Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #23

[Sprigs]

I've been wondering if DG was using his stolen ID for purchases and if he was involved in websites/underground fetish communities.

Googled liquid nitrogen under it's uses was this - "Promession" is a way of disposing of the dead - there is a Swedish Company using this as an ecological burial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promessa_Organic

He may have tried an accelerated method of this and put ashes in the garden? Keep thinking about the cadaver dog's interest in that area.

 

[otto]

You have alot of catching up to do, otto! Been wondering where you were. I think we are going back and forth on the the issue of where they were deceased. There is a documented area at the back of the property of deadened grass.There is quite alot of commentary on the burning barrel, its contents, and the methodology used to sift and sort it all. There are several cataloged photos of the burning barrel contents.. ammunition, 2 different earrings, bone and teeth, and even what looks to me to be a partial brassiere hook (looks like a Mickey Mouse silhouette). There is so much evidence to digest, it has been tough all around.

I'll catch up tomorrow evening as much as possible ... I'm really beginning to wonder whether these are his first victims.

 

[Kamille]

I have a family member in the hospital in a geriatric ward, there are adult diapers on racks in rooms as well as in the hallway. If I wanted to I could grab a handful every time I go visit. Nobody would notice.

Just jumping off your post...

I think the original question was whether they are disposable or reusable. We were trying to figure out why he had hospital diapers when he seemed to have no problem ordering everything else online or buying stuff in stores like Princess Auto or Walmart. I believe the original poster thought that he may have stolen them from the hospital because they were reusable. Which is how the discussion started. Nothing in the tweets indicated that this package of 50 from Foothills Hospital were reusable. Although every reporter made it a point to tweet that the one pink flowered pair in the house were reusable.

My experience with adult family members in hospital were with disposable type. Others had different experiences. So they could have been either.

So...I guess it really doesn't matter and we've beat this horse to death. :deadhorse:

MOO

 

[Power of Two]

My daughter is working on her Social Work degree, and in conversation this evening she told me that there are 3 areas in which a professional may breach confidentiality. These being when a child is at risk or in grave danger, when a person is in danger of grievous self harm, and when there has been a crime/abuse committed and harm done to another person. She also said that if the therapist is subpoenaed they must disclose information. Before beginning therapy or having a confidential conversation with a client, the client is appraised of these conditions and signs a waiver of understanding. This is in BC.
It makes me wonder if we will hear anything from DG's psychiatrist. Under the circumstances, can he refuse to discuss anything about DG and what makes him tick? I would love to hear from some outside parties.

 

[Kamille]

These look to me to be generic unisex dollar store readers. I was also thinking that the glasses DG was wearing in one of the photos look like throw away glasses. I think the frames were kind of green in colour. I know one can buy prescription glasses online and, while they do the job, they do look to be of a lesser quality.

Now see, I was thinking that these were decent quality glasses because while the plastic that was probably over all the wiring on the arms and the wire around the lenses, and also the actual lenses, which were probably made of the lighter weight plastic, were destroyed by the fire, the metal frames held up. :waitasec:

MOO

 

[otto]

My daughter is working on her Social Work degree, and in conversation this evening she told me that there are 3 areas in which a professional may breach confidentiality. These being when a child is at risk or in grave danger, when a person is in danger of grievous self harm, and when there has been a crime/abuse committed and harm done to another person. She also said that if the therapist is subpoenaed they must disclose information. Before beginning therapy or having a confidential conversation with a client, the client is appraised of these conditions and signs a waiver of understanding. This is in BC.
It makes me wonder if we will hear anything from DG's psychiatrist. Under the circumstances, can he refuse to discuss anything about DG and what makes him tick? I would love to hear from some outside parties.

I keep coming back to the psychiatrist. If Garland didn't commit any crimes, then there was nothing to report, but Garland had hand guns, silencers, tasers, and numerous other weapons and objects that are clearly intended to cause harm to someone. Was the psychiatrist completely oblivious to what was going on in Garland's mind, or did the psychiatrist assume that he / she had it all under control?

I also realized a mistake I posted days ago ... I think I said that Liknes had a bank account in Peru ... in fact it was Panama.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I keep coming back to the psychiatrist. If Garland didn't commit any crimes, then there was nothing to report, but Garland had hand guns, silencers, tasers, and numerous other weapons and objects that are clearly intended to cause harm to someone. Was the psychiatrist completely oblivious to what was going on in Garland's mind, or did the psychiatrist assume that he / she had it all under control?

I also realized a mistake I posted days ago ... I think I said that Liknes had a bank account in Peru ... in fact it was Panama.

I'm guessing he lied to his psychiatrist.

I'm more concerned as to why these visits started. If not court ordered (doubtful part of his parole from years ago), if not referred by a doctor (unless he was recently committed at the hospital the last few years, possible), then I can't help wonder if someone stumbled across some of his props/paraphernalia and gave him an ultimatum - psychiatrist to deal with his 'issues' or a call to LE/psych ward would be placed.

