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

[PrincessButtercup]

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!

It was weak and desperate. I was shocked that it ended where it did.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

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

Thank you! I missed the fact that he had a BSc.

"She said that after getting a bachelor of sciences at a Lutheran university, Garland was accepted to medical school at the University of Alberta.

“He attended for a few months,” she said, “and then he seemed to have some kind of a breakdown,” and dropped out."

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...of-accused-killer-douglas-garland-tells-trial

I take issue with the ME statement that there was 'not enough blood' for her to conclude that the victims were deceased at the house because she is unable to quantify her statement. A scientific analysis should be based on facts, yet the ME statement is based on a vague, unsubstantiated opinion that seems to be contradicted by both Jennifer and the blood spatter analyst.

The prosecutor has suggested that because blood smears are close to the floor, they must be from a child, however my understanding of the blood spatter analysis is that the victims were beaten to the floor, dragged along the floor, and severely injured near the floor. I'm at a loss to understand why the prosecutor would claim that bloody hand smears near the floor must be from a child. I felt that the prosecutor was desperate to argue that the victims were alive when they were removed from the property, but that he did not have a solid foundation for his argument.

In fact, the prosecutor has not presented evidence of who was attacked first. Kathryn and Nathan left minimal blood in the kitchen and near the front door, yet they were more severely injured in the upstairs bedroom. If Alvin was attacked first and they were able to get to the kitchen, why didn't they keep on going out of the side door? The prosecutor's claim does not follow the evidence.

 

[otto]

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?

I missed it. What did the prosecutor say that was a concern?

 

[Cherchri]

It was weak and desperate. I was shocked that it ended where it did.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Moi aussi! Damp squid. That said, I have faith in the jury and no doubt of a guilty verdict - 3 counts in less than 3 hours.

 

[thor124]

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.

I think that there's a rifle, a pistol, and a drill in the same hole with the gun that Mark Smitch buried. Just an opinion.

Edit:
What if what was left in that duffle were the things from his capture kit he felt he could safely keep? All wiped down with RNArase?

 

[Power of Two]

Have to give kudos for any defense lawyer for taking someone suspected of violent and gruesome murders as their client and meet and talk with them in close settings.

$--$-$

 

[Kamille]

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?

The closing arguments by the defence are not testimony or evidence. I don't think the jury should even be entertaining the idea that there may have been a second person involved based on a defence suggestion in a closing argument. And since the Defence chose not to put on a defence and enter this possibilty as evidence, based on perhaps some expert testimony of their own, that the Crown had a chance to cross, the Crown had no opportunity or obligation to do so.

I do think they might have touched on that in their own closing statement when they tried to predict what theories the defence might float?

MOO

 

[deugirtni]

Deugirtni - just wanted to say, that is one hell of a catch on the shoe size.

I don't believe the defense caught that at all, or they definitely would have thrown it out there for the jury to ponder.

Very astute observation.

One h3lluva catch indeed, but one which i cannot take credit for, it was in fact our newer member marmot who caught that, I believe.

 

[Tealgrove]

I missed it. What did the prosecutor say that was a concern?

Didn't say. I'm wondering if the mention of the aka Mathew Hartley was an issue.

We will know on Wednesday when the Judge either mentions something or not I guess.

 

[ABro]

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

There isn't one. As someone else pointed out cases like this show the adversarial system at its worst.

The best strategy would have been a plea but Garland might not have agreed, the Crown probably wouldn't take second degree and many lawyers won't plead to first degree on principle.

It will be interesting to hear if Ross wanted to introduce a third party suspect and wasn't allowed. The law requires evidence and an "air of reality" to do that. See Badgerow for a TPS defence.

 

[Halldor]

I missed it. What did the prosecutor say that was a concern?

i am confused too. I don't understand what "new evidence" there is being insinuated. Another person? The hard drive containing info the jury did not hear of? Please help

 

[ABro]

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

I'm not sure what you mean by legalistic. The law is supposed to make sense even if it doesn't always seem that way.

The jury will also be instructed that BARD is not absolute certainty.

 

[Kamille]

i am confused too. I don't understand what "new evidence" there is being insinuated. Another person? The hard drive containing info the jury did not hear of? Please help

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.

 

[Slebby]

The verdict can't come quickly enough for me. I held my breath through the Travis Vader proceedings, and feel like the end result was too little justice for the crime, IMO.

I've watched too many trials where I perceived it to be a "slam dunk" and then the verdict comes back not guilty. As certain as we all are that DG did it, and with the quality of case put forward by the Crown, which I think was great, I just can't breathe easy until I hear the verdict. I want him to pay. I wish I could see the look on his face when the "Guilty on three counts of first degree murder" verdict comes in, and I just pray that that's what's coming to him.

MOO imho


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ILoveDateline]

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?

They don't have to prove if there was or wasn't a second person involved. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that DG was responsible for their deaths. I'd have to to ask myself, if I doubt that, how reasonable am I?

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

 

[MistyWaters]

Re aerial photo. Lost the quote
Yes it was mentioned by the prosecutor as a possibility because the pixalization created uncertainty.

 

[nope]

Valerie Fortney ‏@ValFortney 1m1 minute ago
Ross: receptionist at his Monday regular appointment also didn't see any marks or injuries on #Garland morning of June 30, 2014.

So, that makes it sound like those injuries were incurred at the farm though... And that's when the victims fought back.

 

[Slebby]

So, that makes it sound like those injuries were incurred at the farm though... And that's when the victims fought back.

Exactly! I don't think this was any kind of help to DG.
MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[olivebpa1]

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

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Yes. He all but admitted that DG dismembered and burned the the bodies at the farm. He even said they were 2 different events. He wants not guilty of murder but is admitting he is guilty of something. There is enough circumstantial evidence to put him at the house and common sense says that the person who dismembered and burned the bodies is also the person who murdered them. With no evidence of another person the jury doesn't even need to consider that.

 

[otto]

Didn't say. I'm wondering if the mention of the aka Mathew Hartley was an issue.

We will know on Wednesday when the Judge either mentions something or not I guess.

Did the defence lawyer suggest that Matthew Hartley was responsible?