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

[otto]

Would you 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.

While it's true that Garland had a plan, that plan very likely did not happen. What happened instead is that the two intended victims were in different rooms and there was a third, unexpected person. At that moment, the plan was gone. During the kidnapping, it's very likely that the unintended result was that the victims were killed.

I believe that the prosecution earnestly wants the jury to believe that the plan was put into effect, that the victims were alive and well when they arrived at the Airdrie property, and that Garland's plan resulted in their gruesome, torturous murders. I'm not convinced that any of the three were not mortally injured when they left the Liknes property. Is it first degree murder if someone dies during a kidnapping?

 

[otto]

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

I don't think he's insane. I think he feigned mental illness because he was flunking out of the science program at the University of Alberta. At the same time that he quit school, he stole the identity of a deceased teenager. He was scheming at that time, not mentally ill. I think he feigns mental illness to avoid consequences for his actions.

I think he has always had a chip on his shoulder, and that he felt bullied by Alvin. I don't think that Alvin was the first person to take advantage of Douglas, but I think that Douglas was at a point in his life where he decided to retaliate. I suspect that if Allen wasn't living with his sister, he would have retaliated against Allen as well.

 

[Slebby]

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.

Correction: Travis Vader was not convicted of 1st degree, but rather 2nd degree which was then changed to manslaughter.

IMO, DG's premeditated murder plot of 2 people in which they did in fact end up dead is 1st degree. If I plan to murder you by shooting you, my guns jams, and I end up bludgeoning you to death with my gun, the premeditation and intent don't go out the window, and I don't get a fresh start, to say "hey! It just occurred to me to bludgeon you to death, therefore, manslaughter!"

The only slight question mark in my mind is whether DG will get 1st or 2nd degree for killing NO.
IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ABro]

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.

Armed robbery was removed from that particular law NOT forcible confinement, nor kidnapping, nor sexual assault. ONLY armed robbery. Look it up. It's first degree if someone dies in the process of kidnapping, forcible confinement or sexual assault.

First degree, as a result of planning and premeditation, is intent to kill not intent to kill at a specific location at a specific time using a specific method. Just intent to kill.

 

[MistyWaters]

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.

The only similarity to the Vader case is murder and that no bodies were discovered. The Prosecution alleged that Vader happened upon the McCanns at a rest stop and robbed them because he was in need of a meth fix. At some unknown point during the course of the robbery, the McCanns were murdered.

In the Garland case, the Prosecution has carefully establish that neither kidnapping nor robbery was the reason Garland allegedly entered the Likness residence during the middle of the night. It was asked of several witnesses if a random note was found. The answer was no. Other witnesses indicated cash was discovered untouched. Yet others introduced evidence indicating stalking of Alvin and Kathy, along with documents relating to torture, killing, dissecting and hiding of evidence including DNA. In the dozens of documents, how to kidnap or how to rob appears not to have been research

Two different trials. It is clear by evidence introduced to date that Garland did not set out to merely rob or kidnap the Liknesses. His degree of preparation all points to the premeditation of murder.

This case has no connection to the Judicial error in the Vader case that relates to death during the commission of a robbery.

 

[ABro]

While it's true that Garland had a plan, that plan very likely did not happen. What happened instead is that the two intended victims were in different rooms and there was a third, unexpected person. At that moment, the plan was gone. During the kidnapping, it's very likely that the unintended result was that the victims were killed.

I believe that the prosecution earnestly wants the jury to believe that the plan was put into effect, that the victims were alive and well when they arrived at the Airdrie property, and that Garland's plan resulted in their gruesome, torturous murders. I'm not convinced that any of the three were not mortally injured when they left the Liknes property. Is it first degree murder if someone dies during a kidnapping?

<modsnip>

Anyone can make stuff up and proclaim it as fact. But you know who hasn't done this so far? The prosecutors. They are laying out their case, as outlined in the opening statement, piece by piece.

 

[MistyWaters]

While it's true that Garland had a plan, that plan very likely did not happen. What happened instead is that the two intended victims were in different rooms and there was a third, unexpected person. At that moment, the plan was gone. During the kidnapping, it's very likely that the unintended result was that the victims were killed.

I believe that the prosecution earnestly wants the jury to believe that the plan was put into effect, that the victims were alive and well when they arrived at the Airdrie property, and that Garland's plan resulted in their gruesome, torturous murders. I'm not convinced that any of the three were not mortally injured when they left the Liknes property. Is it first degree murder if someone dies during a kidnapping?

