Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #27

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sillybilly

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
38,831
Reaction score
115,363
liknes-nathan-o-brien-garland-trial.jpg


Kathy and Alvin Liknes, and their grandson Nathan O'Brien

(pic from CBC news files found here)



Jury hears from final witnesses as Calgary triple murder trial wraps up

By Bill GravelandThe Canadian Press
Thu., Feb. 9, 2017

CALGARY—The jury in a triple-murder trial was shown video Thursday from a late-night game of cat and mouse which led to the arrest of a suspect in the deaths of a couple and their five-year-old grandson.

The video, taken by a police helicopter, was recorded early in the morning on July 14, 2014, and documented the arrest of Douglas Garland, 57, at his farm north of Calgary.

[...]

*Media, Maps & Timeline*

Rules Etiquette & Information

Nancy Hixt Twitter

Reid Fiest Twitter

Kevin Martin Twitter

Meghan Grant Twitter

Kathleen Petty Twitter

Val Fortney Twitter

Thread #1
Thread #2

Thread #3
Thread #4
Thread #5
Thread #6
 
Closing arguments in Douglas Garland triple murder trial begin Monday
By Meghan Grant, CBC News Posted: Feb 13, 2017

Jurors in Douglas Garland's triple murder trial will get a more detailed understanding of how the Crown believes he executed his plan to murder a Calgary couple and their grandson and then dispose of their bodies.

Lawyers on both sides will make their final pitch to jurors through closing arguments Monday morning after hearing four weeks of evidence.

Jurors will begin deliberations Tuesday after judge gives his final instructions.


Final arguments set for Douglas Garland murder trial

Kevin Martin February 12, 2017

If Parker sticks to the theory his co-prosecutor, Vicki Faulkner, outlined in her opening address four weeks ago, he’ll argue Garland held a years-long grudge against the grandfather which culminated in a murderous plot.

That grudge was over an oilfield pump for which Alvin Liknes applied for a patent under his name. A decade ago, Garland did some work on the pump.

The Crown’s case, which unfolded over four weeks of evidence, focused on a hard drive found hidden in the ceiling of the basement in the Airdrie farm home Garland shared with his elderly parents.
 
Did anyone notice how during the trial at one point, it mentioned that a lot of size 13 WOMENS shoes had been found at the G property?

Also, earlier, I had noticed something odd about the prints found at the front door of the L home.

It was the testimony from Gallen the Shoeprint Expert (Day#5)

Nancy Hixt ?@NancyHixt
"Gallen-3 prints Liknes tile floor “they were made by the left shoe of a Delta 2 size 13 or another shoe of the same shape or size” #garland" (deugirtni's note: the 'tile floor' is only found (imo) at the front door entryway, there are 3 prints there marked '1', '2', and '3'. All three were of the left shoe.)

Ina Sidhu ?@CTVInaSidhu Jan 20
"Impressions 13, 16, 17 - made by left shoe of delta 2, size 13, or any other shoe of the same shape and size - Gallen" (deugirtni's note: markers 13 through 18 were in the garage. It is being noted by Gallen that 13, 16, and 17 were made by the left shoe. At the time, I had wondered why there was no reference made to marker numbers 14, 15, and 18!!! Notice how it is not fitting the Prosecution's storyline if they were to mention the difference in shoes, so they left that out?)

Also notice how only a couple of the reporters even bothered to tweet about the mention of the left and no mention of the right?

attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php

IMO
This is really bizarre. 13 does seem to be different size than 14 from just looking at the photo and expanding. Same type of difference in the other.

I wonder if he did have different size shoes on. I have a couple thoughts on why that could be.

Could his injury to his leg have occurred on a different day which made his foot swell.
Maybe wore two sizes on purpose because of that.

Or maybe he had bought a womens size 13 and a men size 13 in those shoes and he got the boxes mixed up and grabbed the wrong shoes. The latter you would think he would have noticed when putting them on but if he was in a rush he may have not had time to correct them.

