Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #26

[JadeSLeuth]

Thank you. Were you in the courtroom when you forwarded those tweets?

No, no. Just running a Twitter search string feed and copy/pasting my heart out at the highest speed this laptop can handle lol

 

[Deleted member 192280]

No, no. Just running a Twitter search string feed and copy/pasting my heart out at the highest speed this laptop can handle lol

Ah, that's impressive speed....thanks much.

 

[olivebpa1]

You must not have followed the Bosma trial... We were all shocked too.

Yep i followed the Bosma trial. I remember people being surpised as it's not the norm. It didn't help him at all either!

 

[ILoveDateline]

I'm just saying that I think it is complicated.. there seem to be convictions and appeals and reinstatements and etc, from this very issue, and so if judges can't seem to get it right all of the time, I think it's something that's above our pay-grade here as sleuthers to see it as cut and dried simple, imho.

They haven't proven the victims were taken alive, so I think that option falls apart right there, even if that option was available to begin with. As I understand it, it also has to be a distinctly separate act from the murder, not a part of it. When that law was created, I believe it was to cover a case where say, a hostage was taken, but no intent was there to kill the hostage, but the hostage ended up dying by accident. In this case, it seems pretty clear that there was intent and planning, which would be first degree murder anyway. DG may not have specifically planned to kill NO, but when he found him there, he may have intended to include him in his plan. I don't believe it takes a certain time period in which the planning and deliberation must take place, can be seconds. In the event that DG gets 2nd degree for NO, DG is still going away for the rest of his life, regardless. He is going to be an elderly man when he sees the light of day again... even if the sentences are served concurrently.

In the case of Bosma, I don't think that even that one is simple... it could be said that they can't use 'kidnapping', since TB got into the truck willingly (but yet it was under deliberately false pretences); but they did definitely confine him and prevent him from leaving, just as DG would have prevented this family from leaving. moo.

https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Kidnapping_and_Unlawful_Confinement

Some light reading re kidnapping and confinement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks, both. I read up on this during the Bosma trial. Though legal docs are pretty mind numbing, I feel like I got a good understanding of first degree murder based on forcible confinement/kidnapping and premeditation. Deugirtni, it's right, forcible confinement must be a separate and deliberate act. While confinement is often considered an inherent part of murder, it has to be separate and deliberate to be the basis for first degree murder. Premeditation is a planned and deliberate act and makes up another basis for murder 1 and as D said this doesn't have to be a lengthy process. It's clear DG planned the murder and was deliberate in carrying it out. NO might not have been part of the original plan but he made the conscious and deliberate decision, IMO, to include him once in the house = murder 1. Just as if JO was in the house, or any number of people, he would have murdered everyone though that decision is made on the fly, it's still deliberate. LE may not have know how much planning was done at the time of the 2nd degree charge, once it became apparent that he painstakingly researched and planned the murder then murder 1 applies. All MOO.





Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

 

[Georgeo]

Yep i followed the Bosma trial. I remember people being surpised as it's not the norm. It didn't help him at all either!

Using known facts after disclosure and entire trial, gave him lots of storytelling ideas. Too bad jury didn't fall for it!

 

[Spellbound]

Curiosity question ... do/have we had a Canadian lawyere here?

 

[Georgeo]

So do you guys think info will come out that we couldn't hear about during the trial once the jury is sequestered?

After Bosma trial, a bunch of details came out that jury did not hear. Still more is under ban until other 2 trials are over.

 

[Georgeo]

I'm sorry but WTF.

WHY
WHY THEN
WHYYYYYYYYY

Did they put the family, the jury, the city, the witnesses, the taxpayers...freaking EVERYONE through this terrible trial? WHY

I am so angry. So angry.

i said the same thing 2 weeks ago. Something about his "right" and all that rubbish.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

Curiosity question ... do/have we had a Canadian lawyere here?

If you have a specific question, I have a friend who is a criminal defense attorney I can ask 😊

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Spellbound]

If you have a specific question, I have a friend who is a criminal defense attorney I can ask 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Yah... just in case I need help moving up there. :giggle:

Seriously, I iust wondered if a lawyer happened to be following along and ever gave some input here. It might make for interesting conversations. I have just been so impressed with all of this (starting to sound like a broken record).

 

[Wondergirl]

Wow. You'd never see that in the US.

I find it bizarre that so many defendants in Canada plead not guilty and then present no evidence. I just don't get it.

I'm Canadian.