Given the evidence presented by the Prosecution to date, it appears to me they are gradually building a strong case towards Garland had a plan (ie INTENDED) to murder Alvin and Kathy Likness.

Intention to murder = Premeditation = 1st degree murder

It's not required that the Prosecution prove details such as where, why, when or how the murder took place in order to convict, or for that matter what part of Garlands plan was executed and what was not. If that level of proof was required, a murder conviction would be impossible without a video of it actually taking place. The jury only need be satisfied Garland committed murder with premeditation.

The Prosecution already introduced evidence to support their theory that the three were removed alive from the home because the ME was not able to confirm there was enough evidence at the house to prove death of the three immediately took place. It is what it is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[naz]

I don't think he's insane. I think he feigned mental illness because he was flunking out of the science program at the University of Alberta. At the same time that he quit school, he stole the identity of a deceased teenager. He was scheming at that time, not mentally ill. I think he feigns mental illness to avoid consequences for his actions.

I think he has always had a chip on his shoulder, and that he felt bullied by Alvin. I don't think that Alvin was the first person to take advantage of Douglas, but I think that Douglas was at a point in his life where he decided to retaliate. I suspect that if Allen wasn't living with his sister, he would have retaliated against Allen as well.

I see him as insane.. If he had shot Alvin outside his house because of his resentment, and hatred, all of the above could still apply, but the depravity to which he descended to, his hard drive contents, makes him a mean, perverted crazy loon. Don't get me wrong though, I want him to rot in jail.. I'm just surprise his lawyer may not be trying harder to get DG to plead that way. Therefore the question , can the insanity plea come later?

 

[MistyWaters]

I don't think he's insane. I think he feigned mental illness because he was flunking out of the science program at the University of Alberta. At the same time that he quit school, he stole the identity of a deceased teenager. He was scheming at that time, not mentally ill. I think he feigns mental illness to avoid consequences for his actions.

I think he has always had a chip on his shoulder, and that he felt bullied by Alvin. I don't think that Alvin was the first person to take advantage of Douglas, but I think that Douglas was at a point in his life where he decided to retaliate. I suspect that if Allen wasn't living with his sister, he would have retaliated against Allen as well.

In your first paragraph you describe someone who's deeply deceptive, far beyond the realm of what most people would ever be capable of and someone who manipulates a situation in order to present himself in a favourable or sympathetic light.

That happens to fit a couple key of traits of a psychopath - no conscience whatsoever.

Therefore I don't think for a moment that Garland was truly wronged by Alvin. Anyone who can drool over internet searches night after night involving torture and murder and then pull it off as well as involving a young innocent child... All that more than aptly fits the definition of a psychopath if my opinion mattered.

But I'm curious, are you insinuating that Alvin was responsible for the actions of Garland?











Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[swedie]

Bottom line is the SOB planned and premeditate at least two murders. He's going away for life. He is an evil and demented SOB and I hope he meets karma while incarcerated...on a regular basis. MOO.

Classification of murder

231 (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.

Marginal notelanned and deliberate murder

(2) Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.

Hijacking, sexual assault or kidnapping

(5) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:

(a) section 76 (hijacking an aircraft);

(b) section 271 (sexual assault);

(c) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm);

(d) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault);

(e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement); or

(f) section 279.1 (hostage taking).

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-231.html

 

[otto]

Correction: Travis Vader was not convicted of 1st degree, but rather 2nd degree which was then changed to manslaughter.

IMO, DG's premeditated murder plot of 2 people in which they did in fact end up dead is 1st degree. If I plan to murder you by shooting you, my guns jams, and I end up bludgeoning you to death with my gun, the premeditation and intent don't go out the window, and I don't get a fresh start, to say "hey! It just occurred to me to bludgeon you to death, therefore, manslaughter!"

The only slight question mark in my mind is whether DG will get 1st or 2nd degree for killing NO.
IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is not a jammed gun. This was a kidnapping at one location, planned torture and murder at another location. I don't believe the second part occurred, and that the victims were accidentally mortally wounded during the kidnapping. Although the Medical Examiner may be unable to state in court that the victims were in medical distress at the Liknes home, police were able to make that statement in early July 2014 - presumably based on information from the ME.

 

[otto]

You claim to know a lot of things that no one knows.

