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

[MistyWaters]

Nothing. I asked earlier whether murder that happens during kidnapping results in first degree murder, and the answer is yes. I didn't know that, or didn't remember that, until someone kindly link the legal reference.

You're certain Garland ought to face lesser charges because he transported the victims to a secondary location .(dead or alive)? Perhaps that's to be an out for every alleged premeditated murderer, just move the intended target and it becomes a kidnapping?

Okay then, let's go with that. After all, we're not the jury.

But you might kindly inform the Prosecution that Section 230 was tossed out years ago by the Supreme Court, as I recall it was about in 1992. Those three First Degree Murder charges over a failed kidnapping are not going to stand.

"Thomas said in his original verdict that Vader was a desperate drug addict who came across the couple in their RV and shot them during a robbery. He said he found no evidence Vader intended to kill the McCanns and ruled out a planned and deliberate first-degree murder.
Section 230 allowed for a second-degree murder verdict if a killing occurred during the commission of another crime such as robbery. Otherwise, there had to be intent to cause death or bodily harm known to likely cause death.
Law experts have said a judge has never before cited the old section in a verdict and the mistake was huge.
The Crown argued the judge could fix the error by using another section of the Criminal Code to convict on second-degree murder or by substituting the verdict with manslaughter."
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/it-was...ravis-vader-verdict-to-manslaughter-1.3138828


Section 230
Murder in commission of offences
230*Culpable homicide is murder where a person causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit high treason or treason or an offence mentioned in section 52 (sabotage), 75 (piratical acts), 76 (hijacking an aircraft), 144 or subsection 145(1) or sections 146 to 148 (escape or rescue from prison or lawful custody), section 270 (assaulting a peace officer), section 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm), 273 (aggravated sexual assault), 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement), 279.1 (hostage taking), 343 (robbery), 348 (breaking and entering) or 433 or 434 (arson), whether or not the person means to cause death to any human being and whether or not he knows that death is likely to be caused to any human being, if
* (a)*he means to cause bodily harm for the purpose of
* (i)*facilitating the commission of the offence, or

* (ii)*facilitating his flight after committing or attempting to commit the offence,

* and the death ensues from the bodily harm;

* (b)*he administers a stupefying or overpowering thing for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), and the death ensues therefrom; or

* (c)*he wilfully stops, by any means, the breath of a human being for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), and the death ensues therefrom.

* (d)*[Repealed, 1991, c. 4, s. 1]

* R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 230; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 40; 1991, c. 4, s. 1.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-230.html

 

[MistyWaters]

Or what the evidence supporting the First Degree Murder Charges seems to be pointing toward - murderous intent and deliberate preplanning.

Section 231
Classification of murder

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

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

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

 

[Hatfield]

The prosecution may still present something that shows the victims were alive in Airdrie. I can't see, though, how DG could drive with live victims in his truck bed from southwest Calgary to Airdrie (as the CCTV may show), arrange for a place to hold them, grab a shower, converse with parents and then dare to leave when there could be a risk that someone might find the three or they might somehow escape.

But this trial has been full of horrible surprises, so I guess we'll see...

It is one of the most perplexing things right now in this case. Whether they were alive or dead before DG took them from their house.

It is important for many reasons and the least of which is what possible atrocities DG could have committed if he got them there alive.

I am not sure the evidence will ever be able to prove one way or the other.

It reminds me of the amazing debate in the Travis Alexander case of whether JA shot TA first in the shower or did she stab him first and only shoot him at the end. IMO I dont think that was ever really proven conclusive one way or the other by the evidence that was presented.

This issue in this case of whether they survived the initial onslaught or not may end up very similar. We may never know for sure one way or the other.

 

[deugirtni]

A couple thoughts -
I believe it's possible the victims were alive when transported to the farm. Why? Because if they were already dead, what did he have to gain by taking them to the farm? No torture plan could play out. It would be way more dangerous and incriminating to keep the bodies for the apparent sole purpose of - incinerating and obliterating them. Why take the chance, unless they were still alive, and the idea of carrying out the torture ideas (as outlined in the testimony re the hard drive) was still very much a possibility? IOW, I think if they were dead, he would have left the bodies in the L home and just gotten out of there.

Re the bloody crime scene at the L home - in the initial stages of the investigation, it is understandable for the ME to suggest someone could be in medical distress. There was a great deal of blood, certainly. But the ME could not initially say for sure if it was the blood of one, two or three victims without proof through DNA analysis. I don't think we can compare the ME's preliminary speculation in the media to her later sworn testimony based on detailed forensics. One is a starting point based on a preliminary look, the other, educated and informed by detailed investigation.

IMO

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think there are many reasons why he would have taken the victims, even though/if already deceased.

-He knew that leaving the bodies for examination would give LE all kinds of evidence, such as time of death, cause of death, method of death, place of death, etc. There is risk of him leaving behind evidence of himself or his belongings/tools on the bodies, ie maybe he shot them and the bullet could be matched with a gun at his property, or maybe the dumbbell could be matched to a bludgeoning injury, etc.

-By taking the bodies, LE would have to prove they were dead first, before a murder conviction would hold up.

-With no bodies, he may have believed it could be left open-ended as to whether the couple fled with their grandson on their own accord to start a new life elsewhere (that was a theory which was speculated upon by some at the beginning).

-He also may have wanted to practice dismemberment/autopsy/chemical/incineration/home-made-fertiziling procedures/whatever, so that he could make them disappear forever, with no evidence of them ever being found.

Don't forget that he may never have become a suspect if not for the neighbour's video recording catching the vehicle linked to him. I think that was really the catalyst that got all of the various balls rolling for him to be intensely investigated, which in turn led to all kinds of evidence in various places. IIRC, before the discovery of that video, the police were completely baffled and had no starting place. The timing seemed very suspect, with both the 'estate sale', and the Calgary Stampede, and the possibilities were open-ended as to what could have happened.

I can't imagine, but...... with all of those 'how-to' books that DG had on file, had none of them mentioned to watch out for neighbouring video cameras??? It seems he may have thought/read right down to the possibility of the L's having an open wireless connection that could potentially lead to evidence against him, but yet he didn't consider such a simple and common thing as a neighbouring video?

 

[deugirtni]

Has it been discussed (hard to keep up sometimes) about the ME's statement that there were 3 'blood-letting' locations - 2 bedrooms (we saw the areas around the 2 headboards in master bedroom and spare bedroom), and 'entry way'?

I'm assuming the side door entry way? Photo posted below. The blood in the entryway photo is low to the ground. I wonder if one of the victims met him inside the doorway as DG was entering, having been woken/alerted by the drilling of the doorlock? I can only think of one victim who might be bold enough to go to the door in such a situation in the middle of the night, without calling 911 first. moo. That person would be a different person than the one that appeared to have possibly been in a tango with the murderer in the master bedroom, according to photos of the MBR?

Meghan Grant ?@CBCMeg Feb 1
"During walkthrough -3 areas of bloodletting w/ in home. 2 bedrooms & entry way. Also noted bloody drag trails and transfer patterns #Garland "

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2eG-YhUUAACKag.jpg:large

 

[deugirtni]

I think there are many reasons why he would have taken the victims, even though/if already deceased.

-He knew that leaving the bodies for examination would give LE all kinds of evidence, such as time of death, cause of death, method of death, place of death, etc. There is risk of him leaving behind evidence of himself or his belongings/tools on the bodies, ie maybe he shot them and the bullet could be matched with a gun at his property, or maybe the dumbbell could be matched to a bludgeoning injury, etc.

-By taking the bodies, LE would have to prove they were dead first, before a murder conviction would hold up.

-With no bodies, he may have believed it could be left open-ended as to whether the couple fled with their grandson on their own accord to start a new life elsewhere (that was a theory which was speculated upon by some at the beginning).

-He also may have wanted to practice dismemberment/autopsy/chemical/incineration/home-made-fertiziling procedures/whatever, so that he could make them disappear forever, with no evidence of them ever being found.

Don't forget that he may never have become a suspect if not for the neighbour's video recording catching the vehicle linked to him. I think that was really the catalyst that got all of the various balls rolling for him to be intensely investigated, which in turn led to all kinds of evidence in various places. IIRC, before the discovery of that video, the police were completely baffled and had no starting place. The timing seemed very suspect, with both the 'estate sale', and the Calgary Stampede, and the possibilities were open-ended as to what could have happened.

