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

[Kamille]

Strange how we got more details out of her findings through the defence than we did through the crown....details the Crown should be bringing out IMO.

Actually that information does favour the defense, if only to suggest that all three victims were deceased before they were removed from the Liknes house during altercations with the suspect. Which it appears the defence IS suggesting. And of course they are. It's the only slight, very slight, chance there may be for a second degree verdict, on maybe one of the charges? I would think.

But really, how can you defend the level of planning? Even if they did all die at the house, it would still appear that they died in the commission of a kidnapping, even NO because he could have left him alone. Perhaps DG just wants people to believe that he didn't do any of the things that the Crown are suggesting he wanted to, and may have done, to the victims?

MOO

 

[Tealgrove]

You know I've tried to be objective about the reporter twitter coverage of this trial. As a Canadian I've followed several by twitter alone. At this time I have to say this is by far the worst coverage of any trial I've followed. Both via twitter and later in the written online news reports. We are not getting the feel for this trial at all...or a LOT of the information. A lull like this one is unheard of in the news game.

MOO

Agree 100% Kamille. I thought I was being hypercritical in my assessment of the tweets early on but I find the coverage lacking. These reporters need to give CBC's Adam Carter a call and find out how to properly cover a trial. If you are going to live tweet then DO IT!

The only thing I can think of is they think they need to shield us from information however I don't think that's their place. If there's a legal argument tell us; just don't tell us what it is about.

They have given us no perspective on DG whatsoever. Does he walk in and look around? Is he acknowledging anyone in the courtroom, etc.?

I think the coverage is quite poor. There! I've said it. MOO

 

[Kamille]

I pray they were deceased quickly and in the home. Once he got them to the secondary crime scene I shudder to think what they would have endured. I know the Crown says otherwise but my head and heart are settling with quick death.

I want to believe that too. And if there is no evidence to the contrary, I will choose to believe that. I'm nervous about what's still to come.

 

[olivebpa1]

Actually that information does favour the defense, if only to suggest that all three victims were deceased before they were removed from the Liknes house during altercations with the suspect. Which it appears the defence IS suggesting. And of course they are. It's the only slight, very slight, chance there may be for a second degree verdict, on maybe one of the charges? I would think.

But really, how can you defend the level of planning? Even if they did all die at the house, it would still appear that they died in the commission of a kidnapping, even NO because he could have left him alone. Perhaps DG just wants people to believe that he didn't do any of the things that the Crown are suggesting he wanted to, and may have done, to the victims?

MOO

If the jury believes Nathan died at the house it would be 2nd degree because his murder was not planned. What does it really matter in terms of sentencing though? He killed 3 people. Two for sure 1st degree. He is going away forever. I suppose in a case like this the only "win" the defence lawyer can hope for is the jury to come back with less than 1st degree for Nathan.

 

[Kamille]

Yes. Short day tomorrow. Off friday.

It is? I thought that was just today? :waitasec:

 

[olivebpa1]

It is? I thought that was just today? :waitasec:

I do not know how to copy tweets but here is a link stating short day tomorrow. He is the only one i can find that said that though.

[video=twitter;826843891336781826]https://twitter.com/KMartinCourts/status/826843891336781826[/video]

 

[Kamille]

If the jury believes Nathan died at the house it would be 2nd degree because his murder was not planned. What does it really matter in terms of sentencing though? He killed 3 people. Two for sure 1st degree. He is going away forever. I suppose in a case like this the only "win" the defence lawyer can hope for is the jury to come back with less than 1st degree for Nathan.

Well planning and/or intent doesn't have to be for any longer than just a few seconds, the time it takes to make a decision. I don't think it can be denied that he made a conscious decision to fatally harm NO, even if he didn't make that decision until he happened upon him in the commission of this crime. He sure can't claim self defence in that instance. NO would pose no physical threat to him. He went to the home with the intent of harming/kidnapping the two adults. He did not have to harm the child. He decided to, even if it wasn't pre planned before he got there. So even if the jury decides that they choose to believe the 3 were deceased before being taken from the home, or even just NO, they would likely still be within the legal parameters to convict him of first degree on all 3 counts.

