Still Missing Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 *Guilty* *Appeal* #29

[otto]

I agree that the Judge views this as capture and kill, same with the prosecution, but, in my humble opinion, that was not proven in testimony that was shared on twitter.

There must be a lot more to this story, even though the twitter comments covering trial testimony were back to back minute by minute.

 

[Deleted member 192280]

I slightly tend to think that, since DG was targeting the two adults, and found Nathan in the way, he may have hit him hard to knock him either unconscious or dead (I think he didn't care which) in order to be able to handle the two adults whom he wanted to capture alive. Nathan was simply something of an obstacle that he wanted to do away with. He didn't mean (hopefully) to capture Nathan alive for torture later. So he had two options: either kill him quick so as to deal with the adults, or leave him in the house. If Nathan was alive when leaving the house, perhaps it's because he was hit unconscious.

KL probably fought hard either to protect Nathan or after seeing Nathan having been hit/killed. The amount of blood she lost in the house may mean that she was barely alive when leaving the house and may have been deceased upon arrival at the farm (which would be a little mercy).

Just maybe.

P.S. I hope that when DG showed irritated look at the verdict it meant that he objected to the prosecutor's theory regarding how/when Nathan died. If so, he should make a statement to tell the truth if he wants to appeal.

 

[Bowdi]

Did you follow the prosecutions closing statement? It was entirely based on reasons why their theory was based on death occuring at the acreage. "A capture and kill plan.".

I did follow the prosecution's closing statement, and I understood their theory. I personally believe there is more.

 

[MistyWaters]

I agree that the Judge views this as capture and kill, same with the prosecution, but, in my humble opinion, that was not proven in testimony that was shared on twitter.

There must be a lot more to this story, even though the twitter comments covering trial testimony were back to back minute by minute.

The location of death was not required to be proven. Had not the prosecution's theory (which is not evidence) been murder at the acreage, it's possible evidence from that secondary crime scene may have been inadmissible. The transportation of dead bodies and disposal does not prove murder - precisely what was the defence theory.

 

[otto]

Maybe Garland's belief that he was too smart to get caught (let alone be convicted with consecutive sentencing), and voir dire arguments to exclude evidence on the basis of law, just maybe that allowed Garland to believe that he would get away with these murders?

The prosecution probably conceded the exclusion of a percentage of the 1400 pieces of evidence by law, but prosecution and Judge still insist that the victims died at the acreage.

Why?

The Judge mentioned that Garland nearly got away with it by removing all trace of himself at the Liknes house ... other than CCTV of his truck, it was an estate sale mystery - something that scared the crap out of every garage saler in Calgary

 

[MistyWaters]

Three events - I may have misunderstood because tweeting legal arguments certainly leaves a lot to be desired but my take on it was that the Judges position was that Garland murdered each of the three for different reasons. Three events.

 

[Deleted member 192280]

I think the prosecutor relied to a large degree on the contents found on his hard drive.

 

[otto]

Justice Gates said that Douglas Garland terrorized his three victims and the city of Calgary, and that justifies a sentence that is equivalent to dangerous offender designation.

 

[MistyWaters]

Justice Gates said that Douglas Garland terrorized his three victims and the city of Calgary, and that justifies a sentence that is equivalent to dangerous offender designation.

But how dangerous would a 130 year old man be?

 

[otto]

Three events - I may have misunderstood because tweeting legal arguments certainly leaves a lot to be desired but my take on it was that the Judges position was that Garland murdered each of the three for different reasons. Three events.

I thought that was splitting hairs. Garland had one reason for committing the murders and that was outlined by the prosecution. He held a grudge against Alvin Liknes in relation to a business deal that soured. Alvin's wife was a casualty because she was his wife, and Nathan was a casualty because he slept at the estate sale that night.

It was one event of business grudge leading to the torment of his business partner and anyone else who was in the house.

If they were conscious at the acreage, and perhaps Alvin was, then each murdered for a different reason makes a lot more sense ... but that doesn't make sense to the public because there was no proof that they died at the acreage ...


... unless it's in the blood spatter evidence.

Princess Buttercup and Centrail Alberta, could you please repost the information you gathered about blood spatter evidence.

Thanks

What I'm thinking is that there's a reason why the defence conceded that Alvin and Kathryn were separate events. The defence attempted to argue that Nathan was part of the original event by claiming accident, and perhaps he was the first, perhaps he wasn't. We always want to believe the most gentle interpretation of evidence tweeted to the universe.

What was the media thinking by contesting a no-publication order on aerial photos of the dead bodies?

Which news organization made the application?

 

[otto]

Which news organization got slammed in the face by friends of Nathan?

 

[otto]

If there's a connection between the news organization that made an application to publish banned photos, and the news station that was punched in the nose by Greg Head (connected with several victim fund raising pages), that matters.

That suggests vengeance rather than justice.

Which part of the family wants vengeance?

Rod seems at peace sharing Nathan with Max through photos, and Jennifer said that they grieve in different ways.