Anyone can make stuff up and proclaim it as fact. But you know who hasn't done this so far? The prosecutors. They are laying out their case, as outlined in the opening statement, piece by piece.

According to the prosecutor, did Garland have a plan?
Were the victims in different bedrooms and was Kathryn in the bed that Jennifer was in earlier in the evening?
Isn't it true that the third victim changed the plan significantly?
Why is the prosecution presenting hard drive files if that information is not related to the murder?
Why does the prosecution claim that the victims were alive when they arrived at Airdrie when previous reports state that the victims were in medical distress?

 

[otto]

Given the evidence presented by the Prosecution to date, it appears to me they are gradually building a strong case towards Garland had a plan (ie INTENDED) to murder Alvin and Kathy Likness.

Intention to murder = Premeditation = 1st degree murder

It's not required that the Prosecution prove details such as where, why, when or how the murder took place in order to convict, or for that matter what part of Garlands plan was executed and what was not. If that level of proof was required, a murder conviction would be impossible without a video of it actually taking place. The jury only need be satisfied Garland committed murder with premeditation.

The Prosecution already introduced evidence to support their theory that the three were removed alive from the home because the ME was not able to confirm there was enough evidence at the house to prove death of the three immediately took place. It is what it is.

What is the evidence that the victims were alive when they arrived at Airdrie? The ME has said that maybe they were alive, maybe they weren't alive.

 

[nettie_82]

Bottom line is the SOB planned and premeditate at least two murders. He's going away for life. He is an evil and demented SOB and I hope he meets karma while incarcerated...on a regular basis. MOO.

Classification of murder

231 (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.

Marginal notelanned and deliberate murder

(2) Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.

Hijacking, sexual assault or kidnapping

(5) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:

(a) section 76 (hijacking an aircraft);

(b) section 271 (sexual assault);

(c) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm);

(d) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault);

(e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement); or

(f) section 279.1 (hostage taking).

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-231.html

Could the forcible confinement part pertain to NO? Regardless of where he was killed, DG didn't allow NO to leave, didn't leave him at the house and only take KL and AL.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ABro]

What is the evidence that the victims were alive when they arrived at Airdrie? The ME has said that maybe they were alive, maybe they weren't alive.

Has it ever occurred to you that the time to ask this question is when the prosecution closes its case?

 

[otto]

Has it ever occurred to you that the time to ask this question is when the prosecution closes its case?

I was responding to a comment stating that the prosecution has proven that the victims were alive, so no, I wouldn't wait until the verdict to respond to that comment.

 

[ABro]

According to the prosecutor, did Garland have a plan?
Were the victims in different bedrooms and was Kathryn in the bed that Jennifer was in earlier in the evening?
Isn't it true that the third victim changed the plan significantly?
Why is the prosecution presenting hard drive files if that information is not related to the murder?
Why does the prosecution claim that the victims were alive when they arrived at Airdrie when previous reports state that the victims were in medical distress?

My purpose in responding to your posts was to set the record straight and correct misinformation not to get into a debate based on speculation.

As the case continues some questions will be answered and others won't.

I fully expect the prosecution to provide evidence to support the claims made in the opening statement.

 

[ABro]

I was responding to a comment stating that the prosecution has proven that the victims were alive, so no, I wouldn't wait until the verdict to respond to that comment.

Actually, no, that's not what the poster you were responding to said.

 

[otto]

Actually, no, that's not what the poster you were responding to said.

This, specifically, is what I responded to:
"The Prosecution already introduced evidence to support their theory that the three were removed alive from the home".

 

[Slebby]

This is not a jammed gun. This was a kidnapping at one location, planned torture and murder at another location. I don't believe the second part occurred, and that the victims were accidentally mortally wounded during the kidnapping. Although the Medical Examiner may be unable to state in court that the victims were in medical distress at the Liknes home, police were able to make that statement in early July 2014 - presumably based on information from the ME.

You're saying he planned to kidnap them from their home, torture and murder at another location, Airdrie. Since the plan didn't go that well, even though they ended up dead, as planned, but missed out on the "torture then murder" intended for Airdrie, it was therefore "by accident" hence not premeditated, hence not 1st degree? O-Kay.

Personally, I place more value on the testimony of an ME under oath at trial than words of the police quoted early in the investigation in the media. It sounds like you're accusing the ME of being untruthful in testifying.

IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk