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

[MistyWaters]

It IS like an onion. As each person involved saw their piece of the puzzle they are presenting it and whether it was taken to someone else for further analysis.

I agree. Also I'm not a big fan of twitter as a means of communication for conversational type events but it's all we're going to get at this point in time. We should also consider that the arguments while the jury isn't present cannot be shared, so what the judge has allowed to be presented and what not is unknown.

I also wonder if the media has been cautioned to limit its typical coverage that is often far more colourful and opinionated, so as not to risk a mistrial considering the jury is not sequestered. After the verdict, I expect the course of events will all become much clearer.

But I have a question for those who are dissatisfied with the present performance of the Prosecution according to what has been shared by the media to date......do you think the trial will result in a Not Guilty Verdict?

 

[matou]

I'm 100% there will be a guilty verdict for three counts of first degree murder, regardless of the order the evidence is presented in. The photographic circumstantial evidence in this case will be more than enough.

 

[Georgeo]

3 first degree findings for sure!!!!!!!!

 

[Georgeo]

When disclosure is known well before trial, and DG knows he is going down, why the spectacle of a trial? Seems to be drama for sake of drama.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

When disclosure is known well before trial, and DG knows he is going down, why the spectacle of a trial? Seems to be drama for sake of drama.

That's precisely it though.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[nettie_82]

When disclosure is known well before trial, and DG knows he is going down, why the spectacle of a trial? Seems to be drama for sake of drama.

I personally believe it is simply to put the family he held a grudge against for years through more torture. Seeing what he researched and items he purchased he wanted just that. Torture. This is just another way he can carry that out a little longer. He is a sick twisted individual. The positive in this is he will rot for the rest of his life with a guilty verdict (I don't believe either it will take jury long once sequestered to render a verdict). He is the one in the end who will suffer for years for what he did. After trial the family can hopefully find some sort of closure and try to move on with their lives.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[naz]

When disclosure is known well before trial, and DG knows he is going down, why the spectacle of a trial? Seems to be drama for sake of drama.

I think that the O'Briens need to know what happened and when , even though it is shattering for them to hear it..

 

[Slebby]

When disclosure is known well before trial, and DG knows he is going down, why the spectacle of a trial? Seems to be drama for sake of drama.

Because it is his right.
IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Kamille]

I agree. Also I'm not a big fan of twitter as a means of communication for conversational type events but it's all we're going to get at this point in time. We should also consider that the arguments while the jury isn't present cannot be shared, so what the judge has allowed to be presented and what not is unknown.

I also wonder if the media has been cautioned to limit its typical coverage that is often far more colourful and opinionated, so as not to risk a mistrial considering the jury is not sequestered. After the verdict, I expect the course of events will all become much clearer.

But I have a question for those who are dissatisfied with the present performance of the Prosecution according to what has been shared by the media to date......do you think the trial will result in a Not Guilty Verdict?

BBM

I do not believe that the media has, or could be told to limit it's coverage of the trial. Freedom of the press and all that. The jury should and likely is being told to refrain from looking at any media coverage of the trial. Or any online information. There could be daily instruction to the jury about that but if there is we're not hearing about it. The media is there representing the public's right to know about a public trial. For people who are interested in seeing justice served but who cannot attend the trial in person.

There are at least 8-10 reporters for various media outlets being paid to sit in that courtroom every day and report on what is happening. To tell a narrative to it's readers about how the trial is progressing and their observations of what is going on in the courtroom. They are the only people in the courtroom who are allowed to use communication devices to report in real time and they are given a set of strict guidelines about what they cannot report on, which are mostly things that take place outside the view of the jury, and the public understands that. And for every other Canadian "trial by twitter" that I and others have followed, that's exactly what they do. Some are better than others at getting the most info they can in their tweets but between them all, we usually get a pretty good idea of how things are going down in the courtroom. And then their nightly reports are much more detailed and you get a better idea of how things are going.

I'm not seeing that here and I'm not sure why. It's almost like the reporters are bored and disinterested in the information being presented and don't feel any of it is worthy enough to bother tweeting about. We're getting minimum tweets and a couple of paragraphs in online reports for hours worth of testimony and court time. I think one of our posters who was in the courtroom one day was able to clarify a lot of things that actually were happening on the day that they attended that 10 reporters were unable to do in their daily tweeting and reporting. And if that's the case, and the media is bored or confused with the way things are being presented in the courtroom, I sure hope the jury doesn't feel the same way.

For myself, I'm questioning how a lot of this evidence made it into the trial. How it relates to the murder charges. Perhaps because I didn't get a good enough narrative of the Crown's opening statement? In the Bosma case, I believe the Crown printed out and gave the media their entire statement. I guess I'm just seeing methodical presentation of evidence and non evidence with no narrative to figure out why the Crown feels it's important to present and in some cases why they were even permitted to present it.

With that said, however, I firmly believe that the Crown will pull it all together in the closing statement and that DG will be convicted of first degree murder on all three counts.

MOO

 

[olivebpa1]

When disclosure is known well before trial, and DG knows he is going down, why the spectacle of a trial? Seems to be drama for sake of drama.

Why wouldn't he go to trial though? Same with appeals. Why wouldn't he? He knows he is going to be locked up for the rest of his life and this pushes that back. He gets to leave jail 5 days a week. Sure its to court and he is still in a box, but its the only "freedom" this guy is going to see. A guy that can murder 3 people, 1 of them being a child isn't even going to consider anyone else's feelings regarding a trial.

 

[olivebpa1]

Because it is his right.
IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I love this answer. This is what makes our justice system great. Whatever his reasons are do not matter. He has the right to a fair trial and him exercising that right is not wrong.

Now i am NOT sympathizing with DG at all. I believe he is guilty and will be found guilty of all charges at the end of this trial. He is a monster and i hate him. He still has the right to a fair trial though.

 

[ABro]

When disclosure is known well before trial, and DG knows he is going down, why the spectacle of a trial? Seems to be drama for sake of drama.

Not necessarily. He's beaten the system before.

Look at this board, where there are posters still wringing their hands about whether or not the evidence is conclusive.

Although it's a commonly held opinion here that he loves this trial, the attention he's getting, and the pain he's inflicting on the family by not pleading guilty, that's just a theory. Alternatively, he could hate the attention and be counting on that one holdout juror or some legal technicality to get him another trial.

 

[ABro]

I think that the O'Briens need to know what happened and when , even though it is shattering for them to hear it..

They don't need a trial for that. An agreed statement of facts about what happened would have been part of a guilty plea. Think Russell Williams for a famous example.

 

[otto]

I agree. Also I'm not a big fan of twitter as a means of communication for conversational type events but it's all we're going to get at this point in time. We should also consider that the arguments while the jury isn't present cannot be shared, so what the judge has allowed to be presented and what not is unknown.

I also wonder if the media has been cautioned to limit its typical coverage that is often far more colourful and opinionated, so as not to risk a mistrial considering the jury is not sequestered. After the verdict, I expect the course of events will all become much clearer.

But I have a question for those who are dissatisfied with the present performance of the Prosecution according to what has been shared by the media to date......do you think the trial will result in a Not Guilty Verdict?

There will be a guilty verdict. If I was on the jury, I would have a hard time with first degree or second degree. The prosecution is neatly laying out a theory that Garland did not intend to murder anyone at the Liknes property, yet the evidence supports the theory that, because the plan went off the rails, 1-3 of the victims were accidentally murdered at the Liknes property. For me, that falls under second degree. If they were murdered at the Airdrie property, that falls under first degree.

 

[otto]

When disclosure is known well before trial, and DG knows he is going down, why the spectacle of a trial? Seems to be drama for sake of drama.

The trial is necessary to determine first or second degree murder, and whether the sentencing will be consecutive or concurrent. Although the law allows for consecutive sentencing, it is not a given.

 

[ABro]

There will be a guilty verdict. If I was on the jury, I would have a hard time with first degree or second degree. The prosecution is neatly laying out a theory that Garland did not intend to murder anyone at the Liknes property, yet the evidence supports the theory that, because the plan went off the rails, 1-3 of the victims were accidentally murdered at the Liknes property. For me, that falls under second degree. If they were murdered at the Airdrie property, that falls under first degree.

This is wrong.

If you plan to kill someone at location X, bungle it and kill them at location Y instead, you don't get second degree because you failed to kill them at the location you originally planned. The law is designed to be rational (even if it doesn't always seem that way.)

Not to mention that if you kidnap, forcibly confine or sexually assault someone (tying them up in a fetish diaper is sexual assault), and they die as a result, it's first degree whether you planned to kill them or not.

