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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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

oh geez I never thought about the fact that their heads were probably in the picture just not attached. 😭
 
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.

I think the Crown did a good job to show that it is HIGHLY likely (i.e. above a reasonable doubt) that DG was driving around their neighbourhood the night they were killed. He parked his truck by their house. Their bodies disappeared from their house. He researched lock-picking/drilling. Their lock was drilled. (Where did those darn shavings go? :gaah:) He was seen driving back toward the farm. Their bodies were at the farm. It's difficult to imagine that he didn't kill them.

To me, the only question mark is whether the jury will go for first degree murder. The lock tampering seals it for me though. There's the evidence of planning as opposed to the "oh, he got arguing with them and ended up killing them in a rage" scenario. (Of course all of the research ahead of time the the purchasing of the tools to get rid of bodies, etc., etc., etc. are just extras that put it way over the top of reasonable doubt.)
 
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.

Exactly and thats just the type of thing that loses credibility with jurors. Jurors are not stupid (well sometimes they are....Casey Anthony trial. LOL) and the jury usually gets things right by concensus.

So I am pretty sure the jury will be having the exact same debate we have had that some will believe they survived the initial beatings and some may not. The bottom line is there is not 100 percent definitive proof they survived the beatings.
Likely? Maybe
Definiitive? Absolutely Not

So I think it was unwise to try to state it as fact and try to make the jury believe it was proven because it was not proven one way or the other IMO.
I think it was not necessary because of all the other evidence.

And then when they started to really go out on a limb claiming the bodies had diapers on that went a little too far based on the tweeted evidence we heard which did not prove that. It was something white that looked like diapers or could have been white underwear as most all underwear is white too.
 
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

I'd second that.
 
Exactly and thats just the type of thing that loses credibility with jurors. Jurors are not stupid (well sometimes they are....Casey Anthony trial. LOL) and the jury usually gets things right by concensus.

So I am pretty sure the jury will be having the exact same debate we have had that some will believe they survived the initial beatings and some may not. The bottom line is there is not 100 percent definitive proof they survived the beatings.
Likely? Maybe
Definiitive? Absolutely Not

So I think it was unwise to try to state it as fact and try to make the jury believe it was proven because it was not proven one way or the other IMO.
I think it was not necessary because of all the other evidence.

And then when they started to really go out on a limb claiming the bodies had diapers on that went a little too far based on the tweeted evidence we heard which did not prove that. It was something white that looked like diapers or could have been white underwear as most all underwear is white too.

Yup. I agree with all of your points, including otto's point about the prosecution going a bit over the top on certain items. It wasn't necessary.
 
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

I don't see Garland removing all heads first. I believe he dismembered each of the victims one at a time ... for no particular reason.
 
Seriously? You don't think that the crown proved that that was DG's truck in all of the CCTV video?

As the defence pointed out, the crown did not connect Garland with the truck in question at the crime scene.
 
Valerie Fortney ‏@ValFortney 39s40 seconds ago
Crown talking about #Garland's alias Matthew Hartley. No DNA at crime scene: "He is smart, he is methodical."

Bill GravelandVerified account ‏@BillGraveland 57s58 seconds ago
"There is no evidence the loner Doug #Garland was in contact with anybody else," said Parker. Diapers were "the signature of Doug Garland."

Nancy HixtVerified account ‏@NancyHixt 1m1 minute ago
#Garland had an alias-Matthew Hartley- Parker points out to jury
I


Since the judge had previously told the jury to ignore the CPS officer's testimony re DG having MH's false identity, I think this may be one of the issues in contention that has to be worked out tomorrow. As we discussed before, charges were dropped against DG for this once he was arrested for murder, and that may be why the judge wouldn't allow it mentioned. I was a little surprised when Parker mentioned the alias. I don't it's a big deal in the grand scheme.
 
I


Since the judge had previously told the jury to ignore the CPS officer's testimony re DG having MH's false identity, I think this may be one of the issues in contention that has to be worked out tomorrow. As we discussed before, charges were dropped against DG for this once he was arrested for murder, and that may be why the judge wouldn't allow it mentioned. I was a little surprised when Parker mentioned the alias. I don't it's a big deal in the grand scheme.

The judge told the jury to ignore the fact that DG was arrested and charged for having the MH false identity, not to ignore the fact that he had it. The jury is not to know of any accused previous charges and/or convictions.

MOO
 
I


Since the judge had previously told the jury to ignore the CPS officer's testimony re DG having MH's false identity, I think this may be one of the issues in contention that has to be worked out tomorrow. As we discussed before, charges were dropped against DG for this once he was arrested for murder, and that may be why the judge wouldn't allow it mentioned. I was a little surprised when Parker mentioned the alias. I don't it's a big deal in the grand scheme.
Not true, the judge only told the jury to disregard the fact that charges were laid in relation to the stolen identity because they were stayed.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
 
Exactly and thats just the type of thing that loses credibility with jurors. Jurors are not stupid (well sometimes they are....Casey Anthony trial. LOL) and the jury usually gets things right by concensus.

So I am pretty sure the jury will be having the exact same debate we have had that some will believe they survived the initial beatings and some may not. The bottom line is there is not 100 percent definitive proof they survived the beatings.
Likely? Maybe
Definiitive? Absolutely Not

So I think it was unwise to try to state it as fact and try to make the jury believe it was proven because it was not proven one way or the other IMO.
I think it was not necessary because of all the other evidence.

And then when they started to really go out on a limb claiming the bodies had diapers on that went a little too far based on the tweeted evidence we heard which did not prove that. It was something white that looked like diapers or could have been white underwear as most all underwear is white too.

