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

[PrincessButtercup]

Did the defence lawyer suggest that Matthew Hartley was responsible?

No

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

I believe the reference is to the claim by the Crown today that the adult bodies in the aerial photo appear as though they may have been decapitated.

That's interesting. Someone did the math (was it deugrtni?) and the heights of the bodies in the field did not match the heights of the victims.

What's the defence advantage is that's true?

 

[MistyWaters]

I missed this, jury not sequestered until Wednesday now.


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

Kevin Martin @KMartinCourts
#Garland case will now go to jurors on Wednesday. Original plan was to have them charged by Justice Gates on Tuesday.
2h ago

 

[deugirtni]

That's interesting. Someone did the math (was it deugrtni?) and the heights of the bodies in the field did not match the heights of the victims.

What's the defence advantage is that's true?

I believe, IIRC, that 2 of the 'bodies' seen on the aerial view of the G property were measuring longer than the victims' actual heights, and now the Crown is saying they were possibly decapitated, which would make the victims' bodies even shorter. The fact that NO's 'figure' was shorter than his height, or if the other 2 figures were shorter than their actual heights, it could be explained away by saying they were bent, and not straight, but I don't think it can go the other way. To me, for the prosecution to throw that decapitation possibility into the mix out of the blue on closing, makes it seem more likely that whatever is seen in the aerial view are not the bodies.

ETA: I am very surprised that Ross did not bring anything up in his closing about the aerial photos.. the measurements being off, the fact that they are not bodies for sure, the coloring issue, the diaper issue, etc., and now the beheaded issue.

 

[otto]

The jury will want to be home for the long weekend.

 

[MistyWaters]

Did the defence lawyer suggest that Matthew Hartley was responsible?

But the defence lawyer did deny Garland held any grudge or hard feelings toward Liknes for any reason.

Had I been a juror at that point they lost all credibility because his mother, father and sister had all testified differently for the Prosecution.

 

[otto]

I believe, IIRC, that 2 of the 'bodies' seen on the aerial view of the G property were measuring longer than the victims' actual heights, and now the Crown is saying they were possibly decapitated, which would make the victims' bodies even shorter. The fact that NO's 'figure' was shorter than his height, or if the other 2 figures were shorter than their actual heights, it could be explained away by saying they were bent, and not straight, but I don't think it can go the other way. To me, for the prosecution to throw that decapitation possibility into the mix out of the blue on closing, makes it seem more likely that whatever is seen in the aerial view are not the bodies.

ETA: I am very surprised that Ross did not bring anything up in his closing about the aerial photos.. the measurements being off, the fact that they are not bodies for sure, the coloring issue, the diaper issue, etc., and now the beheaded issue.

Thank you ... the crown said that ... I misunderstood and thought it was the defence who said that.

I wish the that the prosecution had stuck to the facts instead of sensationalizing evidence that cannot be tied to the murders. Although Garland's DNA cannot be tied to the first crime scene, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence tying him to the house and the murders. There is enough evidence that he moved the bodies to the acreage to destroy evidence. That is what should have been argued ... not all the women in diapers stuff. The prosecution has not proven that the victims were murdered at the acreage, and although it may make no difference to the jury, it is an unnecessary, careless risk for the prosecution to claim that something is a fact when they have no evidence to support the claim.

 

[Tealgrove]

The jury will want to be home for the long weekend.

Agreed.

I also just don't think it will take them long to arrive at a verdict. MOO

 

[otto]

But the defence lawyer did deny Garland held any grudge or hard feelings toward Liknes for any reason.

Had I been a juror at that point they lost all credibility because his mother, father and sister had all testified differently for the Prosecution.

Garland's sister said that she learned in 2010 that her brother was upset about the business deal. Garland's father told him to let it go. Garland's mom said that he was an unhappy man. The psychiatrist apparently didn't know about any grudge, or at the very least did not take it seriously enough to do anything. None of this supports the point that Garland wanted to murder the couple in 2014.

Garland's computer searches support the point that Garland was very interested in the couple, but that could be because his sister was involved with the family.

 

[olivebpa1]

I believe, IIRC, that 2 of the 'bodies' seen on the aerial view of the G property were measuring longer than the victims' actual heights, and now the Crown is saying they were possibly decapitated, which would make the victims' bodies even shorter. The fact that NO's 'figure' was shorter than his height, or if the other 2 figures were shorter than their actual heights, it could be explained away by saying they were bent, and not straight, but I don't think it can go the other way. To me, for the prosecution to throw that decapitation possibility into the mix out of the blue on closing, makes it seem more likely that whatever is seen in the aerial view are not the bodies.

ETA: I am very surprised that Ross did not bring anything up in his closing about the aerial photos.. the measurements being off, the fact that they are not bodies for sure, the coloring issue, the diaper issue, etc., and now the beheaded issue.

He didn't bring that up because it is their bodies and they were in diapers. He isn't denying that the three victims were at the farm. He never said that DG didn't burn the bodies. He only said that DG wasn't at the house and isn't responsible for their deaths

 

[PrincessButtercup]

Garland's sister said that she learned in 2010 that her brother was upset about the business deal. Garland's father told him to let it go. Garland's mom said that he was an unhappy man. The psychiatrist apparently didn't know about any grudge, or at the very least did not take it seriously enough to do anything. None of this supports the point that Garland wanted to murder the couple in 2014.