MOO

 

[Tealgrove]

Actually that information does favour the defense, if only to suggest that all three victims were deceased before they were removed from the Liknes house during altercations with the suspect. Which it appears the defence IS suggesting. And of course they are. It's the only slight, very slight, chance there may be for a second degree verdict, on maybe one of the charges? I would think.

But really, how can you defend the level of planning? Even if they did all die at the house, it would still appear that they died in the commission of a kidnapping, even NO because he could have left him alone. Perhaps DG just wants people to believe that he didn't do any of the things that the Crown are suggesting he wanted to, and may have done, to the victims?

MOO

Unless the Crown has some REAL evidence to prove that the victims were alive when they left the house it was a foolish move to suggest that they were alive in the opening statement. I have to believe that somewhere they have proof of it. If they are counting on circumstantial evidence via his hard drive of his intentions, and assuming that he acted upon those intentions, they may have a problem.

At the end of the day, I have faith that DG will be found guilty on 3 counts of first degree murder based on the totality of the evidence and the preponderance of his obsessive planning. I believe that has already been proven.

The fact of the matter is that they do have photos of the bodies at the farm. So unless the elder Garlands are the freaks and murderers, or some weird guy was on their property unbeknownst to the Garlands doing HORRIBLE things to 3 people over several days, then DG is it.

Whatever has come before, I believe the photos will be the clincher. MOO

ETA: I have confidence in the Jury. I was very worried about the Bosma trial and whether the Jury would find them guilty of 1st degree. There was great debate as to whether Mark Smith should get 1st degree, 2nd degree or even manslaughter. In the end, the Jury said 1st degree for both and I believe they got it right. I think this Jury will also get it right.

 

[olivebpa1]

I do not know how to copy tweets but here is a link stating short day tomorrow. He is the only one i can find that said that though.

[video=twitter;826843891336781826]https://twitter.com/KMartinCourts/status/826843891336781826[/video]

I don't even see the link. Lol it was kevin martin who said short day tomorrow

 

[PrincessButtercup]

Yes. Short day tomorrow. Off friday.

I thought short day today, full day tomorrow, off Friday?

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Jemska48]

DISTURBING FOR SOME - Re info on cremation






Bill GravelandVerified account ‏@BillGraveland 35s35 seconds ago
Being asked about cremation - Says once a temperature is above 1800 degrees Fahrenheit the bone will "turn to ash". #Garland

Kevin MartinVerified account ‏@KMartinCourts 37s37 seconds ago
Soft tissue and bones will be turned to ash at a temperature of 1,000 C. #Garland

Valerie Fortney ‏@ValFortney 54s54 seconds ago
Brooks-Lim: temp to cremate body varies, but once reaches greater than 1,000 centigrade, soft tissues and bones will burn to ash. #Garland

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 1m1 minute ago
Brooks-Lim says cremation is generally done 180 degrees F causing the bones and flesh to burn to ash. #Garland #yyc

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 1m1 minute ago
Crown: What's temp needed to cremate a person?
B-L: greater than 1000 degrees centigrade will cause body to burn to ash
#Garland

Sorry if this is a bit graphic for some!
Now, I'm still currently in school for Funeral Directing & Embalming but my experience is that even in a crematory, not all bones are burned down (i.e, the larger ones like the skull, femur, etc) Which is why ALL cremains are put through a grinder and ground down to a dust/gravel like substance. The bones that do "turn to ash" don't really. They'll just get really brittle and kind of flake. AFAIK the only time that all of the bones would be burned completely to ash, would be before they are completely formed. Now after saying this, this really only has to do with using a retort in a crematorium, not a barrel on a farm. Also, I do not claim to know more than the chief M.E

 

[CentralAlberta]

Sorry if this is a bit graphic for some!
Now, I'm still currently in school for Funeral Directing & Embalming but my experience is that even in a crematory, not all bones are burned down (i.e, the larger ones like the skull, femur, etc) Which is why ALL cremains are put through a grinder and ground down to a dust/gravel like substance. The bones that do "turn to ash" don't really. They'll just get really brittle and kind of flake. AFAIK the only time that all of the bones would be burned completely to ash, would be before they are completely formed. Now after saying this, this really only has to do with using a retort in a crematorium, not a barrel on a farm. Also, I do not claim to know more than the chief M.E

I wonder what difference it would make if the bones had first been cut and nitrogen put on them?

