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

[otto]

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

The ME was at the Liknes home on July 2. Police couldn't say that at the victims were in medical distress, only the ME could have made that claim.

I am suggesting that the ME may be acting as an agent for the crown because in July 2014, the victims were in medical distress, and today maybe they weren't.

"July 4 at 2 p.m.: Calgary police say they've found blood inside the Liknes residence, although it is not known whose it is, and confirm a violent incident took place. They say the victim(s) would have been in medical distress."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...uglas-garland-murder-trial-timeline-1.2695160

 

[MistyWaters]

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.

Of course there's no evidence to indicate where death occurred, nor is it required in a first degree premeditated murder case.

Are you following the same case as me? What evidence leads you to believe that Garland intended to take the three as hostages in a kidnapping scenario?

Transporting victims to their death is not "kidnapping". It's the exact opposite because there's no intention to release them alive, ever, under any circumstances.

 

[otto]

I wonder if the jury gets hostile with each other, and call the accused derogatory names, when they debate.

 

[otto]

Of course there's no evidence to indicate where death occurred, nor is it required in a first degree premeditated murder case.

Are you following the same case as me? What evidence leads you to believe that Garland intended to take the three as hostages in a kidnapping scenario?

Transporting victims to their death is not "kidnapping".

I'll answer your question with a question: why is the prosecution introducing evidence of torture?

 

[musicaljoke]

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?

Since 1992, the Canadian justice system no longer allows a person to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. A person can be found not criminally responsible because of mental illness, but they aren't acquitted if they are in fact guilty. They can also be found unfit to stand trial if they have a mental illness which prevents the person for knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Neither situation applies to DG since the evidence suggests that he understood his actions were morally wrong.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-16.html

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Not_Criminally_Responsible_Due_to_Mental_Disorder

 

[ABro]

I wonder if the jury gets hostile with each other, and call the accused derogatory names, when they debate.

Didn't you call the prosecutor a "ridiculous woman" earlier today?

 

[MistyWaters]

I'll answer your question with a question: why is the prosecution introducing evidence of torture?

To prove it was not a kidnapping. Garland had every intention of murdering his victims from the moment he drilled the locks on the house.

 

[musicaljoke]

I'll answer your question with a question: why is the prosecution introducing evidence of torture?

From the article,: "Before Kraan began presenting the graphic evidence, Court of Queen's Bench Justice David Gates instructed jurors not to conclude Garland is a "bad character" because of the evidence and therefore infer guilt. Instead, he said they could consider it in the context of three issues: identity, murderous intent, and planning and deliberation."

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/...der-liknes-nathan-obrien-hard-drive-1.3959835

 

[olivebpa1]

I'll answer your question with a question: why is the prosecution introducing evidence of torture?

The only time the crown has even uttered the word torture so far is when introducing the files on his computer about torture. Why wouldn't they introduce that evidence? It helps to prove what frame of mind he was in. They have yet to state he torured the victims. That talk has all been from here.

 

[otto]

Didn't you call the prosecutor a "ridiculous woman" earlier today?

Perhaps. I'm curious whether the jury gets hostile with each other when they have differing opinions?

 

[nettie_82]

I'll answer your question with a question: why is the prosecution introducing evidence of torture?

That evidence shows premeditation...not to mention the items he purchased that were part of that premeditation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ABro]

Perhaps. I'm curious whether the jury gets hostile with each other when they have differing opinions?

Perhaps. But they're prohibited by law from talking about their deliberations so we're not going to find out how they got along or didn't with fellow jurors.

 

[ABro]

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".

Right and this is what you said based on the above:

I was responding to a comment stating that the prosecution has proven that the victims were alive

Do you truly not understand the difference between "introduced evidence to support their theory" that the victims were alive and "proven that the victims were alive"?

The former -- introducing evidence -- is a step on the way to the latter, which is proving the conclusion.

