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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hatfield

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
17,014
Reaction score
59,055
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?

I agree it wasnt needed and was just saying the prosecution should not have tried to claim it was proven. It wasnt needed to be proven. Plenty of other evidence.
 

MistyWaters

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
10,127
Reaction score
52,421
Could you please post the link for that fact? I must have missed it. TIA

The white strips are different lengths, which proves photo distortion. It was possibily a photo that was tweeted of the photo on the screen in the courtroom.
 

Cherchri

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
925
Reaction score
73
Next time you have Friday afternoon drinks with the prosecutors, ask them about it.

Uncalled for! I have never had Friday afternoon drinks with prosecutors. Why do you insist on insulting people - you have absolutely no insights on how these people spend their time. Slander can be costly! Actually correction - if verbal it's slander - in writing it's libel.
 

subwaydreaming

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
27
Reaction score
14
So if DG's defence attorneys are not court appointed, does this mean DG/his family has to personally pay?

Any idea what this would cost?
 

matou

#los2188
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
20,151
Reaction score
2,508
Still waiting for the other agenda. To have drinks with the accused? :rolleyes:
 

Snoopster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
7,522
Reaction score
10,656
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'm not quite getting why you have this impression. I didn't get that sense at all.

The sense I got is that they put on a pretty good case (helped by some excellent work by CPS). They laid out the evidence, location-by-location and expert-by-expert. Unfortunately I thought they were just overreaching a bit as they wanted to have several fail-safes, in case the jury was troubled by the fact that they didn't have DNA evidence at the Liknes scene. I don't think they needed to that. They had enough without that. I also found the ME testimony less than convincing. It was if she was trying to please the Crown. Again, not necessary.

In spite of that I believe that they proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
 

MistyWaters

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
10,127
Reaction score
52,421
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.)

Nice summary, The shavings yes, but Garland senior did say DG was thorough.
 

olivebpa1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2016
Messages
474
Reaction score
474
So if DG's defence attorneys are not court appointed, does this mean DG/his family has to personally pay?

Any idea what this would cost?

I don't think we know if the DG is paying or using legal aid. That info is not revealed. Even private lawyers will accept legal aid I believe.
 

olivebpa1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2016
Messages
474
Reaction score
474
Nice summary, The shavings yes, but Garland senior did say DG was thorough.

I've been curious about the shavings. I actually think it is a non-issue and was only brought up by defense to boggle the jury's minds with facts that don't matter so they focus less on the facts that do matter. You know like the fact that his client murdered three people.

Anyways my husband is a Millwright and he said when they drill metal they have a magnet that they use to pick the shavings up.
 

Snoopster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
7,522
Reaction score
10,656
I've been curious about the shavings. I actually think it is a non-issue and was only brought up by defense to boggle the jury's minds with facts that don't matter so they focus less on the facts that do matter. You know like the fact that his client murdered three people.

Anyways my husband is a Millwright and he said when they drill metal they have a magnet that they use to pick the shavings up.

I agree that it was purely a distraction by the defense/defence (;)) as they had so little to work with. I was being my usual sarcastic self. :blushing:
But thanks for the interesting tidbit about the magnet. That solves that problem. I learn something new every day!
 

Hatfield

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
17,014
Reaction score
59,055
I've been curious about the shavings. I actually think it is a non-issue and was only brought up by defense to boggle the jury's minds with facts that don't matter so they focus less on the facts that do matter. You know like the fact that his client murdered three people.

Anyways my husband is a Millwright and he said when they drill metal they have a magnet that they use to pick the shavings up.

Jinx LOL One of us owes a coke.
See my post 511
 

otto

Verified Expert (numerous designations)
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
38,468
Reaction score
80,362
Uncalled for! I have never had Friday afternoon drinks with prosecutors. Why do you insist on insulting people - you have absolutely no insights on how these people spend their time. Slander can be costly! Actually correction - if verbal it's slander - in writing it's libel.

Don't take it personally. I was discussing the prosecutors, and I do know how they spend their time.
 

olivebpa1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2016
Messages
474
Reaction score
474
I agree that it was purely a distraction by the defense/defence (;)) as they had so little to work with. I was being my usual sarcastic self. :blushing:
But thanks for the interesting tidbit about the magnet. That solves that problem. I learn something new every day!

No I was totally the same way when I read about the metal shavings! It was the one thing defense said that made me stop and think! And then I was like "hey he got me" because there I am questioning my husband about metal shavings when it doesn't even matter!
 

Snoopster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
7,522
Reaction score
10,656
Don't take it personally. I was discussing the prosecutors, and I do know how they spend their time.

So you know them personally?
Is that why you've been so hard on them?
 

MistyWaters

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
10,127
Reaction score
52,421
No I was totally the same way when I read about the metal shavings! It was the one thing defense said that made me stop and think! And then I was like "hey he got me" because there I am questioning my husband about metal shavings when it doesn't even matter!

Exactly. Those tiny holes would hardly leave traces of metal dust if two holes were drilled directly into a flat surface.

But it was a rather witty means of making people think. It won't get past the jury, the majority are men.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Kamille

Shine bright like a diamond
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
16,708
Reaction score
5,788
No I was totally the same way when I read about the metal shavings! It was the one thing defense said that made me stop and think! And then I was like "hey he got me" because there I am questioning my husband about metal shavings when it doesn't even matter!

And now we know what DG was thinking and writing all along. "Hey...they didn't notice there were no shavings when I so carefully made sure to clean them up". "Hey...they never mentioned that they didn't find a drill". "Hey...those weren't "bodies" in the truck. Those people were alive! And that's a fact". "Hey...they didn't find that Walmart purchase because I got those shoes for Christmas in 2010. Good thing they didn't ask my Mom if she bought them for me".

I bet we could come up with a lot more. ;)

MOO
 

Cherchri

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
925
Reaction score
73
Truck.jpg

Here's a close up of the truck - I agree the white "thing" looks rigid and not necessarily a tarp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top