The other strange thing is just left prints in the other area. If he was limping around due to hurt foot maybe he had something he was using as a crutch which made him not put down the other foot.

Its really bizarre.
 
Here are pics of DG's shoes, the shoes he was wearing at time of arrest, and the shoes worn by him (which were testified to as looking like Delta 2s) at Princess Auto (deug's note: to me, in the PA video, it looks like the right foot is larger, if anything):

attachment.php


attachment.php

These are the shoes DG was wearing upon arrest (which do not match the sole prints found in the L home); Do they look to be the same size, and further, if they were NOT the same size, would that peculiar note not have been mentioned at trial, considering the prints found at the crimescene were also different sizes?

IMO
The Princess Auto photo does look to be the opposite of the garage photos as far as the size differences. In the princess auto photo the right looks larger than the left. In Garage print photos the left looks larger than the right.

This would be consistent if he assume he wore the other two at the different places.

Such a bizarre anomaly.
 
IMO
This is really bizarre. 13 does seem to be different size than 14 from just looking at the photo and expanding. Same type of difference in the other.

I wonder if he did have different size shoes on. I have a couple thoughts on why that could be.

Could his injury to his leg have occurred on a different day which made his foot swell.
Maybe wore two sizes on purpose because of that.

Or maybe he had bought a womens size 13 and a men size 13 in those shoes and he got the boxes mixed up and grabbed the wrong shoes. The latter you would think he would have noticed when putting them on but if he was in a rush he may have not had time to correct them.

The other strange thing is just left prints in the other area. If he was limping around due to hurt foot maybe he had something he was using as a crutch which made him not put down the other foot.

Its really bizarre.
I think it's just an optical illusion otherwise it would have been raised in court.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
 
According to one reporter's tweets when Doreen was testifying, she said one of the little outbuildings (one of the ones referred to as 'south outbuildings'), 'belonged to Alvin'. Perhaps it wasn't so unlikely that Alvin had access to the acreage?

Lucie Edwardson @MetroLucie (Day#2):

Thanks! Yes, it sounds like Alvin put a shed on the property (since it's smaller than a garage). If I were the defence lawyer, I would have asked whether he paid rent (I'm doubtful) as it offers insight into the business dealings between Liknes and Garland.
 
Ok, I have a theory about different sizes of the shoes from the photo I have posted. We know that DNA of Alvin has been found only on right shoe so it's possible that DG was wearing two different sizes of shoes at the moment of home invasion, smaller one on right foot and bigger one on the left. But if it's true I do not get why did he keep right shoe while there was a risk that it could incriminate him by finding DNA/blood evidence against him.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • C4Fd1sRUYAA0232.jpg
    C4Fd1sRUYAA0232.jpg
    74.1 KB · Views: 433
  • footprints.png
    footprints.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 447
I think it's just an optical illusion otherwise it would have been raised in court.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

IMO
I thought that at first but 13 and 14 are so close together it doesnt matter where the photo was taken. Its pretty obvious they are different to me.

And I think that is why the evidence mentioned in the courtroom focused on just the left foot.

I dont think it changes much other than I do think he had on two different sizes
 
IMO
I thought that at first but 13 and 14 are so close together it doesnt matter where the photo was taken. Its pretty obvious they are different to me.

And I think that is why the evidence mentioned in the courtroom focused on just the left foot.

I dont think it changes much other than I do think he had on two different sizes
I still think the defense would have brought it up, it's an obvious question.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
 
Thanks! Yes, it sounds like Alvin put a shed on the property (since it's smaller than a garage). If I were the defence lawyer, I would have asked whether he paid rent (I'm doubtful) as it offers insight into the business dealings between Liknes and Garland.

What would be the point? DG didn't own the acreage either.
 