 

[Kamille]

Just catching up, glad to see that DG didn't attempt to take the stand, although what could he possibly say really? I think he wanted to let this trial run out to see if the Crown's case produced any errors for an appeal. He did successfully represent himself in a case that I still can't believe he won so I think he had a lot more to do with the decisions in this trial than we many think. I suppose we'll have to wait and see until the very end and after the verdict if there were/will be any errors that may grant him an appeal. Obviously with the amount of evidence against him, he probably will never seriously get off on a reasonable doubt possibility so all he can really shoot for is a technicality within the trial. And neither of those possibilities would have existed if he had plead guilty. Which is why I think he didn't. Working the court system for the rest of his life sounds like something he might want to do to pass the time. And we still don't have a verdict so...well I don't think he's getting a not guilty or a hung jury but who knows. :dunno:

And that take down video. Anyone else find it creepy and ironic that it appears they put him into the back of a pickup and dragged him into it with handcuffs on to get him out of that field?

MOO

 

[ABro]

I find it bizarre that so many defendents in Canada plead not guilty and then present no evidence. I just don't get it.

I'm Canadian.

Jian Ghomeshi.

 

[Halldor]

And that take down video. Anyone else find it creepy and ironic that it appears they put him into the back of a pickup and dragged him into it with handcuffs on to get him out of that field?

MOO

I loved the irony of the animal being in the back. IT Was such a fitting end. I'm certain CPS was concerned DG would pee in the front. hehehe

 

[Cherchri]

Nah - 3hours, 42 minutes and then GUILTY< GUILTY< GUILTY

Why don't we all make a guess at how long deliberations will take - it will be interesting to get different views and compare to the end result. I was so oping to attend on Tuesday but absolutely cannot due to work deadlines. So disappointed. My guess is 3 hours tops.

 

[Tealgrove]

I find it bizarre that so many defendants in Canada plead not guilty and then present no evidence. I just don't get it.

I'm Canadian.

Canadian here too.

I think they plead No Guilty hoping for an error to be made by the judge, by the Crown or by whomever. If they plead not guilty there is still faint hope of getting off by virtue of an error, the ability to appeal, etc. etc.

If they plead guilty, it's done. No second chances.

I have no doubt that DG will be found guilty of 1st degree on all 3 charges. I also have no doubt that he will file an appeal. They all do just because they can. He can make up whatever reason he wants, thinks an error was made or whatever. Another shot at it.

In fact, I was a bit concerned reading the tweets today about what the Judge was saying to the Jury. Take care of yourselves, allow yourselves to feel, get sleep, start a journal, things have been tough etc. While it's wonderful that the Judge is caring for the Jury, however I wonder if an appeal could be launched based on his actions toward the jury. His comments may influence the jury to think certain things.

I could be way off base, but it concerned me today.

 

[Wondergirl]

I'm surprised the evidence and testimony is over. I still don't have a sense of what happened. I know he killed all three. He did it. No one else was involved. It was premeditated. I guess DNAerase does wonders with saw blades all shiny and new. The feeling I have could also be because of how this trial was reported. Maybe things were held back from being tweeted.

I agree. Very choppy reporting on this case. I do think that being in the courtroom would have made a big difference in following this trial.

I don't know. I guess the Crown does not really know all the details of this heinous crime and certainly never will. I don't think it matters judicially speaking.

I am perplexed at how Garland moved them around all over without being seen, without being on camera and without anyone hearing anything.

They talked about the diapers so much, but then did not present any definitive evidence showing their importance other than the "white material" on the 2 bodies in the aerial photos. It certainly isn't a stretch to fill in the blanks from the evidence that was put forth.

I think the scientific evidence sealed this case. Certainly the pictures from the plane were likely undeniable.

I disagree with the Judge. I don't think the jury will need their toothbrushes.

All JMO and all that.

 

[Tealgrove]

I think the Jury will be very decisive very quickly.

I predict under 3 hours.

 

[Snoopster]

No, no. Just running a Twitter search string feed and copy/pasting my heart out at the highest speed this laptop can handle lol

OT...I have a question JadeSLeuth, how do you grab all of the related tweets in bunches like that? Do you have separate Twitter ID and only follow the MSM reporting from the courtroom?

In any case you are an excellent multi-tasker! The word 'extraordinaire' comes to mind. I am not coordinated and focused enough to be efficient and effective at that.

Thanks not only to you, but to the others who posted the courtroom tweets here.

 

[Cherchri]

If you could pick anyone from the Crown's witnesses to have a one on one interview with you, who would it be? Or if Tricia could get them on a Websleuths interview for us?

Jamie Parhar (arresting officer)? Paul Gagnon (aerial photos guy)? The ME? Someone else?

Hmmm can I only choose one? If so I would go with Arns. If I could choose two - it would not be a crown witness but Kim Ross.