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

[katiesmomma48]

This is the one I found. I havenot found an earlier discussion yet:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Georgetown-28-Sept-2000&highlight=David+Camm,

Thank you!! You were one step ahead of me! This is what I was going to ask you about


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hatfield]

That's what I was wondering. I was trying to find it with no luck. It was David Camm and Charles Bonet. Would you know where to look?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I found these WS links

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...orgetown-28-Sept-2000&highlight=Charles+Bonet

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...the-first-for-David-Camm&highlight=David+Camm

 

[MistyWaters]

6.6 kms as per my mapping system measuring tool lol

So I guess it depends on your definition of close. I'm thinking not close as neighborly since that's a bit far for that yet is only a short drive.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Thanks very much for your calculations! Just thinking now, it's probably not connected or Garland would've have access to a truck that was less recognizable.

 

[Tealgrove]

Q to fellow sluethers: is there a part/topic you believe was covered in these "what the jury did not hear" times that you are particularly interested in? Where, maybe, it was touched on, then legal agreements and, either nothing more, or a total turn around happened? TIA. What are you dying to hear about?

I asked because I made the mistake of only following the cbc live blog for the first half of the trial, coming over to the twitter feed reposted here on WS for the past week. I didn't notice many times when the jury was absent. It could be that those occurrences weren't reported on the cbc blog as often as they happened (and there were often days when the primary reporter couldn't attend part of the trial and said to follow someone else on twitter. I don't do twitter.). Also, in contrast to the Bosma trial where the jury was out of court multiple times a day and/or days a week for legal arguments and media coverage was excellent. It just seemed like there was so much the jury did not hear in that case.

While the thought of catching up on the twitter feed from the start of the trial sounds like an awesome way to spend my weekend, I'll never have time for that. I'll be sure never to make that mistake again.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

I followed the Bosma trial voraciously. I think the difference was, and I could be very wrong so if I am someone please correct me, the Bosma trial waived the preliminary hearing and went straight to trial. As a result, arguments arose over testimony and evidence at the time of the trial as opposed to having those arguments heard prior to trial.

I think this trial did have a preliminary trial and all those arguments had previously happened.

I also think that Mark Smich had a shot at 2nd degree vs. first degree and Thomas Dungey fought tooth and nail for him. There was actually something to fight for. I remember many heated discussions about Mark Smich among the WS crew thinking that he was good for 2nd degree and even manslaughter.

In this case, I really see it as a slam dunk and quite honestly I think DG's lawyer's do to. There's not much to argue.

Hope that helps.

 

[kittymeow]

I also want to post that we'll likely see more things you may deem to be suspect from the judge as he gives the jury instructions. Based on the attached images our judicial system allows our judges a lot more leeway than other countries when in comes to addressing the jury.

Man I'm getting sick of finding links. I can't wait until I can just tell you all freely exactly what happened when jury is out and help your understanding and worries. The behind the scenes court process is really neat and eye opening. Takes away a lot of questions that I too would have if I wasn't seeing how it all goes down and why. Sitting in court wasn't just about the case for me it was about seeing the processes too.

View attachment 109652View attachment 109653

You will be able to talk soon! It will be okay. I understand it's hard. I attended the preliminary hearing and couldn't discuss for almost two years! I'm looking forward to what you have to share when the time comes.

I wanted to attend at least a few days of the trial too, however my health isn't great and it's hard to get out. But I think I will attend on the closing arguments day. It's just one day and I really feel like I want to bring this all full circle. I attended the garland farm when they searched it, the preliminary hearing... it feels unfinished to watch the trial end from afar. Plus as you mentioned it truly is a valuable learning experience to watch the legal process go down in person.

My thoughts on it are that he, and anyone else really, has nothing to lose by pleading not guilty, so why not. If you plead guilty that's the end of the story, but if you plead not guilty then there's always a chance things will go a different way.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I think this too. I don't think it's as malicious as some people are making it out to be. I think he's mostly indifferent to the surviving family. It's just a last ditch selfish attempt to try and save his own *advertiser censored*.

 

[Wondergirl]

What they are saying in those tweets is that there were blood drips from NO beside a large saturation stain from KL.

HTH

That could be why little Nathan's hand print smear had some of Kathy's DNA in it on the closet door.

Perhaps NO was lying beside his Grandma when she was brutalized, and he picked up her DNA transfer and made for the closet....[emoji20]

 

[Georgeo]

Someone on another case had brought up the idea of having professional jurors as a whole new career and job opportunity. I think that is a real good idea for many reasons.

Professional jurors would get better and better over time and I believe they would create more accurate verdicts. They would get used to how attorneys tactics are used to fool a jury and they would know the signs when they are trying to be tricked into thinking a certain way by the attorneys.

Prof. jurors would get used to the goriness of some cases and it wouldn't hit them as much which would help reduce the possibility of emotions influencing a verdict. They would be able to handle cases more professionally without emotions affecting their decisions.

Prof jurors could be established for each state and a rotation method could be established to make sure different people are involved with different cases. To help get a fair jury pool.

Prof jurors would reduce the possibility of jurors rushing their decisions for personal reasons. It is their job so they would be less likely to rush their decisions just because they want to go home.

Many other reasons I feel professional jurors would be a better way to do things and I do believe it would create more fairer verdicts.
It could be rolled out slowly and wouldnt have to be done all at once.

I agree that professional juries would be a much better way to go. The average present day juror has no experience in evaluating evidence and deciding an accused's fate.


As a career choice, these people would be well able to interpret evidence
Such as DNA, blood.


Lawyers spend many years in school, as do medical examiners, lab technicians, and many others involved in the LE and judicial process. Why do average, un-trained citizens have this responsibility?


Jmo

 

[Tealgrove]

I agree that professional juries would be a much better way to go. The average present day juror has no experience in evaluating evidence and deciding an accused's fate.


As a career choice, these people would be well able to interpret evidence
Such as DNA, blood.


Lawyers spend many years in school, as do medical examiners, lab technicians, and many others involved in the LE and judicial process. Why do average, un-trained citizens have this responsibility?


Jmo

RBBM

Because, the accused is to be judged by a jury of his/her peers - not professional jurists. Your peers are to decide your guilt or innocence.

 

[musicaljoke]

I agree that professional juries would be a much better way to go. The average present day juror has no experience in evaluating evidence and deciding an accused's fate.


As a career choice, these people would be well able to interpret evidence
Such as DNA, blood.


Lawyers spend many years in school, as do medical examiners, lab technicians, and many others involved in the LE and judicial process. Why do average, un-trained citizens have this responsibility?


Jmo

The jury of one's peers is a very important right that protects us from government interference in the judiciary process.

The right to trial by jury stands as one of the most effective checks against the tyranny of government - it is, as Winston Churchill put it, the "supreme protection invented by the British people for ordinary individuals against the state". The right to trial by jury is enshrined in the Magna Carta and is, according to that constitutional document, an everlasting birthright of the people of this land.

http://www.freedom-central.net/trialbyjury.html

 

[Hatfield]

RBBM

Because, the accused is to be judged by a jury of his/her peers - not professional jurists. Your peers are to decide your guilt or innocence.

JMO
I would consider a pool of professional unbiased jurors to be my peers. It just happens to be their job. They are still my peer and could be my neighbor down the street. They key would be that would be trained in neutrality and being unbiased as they deliberate.

 

[MistyWaters]

I agree that professional juries would be a much better way to go. The average present day juror has no experience in evaluating evidence and deciding an accused's fate.


As a career choice, these people would be well able to interpret evidence
Such as DNA, blood.


Lawyers spend many years in school, as do medical examiners, lab technicians, and many others involved in the LE and judicial process. Why do average, un-trained citizens have this responsibility?


Jmo

Why do average, un-trained citizens have this responsibility?

Why not? If our legal system becomes so complicated that average, untrained citizens cannot know if our laws are broken, how can we know our system is working as it should at, for example, election time?

The main problem with professional jurors is lack of separation. Indeed, in the same way as everything is measured by performance in this era, prosectors are expected to maintain high prosecution rates and they are government employees. Toss in professional Jurors, who would also be government employees. Plus in Canada our judges are also appointed by the government as well. I guarantee you the idea would never fly, professional jurors would never be perceived as truly independent or impartial, and the old adage "do not bite the hand that feeds you" still holds true whether we believe it is so or not.

 

[MistyWaters]

JMO
I would consider a pool of professional unbiased jurors to be my peers. It just happens to be their job. They are still my peer and could be my neighbor down the street. They key would be that would be trained in neutrality and being unbiased as they deliberate.

Neutrality can only occur because it exists.