I can't imagine, but...... with all of those 'how-to' books that DG had on file, had none of them mentioned to watch out for neighbouring video cameras??? It seems he may have thought/read right down to the possibility of the L's having an open wireless connection that could potentially lead to evidence against him, but yet he didn't consider such a simple and common thing as a neighbouring video?

Too late to add this tweet to my post above:

Meghan Grant ?@CBCMeg Feb 1
"Brooks-Lim says absence of bodies were biggest barrier to providing more definitive findings #Garland "

 

[deugirtni]

The white thing in the back of the truck - I'm not convinced that it is a white thing in the back of the truck, based on the photo - could it be a reflection? as others have mentioned, doesn't it seem too high in relation to the upper edge of the tailgate? only an idiot would stack 3 dead bodies at the rear end of his box to transport them someplace else (was it half an hour away??) using public roads? Is it possible it is instead something 'beside' the green truck, whether another vehicle or something at the edge of the road, which 'appears' to be 'inside' the box of the truck, but really isn't? For the white thing to be that HIGH, wouldn't that mean all 3 bodies are piled one on top of another.. which would be insane?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...e-murder-liknes-nathan-obrien-teeth-1.3963432

 

[ABro]

Truthfully, I have never followed another trial where the prosecution was expected to prove the location where death occurred. In my unprofessional experience, my understanding is that the opening statements are a plausible theory and certainly evidence based, but it's not always possible to factually prove the entire scenario from beginning to end, especially in a no body case. It's up to the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine if what they heard is adequate to convict beyond reasonable doubt.

In your opinion, if the Prosecution does not present facts to prove the three were alive at the acreage, leaving the possibility that one or all died at the Likeness home or in transit, then what? The jury would be instructed to find Garland Not Guilty of First Degree Murder, even if they all believed beyond reasonable doubt that he was responsible for their murders, with premeditation?

That just does not make sense to me. What am I missing?

Please reread my previous comments. I have never said anything like what you're suggesting. I would be shocked if Garland is not convicted of three first degree murders.

Opening statements are not just a plausible theory but a statement of the case the Crown intends to prove. All I'm saying is that the Crown has not yet proved the victims were killed at the farm.

I have never suggested they need to prove where the victims were killed -- just the opposite. But given the fact the Crown stated they were killed at the farm in the opening statements, I fully expect them to provide further evidence of this.

Once again, where they were killed has zero to do with whether a first degree murder charge is supported or not. IMO there has already been extensive proof of first degree murder.

 

[MistyWaters]

Please reread my previous comments. I have never said anything like what you're suggesting. I would be shocked if Garland is not convicted of three first degree murders.

Opening statements are not just a plausible theory but a statement of the case the Crown intends to prove. All I'm saying is that the Crown has not yet proved the victims were killed at the farm.

I have never suggested they need to prove where the victims were killed -- just the opposite. But given the fact the Crown stated they were killed at the farm in the opening statements, I fully expect them to provide further evidence of this.

Once again, where they were killed has zero to do with whether a first degree murder charge is supported or not. IMO there has already been extensive proof of first degree murder.

It's all fine, my thoughts were just leading me along, not necessarily all in relation to your comments.

Whenever the discussion turns to the requirement of evidence involving the time and location of actual death, it reminds me of a defence strategy --- That the client be given the benefit of doubt towards accidental death and a manslaughter conviction.

The Prosecution has already introduced that Garland's intent from the onset was death to his victims - this was not a botched kidnapping, robbery or confinement where death was the unexpected outcome - and so in my opinion that is the key factor to a first degree murder conviction. That his murderous plan might not have unrolled quite as expected, his victims were still murdered so that doesn't lessen his legal culpability.

What would a defence based on accidental death even look like? Garland is breaking into the home in the middle of the night and we can already be quite certain, given his computer research, he's not there just to empty the cash box from the estate sale proceeds. How would that play out? His defence would be that it was the victims fault they didn't jump in his truck box and go for a ride to his acreage, and therefore it's their fault that they caused him to somewhat alter his original plans of torture followed by autopsy, dissection, dismemberment and incineration?