 

[dogmatica]

If the jury believes Nathan died at the house it would be 2nd degree because his murder was not planned. What does it really matter in terms of sentencing though? He killed 3 people. Two for sure 1st degree. He is going away forever. I suppose in a case like this the only "win" the defence lawyer can hope for is the jury to come back with less than 1st degree for Nathan.

That's still first degree. Either under unlawful confinement or kidnapping.

 

[dogmatica]

Well planning and/or intent doesn't have to be for any longer than just a few seconds, the time it takes to make a decision. I don't think it can be denied that he made a conscious decision to fatally harm NO, even if he didn't make that decision until he happened upon him in the commission of this crime. He sure can't claim self defence in that instance. NO would pose no physical threat to him. He went to the home with the intent of harming/kidnapping the two adults. He did not have to harm the child. He decided to, even if it wasn't pre planned before he got there. So even if the jury decides that they choose to believe the 3 were deceased before being taken from the home, or even just NO, they would likely still be within the legal parameters to convict him of first degree on all 3 counts.

MOO

Correct. He went there with the intent to unlawfully confine and or kidnap, then murder. NO was killed during the commission of a kidnapping and or unlawful confinement - that's first degree murder.

 

[Olivia&Eve]

Agree 100% Kamille. I thought I was being hypercritical in my assessment of the tweets early on but I find the coverage lacking. These reporters need to give CBC's Adam Carter a call and find out how to properly cover a trial. If you are going to live tweet then DO IT!

The only thing I can think of is they think they need to shield us from information however I don't think that's their place. If there's a legal argument tell us; just don't tell us what it is about.

They have given us no perspective on DG whatsoever. Does he walk in and look around? Is he acknowledging anyone in the courtroom, etc.?

I think the coverage is quite poor. There! I've said it. MOO

Do we know if any of the reporters who are covering the case come onto websleuths, either to just follow or participate? Has that ever been suspected (or confirmed)?

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Do we know if any of the reporters who are covering the case come onto websleuths, either to just follow or participate? Has that ever been suspected (or confirmed)?

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

Confirmed on other cases. Sometimes they log in and verify, and sometimes not. No verified MSM on this case.
I believe they read here, some anyway. One of them did a story on Websleuths early in on in this case.

 

[Blue Amethyst]

Does DG sit with the defence or is he somewhere by himself?

 

[PrincessButtercup]

Does DG sit with the defence or is he somewhere by himself?

He sits in the prisoner box by himself

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[musicaljoke]

Unless the Crown has some REAL evidence to prove that the victims were alive when they left the house it was a foolish move to suggest that they were alive in the opening statement. I have to believe that somewhere they have proof of it. If they are counting on circumstantial evidence via his hard drive of his intentions, and assuming that he acted upon those intentions, they may have a problem.

At the end of the day, I have faith that DG will be found guilty on 3 counts of first degree murder based on the totality of the evidence and the preponderance of his obsessive planning. I believe that has already been proven.

t.

You may recall how the crown in the Bosma trial, claimed that TB was killed in the field. There was no proof of that claim, but that made no difference to the outcome.

In this trial, the ME confirmed that the crown's scenerio is possible. It's possible that they were still alive when they left the home. It's also possible that the crown's theory could be wrong and they died somewhere else. Neither situation was excluded. God rest their souls, but the exact place where they died is not important to the outcome of the trial.

 

[olivebpa1]

I thought short day today, full day tomorrow, off Friday?

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

I guess we will find out tomorrow. Kevin Martin tweeted that is was a half day today, short day thursday and no court friday. It seems he is the only one though. I did check his twitter and its there but i can't figure out how to copy and paste a tweet on here! It's not important, but i needed to prove to myself i saw it earlier!