I will be shocked if this guy doesn't get three counts of first degree.

 

[swedie]

I haven't been following along on WS regarding this absolutely evil 's trial but did follow and post when this case broke back in July 2014. I have been reading a few reporters tweets from the courtroom and it does seem they are not providing a lot of information presented during trial. Perhaps we, those of us who followed the TB case and the reporters who tweeted during that trial got spoiled by those reporters with their thoroughness and their acknowledgement and concern of other victims, the Bosma family.

To the best of my recollection thus far in this 's trial, I don't recall reading any of these reporters tweeting whether or not the O'Briens are present each day in the courtroom and how they are fairing. It may seem trivial to some but IMHO it just goes to show the lack of information they could be providing. Perhaps this is because the O'Briens have requested to remain absent from their tweets and MSM? Reflecting back to the DM/MS trial and the reporters who tweeted from the courtroom, they acknowledged the Bosma family, the other victims in that case, and it was enlightening for the most part to know that those victims were coping, making the best of a horrific situation and present in the courtroom to see justice unfold for Tim.

IMO it should also be about the other victims in this case as far as the MSM goes and I just don't see that in this case. Very cut and dry.

I believe that justice will be served and this monster, the evil will rot in hell for what he did to A, K and precious, innocent, little
Nathan. He has a right to a fair trial but it appears to me that he is quite enjoying the proceeding as they play out in the courtroom, to see if LE got everything right during their investigation, plus he is getting his jollies reliving what he did to his victims. He is so demented and narcissistic and knows he guilty and instead of just pleading guilty, he is enjoying torturing the family all over again. I have no doubt this was not his first time murdering people. These types of monsters just don't start at 50 some years of age. The guy is obviously extremely wicked and warped with no conscience. My hope now is that he has a very difficult time being locked away for the rest of his pathetic life. ALL MOO.

My sincere heartfelt condolences to the other victims affected by this monster, as they have to endure such heartbreak all over again, sitting in that courtroom, listening and seeing all the evidence against this creep.

 

[otto]

This is wrong.

If you plan to kill someone at location X, bungle it and kill them at location Y instead, you don't get second degree because you failed to kill them at the location you originally planned. The law is designed to be rational (even if it doesn't always seem that way), and that makes zero sense.

Not t to mention that if you kidnap, forcibly confine or sexually assault someone (tying them up in a diaper is sexual assault), and they die as a result, it's first degree whether you planned to kill them or not.

Travis Vader was convicted of first degree murder because the victims were killed at the time of robbery, but that was overturned because the law was changed. He was then convicted of second degree murder.

Garland was kidnapping two people with the intention of doing something to them on the Airdrie property, but it looks likely that three people may have died during the kidnapping. That was not his plan. Wouldn't that would mean that their deaths were accidental?

Even though Garland planned to murder them on his property, if they arrived at the Airdrie property alive and well, there was the possibility that they escaped, Garland's parents discovered the victims, or that Garland changed his mind.

 

[swedie]

There will be a guilty verdict. If I was on the jury, I would have a hard time with first degree or second degree. The prosecution is neatly laying out a theory that Garland did not intend to murder anyone at the Liknes property, yet the evidence supports the theory that, because the plan went off the rails, 1-3 of the victims were accidentally murdered at the Liknes property. For me, that falls under second degree. If they were murdered at the Airdrie property, that falls under first degree.

Would one even really go that far as to analyze based on what you posted, whether it was murder in the first or second degree? The planned that the end results were that he was going to murder at least two people. First degree is planning and premeditation period. Regardless of where the Crown theorizes he was going to murder his victims because he planned and premediated it's first degree. HTH. MOO.

 

[naz]

I agree but is there is maybe a possibility that DG did not agree with all of the charges? Would that have made a difference in his not pleading guilty?
The crown has an irrefutable case, he is getting life in prison .. He killed them but had/has regrets ?.. He (DG) was driven to insanity by the injustice he suffered and still suffer... and is mentally ill with all the consequences of being insane.. ?


I don't know what someone as insane as DG think or feel or(should) breathe for that matter.. I'm surprise that he did not plead guilty by reason of insanity,and Is that still a possibility? I'm not too familiar with the court system.














If there is one trait that a constant about DG is his obsee