 

[MistyWaters]

The jury of one's peers is a very important right that protects us from government interference in the judiciary process.

The right to trial by jury stands as one of the most effective checks against the tyranny of government - it is, as Winston Churchill put it, the "supreme protection invented by the British people for ordinary individuals against the state". The right to trial by jury is enshrined in the Magna Carta and is, according to that constitutional document, an everlasting birthright of the people of this land.

http://www.freedom-central.net/trialbyjury.html

Exactly! I read George Orwell's book "1984" many years ago but whenever I think of professional jurors I'm still reminded of it.

 

[Hatfield]

Why do average, un-trained citizens have this responsibility?

Why not? If our legal system becomes so complicated that average, untrained citizens cannot know if our laws are broken, how can we know our system is working as it should at, for example, election time?

The main problem with professional jurors is lack of separation. Indeed, in the same way as everything is measured by performance in this era, prosectors are expected to maintain high prosecution rates and they are government employees. Toss in professional Jurors, who would also be government employees. Plus in Canada our judges are also appointed by the government as well. I guarantee you the idea would never fly, professional jurors would never be perceived as truly independent or impartial, and the old adage "do not bite the hand that feeds you" still holds true whether we believe it is so or not.

Re BBM

Yea those are good points and I could see that as being a possible issue. Maybe they could be paid independently somehow.

If they are perceived to be tied to the government in any way then impartialability would be hard to come by.

I would like to see if the idea could be investigated further though to see if there could be a way. One issue I have with public juries is sometimes the instructions given to them by the judge are very complex and I am not comfortable they understand them going into deliberations. I think a lot of them are too embarrassed to ask questions of the judge.

And I have heard too many examples of jurors deciding ones fate not on the evidence but just because they "felt" the guy was guilty or he "looked" guilty and they could not get over that. Doesnt happen all the time but it has happened more often than people realize. And then we have the whole "rogue" juror problem which we do know exists. We had one in JA case. A professional pool should help eliminate that.

There was even a rogue juror in the Kepler trial which is just now going into a 2nd trial because the 1st trial could not come to a decision because of a lone juror. The theory is it was someone who had a relative who was a LE officer or had ties to LE since the person on trial is a LE officer. Evidence all pointed to guilt and yet 1 juror hold out.

I guess I would just like to see a task force check into it to see if it could be done and gain impartialality. Lots of advantages IMO.

 

[casesensitive]

Thanks for posting the link! Oddly, Christie Blatchford also labels Garland with that 1000-yard stare.

"He was, she said, calm and collected. He had what she called “the 1,000-yard stare.”

He’s had it throughout the trial, that same startling lack of expression."

I'll admit I've not heard the term before. I apologize if anyone has already posted the background on the word because then I missed it. From google:

"The term “thousand-yard-stare” is believed to have originated in World War I, and was coined for the faces of battle-weary soldiers. It was popularized in World War II and named for the perception that such stares really do seem to be able to see very far ahead. Eyes cross a little when focusing on something reasonably close, but eyes not looking at anything will behave like eyes looking at something very far away. It is described as a unfocused, dazed look seen in a person who has suffered severe acute psychological distress and is coping with that stress through dissociation from the event and the “players”."
http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/american-marine-thousand-yard-stare-1944/

Hmmm, I recall it mentioned in studies that psychopaths, no conscience, no empathy or feelings for others, therefore they mimic facial expression in order to appear normal.

If Garland was tired of playing the game, that also might be a reason for the 1000-yard stare?

Shellshock certainly wouldn't be the cause.

Other thoughts?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think the key word here to describe DG's 1000-mile stare is "dissociation" which is a defense mechanism. In this case, DG's stress of being on LE's hit list, his detection at the farm, the chase and arrest could have resulted in dissociation (emotional detachment from the reality of the trauma which is occurring) and thus the symptomatic 1,000 yard stare. It fits. I was surprised to read that Christie B. noticed this stare throughout the trial, since I was under the impression from a few tweets that he was engaged and taking notes at times. But It appears that he frequently went into a zombie state when this emotional defense kicked in. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a history of dissociation.

When I read that he was writing in his journal and talking aloud to himself in the park, it actually surprised me. Now with the revelation of his 1000-mile stares, I think DG is more seriously mentally ill than I even imagined, versus merely revengeful and evil. This revelation doesn't change my opinion that he deserves first-degree convictions. But I have to seriously question the competence of the psychiatrist/psychologist he saw every week, or maybe their lack of finding resources/funding to get him committed to a mental facility. Anyway, I wish we could have heard the opinion and diagnosis of DG from his mental health practitioner.

 

[MistyWaters]

Re BBM

Yea those are good points and I could see that as being a possible issue. Maybe they could be paid independently somehow.

If they are perceived to be tied to the government in any way then impartialability would be hard to come by.

I would like to see if the idea could be investigated further though to see if there could be a way. One issue I have with public juries is sometimes the instructions given to them by the judge are very complex and I am not comfortable they understand them going into deliberations. I think a lot of them are too embarrassed to ask questions of the judge.

And I have heard too many examples of jurors deciding ones fate not on the evidence but just because they "felt" the guy was guilty or he "looked" guilty and they could not get over that. Doesnt happen all the time but it has happened more often than people realize. And then we have the whole "rogue" juror problem which we do know exists. We had one in JA case. A professional pool should help eliminate that.

There was even a rogue juror in the Kepler trial which is just now going into a 2nd trial because the 1st trial could not come to a decision because of a lone juror. The theory is it was someone who had a relative who was a LE officer or had ties to LE since the person on trial is a LE officer. Evidence all pointed to guilt and yet 1 juror hold out.

I guess I would just like to see a task force check into it to see if it could be done and gain impartialality. Lots of advantages IMO.

Or why not while we're at it, just fire the judge, prosecutor and defence attorney. Professional jurors trained to be impartial and understand law, just bring them in and have them ask questions of witnesses and then just decide if the accused is guilty or not. They could be called a jury panel, no judicial instructions are needed. There could be a trap door into a dark, bottomless pit and if the accused is found guilty, one of them would just press the button? The advantage is the issue of appeals would also be eliminated.

But that's not going to happen either

 

[MistyWaters]

I think the key word here to describe DG's 1000-mile stare is "dissociation" which is a defense mechanism. In this case, DG's stress of being on LE's hit list, his detection at the farm, the chase and arrest could have resulted in dissociation (emotional detachment from the reality of the trauma which is occurring) and thus the symptomatic 1,000 yard stare. It fits. I was surprised to read that Christie B. noticed this stare throughout the trial, since I was under the impression from a few tweets that he was engaged and taking notes at times. But It appears that he frequently went into a zombie state when this emotional defense kicked in. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a history of dissociation.

When I read that he was writing in his journal and talking aloud to himself in the park, it actually surprised me. Now with the revelation of his 1000-mile stares, I think DG is more seriously mentally ill than I even imagined, versus merely revengeful and evil. This revelation doesn't change my opinion that he deserves first-degree convictions. But I have to seriously question the competence of the psychiatrist/psychologist he saw every week, or maybe their lack of finding resources/funding to get him committed to a mental facility. Anyway, I wish we could have heard the opinion and diagnosis of DG from his mental health practitioner.

I most certainly hope this isn't going to be yet another example of the lack of mental health options in this province, where it's the result of serious crimes including murders that get people into mental health treatment centres.

It's a controversial topic but my understanding is unless the person acknowledges they are suicidal, regardless that family members or even physicians suspect impending disaster is about to occur, there's nothing they can do. To commit, in order to treat someone against their will is an invasion of their human rights.

I hope someone might confirm this. In the US it's a little bit different. For example in Florida there's the Baker Act.

 

[Female]

I most certainly hope this isn't going to be yet another example of the lack of mental health options in this province, where it's serious crimes including murders that get people into treatment centres.

It's a controversial topic but my understanding is unless the person acknowledges they are suicidal, regardless that family members or even physicians suspect impending disaster is about to occur, there's nothing they can do. To treat someone against their will is an invasion of human rights.

I hope someone might confirm this. In the US it's a little bit different. For example in Florida there's the Baker Act.

We do have the power here to involuntarily commit to hospital or force treatment. There's of course rules and criteria and whatnot that must be followed but yes, we can force it here. I also believe it's provincial based so rules can vary.

http://www.legalline.ca/legal-answe...on-of-mentally-ill-people-and-length-of-stay/

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

I noticed some comments about Canada earlier in the thread ... thought this might make you smile

 

[olivebpa1]

Can a person on trial for murder choose to be tried by a judge? Or is that just for lesser charges?