Right out of the gates I questioned the credibility of the prosecution. It's almost like the prosecutors have watched too much TV. I really felt that they had some other odd agenda beyond a conviction.

I'm pretty sure that the prosecutors like to sit around and have Friday afternoon drinks while joking about the guy who got the ice pick in the ear, but it almost seems like this bizarre view of the world has entered the courtroom.
 
As the defence pointed out, the crown did not connect Garland with the truck in question at the crime scene.

Well it's completely unreasonable to assume that someone else was driving the truck when his own family testified that he was the one who drove the truck. there is also no evidence whatsoever that anyone else was involved. I really don't see how anyone good question the Crown's case when you look at the evidence as a whole. when you start having to explain away every piece of evidence you are guilty. Sure maybe one thing was a coincidence but unless DG was the unluckiest human being in the world he did it.
 
Kim Ross asked why nothing on the mats in DG's truck: Pay attention Kim - according to his mother: Doreen #garland noticed "there were a couple of tires leaning up against the garage door & there seemed to be a couple of floor mats there.".

Douglas Garland Triple Murder Trial | Page 10
embed.scribblelive.com/Embed/v7.aspx?Id=2462247&Page=9&overlay=false
 
I


Since the judge had previously told the jury to ignore the CPS officer's testimony re DG having MH's false identity, I think this may be one of the issues in contention that has to be worked out tomorrow. As we discussed before, charges were dropped against DG for this once he was arrested for murder, and that may be why the judge wouldn't allow it mentioned. I was a little surprised when Parker mentioned the alias. I don't it's a big deal in the grand scheme.

Good guess.

I think maybe one of the issues was claiming DG had schooling. I dont recall any evidence brought up in trial about his verified schooling. Not sure. Just dont recall.
 
Right out of the gates I questioned the credibility of the prosecution. It's almost like the prosecutors have watched too much TV. I really felt that they had some other odd agenda beyond a conviction.

I'm pretty sure that the prosecutors like to sit around and have Friday afternoon drinks while joking about the guy who got the ice pick in the ear, but it almost seems like this bizarre view of the world has entered the courtroom.

I find this offensive.
 
What would be this "other agenda" I wonder?
 
I finally managed to read most of today's updates.
Thanks Jadesleuth for the wonderful job with the tweets.

Below is JMO and some of the things that struck me as I read through todays happenings.

- Possible the bodies were decapitated in the overhead photo

-Contents of kill bag had two gun clips with bullets already loaded in the small clip. Could be that bullets were in the large clip too but cannot make it out.

-Crown alleges DG was heading back to farm to destroy evidence but no support information what evidence he was going back for?
What if he wanted a home cooked meal?

-An observation IMO
DG would have had to gone up to the side door on his recon mission in order to be sure what kind of lock they had on the door. He had to have gotten real close to know what lock.

Which tells me he had to have walked right up to the door and either took photos or took notes after seeing it.

Which is very gutsy. Wonder when he did that and wonder what time of day he did that recon mission.

-JO luckily left the house with the other child. She barely got out in time.
Roughly 5 hours after she left DG was there parking his truck.

-On July 1st, 5:38:19 he accessed the gore folder again. By this time he already had possession of them at the farm dead or alive and had not yet burned them.

IMO he was obsessed with gore. No other reason to look at gore folder again
here other than to try to recreate one of the gore pictures he had seen and was checking to see if he did it right or was doing it right.

-IMO still not conclusive one way or other whether they were alive or dead when leaving the house.
Its obvious the Crown thinks they were but even they dont know for sure and even said conflicting things about it. From tweets:

Parker:
"Crown says only if Nathan was killed in first attack- which isn't conclusive- could they find it anything less than 1st degree"

-Thought this was a good point made by defense about the figure seen near house. Not that it matters too much but a good point.
Ross says this does not prove to you that this figure goes into the LIknes home
 
There was no different shoe size. It was an optical illusion caused by the angle of the photograph. There was nothing to catch.
Could you please post the link for that fact? I must have missed it. TIA
 
Exactly and thats just the type of thing that loses credibility with jurors. Jurors are not stupid (well sometimes they are....Casey Anthony trial. LOL) and the jury usually gets things right by concensus.

So I am pretty sure the jury will be having the exact same debate we have had that some will believe they survived the initial beatings and some may not. The bottom line is there is not 100 percent definitive proof they survived the beatings.
Likely? Maybe
Definiitive? Absolutely Not

So I think it was unwise to try to state it as fact and try to make the jury believe it was proven because it was not proven one way or the other IMO.
I think it was not necessary because of all the other evidence.

And then when they started to really go out on a limb claiming the bodies had diapers on that went a little too far based on the tweeted evidence we heard which did not prove that. It was something white that looked like diapers or could have been white underwear as most all underwear is white too.

100% definitive proof is not required.

The prosecutions closing tied a lot of the evidence together is a very clear and convincing manner. The handprint was the proof the victims were to be transported alive. It represented "height and movement". Did you have an opportunity to follow the tweets?
 
One other thing that was brought up yesterday was about that closer photo of his truck from the angle we have not seen before.

I zoomed way in and if you look real closely with large zoom there appears to be "something" hanging outside the end of the white covering. If its what I think it is then very sad.

Also the more I look at that white covering I dont think it is a tarp at all. I think it is a hard white object that almost looks like sheet metal. I think it may have been some truck ramps or something.

Sorry I dont have the link handy. Its at the tail end of yesterdays thread I believe is where it was discussed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
65
Guests online
2,481
Total visitors
2,546

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,931
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top