 

[Sprigs]

It's just a guess on my part but I think Douglas saw a psychiatrist out of Foothills Hospital - opportunity to steal the diapers and maybe other medical supplies. He missed his weekly appointment and I remember thinking 8:00 am seemed early. But I checked them out: http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/lnfo/facility.aspx?id=1001105&service=1026127
and they are open Mondays at 8:00 am. An early morning appointment - I think standard shift change is usually around 7;00 am or so in hospitals. Also lots of patients sleeping - probably easy to grab a few supplies before he had his appointments.

 

[Kamille]

My daughter is working on her Social Work degree, and in conversation this evening she told me that there are 3 areas in which a professional may breach confidentiality. These being when a child is at risk or in grave danger, when a person is in danger of grievous self harm, and when there has been a crime/abuse committed and harm done to another person. She also said that if the therapist is subpoenaed they must disclose information. Before beginning therapy or having a confidential conversation with a client, the client is appraised of these conditions and signs a waiver of understanding. This is in BC.
It makes me wonder if we will hear anything from DG's psychiatrist. Under the circumstances, can he refuse to discuss anything about DG and what makes him tick? I would love to hear from some outside parties.

We have a case that's just started here in Ontario of a nurse who apparently admitted to a therapist that she had deliberately overdosed 8 of her patients in nursing homes with insulin and they had died. The therapist, who is mandated to report such things, notified LE and the nurse has now been charged with 8 counts of first degree murder. I can only imagine that the therapist is going to be an important witness in the trial.

I think the difference in this case is that DG's therapist was obviously oblivious to what he was up to, the illegal guns he owned and the rest of his strange "collection". IMO, he was likely seeing the psychiatrist regarding what appears to be mental issues that were detected way back when he was incarcerated. Even then, however, he had people fooled that he did not have a propensity for violence so it is not a stretch to believe that his psychiatrist had no clue as to the inner rage that he was really feeling. So in this case, I'd say no. Unless the psychiatrist has information that is favourable to DG and he is a witness for the defence, I do not think you will be hearing from him/her.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

I'm guessing he lied to his psychiatrist.

I'm more concerned as to why these visits started. If not court ordered (doubtful part of his parole from years ago), if not referred by a doctor (unless he was recently committed at the hospital the last few years, possible), then I can't help wonder if someone stumbled across some of his props/paraphernalia and gave him an ultimatum - psychiatrist to deal with his 'issues' or a call to LE/psych ward would be placed.

It was court ordered originally. We're not sure if it continued to be extended past 2003 or he just decided to continue on his own?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07/15/douglas-garland-murder-charge_n_5588760.html

 

[Lalalacasbah]

It's just a guess on my part but I think Douglas saw a psychiatrist out of Foothills Hospital - opportunity to steal the diapers and maybe other medical supplies. He missed his weekly appointment and I remember thinking 8:00 am seemed early. But I checked them out: http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/lnfo/facility.aspx?id=1001105&service=1026127
and they are open Mondays at 8:00 am. An early morning appointment - I think standard shift change is usually around 7;00 am or so in hospitals. Also lots of patients sleeping - probably easy to grab a few supplies before he had his appointments.

Yes, there's a connection there Sprigs. I definitely think he might've stole meds somehow from the hospital.

Not sure how it all works but if he saw a psychiatrist there I think one has to be referred by a GP or unless one gets referred from being in in-patient at the hospital (psych ward). Does anyone know the process to see a psychiatrist? As far as I know, it doesn't just happen but I might be wrong.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

It was court ordered originally. We're not sure if it continued to be extended past 2003 or he just decided to continue on his own?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07/15/douglas-garland-murder-charge_n_5588760.html

I wish we knew for sure how long this would've been mandatory. Seems like a stretch to go on for 10 years but maybe so, Is there a maximum or can if be mandated forever when connected to parole? Was he on parole for over 10 years?

 

[SchrodingersCat]

To clear up the ongoing discussion that the diapers must have been stolen from a hospital... he in fact purchased them off of ebay.... see: court reported twitter tweets: http://live.cbc.ca/Event/Douglas_Garland_triple_murder_trial

Also... it is very possible this was not a fetish at all, but, he had premeditated all of this... and torture was in his mind. He could have used them on the victims to control mess, highly unlikely he'd allow for bathroom breaks... or he could have also used them himself when using the one piece forensic suits, and if he was wearing the suits at the time of torture, quite possible he'd don the adult diapers to make it so he didn't need to take bathroom breaks as well... I'm sure it'll all come out in the proverbial wash during the trials, but the viewing of the diapers can be looked at from many angles, fetish perhaps being one, but not necessarily a reason at all either. Very sad and tragic, but definitely a case that has many brain cogs turning with possibilities.