According to the tweets, several witnesses have been asked "Did you find a ransom note?" Answer "No.". The Prosecution knows that without ever asking the question but the reason they ask is to prove this was not a botched kidnapping, IF the jury happen to conclude for any reason that death took place in the Liknes residence.

That the jury may come back with reduced charges in the death of Nathan would not be a disappointment to me. It makes for too complicated of a trial if the Prosecution were to propose different theories for each of the three victims. I think they're doing an excellent job.

All my opinion....



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ABro]

It's all fine, my thoughts were just leading me along, not necessarily all in relation to your comments.

Whenever the discussion turns to the requirement of evidence involving the time and location of actual death, it reminds me of a defence strategy --- That the client be given the benefit of doubt towards accidental death and a manslaughter conviction.

The Prosecution has already introduced that Garland's intent from the onset was death to his victims - this was not a botched kidnapping, robbery or confinement where death was the unexpected outcome - and so in my opinion that is the key factor to a first degree murder conviction. That his murderous plan might not have unrolled quite as expected, his victims were still murdered so that doesn't lessen his legal culpability.

What would a defence based on accidental death even look like? Garland is breaking into the home in the middle of the night and we can already be quite certain, given his computer research, he's not there just to empty the cash box from the estate sale proceeds. How would that play out? His defence would be that it was the victims fault they didn't jump in his truck box and go for a ride to his acreage, and therefore it's their fault that they caused him to somewhat alter his original plans of torture followed by autopsy, dissection, dismemberment and incineration?

According to the tweets, several witnesses have been asked "Did you find a ransom note?" Answer "No.". The Prosecution knows that without ever asking the question but the reason they ask is to prove this was not a botched kidnapping, IF the jury happen to conclude for any reason that death took place in the Liknes residence.

That the jury may come back with reduced charges in the death of Nathan would not be a disappointment to me. It makes for too complicated of a trial if the Prosecution were to propose different theories for each of the three victims. I think they're doing an excellent job.

All my opinion....



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You are overthinking the kidnapping thing.

A death that results from kidnapping, forcible confinement or sexual assault is considered first degree.

Misinformation relating to the Vader case has been cited here. The judge's error in the Vader case was considering murder first degree because it occurred during ARMED ROBBERY.

Death during armed robbery used to be considered grounds for first degree (along with kidnapping, forcible confinement and sexual assault) but the Supreme Court struck the armed robbery provision down.

It's possible the Crown will argue Nathan's death is first degree because it occurred during a kidnapping as opposed to being planned.

I highly doubt any jury is going to come back with second degree for a five-year-old given what we've seen so far.

 

[ABro]

The white thing in the back of the truck - I'm not convinced that it is a white thing in the back of the truck, based on the photo - could it be a reflection? as others have mentioned, doesn't it seem too high in relation to the upper edge of the tailgate? only an idiot would stack 3 dead bodies at the rear end of his box to transport them someplace else (was it half an hour away??) using public roads? Is it possible it is instead something 'beside' the green truck, whether another vehicle or something at the edge of the road, which 'appears' to be 'inside' the box of the truck, but really isn't? For the white thing to be that HIGH, wouldn't that mean all 3 bodies are piled one on top of another.. which would be insane?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...e-murder-liknes-nathan-obrien-teeth-1.3963432

Why do you think DG's lawyers didn't raise these points?

 

[Slebby]

The white thing in the back of the truck - I'm not convinced that it is a white thing in the back of the truck, based on the photo - could it be a reflection? as others have mentioned, doesn't it seem too high in relation to the upper edge of the tailgate? only an idiot would stack 3 dead bodies at the rear end of his box to transport them someplace else (was it half an hour away??) using public roads? Is it possible it is instead something 'beside' the green truck, whether another vehicle or something at the edge of the road, which 'appears' to be 'inside' the box of the truck, but really isn't? For the white thing to be that HIGH, wouldn't that mean all 3 bodies are piled one on top of another.. which would be insane?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...e-murder-liknes-nathan-obrien-teeth-1.3963432

It's definitely in the box.

MOO, people carry all kinds of stuff in the back of trucks. A white pile of something wrapped in bedding? Not that curious, IMO.
Looking at the calendar, it was the end of the month, a time lots of people move. It might have appeared DG was merely a guy hauling some stuff away from his old apartment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MistyWaters]

You are overthinking the kidnapping thing.

