seen quite enough evidence to convict but I could be swayed by expert witness interpretation of the DNA evidence on the jacket. In a US civil case (preponderance of evidence) I'd judge him guilty based on the evidence presented. Thus, other heirs could likely take his inheritance in a wrongful death lawsuit even if he doesn't go to prison.

[TVRodriguez]

I'd say the dry cleaner is guilty (of not doing his job) if the blood didn't come out despite the blazer being brought in the next morning.  Geez.

That's one more reason I don't dry clean anything... everything goes in the washer with detergent!  (just kidding, obviously, I'm not planning to murder anyone)

[The Fake Cheap]

I think he's guilty.

1.)  Stolen cell phone pinging near the suspect.
2.)  Video footage of son being there despite not visiting often.
3.)  Read the son owed the dad $500K and bounced a check on the day in question.
4.)  Lack of computer evidence during the time of the murder.  On its own, not noteworthy, but added together, not good.
5.)  Blood stains on the jacket.
6.)  Last known person to see him alive.
7.)  Stabbing - while not always the case, it is typically personal.

Seems the only issue is the discrepancy on the time the murder was committed.  One man changed his story on the time and the other thought it was later than the time the son was there.  Personally, I wouldn't weigh this heavily in my decision.  The police work was poor and I didn't see when these two men were questioned, but unless they were 100% certain on the timing and it was confirmed by more than one person, I wouldn't trust memory over scientific evidence.

You summed it up nicely. 

Re 2) He was witnessed arriving at the office by the secretary around 5:30 the day of the murder, so this was never really in dispute.  The video evidence is from him driving around the block in his car (from a bank security camera nearby I believe) revealing 3 visits to the office, when he originally told police, and his defense team, he went twice to his father's office.  Supposedly he went the first time, and realized he forgot some family tree related information at his nearby workplace.  So his second trip was to go back and pick up that from his office, however he realized he didn't have his key card on him, so he couldn't get in. I can't recall what the third trip was about.

3) yeah his financial situation, he had maxed his LOC, all his credit cards, and taken an advance from his pay for the next 2 months, the only source of funds he had left (besides Dad) was his home, or another property he owned, and had about 400K equity in.  Talk about maxed out!

7) More of a bludeoning than stabbing, the suspected weapon is a drywall hammer.

[The Fake Cheap]

Any other thoughts?

Not really. I am not informed about Canadian law. In the US, it sounds like it would be hard to convict, but the phone thing is pretty damning. Sounds strange to ask for only 1 person to determine your fate. Is that an attempt to have grounds for appeal?

I don't think that itself is grounds for appeal, of course of the judge makes a major error (in the eye of the defense) they could appeal.  I guess they could appeal no matter what.

[The Fake Cheap]

what is the book? Sounds interesting.

It's called Shadow of Doubt by Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon

It's a very well put together book, and a very intersting read if you find real life murder mysteries appealing.

She is also the one who is currently covering the trial proceedings, search for her on twitter if you want to follow the current trial happenings.

[The Fake Cheap]

So, what I would consider is damming evidence, is that there is blood on his jacket. Did he say he came across his father dead, and ran out and didn't tell anyone? Does the defense have any kind of alternative explanation of how the father's blood got on the jacket?. Not only does that place the defendant  him at the scene of the crime, but places him during/after the crime took place. 

The cell phone is damning if he said he didn't steal it. Not so damning if he said he took the phone for some reason, or it was his phone.

It sounds like they have the basics: placing him on the scene of the crime, no other reasonable alternative explanation for either the man's death (say suicide), or even a shadow of explanation who else would have killed him (opportunity, motive, etc).

Downside they do not have a eyewitness to the murder. They do not have the murder weapon that is tied to the defendant.

