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

[Spellbound]

Does it have to be a unanimous verdict here?

 

[Slebby]

Would you be won over by any of that? The jury have seen more than we have. I think it's an insult to average intelligence.

I am a critical thinker, so no, it wouldn't work on me. But get someone on the jury who is black and white and legalistic, who knows?
I still think Ross has done more than I thought possible.

All imho.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tealgrove]

Does it have to be a unanimous verdict here?

Yes it does.

 

[Tealgrove]

There was new information we got today and it made me sick.

DG is one sick puppy. He can NEVER see the light of day again.

 

[Slebby]

I don't find it clever at all. And I think using Jennifer O'Brien to undermine first degree was a big tactical error. One juror may have doubts but the other jurors will ask them if those doubts are reasonable based on the judge's coming instructions.

I agree about JO.
What would you consider a more clever strategy for a defence lawyer in this case?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JadeSLeuth]

All gone quiet. I guess thats it

 

[Kamille]

I think it was a weak closing for the Defence. They're just throwing stuff out there in the hopes they can put a wedge between a couple of jurors and the rest. Not much else they can do really.

I'm not buying what he's selling and I don't think a single juror will buy it either.

The Evidence presented has been gruesome, unfortunately logical as logical as this can be. Evidence was overwhelming and compelling.

Even with tweets I can't help but find DG guilty of 1st degree three times over.

He pointed out pretty much everything that is true in the Crown's case. There is no direct evidence of a LOT of the things that they are putting forth based on circumstantial evidence and things may not have gone down the way the Crown has presented that they did. That's all he could really do though. So he did. I think that will ensure that there are no appeal issues based on an error or something his own counsel did or didn't do. Which is pretty much what a good defence lawyer shoots for when even he likely believes his client is guilty.

They could have left out the reference to JO however. Not sure they realized how insensitive that was. Although I do remember reading a few posts at the beginning of the trial regarding that statement as proof that the murders occured at the house. Perhaps the defence was reading here a little?

MOO

 

[otto]

Kevin MartinVerified account ‏@KMartinCourts 2m2 minutes ago
Gates tells jury a couple of issues arose during final submissions that he has to deal with on Tuesday #Garland

Ina SidhuVerified account ‏@CTVInaSidhu 2m2 minutes ago
Bc of legal matters, the #Garland jury will return Wednesday morning to hear their final instructions before deliberations begin @CTVCalgary

One thing I took issue with was the prosecution's claim that Garland was a medical student. I'm pretty sure that he was in his first semester of a science degree when he quit school. That's a far stretch from a medical student.

The other questionable claim is that the victims were alive when they left the property. There has been no proof of that, but again we see how important it is to the prosecution for the court to believe this. Although it has been posted here that it makes no difference, I am not convinced. The prosecution can summarize the evidence, not spin new information into the evidence.

 

[MistyWaters]

I agree, Kim Ross did as well as could be expected with what he was given. The CPS did an extremely thorough job investigating this case, even though it was a no body case, it seemed the stars were aligned against Garland getting away with it.

I truly believe had he not been caught (and hopefully convicted) he would have taken the lives of many more victims in the future.

JMO

 

[Kamille]

There was new information we got today and it made me sick.

DG is one sick puppy. He can NEVER see the light of day again.

Yes, that was unsettling. And if true, makes me wonder if there is some evidence buried somewhere that was not found.

MOO

 

[Hatfield]

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 51s52 seconds ago
Parker: His interest ran to more than just killing #Garland

Valerie Fortney ‏@ValFortney 58s59 seconds ago
Crown suggest Alvin Liknes was the first one assaulted. All his blood in master bedroom, mixed profiles in spare room. #Garland

Bryan LabbyVerified account ‏@CBCBryan 1m1 minute ago
Parker says Alvin was attacked first, it was all his blood in the master bedroom. #Garland

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 1m1 minute ago
"This was not a pure kill kit, it was a capture kit," Parker says of bag found at #Garland farm including weapons and handcuffs. #yyc

[video=twitter;831192617798955010]https://twitter.com/CBCMeg/status/831192617798955010[/video]

Reading to catch up and going in order.

Just wanted to point out that I never noticed this before in the duffel bag contents. There is two gun magazines that are fully loaded it appears. Had to expand really large to see the bullets. The top left one looks like a 22 caliber clip and the long curvey one is also a clip that holds many more rounds. The curved one for sure is for a rifle. Not sure about the smaller one if rifle or handgun.

He must have had guns at some point.