A death that results from kidnapping, forcible confinement or sexual assault is considered first degree.

Misinformation relating to the Vader case has been cited here. The judge's error in the Vader case was considering murder first degree because it occurred during ARMED ROBBERY.

Death during armed robbery used to be considered grounds for first degree (along with kidnapping, forcible confinement and sexual assault) but the Supreme Court struck the armed robbery provision down.

It's possible the Crown will argue Nathan's death is first degree because it occurred during a kidnapping as opposed to being planned.

I highly doubt any jury is going to come back with second degree for a five-year-old given what we've seen so far.

I have noticed (by tweet) the Prosecution has asked almost every police detective on the scene of either the home or acreage "Did you find a ransom note?" Of course the answer is No.

Why do you think the Prosecution is attempting to ensure the jury will exclude a botched kidnapping scenario?

 

[katwalnr]

Since the opening statement, the Crown have presented the following to support the claim that the victims were still alive when they were taken to the farm. If I have forgotten something please add more facts.

1) DG's internet research
a) how to knock someone unconscious
b) torture methods
c) diapered restrained women

2) Duffel bag contents
a) BATON - not a weapon to kill but disable or force into submission
b) TWO SETS OF HANDCUFFS - DG knew how to make sure the victims were dead (from his books, like to check out the victims' pulse and breathing); nevertheless, he brought 2 handcuffs with him. Why would he need 2 pairs of handcuffs for dead people.
c) DAGGER - he didn't use the dagger but a hard object/weapon to hit the head.
- If his intent had been to kill he could have used the dagger or a gun with a silencer.

3) DG directed his hits to the victims' heads. If someone wants to knock somebody out that is where he would aim.

4) His possessions included the following:
a) numerous shackles and leather restraints
b) taser patrons
c) insulin - although no one has diabetes
Why would he need any of this if he intended to kill the victims right away?!

5) blood stopper - normally used to stop or slow bleeding in alive subjects

6) adult diapers - makes more sense that he got them for persons he intended to keep alive for some time

7) liquid nitrogen bottles (2 very large and one small bottle) were almost empty
- possibility of use for torture but also for cryogenic promession to destroy body parts/mix with soil in the garden (Sully was very excited there) - hiding evidence in plain sight

Still to be confirmed next week:
8) On the aerial photo, the adult victims still have diapers 2 days after the attack.
9) As we heard the aerial photo shows the victims lying prone, face down. If the victims were held as dead in the south building trailer (due to such a confined space) I speculate that their bodies would be kind of bent and stiff (rigour mortis) on the aerial photo rather then in a relaxed/straight pose.

You make a lot of good points! Regarding rigour, I believe it's a stage the body goes through after death but not permanently. The body again becomes flaccid.

 

[ABro]

I have noticed (by tweet) the Prosecution has asked almost every police detective on the scene of either the home or acreage "Did you find a ransom note?" Of course the answer is No.

Why do you think the Prosecution is attempting to ensure the jury will exclude a botched kidnapping scenario?

I don't think the prosecution is "attempting to ensure the jury will exclude a botched kidnapping scenario." This precisely what I mean by overthinking it. You're reading all sorts of things into the prosecution strategy that IMO simply aren't there to be read.

The legal definition of kidnapping does not include leaving a ransom note any more than the legal definition of first degree murder includes stating a specific location.

ETA: Prosecutors can argue that there was intent to kill AND that the victims were kidnapped. These two things are not mutually exclusive as you seem to be suggesting. There is no reason whatsoever to exclude "a botched kidnapping" and I see nothing that indicates this is something prosecutors are attempting to do.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

The white thing in the back of the truck - I'm not convinced that it is a white thing in the back of the truck, based on the photo - could it be a reflection? as others have mentioned, doesn't it seem too high in relation to the upper edge of the tailgate? only an idiot would stack 3 dead bodies at the rear end of his box to transport them someplace else (was it half an hour away??) using public roads? Is it possible it is instead something 'beside' the green truck, whether another vehicle or something at the edge of the road, which 'appears' to be 'inside' the box of the truck, but really isn't? For the white thing to be that HIGH, wouldn't that mean all 3 bodies are piled one on top of another.. which would be insane?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...e-murder-liknes-nathan-obrien-teeth-1.3963432

I thought so too, but I'm going with the idea that there are additional pictures and video of the truck and the 'white' thing'.