The father was discovered dead by the secretary the next morning.  The defense's explanation for the blood on the jacket is a few things:  The victim had some sort of scalp condition which occasionally bled, and he was also a close talker and touchy feely so that explains the blood on the son's jacket.  Also the victim may have borrowed the jacket at one point and after touching his scalp, touched the jacket, and that is how the blood got there.


He denies taking the phone and having anything to do with this.

Also just for everyone's reference, the city where the murder happened, Saint John, NB for 2014 and 2015 the city had 3 homicides each year.  Which from what I know, sounds abou tright for a typical year.

[The Fake Cheap]

Those cases are very difficult. Lots of circumstantial evidence, but no hard evidence. But if he didn't do it, who then did it?

Blood on the jacket should be counting as evidence, one would think?

Maybe the son took the phone to transfer money to himself through a banking app on the phone?

They examined his banking records fairly thoroughly, so I don't think any large transfers were made. 

[Ichabod]

In the US, the jury makes findings of fact. Appellate courts don't review factual findings only legal issues (was the law correctly applied to the facts.) I'd imagine waiving the jury would create less opportunities to appeal (no jury instructions).

A couple of notes for people who didn't read the links. 1. No way this was a suicide. The victim was beaten to death. 2. The son didn't inherit anything.

IMO, the son seems like a decent suspect but I don't think the Crown has done enough work for a conviction. With the mess at the crime scene, I'm surprised there's not more physical evidence.

[The Fake Cheap]

In the US, the jury makes findings of fact. Appellate courts don't review factual findings only legal issues (was the law correctly applied to the facts.) I'd imagine waiving the jury would create less opportunities to appeal (no jury instructions).

A couple of notes for people who didn't read the links. 1. No way this was a suicide. The victim was beaten to death. 2. The son didn't inherit anything.

IMO, the son seems like a decent suspect but I don't think the Crown has done enough work for a conviction. With the mess at the crime scene, I'm surprised there's not more physical evidence.

The son didn't directly inherit anything, however upon his father's death he did become co-chairman (or some similar role) of his father's company, which I believe he does receive and annual salary for. The father's assets I think I read he was worth about $12 million, will go to his wife/the defendant's mother....who I assume would some day leave a good chunk of that to him.  I should also add his mother and other family members seem to mostly support the defendant, that he did not commit the murder.

[The Fake Cheap]

The defendant took the stand yesterday, and continued today, for anyone who wants to tune into the tweets.  Some very interesting testimony, and to me it doesn't really make sense.  For example, he knew where his kids were, and he said his wife was not feeling well, and was not in a good mood, yet on the way home, he kind of randomly stopped at the wharf to see if his kids were swimming, and took a minute to oddly sit on the end of the dock (witnessed by others doing this). 

Something else that came out today is that his father gave him 500K in 2006, mostly to help with a divorce, this was the reason for the $1,667 interest only monthly  loan payment to his father that bounced 1 day before the murder.

Also some very strange behavior when he left his father's office, forgetting where he parked his car, sitting in his car for 6 minutes, and don't forget about the 3 trips back and forth.

[CNM]

I think he's probably guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

[better late]

The defendant took the stand yesterday, and continued today, for anyone who wants to tune into the tweets.  Some very interesting testimony, and to me it doesn't really make sense.  For example, he knew where his kids were, and he said his wife was not feeling well, and was not in a good mood, yet on the way home, he kind of randomly stopped at the wharf to see if his kids were swimming, and took a minute to oddly sit on the end of the dock (witnessed by others doing this). 

Something else that came out today is that his father gave him 500K in 2006, mostly to help with a divorce, this was the reason for the $1,667 interest only monthly  loan payment to his father that bounced 1 day before the murder.

Also some very strange behavior when he left his father's office, forgetting where he parked his car, sitting in his car for 6 minutes, and don't forget about the 3 trips back and forth.

Wonder if they looked for the missing cell phone at the end of the wharf

[Linea_Norway]

The defendant took the stand yesterday, and continued today, for anyone who wants to tune into the tweets.  Some very interesting testimony, and to me it doesn't really make sense.  For example, he knew where his kids were, and he said his wife was not feeling well, and was not in a good mood, yet on the way home, he kind of randomly stopped at the wharf to see if his kids were swimming, and took a minute to oddly sit on the end of the dock (witnessed by others doing this). 

Something else that came out today is that his father gave him 500K in 2006, mostly to help with a divorce, this was the reason for the $1,667 interest only monthly  loan payment to his father that bounced 1 day before the murder.

Also some very strange behavior when he left his father's office, forgetting where he parked his car, sitting in his car for 6 minutes, and don't forget about the 3 trips back and forth.

He might not have inherited something, but maybe that loan obligation will disappear when the father is dead.

As the father was beaten to death, I suppose this was done in a rage. Maybe the killer lost his mind for a while.

I think they should have tested the defendant for drugs and other substances.

[The Fake Cheap]

The defendant took the stand yesterday, and continued today, for anyone who wants to tune into the tweets.  Some very interesting testimony, and to me it doesn't really make sense.  For example, he knew where his kids were, and he said his wife was not feeling well, and was not in a good mood, yet on the way home, he kind of randomly stopped at the wharf to see if his kids were swimming, and took a minute to oddly sit on the end of the dock (witnessed by others doing this). 

Something else that came out today is that his father gave him 500K in 2006, mostly to help with a divorce, this was the reason for the $1,667 interest only monthly  loan payment to his father that bounced 1 day before the murder.

Also some very strange behavior when he left his father's office, forgetting where he parked his car, sitting in his car for 6 minutes, and don't forget about the 3 trips back and forth.

Wonder if they looked for the missing cell phone at the end of the wharf

They did have divers search the area, however I think it was at least a few weeks after the murder so lots of time for whatever evidence to disappear.

[marty998]

The defendant took the stand yesterday, and continued today, for anyone who wants to tune into the tweets.  Some very interesting testimony, and to me it doesn't really make sense.  For example, he knew where his kids were, and he said his wife was not feeling well, and was not in a good mood, yet on the way home, he kind of randomly stopped at the wharf to see if his kids were swimming, and took a minute to oddly sit on the end of the dock (witnessed by others doing this). 

Something else that came out today is that his father gave him 500K in 2006, mostly to help with a divorce, this was the reason for the $1,667 interest only monthly  loan payment to his father that bounced 1 day before the murder.

Also some very strange behavior when he left his father's office, forgetting where he parked his car, sitting in his car for 6 minutes, and don't forget about the 3 trips back and forth.

Wonder if they looked for the missing cell phone at the end of the wharf

They did have divers search the area, however I think it was at least a few weeks after the murder so lots of time for whatever evidence to disappear.

Mobile phone or murder weapon.

[The Fake Cheap]

The defendant took the stand yesterday, and continued today, for anyone who wants to tune into the tweets.  Some very interesting testimony, and to me it doesn't really make sense.  For example, he knew where his kids were, and he said his wife was not feeling well, and was not in a good mood, yet on the way home, he kind of randomly stopped at the wharf to see if his kids were swimming, and took a minute to oddly sit on the end of the dock (witnessed by others doing this). 

Something else that came out today is that his father gave him 500K in 2006, mostly to help with a divorce, this was the reason for the $1,667 interest only monthly  loan payment to his father that bounced 1 day before the murder.

Also some very strange behavior when he left his father's office, forgetting where he parked his car, sitting in his car for 6 minutes, and don't forget about the 3 trips back and forth.

Wonder if they looked for the missing cell phone at the end of the wharf

They did have divers search the area, however I think it was at least a few weeks after the murder so lots of time for whatever evidence to disappear.

Mobile phone or murder weapon.

