Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #21

[deugirtni]

If they had VOIP, then turning off the router would have disabled the home telephone.

In the crimescene photo below, on the edge of the top of the short shelf in the office, there is a small box with a blue wire plugged into it.. that looks like the router used for some VOIP phone services (which is secondary to the main router providing internet connectivity to the home)... immediately distinguishable by those who might also have them. I don't see a phone anywhere. These days, people often don't even bother having a 'home phone' any more, and simply rely on their cellphones.

I doubt if the disconnection of the modem/router (if done by the perp/accused) was for the purpose of cutting off the phone service, but rather, to cut off the possibility of IT forensics personnel being able to establish connection/disconnection times of certain devices, and possibly MAC ID info regarding which devices connected, and when, etc. Interesting that they are not able to establish a more definite time of when the modem/router was disconnected (a span of approx 6 hours during which this could have been done??). (Wouldn't the internet provider be able to tell when that modem/router was put offline?)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2kG0nLUoAAdrP8.jpg:large

 

[LayzeeDayzee]

I would think, since the Crown does not know if any of the victims were deceased before they left the home, that since DG has chosen to let them tell the story for him, their case for 3 counts of first degree murder is bolstered by the argument that he removed all 3 from the house with the intent to murder them at the farm. So why wouldn't the Crown go with this theory?

MOO

But I just read in post #900 by Sillybilly, Crown's opening statement indicated they had, in fact, been killed at the farm:

Meghan Grant ‏@CBCMeg 29s29 seconds ago
Crown: Three victims were "violently removed from their beds, taken to the #Garland farm and killed." Their bodies burned in a burn barrel.

 

[Coldpizza]

Douglas Garland triple murder trial wraps up first week with footwear/footprint expert to testify
January 20, 2017

A footwear/footprint expert will testify in the fifth day of testimony at Douglas Garland‘s triple murder trial.

Court has seen pictures of footprints in what’s believed to be blood at Liknes home after they disappeared.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3193486/d...wearfootprint-expert-to-testify/?sf51978930=1

 

[JadeSLeuth]

I agree with the idea behind this sentiment, however I would alter that to say he's so angry about being ripped off regarding the patent that he wants to the world to hear about it.
He's not considering the family's feelings, or even the feelings of his own family, he is fixated on how he was wronged.
I may even guess that he'll be inwardly disappointed at how little attention was paid to his perceived slight, which he obviously thinks is important enough to carry a grudge for years, and how the trial will move onto more technical terms and "checking" possible defenses off the list (eg diabetic? Passports accounted for? Etc)

Just some thoughts from a newbie. [emoji112]

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk

Welcome SarKatStic! Love the username

 

[JadeSLeuth]

I'm out this morning and won't be able to cover tweets; hopefully one of our other sleuthers can help. If not, I'll get it caught up this afternoon! Happy Friday!

 

[Ontario Mom]

Finally catching up this morning after missing yesterday's testimony. Trying to figure out what the benefit or advantage would be for DG to turn off the router. His own cell phone (if he had one) wouldn't even have connected to it anyway unless he had the wifi PW. Unless he didn't know that and just assumed it might?

Also, the witness mentioned the HP laptop and an HP power cord but the cord didn't fit that particular laptop. Which makes me wonder, did it ever turn up, or was it used as a restraint?

 

[otto]

<rsbm>

It was from the Crown's Opening Statement:



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...lvin-and-Kathy-Liknes&p=13075090#post13075090

True, and opening statements are a theory that remains to be proven and supported by testimony. I don't think we have heard anything yet to support the claim that all three victims were alive at the acreage. In fact, with the blood and evidence of a brutal attack at the first crime scene, it's hard to believe that all three were alive hours later.

 

[olivebpa1]

In the crimescene photo below, on the edge of the top of the short shelf in the office, there is a small box with a blue wire plugged into it.. that looks like the router used for some VOIP phone services (which is secondary to the main router providing internet connectivity to the home)... immediately distinguishable by those who might also have them. I don't see a phone anywhere. These days, people often don't even bother having a 'home phone' any more, and simply rely on their cellphones.