Ok, I have a theory about different sizes of the shoes from the photo I have posted. We know that DNA of Alvin has been found only on right shoe so it's possible that DG was wearing two different sizes of shoes at the moment of home invasion, smaller one on right foot and bigger one on the left. But if it's true I do not get why did he keep right shoe while there was a risk that it could incriminate him by finding DNA/blood evidence against him.

attachment.php


attachment.php

Alvin's dna was found on the shoes DG was wearing during his arrest. Not the shoes he wore at the Liknes home. The shoes from the prints have never been recovered.
 
Maybe DG and AL used the shed to work on the prototype of the pump invention.

There were so many outbuildings there I dont know why they would need a special shed unless that was a shed that AL previously owned at his place and maybe had the pump all setup and mounted in it as they built it. They may have decided to move it to the farm to make their testing of the pump easier.

If they had to use a gasoline engine or a generator to test the pump then maybe the noise of a generator and other noises to test the pump would bother AL's neighbors and maybe they felt by moving the shed to the farm it would give them more peace and quiet and not disturb the neighbors.

It could be when they had their falling out that AL came and took back items out of the shed and maybe DG felt he "stole" some of his things.
 
What would be the point? DG didn't own the acreage either.

Garland lived on the property for much of his life - it was his home. Liknes had no reason to put a shed on Garland property, so naturally I wonder whether he paid rent.

The point is that payment to rent space on the property would clarify the business relationship between Liknes and Garland. If there was no payment, it suggests one type of business relationship (one consistent with Garland's claims), if there was payment, another type.
 
Maybe DG and AL used the shed to work on the prototype of the pump invention.

There were so many outbuildings there I dont know why they would need a special shed unless that was a shed that AL previously owned at his place and maybe had the pump all setup and mounted in it as they built it. They may have decided to move it to the farm to make their testing of the pump easier.

If they had to use a gasoline engine or a generator to test the pump then maybe the noise of a generator and other noises to test the pump would bother AL's neighbors and maybe they felt by moving the shed to the farm it would give them more peace and quiet and not disturb the neighbors.

It could be when they had their falling out that AL came and took back items out of the shed and maybe DG felt he "stole" some of his things.

If the shed was part of the design, it would have been removed from the property when Garland's work was removed, and it wasn't.
 
I'm so curious about defence's closing arguement today. I can't even think of anything they could say to sway the jury. Their cross exams didn't give any hints what their angle is. This may be a short arguement!
 
Looking forward to hearing closing argument from Crown.... surely they will tie in all the evidence and fill in any holes. Will be VERY interesting to hear the Defence closing argument. What could they possibly say to cause any doubt in the jury's minds of DG's guilt.
 
I'm out most of the day today so won't be able to follow along. (I actually have to work today :)).

I'm glad that this trial did not take forever and that it is almost over. I think it will be a great relief for both families for this to be finally done.
 
I think the evidence of the shoe prints was brought up to show that there was missing shoes that matched the box found at G resididence -not that the shoe matched that of the shoes of DG. It just shows a possible link.

The DNA was on the shoes he was arrested in.
 
I think the evidence of the shoe prints was brought up to show that there was missing shoes that matched the box found at G resididence -not that the shoe matched that of the shoes of DG. It just shows a possible link.

The DNA was on the shoes he was arrested in.

Alvin's DNA on the shoes DG was arrested in seals the guilt factor. No other way his DNA could be on DG's shoes than if he is guilty!
 
If the shed was part of the design, it would have been removed from the property when Garland's work was removed, and it wasn't.

Maybe the shed wasnt part of the design but maybe the pump was physically mounted to the floor and walls with bolts and an extensive array of support parts. I am pretty sure there were various parts and connections and in order to simulate a down-hole well pump they may have had to mount certain parts to the shed itself. Like the floor and the walls.

They would have had to have built a simulated bottom of an oil well which I am pretty sure started to have lots of parts to it.
Rather than disassemble anything it may have been much easier to move the whole shed.

Just assuming this was the reason because that one witness seemed to allude that AL owned the shed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
3,075
Total visitors
3,206

Forum statistics

Threads
592,386
Messages
17,968,271
Members
228,765
Latest member
GreyFishOmen
Back
Top