 

[otto]

The only time the crown has even uttered the word torture so far is when introducing the files on his computer about torture. Why wouldn't they introduce that evidence? It helps to prove what frame of mind he was in. They have yet to state he tortured the victims. That talk has all been from here.

"Torture" was introduced by the prosecution on the first day of trial, and as such it is part of the prosecution theory that torture relates to the murders. The crown's theory is that torture relates to the victims.

"The Crown alleges that Garland meticulously planned the murders of Alvin and Kathy Liknes, and that five-year-old Nathan O’Brien was tragic collateral damage after staying at his grandparent’s for an “impromptu sleepover.”
It’s alleged that Garland eventually acted on his grudge, after compiling in-depth research on the Liknes couple as well as torture methods and how to kill without emotion."

http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime...ndparents-alvin-and-kathy-liknes-set-to-begin

"The Crown's theory is evidence of files, photos and search history found on a hidden hard drive in the Garland home tells a story of an obsession with torture, killing, kink and murder victims Alvin and Kathy Likness."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...der-liknes-nathan-obrien-hard-drive-1.3959835

 

[Georgeo]

Doubt receptionist looked closely at him. He may have had a baseball cap on to obscure part of face.


Still wondering how some eagle eyed neighbor on shift work or insomniac didn't see or hear something. He had to have had at least a flashlight at L house as it was dark. Surely neighbors were canvassed by LE.

 

[Georgeo]

When it all boils down, 3 humans were killed by this . he is going down. No way he is beating these charges.


As for his right to a fair trial, that statement infuriates me, as the victims have no rights anymore, and neither should DG. But in reality he does have "rights" which is frustrating to those of us who see him as a waste of skin and truly believe he premeditated these killings. NO was an unfortunate collateral damage and DG had no problem in killing a child for no reason. Who does that? Truly sick, psycho, deranged person.


I hope karma gets him in the end.


Moo

 

[otto]

Right and this is what you said based on the above:

Do you truly not understand the difference between "introduced evidence to support their theory" that the victims were alive and "proven that the victims were alive"?

The former -- introducing evidence -- is a step on the way to the latter, which is proving the conclusion.

Yes, which is why I asked the question: What is the evidence that the victims were alive when they arrived at Airdrie?

 

[MistyWaters]

The only time the crown has even uttered the word torture so far is when introducing the files on his computer about torture. Why wouldn't they introduce that evidence? It helps to prove what frame of mind he was in. They have yet to state he torured the victims. That talk has all been from here.

Yes and the type of torture he researched clearly involved murderous intent, judging by the titles of the documents.

Murderous intent is contrary to kidnapping, whereby a ransom might be demanded, or the victim taught some kind of lesson can also involve torture, robbed, involvement in sextrade etc but the intention is to allow the victim to live.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

Yes and the type of torture he researched clearly involved murderous intent, judging by the titles of the documents.

Murderous intent is contrary to kidnapping, whereby a ransom might be demanded, or the victim taught some kind of lesson can also involve torture, robbed, involvement in sextrade etc but the intention is to allow the victim to live.

If the victims were alive and well when kidnapped, there were many factors that could have interfered with the murder such as escape, Garland parents discovering the victims, and Garland changing his mind.

We also should not dismiss the words of Jennifer where she claims that her first statement was that someone had killed her family and taken the bodies. Clearly she did not believe that the victims survived the kidnapping. This, combined with statements from police that the victims would have been in medical distress, contradict the prosecution's theory of live victims at Airdrie.

 

[YYC Lady]

A few things-

The charge for NO was upgraded after the prelim where the totality of evidence was presented. I think that says a lot about evidence yet to come. I thought crown prosecutors meet and practice with witnesses before they are called? Avoids anybody going off script with answers that aren't within their expertise.

Are jurors allowed to discuss the case with each other before deliberations? I didn't think that was permitted

I think it's possible he drove by the house one final time that morning before hs psych to see if driveway was still wet/blood rinsed away.

All MOO.