Yes, both I would say.  So he was seen at the wharf leaving his car walking to the wharf WITH a reusable grocery bag.  His story was he took the bag with him to pick up some broken beet bottles or something like that.  2 things:  This is the same reusable bag that had his precious family tree documents, so it wouldn't make sense to put random garbage in there as well.  Also, he said he stopped at the wharf to look for his kids, yet he somewhat knew where his kids where via text earlier in the day, and he was also trying to get home quickly to his sick wife.  He also suspiciously took a few minutes to actually sit at the end of the wharf. 

[marty998]

The defendant took the stand yesterday, and continued today, for anyone who wants to tune into the tweets.  Some very interesting testimony, and to me it doesn't really make sense.  For example, he knew where his kids were, and he said his wife was not feeling well, and was not in a good mood, yet on the way home, he kind of randomly stopped at the wharf to see if his kids were swimming, and took a minute to oddly sit on the end of the dock (witnessed by others doing this). 

Something else that came out today is that his father gave him 500K in 2006, mostly to help with a divorce, this was the reason for the $1,667 interest only monthly  loan payment to his father that bounced 1 day before the murder.

Also some very strange behavior when he left his father's office, forgetting where he parked his car, sitting in his car for 6 minutes, and don't forget about the 3 trips back and forth.

Wonder if they looked for the missing cell phone at the end of the wharf

They did have divers search the area, however I think it was at least a few weeks after the murder so lots of time for whatever evidence to disappear.

Mobile phone or murder weapon.

So he was seen at the wharf leaving his car walking to the wharf WITH a reusable grocery bag.  His story was he took the bag with him to pick up some broken beet bottles or something like that.   

Quoting you out of context but,

Welp, I'm going down for murder one day then. I have been known to carry around bags to use to hold bottles and cans. 10c refunds for every one I find!

[Dee]

"Normally, all homicide trials in Canada are heard by a judge and jury, as stipulated by the Criminal Code. An accused can request to be tried without a jury, but the attorney general must consent."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-survey-guilt-jury-judge-1.4911710

This article has details about the defence's request for a judge alone trial and, ultimately, the Crown's agreement to so proceed (after the judge declared the 2nd trial a mistrial based on pre-trial jury screening).

Trial by jury is normally a right that belongs to the accused but for the most serious offenses, a jury is required unless both the accused and the Crown agree to proceed by judge alone. On what basis the Crown should or shouldn't agree seems to vary from province to province. This article says that in New Brunswick, the Crown is normally expected to agree to proceed by judge alone on request of the defence. But, in B.C., for example, the Crown instructions seem to be to only agree to a judge alone trial in certain circumstances (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/prosecution-service/crown-counsel-policy-manual/tri-1-trial-without-jury-s469-offences-consent-of-ag.pdf).

In this particular case, I think the defence had reason to be concerned about finding an impartial jury based on the publicity of the case.

[The Fake Cheap]

"Normally, all homicide trials in Canada are heard by a judge and jury, as stipulated by the Criminal Code. An accused can request to be tried without a jury, but the attorney general must consent."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-survey-guilt-jury-judge-1.4911710

This article has details about the defence's request for a judge alone trial and, ultimately, the Crown's agreement to so proceed (after the judge declared the 2nd trial a mistrial based on pre-trial jury screening).

Trial by jury is normally a right that belongs to the accused but for the most serious offenses, a jury is required unless both the accused and the Crown agree to proceed by judge alone. On what basis the Crown should or shouldn't agree seems to vary from province to province. This article says that in New Brunswick, the Crown is normally expected to agree to proceed by judge alone on request of the defence. But, in B.C., for example, the Crown instructions seem to be to only agree to a judge alone trial in certain circumstances (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/prosecution-service/crown-counsel-policy-manual/tri-1-trial-without-jury-s469-offences-consent-of-ag.pdf).

In this particular case, I think the defence had reason to be concerned about finding an impartial jury based on the publicity of the case.

Thanks for the info Dee!

[The Fake Cheap]

Updated with verdict.