Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #24

[kams]

Totally agree about today - just wish we'd get some good solid evidence explained. I am sure she couldn't tell about the bones, but why call her as a witness then? Or maybe just have her give us the info about whose blood was found at the Liknes home.

 

[kams]

I totally agree Otto. I was not impressed with her lack of insight/conclusions.

 

[deugirtni]

Thanks for the welcome i will elaborate as asked in the very center of the shoe where the laces meet at the bottom each of the 3 shoes has a different color pattern

Thanks Kfox. I think you are right in believing all 3 pairs are different. jmo

Posting these again, trying to enlarge them.

 

[deugirtni]

One thing I've wondered, what if DG had committed the murders and simply left the bodies behind at the L home, would he have been caught? All the police would have had was a sighting of his truck in the area, hardly against the law, maybe not even grounds for granting a search warrant for his home. Would he have been more likely to get away with it?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Interesting to wonder... if there was no DNA from DG left at the L residence.. if there was no victim DNA discovered on his vehicle.. and none at his residence.. no burn pit, etc. There would still be the tools used, and the method of death would be known. If they got a search warrant for his property, would their DNA have been found on anything? (It seems that if the Crown is correct in stating it was found on a saw blade and meat hooks, but seems like those things were part of the aftermath). If the murder weapon was the dumbbell, and it was left at the scene with no evidence other than victim blood.. ? That CCTV recording would still come into play, and would have still been linked to DG.. and considering his background with AL, wouldn't that be enough for a search warrant? And then if LE found all of these chemicals and diapers and reading materials and tools.... wouldn't this trial still be happening, but different?

 

[Tealgrove]

By the way this trial is going, I get the feeling that the Crown thinks it's a slam dunk and the defence is on the same page. When the pictures of the bodies were discovered and then the hard drive revealed all, they knew they had him. It's not like they needed a whole lot more and that's what the testimony presented has felt like to me.

I would have expected a stronger and much more aggressive defence. I find it interesting that at one point yesterday I think, it appears that DG is directing his defence by telling them to ask questions or not. Did anyone else catch that? My guess is that he's a difficult client to say the least. I'm surprised Kim Ross took this case. It's not like he can really help him.

I'm not sure but I just don't think the tweets are conveying the reality of what is going on in the courtroom.

During the Bosma trial, I felt the tension and the emotion in the courtroom. I got a sense of the defendants. We knew that they didn't want to have anything to do with each other and that came through tweets.

In the end, it's not about what I think about the case or the reporting or what certain witnesses are asked or not asked. DG needs to go away forever and the families, his included, need the somehow find a way to move forward as best they can. This isn't about me complaining about tweets. Once i put it in perspective I realize how petty my whining sounds.

MOO

 

[Hatfield]

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 33s33 seconds ago
B-L confirms that when she first attended the Liknes home she couldn't confirm for sure if it was blood- DNA testing since proved. #Garland

This is an example of a witness giving a 3rd party reference. We have seen this multiple times now from other Prosecution witnesses.

In this example the witness is saying they could not confirm if the stains were even blood or not and then adds a 3rd party reference that "DNA testing since proved".

Wouldnt this be "hearsay" unless they had a report in front of them that could be referenced and submitted as evidence?

I wonder why the defense has not jumped all over this type of testimony. Unless the news tweets are leaving out something we are missing like a DNA report is being shown to the jury or something.

They have done this multiple times now and I am really surprised at this. If they are going to continue to reference DNA testing then they really need to bring it on. Or at least let the witnesses have the report in front of them they can reference and show the jury.

 

[Coldpizza]

Forensic dentist to testify in Douglas Garland triple-murder trial Thursday
By Nancy Hixt

Court has heard several teeth were found in the forensic examination of the Liknes home. The prosecution has also pointed out a small tooth was recovered from the burn barrel at the Garland property.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3218480/f...nd-triple-murder-trial-thursday/?sf54073915=1

 

[Blue Amethyst]

https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=92906276 I am not sure if I did this right but this shows the headstone for Matthew Hartley.

 

[Blue Amethyst]

I didn't know that he died the day after his sister. DG has used his name longer than Matthew did.

 

[Georgeo]

Wow. Enough complaints about medical examiner, and rightfully so. This case n dis country nclusive evidence and soon!

 

[olivebpa1]

Thanks...I just found that in the online CBC news...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...knes-nathan-obrien-medical-examiner-1.3961535

Interesting that it was the defence who got that information out of her. :waitasec:

MOO

That is interesting that it came out in the cross. It doesn't help DG at all. I honestly don't understand how questioning a witness works. Even during the bosma trial I remember thinking that better evidence was revealed during cross-examine and wondering why the crown couldn't ask those same questions.

 

[olivebpa1]

By the way this trial is going, I get the feeling that the Crown thinks it's a slam dunk and the defence is on the same page. When the pictures of the bodies were discovered and then the hard drive revealed all, they knew they had him. It's not like they needed a whole lot more and that's what the testimony presented has felt like to me.

I would have expected a stronger and much more aggressive defence. I find it interesting that at one point yesterday I think, it appears that DG is directing his defence by telling them to ask questions or not. Did anyone else catch that? My guess is that he's a difficult client to say the least. I'm surprised Kim Ross took this case. It's not like he can really help him.

I'm not sure but I just don't think the tweets are conveying the reality of what is going on in the courtroom.