Garland's computer searches support the point that Garland was very interested in the couple, but that could be because his sister was involved with the family.

PG stated that DG said something about it at Christmas 2013. He claimed that AL had stolen something from the farm and DG was thinking about contacting the police

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

He didn't bring that up because it is their bodies and they were in diapers. He isn't denying that the three victims were at the farm. He never said that DG didn't burn the bodies. He only said that DG wasn't at the house and isn't responsible for their deaths

If anyone on the jury is thinking like I am - that the prosecution did not prove that the victims were murdered at the acreage - there's a whole can of worms sitting on the jury table.

I think the Judge needs to caution the jury that they cannot determine a verdict based on how horrified they were with the evidence, because my impression is that the prosecution is leaning on that evidence to sway their opinion.

 

[MistyWaters]

I believe, IIRC, that 2 of the 'bodies' seen on the aerial view of the G property were measuring longer than the victims' actual heights, and now the Crown is saying they were possibly decapitated, which would make the victims' bodies even shorter. The fact that NO's 'figure' was shorter than his height, or if the other 2 figures were shorter than their actual heights, it could be explained away by saying they were bent, and not straight, but I don't think it can go the other way. To me, for the prosecution to throw that decapitation possibility into the mix out of the blue on closing, makes it seem more likely that whatever is seen in the aerial view are not the bodies.

ETA: I am very surprised that Ross did not bring anything up in his closing about the aerial photos.. the measurements being off, the fact that they are not bodies for sure, the coloring issue, the diaper issue, etc., and now the beheaded issue.

Re your ETA.

Ross skillfully avoided all the evidence associated with the acreage by stating the two crime scenes "were two different events". Their defence theory was based on the premise that that 3 were already dead when there bodies somehow arrived at the acreage. Whatever occurred at the acreage would then involve some sort of indignity to a body charges, which his client wasn't facing.

 

[olivebpa1]

I'm not sure if somebody said this already so I apologize if it has already been brought up but I think the issue that had to be addressed today was defense claiming that it was a fact that there were no bodies in that truck. How does he know? If he wants to present that as a fact he needs to back that up with evidence and that time has passed.

 

[MistyWaters]

Garland's sister said that she learned in 2010 that her brother was upset about the business deal. Garland's father told him to let it go. Garland's mom said that he was an unhappy man. The psychiatrist apparently didn't know about any grudge, or at the very least did not take it seriously enough to do anything. None of this supports the point that Garland wanted to murder the couple in 2014.

Garland's computer searches support the point that Garland was very interested in the couple, but that could be because his sister was involved with the family.

Just my opinion but I think his sister being involved with the Liknes family was a greater motive than the failed pump. In choosing his victims (allegedly) he destroyed her relationship, her partners family and his family.

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm not sure if somebody said this already so I apologize if it has already been brought up but I think the issue that had to be addressed today was defense claiming that it was a fact that there were no bodies in that truck. How does he know? If he wants to present that as a fact he needs to back that up with evidence and that time has passed.

The jury will be instructed that what the lawyers say isn't evidence.

Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Cherchri]

This one takes the biscuit for me: Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 42s42 seconds ago
Ross: You have to remove any sympathy or prejudice for any of the participants in the process - victims and accused. #Garland

Erm yeah I don't think you will find that anyone needs to remove sympathy for the accused KR.

 

[otto]

I'm not sure if somebody said this already so I apologize if it has already been brought up but I think the issue that had to be addressed today was defense claiming that it was a fact that there were no bodies in that truck. How does he know? If he wants to present that as a fact he needs to back that up with evidence and that time has passed.

The defence is correct. There are no bodies to be seen in the truck. There is a truck with a white tarp in the back, but the prosecution did not present a white tarp as evidence. The defence doesn't have to prove anything. The prosecution had to connect the white tarp and truck with Garland, and that has only been done with information about a faulty light that occurred in those types of trucks - which is not a completely convincing argument.

 

[olivebpa1]

The defence is correct. There are no bodies to be seen in the truck. There is a truck with a white tarp in the back, but the prosecution did not present a white tarp as evidence. The defence doesn't have to prove anything. The prosecution had to connect the white tarp and truck with Garland, and that has only been done with information about a faulty light that occurred in those types of trucks - which is not a completely convincing argument.

Seriously? You don't think that the crown proved that that was DG's truck in all of the CCTV video?

 

[Kamille]

I believe, IIRC, that 2 of the 'bodies' seen on the aerial view of the G property were measuring longer than the victims' actual heights, and now the Crown is saying they were possibly decapitated, which would make the victims' bodies even shorter. The fact that NO's 'figure' was shorter than his height, or if the other 2 figures were shorter than their actual heights, it could be explained away by saying they were bent, and not straight, but I don't think it can go the other way. To me, for the prosecution to throw that decapitation possibility into the mix out of the blue on closing, makes it seem more likely that whatever is seen in the aerial view are not the bodies.

ETA: I am very surprised that Ross did not bring anything up in his closing about the aerial photos.. the measurements being off, the fact that they are not bodies for sure, the coloring issue, the diaper issue, etc., and now the beheaded issue.

Well, trying to be delicate here, if the bodies were decapitated right there in the field, and all "parts" were still there at the time the picture was taken, that could account for the measurement being slightly "taller" IYKWIM.

I'm so glad the public will likely never see that picture. :cry:

MOO