I doubt if the disconnection of the modem/router (if done by the perp/accused) was for the purpose of cutting off the phone service, but rather, to cut off the possibility of IT forensics personnel being able to establish connection/disconnection times of certain devices, and possibly MAC ID info regarding which devices connected, and when, etc. Interesting that they are not able to establish a more definite time of when the modem/router was disconnected (a span of approx 6 hours during which this could have been done??). (Wouldn't the internet provider be able to tell when that modem/router was put offline?)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2kG0nLUoAAdrP8.jpg:large

Maybe when evidence is presented of his internet research we will see that he researched VOIP's.

I'm almost positive my internet provider has told me the exact times I have powered down my router when i've called for assistance. The times were an agreed statement of facts so maybe that is the time frame that DG would agree to.

 

[otto]

But I just read in post #900 by Sillybilly, Crown's opening statement indicated they had, in fact, been killed at the farm:

I'm wary of the prosecutor in this case - which is not the norm for me. He / she started the trial by stating that Douglas had a "petty" grudge. That alone suggests that the prosecution has stepped outside of the true role of impartially presenting the facts to imposing an opinion of the facts. That's not the role of prosecutor in Canada. The People don't care what opinion the prosecutor has of the facts.

I am still waiting to hear why a concern about unethical business practices is "petty". I see a problem with Alvin's business practices and would never describe that as "petty". Because the prosecution is willing to attempt to impose an opinion of the facts on the jury at the outset, I think it's also possible that the prosecution may attempt to dramatize other facts. I have less trust of prosecutors who are unable to objectively present the facts of the case.

 

[matou]

How did he drill through metal and not wake everyone up? The house being more empty than normal would have been an echo chamber IMO.

 

[Slebby]

True, and opening statements are a theory that remains to be proven and supported by testimony. I don't think we have heard anything yet to support the claim that all three victims were alive at the acreage. In fact, with the blood and evidence of a brutal attack at the first crime scene, it's hard to believe that all three were alive hours later.

I too find it difficult to believe they left the house alive, certainly not all 3. I wonder, what possible strategy can the defence use to challenge that assertion by the Crown? It could mean the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder in the case of KL and NO.
IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

How did he drill through metal and not wake everyone up? The house being more empty than normal would have been an echo chamber IMO.

If they'd had a dog, they would have known that someone was drilling into their lockset.

 

[cee_]

I truly think it's like someone (forget who) said he is so angry it's just to punish the family more by making them go through the trial.

Even still, isn't it kind of weird that his defense attorneys are going along with it? I would imagine that after the discovery was sent over, the lawyers would have talked him out of doing this in public. I don't know, it just doesn't make much sense.

Jmo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

I too find it difficult to believe they left the house alive, certainly not all 3. I wonder, what possible strategy can the defence use to challenge that assertion by the Crown? It could mean the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder in the case of KL and NO.
IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The crown has to prove that the victims were alive at the acreage, the defence does not have to refute dramatic claims made in opening statements. The crown may argue that there is evidence of blood at the acreage, but the victims were dismembered, so of course there is blood. An aerial photo of the victims on the ground 24 hours later does not prove that they were alive for those 24 hours. Evidence of Kathryn on meat hooks does not prove that she was alive. However, urine on a diaper at the acreage does prove that she was alive. That does not prove that all three were alive. Furthermore, we have already heard that blood and hair on Jennifer's shoes was very likely from Nathan - suggesting that he had received a severe head injury and was very likely mortally wounded in the initial attack.

The defence can question blood experts about the amount of blood at the Liknes home and, on that basis demonstrate, as police said in the first week after the kidnappings, that they were at the very least in "medical distress" (which I always understood as requiring medical care to live).

 

[otto]

Actually, the question of first or second degree murder is interesting. If his plan was to abduct two victims, take them alive to the acreage, torture them (there seems to be evidence to support this), and murder them, then although he planned to murder them, he did not plan to murder them at the Liknes home. In fact, he could have changed his mind at any time after the abduction and left them alive, or the live victims could have been discovered on the acreage by his parents.