Cheers
The Catt :cat:
:canada:

 

[Lalalacasbah]

To clear up the ongoing discussion that the diapers must have been stolen from a hospital... he in fact purchased them off of ebay.... see: court reported twitter tweets: http://live.cbc.ca/Event/Douglas_Garland_triple_murder_trial

Also... it is very possible this was not a fetish at all, but, he had premeditated all of this... and torture was in his mind. He could have used them on the victims to control mess, highly unlikely he'd allow for bathroom breaks... or he could have also used them himself when using the one piece forensic suits, and if he was wearing the suits at the time of torture, quite possible he'd don the adult diapers to make it so he didn't need to take bathroom breaks as well... I'm sure it'll all come out in the proverbial wash during the trials, but the viewing of the diapers can be looked at from many angles, fetish perhaps being one, but not necessarily a reason at all either. Very sad and tragic, but definitely a case that has many brain cogs turning with possibilities.

Cheers
The Catt :cat:
:canada:

I had thought there were also (reusable not sure) diapers found with a hospital stamp on them. Your other reasoning are totally plausible as well.

 

[Power of Two]

We have a case that's just started here in Ontario of a nurse who apparently admitted to a therapist that she had deliberately overdosed 8 of her patients in nursing homes with insulin and they had died. The therapist, who is mandated to report such things, notified LE and the nurse has now been charged with 8 counts of first degree murder. I can only imagine that the therapist is going to be an important witness in the trial.

I think the difference in this case is that DG's therapist was obviously oblivious to what he was up to, the illegal guns he owned and the rest of his strange "collection". IMO, he was likely seeing the psychiatrist regarding what appears to be mental issues that were detected way back when he was incarcerated. Even then, however, he had people fooled that he did not have a propensity for violence so it is not a stretch to believe that his psychiatrist had no clue as to the inner rage that he was really feeling. So in this case, I'd say no. Unless the psychiatrist has information that is favourable to DG and he is a witness for the defence, I do not think you will be hearing from him/her.

MOO

If I was DG'a shrink, I doubt I would be sleeping very well for the remainder of my days.

 

[Snoopster]

DG was buying a lot of "stuff" (and likely stealing some). Where did he get the money? How did he earn an income?

 

[Hatfield]

One thing I am glad about is the case seems to be moving along fast considering all the evidence to go over.

I do have a question if anyone knows about Canada legal procedures.

Is it similar in Canada where the prosecution goes through all their case first and then the defense will present their case to the jury after that?

I am real curious what kind of defense the defense will use. I get the feeling they are going to try and say the prosecution did not prove their client committed the murders and they may not bring on any witnesses.
The reason I am thinking that is because they do very little questioning of the witnesses. The defense tactic right now seems to not be grilling any of the witnesses. So I have to wonder if they are going to do like we have seen in some other cases where the defense doesnt call any witnesses and tries to say the prosecution did not prove he did the murders.

It will be interesting what approach they take. The problem with the approach I am thinking they may take is they had better give a good alternative of who killed them if they dont plan to call many witnesses of their own.

Or maybe they are looking for a plea deal near the end.
Is it too late for a plea deal?

 

[olivebpa1]

I'm wondering if there is any physical evidence they were alive at the farm. I know there is more evidence to come so it's possible. I'm just thinking out loud. We know he planned to torture them but will there be evidence things went as planned? Is the dna on the meat hook evidence of torture?

 

[nettie_82]

One thing I am glad about is the case seems to be moving along fast considering all the evidence to go over.

I do have a question if anyone knows about Canada legal procedures.

Is it similar in Canada where the prosecution goes through all their case first and then the defense will present their case to the jury after that?

I am real curious what kind of defense the defense will use. I get the feeling they are going to try and say the prosecution did not prove their client committed the murders and they may not bring on any witnesses.
The reason I am thinking that is because they do very little questioning of the witnesses. The defense tactic right now seems to not be grilling any of the witnesses. So I have to wonder if they are going to do like we have seen in some other cases where the defense doesnt call any witnesses and tries to say the prosecution did not prove he did the murders.

It will be interesting what approach they take. The problem with the approach I am thinking they may take is they had better give a good alternative of who killed them if they dont plan to call many witnesses of their own.

Or maybe they are looking for a plea deal near the end.
Is it too late for a plea deal?

The answer is yes, the prosecution presents it's case first and the defence presents theirs last in Canada. Is it too late deal? I'm not sure on that, but I do know the prosecution has to disclose all evidence to the defence prior to trial, so I would hope that they wouldn't drag the family through a trial process and at the end look for a plea deal.

 

[otto]

If I was DG'a shrink, I doubt I would be sleeping very well for the remainder of my days.

At the very least, his or her patients should be interviewed by another psychiatrist for an independent assessment. I'm wondering whether the psychiatrist viewed appointments with Garland as a formality where there was no expectation to do anything more than have a 'little visit'. If anyone was in a position to predict that Garland was planning murder, it was the psychiatrist, and that person completely dropped the ball.