 

[otto]

I slightly tend to think that, since DG was targeting the two adults, and found Nathan in the way, he may have hit him hard to knock him either unconscious or dead (I think he didn't care which) in order to be able to handle the two adults whom he wanted to capture alive. Nathan was simply something of an obstacle that he wanted to do away with. He didn't mean (hopefully) to capture Nathan alive for torture later. So he had two options: either kill him quick so as to deal with the adults, or leave him in the house. If Nathan was alive when leaving the house, perhaps it's because he was hit unconscious.

KL probably fought hard either to protect Nathan or after seeing Nathan having been hit/killed. The amount of blood she lost in the house may mean that she was barely alive when leaving the house and may have been deceased upon arrival at the farm (which would be a little mercy).

Just maybe.

P.S. I hope that when DG showed irritated look at the verdict it meant that he objected to the prosecutor's theory regarding how/when Nathan died. If so, he should make a statement to tell the truth if he wants to appeal.

Nathan wasn't hit hard, his blood was discussed by the blood spatter expert in terms of drops, drips, and blood pooling DNA mixed with his grandmother on the bed headboard in the spare bedroom. Drips and drops in blood spatter testimony seem like spatter evidence, so it seems more like knife attack than

I agree that it's hard to believw that Nathan was walking out of the house after he and his grandparents were beaten into "medical distress". Their attacker is the man who left no evidence, nearly got away with the murders, and who probably did not bother with "to hit him hard to knock him either unconscious or dead".

 

[kmclaren]

Which news organization got slammed in the face by friends of Nathan?

It was on twitter but it's gone now, there is only 1 reporter that hasn't deleted it from twitter and any of their reports - so it sounds like it has quietly gone away. Someone else who was there said it wasn't a punch, but a push when the photographer jumped in front of the O'Briens leaving court so who knows...

 

[mrazda71]

We should not become like the people who need to be isolated from society.

Locked up, yes, like animals, no. Protect the public, but keep prisoners safe, engaged, productive, and comfortable. Treating the most unfortunate (such as those with wasted lives) with respect promotes a more respectful environment for them.

<modsnip>

It's not a nursing home for the elderly and infirm! It's a prison for the most deviant in society ... the kind of people who spend hours videoing themselves raping children, the kind of people who would hit a 5 year old sleeping child in the head and then drag him from his grandparents house, transport him to a farm and then only Garland knows what ...

I'm not without sympathy and understanding in difficult situations - take the Becky Watts case for example - I CAN find some understanding and empathy for Nathan and Shauna.

Jeez! Even Hitler had some redeeming qualities ...

But, Garland? I've found none and I refuse to feel anything other than quietly satisfied that he got to feel an ounce of what he deserves.

As for you and your suggestions of Garland having acquired a brain injury from his prison beating? Maybe his prison mates had read the same books and done the same Google searches as he did and knew just how hard to hit.

 

[mrazda71]

I can see your point. He committed the unspeakable out of vengeance. So then society seeks vengeance by cheering on four ****s. Either acting out of vengeance is a crime or it's a right but it can't be both.

There's a massive difference between Garland spending years plotting, months preparing, to beat, kidnap, torture, murder and dismember living human beings because of what? Not getting named on a patent? Not getting a pat on the back?

And

Me being completely unsurprised and unsympathetic that his own 'colleagues' have kicked him into touch.

One is Karma - the other is the definition of Evil.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

... like Karla Homolka - another most hated person.

Surely DG is public enemy Number One in Calgary, likely in Alberta, and possibly even in Canada currently.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[rogue ant]

We know that DG saw a mental health professional weekly and was nevertheless judged competent to stand trial, so there's that.

Whatever mental illness he had or may have had didn't interfere with his running an elaborate meth lab, escaping custody and staying on the lam for what was it, 7 years?

I feel that the consecutive sentences were appropriate in this case. I don't feel sorry for him or what happens to him in jail. He put himself there, not the judge and not society. He will have to deal with the consequences of his actions, something we all have to do in our own lives. So be it.

 

[Tealgrove]

Bernardo and Russell are in the same place aren't they? Rafferty - don't remember, but might also be the same place. If Garland is sent there, he will be in his heaven.

They were at Kingston until it closed. I believe they are all at Millhaven. They have a special unit there for protective custody for Dangerous Offenders and the likes of Douglas Garland. It might be where he lands but they must have something similar in Western Canada no?

 

[Deleted member 192280]

The wigs and women's stuffs he kept were either for disguise (e.g. during the recon missions) or personal obsession, or both. He may have even gone to the estate sale disguised as a woman. Since the sale appeared to be inside the house, he could have observed the rooms and doors' locations etc. then.

I still think he had masked himself when he went to the Liknes' house. It's easier to attack when the victims were totally clueless who you are and why it's happening, and they may have more fear because they had no idea what kind of person you are. This especially if he planned to take them to the farm and then reveal his identity.