During the Bosma trial, I felt the tension and the emotion in the courtroom. I got a sense of the defendants. We knew that they didn't want to have anything to do with each other and that came through tweets.

In the end, it's not about what I think about the case or the reporting or what certain witnesses are asked or not asked. DG needs to go away forever and the families, his included, need the somehow find a way to move forward as best they can. This isn't about me complaining about tweets. Once i put it in perspective I realize how petty my whining sounds.

MOO

I can totally see DG being a difficult client. It sounds like he is handing notes to his lawyer before every cross. It's not like anything new is being revealed so I'm sure the lawyer is ready for cross exams without those notes from DG.

I agree that the bosma trial tweets conveyed a lot more passion and emotion. The crown and the lawyers seemed so much more passionate about the case. The reporters we're also so invested and it came out through their tweets.

 

[otto]

I think she was saying she can't state conclusively that they bled out in the house.
I suspect that, if she could be candid about her opinion, which she can't, she'd say one way or the other whether she thinks they were dead at the house. I would guess yes, they were dead at the house.

IMO

Edit to add: but I'm prepared to hear why the crown stated in opening that they were killed at the farm. From what I have hear thus far, between likely head injuries and amount of blood, I can't see how the victims made it to the farm alive, MOO.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

True. She can't say that they bled out, or died, in the house. She also can't say that at they were alive at Airdrie. Where I see a problem is that because the ME is unable to deduce that they died at the house, some news reports take this to mean that they must have been alive at Airdrie, and that is simply not a logical conclusion. It seems that the prosecutor is relying on the same illogical leap.

What is also true is that the ME cannot say that the victims were alive at Airdrie. With the same logic, that means they died at the house.

My sense of the prosecutor in this case is that 'drama' is a factor. Although there may be evidence of blood at the Airdrie property, we know that they were dismembered there. Blood alone does not mean that they were alive. The prosecutor's claim that they were alive at the Airdrie property has to rest on more than the ME position that they the may have died 'here' or 'there'.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Interesting to wonder... if there was no DNA from DG left at the L residence.. if there was no victim DNA discovered on his vehicle.. and none at his residence.. no burn pit, etc. There would still be the tools used, and the method of death would be known. If they got a search warrant for his property, would their DNA have been found on anything? (It seems that if the Crown is correct in stating it was found on a saw blade and meat hooks, but seems like those things were part of the aftermath). If the murder weapon was the dumbbell, and it was left at the scene with no evidence other than victim blood.. ? That CCTV recording would still come into play, and would have still been linked to DG.. and considering his background with AL, wouldn't that be enough for a search warrant? And then if LE found all of these chemicals and diapers and reading materials and tools.... wouldn't this trial still be happening, but different?

Aerial photos though....

 

[otto]

One thing I've wondered, what if DG had committed the murders and simply left the bodies behind at the L home, would he have been caught? All the police would have had was a sighting of his truck in the area, hardly against the law, maybe not even grounds for granting a search warrant for his home. Would he have been more likely to get away with it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We've heard that Garland is a meticulous planner. Even if the victims died at their home, I think he had a compulsion to take them to his property simply because his fantasies required them to be at the Airdrie acreage.

If he had left them to die in their home, or if they were already deceased, I think a conviction would have been much more difficult. Having a grudge is not evidence of murder.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=92906276 I am not sure if I did this right but this shows the headstone for Matthew Hartley.

Rest in peace Matthew. I'm so sorry your name is dragged into this. May the Hartley parents somehow have peace and let this be the end of the post-death abuse of their child's name.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

We've heard that Garland is a meticulous planner. Even if the victims died at their home, I think he had a compulsion to take them to his property simply because his fantasies required them to be at the Airdrie acreage.

If he had left them to die in their home, or if they were already deceased, I think a conviction would have been much more difficult. Having a grudge is not evidence of murder.

Amazing how such a meticulous planner made so many dumb mistakes. Thank goodness though!

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[matou]

The prosecution should have open the case with the aerial photos and gone from there. This trial is getting slow and sloppy IMO.

 

[otto]

Amazing how such a meticulous planner made so many dumb mistakes. Thank goodness though!

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Quite true. I thought it was funny that the books on murder recommended leaving some evidence in plain sight. Douglas did exactly that with his brand new duffel bag. It was bad advice. Police departments should publish books about how to get away with murder, making recommendations that give them an advantage.

Even though he was a meticulous planner, he is also an obsessive man. When everything went sideways at the beginning (Alvin and Kathryn in separate bedrooms, Nathan at the home), his plan went out the window, but it seems that he continued to try to put the plan back on track. That was his downfall.

 

[Leader6518]

I don't think there were meters of blood. Blood smears. In a picture it might look like a lot of blood, but may just be smears. I believe that is what the ME was saying (tweets are not that great). If someone was bleeding from a cut or torn flesh (depending on whether it is a head injury) it could look like a lot of blood when it is a tablespoon of blood smeared across a surface. If there had been pools of blood, the ME would have stated as much and could tell if it was fatal. With three individuals, it would be harder unless pools of blood were discovered. She used a scientific term of bloodletting. That means someone bled. When I hear bloodletting, I think of someone draining blood, but technically, bloodletting could be a paper cut. The ME is just testifying to her experience. Others will have to testify to theirs.