If the plan went South in the first few minutes of the kidnapping, then that may fall under second degree murder. He had no intention of murdering the victims in the Liknes home, and there was never a plan to harm Nathan. I suppose that is where the defence has room to make an argument for a lesser conviction and sentence.

The Crown may need to argue that all three victims were alive at the acreage in order to secure a first degree murder conviction, but I'm skeptical that this is possible ... we'll see.

 

[cee_]

I'm wary of the prosecutor in this case - which is not the norm for me. He / she started the trial by stating that Douglas had a "petty" grudge. That alone suggests that the prosecution has stepped outside of the true role of impartially presenting the facts to imposing an opinion of the facts. That's not the role of prosecutor in Canada. The People don't care what opinion the prosecutor has of the facts.

I am still waiting to hear why a concern about unethical business practices is "petty". I see a problem with Alvin's business practices and would never describe that as "petty". Because the prosecution is willing to attempt to impose an opinion of the facts on the jury at the outset, I think it's also possible that the prosecution may attempt to dramatize other facts. I have less trust of prosecutors who are unable to objectively present the facts of the case.

I'm not trying to be a turd, because I do agree with you that using the word "petty" lends the prosecutor's opinion to the jury. I do just want to point out that the phrase "petty revenge" simply means the revenge was mean-spirited. That's a textbook/dictionary definition, though.

If that's what the crown meant, I believe they should have said that. It's really important to note exactly what you said, otto: "petty" means insignificant and that's what will stick with the jury.

I'm fresh off a book about the Simpson trial and the prosecution used the same tactic with "matches the defendant" when they initially presented blood evidence. It's all about getting certain phrases to resonate with the jury, and I think "petty revenge" is one of those phrases.


Edit:spelling

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[garbagetweet]

Furthermore, we have already heard that blood and hair on Jennifer's shoes was very likely from Nathan - suggesting that he had received a severe head injury and was very likely mortally wounded in the initial attack.

Maybe I missed this detail but when was it stated that Nathan's blood was recovered at the home? I don't recall hearing any specifics yet detailing forensic analysis of blood or DNA from any of the scenes.

 

[olivebpa1]

Maybe I missed this detail but when was it stated that Nathan's blood was recovered at the home? I don't recall hearing any specifics yet detailing forensic analysis of blood or DNA from any of the scenes.

No evidence of that yet. Jennifer just said in her testimony that she thought the hair on her shoes belonged to Nathan. I'm assuming it was blonde hair and that is why she thought that.

 

[dogmatica]

Perhaps the Crown has blood evidence at the farm that suggests they were alive there at some point. The amount/condition etc of the blood could indicate that a person who was deceased would not leave that sort of blood evidence. A deceased person's blood acts much differently than that of a live person, from what I understand.

 

[Cherchri]

A couple of things I'm wondering about:



Where in testimony did someone say all three had been killed at the farm? (I might have missed that.) I have always suspected that the police had pretty good evidence that Kathy was either mortally wounded or killed in the house, because IIRC, the Amber Alert was only for Alvin and Nathan.

Secondly (and this may be a small thing), I'm curious about reports that DG had a B.Sc. from Camrose Lutheran College. To my knowledge, CLC didn't start granting degrees until about 1992, at which time it was renamed Augustana University-College. Prior to that, I believe you could study for two years toward a degree, but would then have to transfer to a university. Sounds like DG did transfer into med school at U of A - can you do that without having an undergrad degree?

In the Crown's opening statement posted at the beginning of this thread and I think in every headline article on January 16th. There is no doubt proof coming or I doubt the prosecutor would state that. On the issue of DG's undergraduate degree - I have no idea. I will take a look and see what I can find. I don't think it's such a small thing actually. This is an individual who has very grandiose ideas i.t.o. his superiority, It's quite possible he never graduated IMO