Back in court this morning for final arguments in Dennis Oland’s murder trial.

Lawyers have had 56 days to prepare for today compared to 11 days in trial #1 when a jury could not be kept waiting.

I'll be live tweeting the proceedings from the courtroom. @cbcjones will be too. If you're on mobile, you can follow our live blog here: live.cbc.ca/Event/Dennis_O…

Justice Terrence Morrison is seated. Dennis Oland's murder retrial is underway...

Judge says he has read the post-trial submissions from the Crown and defence. Says they were well done and helpful. But he says he has "pages" of questions for them.

Court begins. Morrison says he has “pages” of questions but says some of those may be answered as each side give oral presentations this morning.

Gold says the defence questions a number of factual assertions made in the Crown’s brief and has prepared a presentation to point out what it feels are errors.

Defence had "no less than three separate people listening to the audio" of the 44-day trail "to ensure any claims about the evidence [by the Crown] were as accurate as possible," he says.

Crown prosecutor PJ Veniot acknowledges there are a couple of errors - mostly typos he says - but if the defence wants to submit a 50 or 60 page critique the Crown should be able to respond point by point. This is not the procedure agreed to says Veniot.

Gold wants to submit that info in writing. Lead Crown prosecutor P.J. Veniot addresses the judge. "If we have somehow misinterpreted what was said, you have the record, sir, you have the evidence." Argues Morrison will make his decision on the evidence, "not what the lawyers say"

If we have to have a future hearing on this we will, says Morrison about the defence critique of the Crown’s facts. I have to get this (verdict) right says Morrison.

Does everyone agree these noises were connected to the murder? Everyone agrees. (There are disputes about the time the noises were heard but not about what the noises were)

"If there isn’t, that's fine," he says. Parties agree

Morrison is now going over the issue that led to the Court of Appeal overturning Oland's conviction at his first trial in 2015. The appeal court found the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury re. Oland's "post-offence conduct."

Oland told police he was wearing a navy blazer when he visited his father at his office on the night he was killed. Security video and witness testimony showed he was actually wearing a brown sports jacket.

The jacket was dry cleaned the morning after police told Oland he was a suspect in his father's death. The jacket was later found to have 4 small bloodstains on it and DNA matching his father's profile.

This is a very complex legal issue, but in a nutshell, the appeal court ruled the trial judge should have instructed the jurors that even if they thought Oland's statement to police about what jacket he was wearing was a lie...

Back to the Shaw issue for a moment. Justice Morrison was asking about a Sulreme Court instruction on how to assess the credibility of witnesses and what to do with that assessment. That decision in part reads:

Morrison says post-offence conduct is "a difficult concept and it's fraught, as we all know." Says he wants to go over this issue "in detail" with the lawyers

Morrison is pondering whether he should apply the same test not just to Dennis Oland but to witnesses like Anthony Shaw.

Gold says the defence doesn't agree with Oland's statement to police about the jacket or the dry cleaning being considered as "post-offence" conduct. Defence maintains the incorrect statement re. jacket was an innocent mistake & dry cleaning wasn't shown to be an act of Oland

Gold starts with a discussion of the dangers of circumstantial evidence and the human tendency to view meaning and patterns in separate events that are not in reality connected.