 

[MistyWaters]

I don't think the prosecution is "attempting to ensure the jury will exclude a botched kidnapping scenario." This precisely what I mean by overthinking it. You're reading all sorts of things into the prosecution strategy that IMO simply aren't there to be read.

The legal definition of kidnapping does not include leaving a ransom note any more than the legal definition of first degree murder includes stating a specific location.

ETA: Prosecutors can argue that there was intent to kill AND that the victims were kidnapped. These two things are not mutually exclusive as you seem to be suggesting. There is no reason whatsoever to exclude "a botched kidnapping" and I see nothing that indicates this is something prosecutors are attempting to do.

That's right, kidnapping does not require a ransom note. I merely pointed out that the Prosecution has asked several witnesses if a ransom note was left. I'm assuming that's not utterly coincidental. But no ransom note so the Intent of alleged kidnapping was not money.

Did Garland intend to kidnap victims, hold them hostage for ransom, sex slaves, (fill in the blank)?

I believe the Intent is key and much of the Prosecution's energy has been invested into proving Murderous Intent through the physical findings. Not kidnapping.

No he intended to murder them.

Intent to murder distinguishes first, second and manslaughter, not kidnapping where the victim is intended to be kept alive.


While you suggest "Prosecutors can argue intent to kill AND that the victims were kidnapped." In this trial they have not done so.

I can think of maybe two reasons for that -
1. Premeditated murder is easier to prove, given the evidence on the hard drive supported by the physical objects.
2. The Prosecution does not want to open the door for the defence, risking a botched kidnapping/manslaughter violent episode, removal of dead bodies.

Interesting discussion......Upon the conclusion of this trial and hearing the Closing Statements our speculation will come to an end.

 

[otto]

Has it been discussed (hard to keep up sometimes) about the ME's statement that there were 3 'blood-letting' locations - 2 bedrooms (we saw the areas around the 2 headboards in master bedroom and spare bedroom), and 'entry way'?

I'm assuming the side door entry way? Photo posted below. The blood in the entryway photo is low to the ground. I wonder if one of the victims met him inside the doorway as DG was entering, having been woken/alerted by the drilling of the doorlock? I can only think of one victim who might be bold enough to go to the door in such a situation in the middle of the night, without calling 911 first. moo. That person would be a different person than the one that appeared to have possibly been in a tango with the murderer in the master bedroom, according to photos of the MBR?

Meghan Grant ?@CBCMeg Feb 1
"During walkthrough -3 areas of bloodletting w/ in home. 2 bedrooms & entry way. Also noted bloody drag trails and transfer patterns #Garland "

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2eG-YhUUAACKag.jpg:large

There are also these photos from the driveway. They are at the end of the 8 metre long drag marks beside the house.

 

[ABro]

I can think of maybe two reasons for that -
1. Premeditated murder is easier to prove, given the evidence on the hard drive supported by the physical objects.
2. The Prosecution does not want to open the door for the defence, risking a botched kidnapping/manslaughter violent episode, removal of dead bodies.

There is no such as a "botched kidnapping" defence to first degree murder. This is because if a death occurs during kidnapping, whether planned or not, it is automatically first degree murder.

Interesting discussion......Upon the conclusion of this trial and hearing the Closing Statements our speculation will come to an end.

Highly doubt that.

 

[deugirtni]

There are also these photos from the driveway. They are at the end of the 8 metre long drag marks beside the house.

When the ME stated on the stand that there were 3 blood-letting locations, she specified the third location as being the entryway.

Meghan Grant ?@CBCMeg Feb 1
Brooks-Lim attended Liknes' home on July 2, 2014 at 11:49 am. She was there w/ officer who is blood stain pattern expert #Garland

Meghan Grant ?@CBCMeg Feb 1
During walkthrough -3 areas of bloodletting w/ in home. 2 bedrooms & entry way. Also noted bloody drag trails and transfer patterns #Garland