 

[otto]

I agree about JO.
What would you consider a more clever strategy for a defence lawyer in this case?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I posted the same thing here - that Jennifer stated after walking through the crime scene that her family had been murdered. The blood spatter evidence testimony supports Jennifer's claim. The ME can't say one way or the other. Initial reports were that the family were in "medical distress" - which led me to believe that if they were not already dead, they were mortally wounded.

In spite of several facts that support the argument that the three were murdered at their home, the prosecution wants the jury to believe otherwise even though no evidence to support that claim was presented. That is the biggest weakness in the case, and it was evident from the first day of the trial.

I now understand why the prosecution wants to claim that the three were murdered at the property - without proof that Garland committed the murders, he could have been the clean-up person. There is a window between 11PM and 3:15AM when they could have been murdered by someone else. In fact, the router went silent at 2:10AM, a full hour before police can link Garland to the property.

 

[Spellbound]

One thing I took issue with was the prosecution's claim that Garland was a medical student. I'm pretty sure that he was in his first semester of a science degree when he quit school. That's a far stretch from a medical student.

The other questionable claim is that the victims were alive when they left the property. There has been no proof of that, but again we see how important it is to the prosecution for the court to believe this. Although it has been posted here that it makes no difference, I am not convinced. The prosecution can summarize the evidence, not spin new information into the evidence.

Apparently it is true.

For about a year, Douglas Garland attended medical school at the University of Alberta until he suffered what his mother believes was a breakdown and dropped out of school.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/douglas-garland-murder-trial-nathan-obrien-liknes-day-2-trial-1.3939170

Court documents show Garland was smart enough to get into medical school...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07/15/douglas-garland-murder-charge_n_5588760.html

As for whether they were still alive when they were taken from the home, all we kmow for certain is the medical examiner's statement: "“They may still have been alive,” she says, noting that the amount of blood wasn’t sufficient to prove death had occurred in the home."

If I remember correctly, it is more likely that at least Nathan was still alive.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/fortney-they-may-have-still-been-alive-says-medical-expert-in-garland-murder-trial

 

[musicaljoke]

There was new information we got today and it made me sick.

DG is one sick puppy. He can NEVER see the light of day again.

I wonder if that was what the judge was concerned about. Was it ever discussed as evidence, or did th crown just throw the idea out there in the final statement to create a sensational effect?

 

[Cherchri]

Apparently it is true.

For about a year, Douglas Garland attended medical school at the University of Alberta until he suffered what his mother believes was a breakdown and dropped out of school.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/douglas-garland-murder-trial-nathan-obrien-liknes-day-2-trial-1.3939170

Court documents show Garland was smart enough to get into medical school...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07/15/douglas-garland-murder-charge_n_5588760.html

As for whether they were still alive when they were taken from the home, all we kmow for certain is the medical examiner's statement: "“They may still have been alive,” she says, noting that the amount of blood wasn’t sufficient to prove death had occurred in the home."

If I remember correctly, it is more likely that at least Nathan was still alive.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/fortney-they-may-have-still-been-alive-says-medical-expert-in-garland-murder-trial

We actually learned back in 2014 that he was kicked out of med school for cheating on his exams. It is in our earlier threads with supporting links.

 

[olivebpa1]

Not happening.
The defense basically admitted that those were the bodies on the farm. There is no other logical explanation. Common sense. Case closed.

:judge: :behindbar:

Exactly. No one is buying that someone else killed them but DG got rid of the bodies. Dellen Millard tried that and it didn't work. Won't work this time either.

 

[Spellbound]

We actually learned back in 2014 that he was kicked out of med school for cheating on his exams. It is in our earlier threads with supporting links.

thanks .... I only got through a couple of the early threads. I will have to go back through it all when this is done.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

I feel like what Ross didn't address is more telling than what he did address.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Cherchri]

So lets talk about the big elephant in the room ... who killed them and how long has DG been working as a Mafia Cleanup man?

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Crack me up PB! A few questions begging after KR's closing arguments (I hesitate to call them that). Here's one: Less than 2 decades ago we did not have DNA evidence so how would a jury have reached its conclusion in say 1984? Does everything hinge on DNA? If yes - well then we have plenty DNA evidence on the acreage.... so was it Archie wearing Dougie's shoes, boots, gloves? Come on! VERY weak argument!

 

[Deleted member 192280]

Can the prosecutor prove without doubt that there was no second person involved? Since DG allegedly was able to erase his DNA, leaving no trace in the house, why couldn't that be done with a second person as well? While it doesn't seem likely he had anyone helping him (given he seemed to have few friends/associates), wouldn't that need to be proved?