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

[olivebpa1]

And managed to get some of KL's DNA hidden behind the license plate......

That guy must have stole DG's shoes too snd got alvin's dna on those. Could you even imagine if they went the he was frammed route.

 

[deugirtni]

I think that may be what his lawyer is trying for. To get the charge for NO reduced but i don't think he will be successful. It's his job to try though. The jury is not coming back with less than 1st degree on the murder of a 5 year old.

Even if he was successful in getting *one* of the murder charges reduced from first degree to something else, what good would it do him? If he was 54 (I think?) when he went to jail, he'd be there for a minimum of 25 years, just for *one* murder, taking him to age 79... and if convincted of two first degree murders, the judge I believe has the prerogative of sentencing him consecutively, rather than concurrently..... so that isn't really going to help him.

So far, the defence's line of questioning has been to suggest there is no proof these things were done by DG (computer could have been used by anyone since not pw protected; he had all kinds of books so picking out certain titles is meaningless in the big picture; no DNA from DG found at the L residence; other people could have had access to the green truck; the tools he purchased are generic and have a wide variety of uses; the stuff found in the outbuildings could have been very old, could have been part of auction lots, could have been meaningless; others could have gained access to the tools and outbuildings to put victim DNA there, and burn people; the shoe box was empty and no shoes of that type were ever found; et et et et). His only hope is to say the Crown didn't prove it was him specifically, and to offer up an alternative theory (imo). I wonder who could have put AL's DNA on the tongue of the shoe he was wearing when arrested though? That's going to be rather difficult to pass off!!!!!

 

[MistyWaters]

I agree, he was unsuccessful. But maybe he was laying a foundation for casting doubt at his closing arguments as to whether the Ls and N ever made it out of the house alive.

If true, it speaks to the pathetic defence case, that their best strategy may be to say "he killed them quickly, and only dismembered and burned away their remains. He didn't kidnap or torture them!"
MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The defence would indeed have to be desperate.

Given the testimony today, I don't think the jury would conclude the trios death was non intentional or accidental, even if they believed they were deceased at the Liknes residence. It was clearly an extremely vicious and violent attack where they were forced to fight for their lives.

Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.

 

[Bravo]

When are we going to hear why the dog was sniffing at the little green sweater???? What a long couple of days? Must be so hard on the family.

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 20s20 seconds ago
At outbuilding #3 - Sully gives an alert near a storage rack. Wiliams notices a small green sweater hanging on rack #Garland

That has been on my mind since Sully hit on it. Sully was not allowed in that building IIRC due to chemicals? I morphed into maybe it was the apparatus the green sweater was hanging on. Then I had a reality check. Sadly. It was green and it was small.

 

[MistyWaters]

Oh yes, don't forget that! I just really want to hear the defence's opening/closing statement word for word ...

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

My understanding is the defence didn't deliver an opening statement.

 

[olivebpa1]

This part of Bill Graveland's article from today is so freaking sad...

"Arns told the jury that Nathan's blood had dripped onto the floor near where his grandmother's body was lying and that he would have been "actively bleeding" on the fitted sheet of the mattress.
"All I can tell you in that particular case is that there was a bloodletting injury and that due to gravity the blood was formulating and dropping"

Here is the link for the article

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada...276458#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=qPfBbkl

 

[PrincessButtercup]

My understanding is the defence didn't deliver an opening statement.

They haven't opened their case yet

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Ontario Mom]

Maybe, there was something written in that journal that gave every reason for LE to believe AL, KL and NO were in fact still alive at the farm? Such as, what DG did, how they reacted, etc. I suppose it's possible that this is why the Crown is so certain that the farm is where they died. Just thinking out loud.

 

[CentralAlberta]

I agree. it takes my breath away when I think about it for too long. It's like a horror movie but it's real. I can't even comprehend how terrifying that would be. and to be the family and know that your family members last moments were so horrifying. As a mother you would be broken knowing that at the worst moment of your son's life you weren't there.

But she can know her parents, especially her mom fought as hard as she could for her son.

 

[deugirtni]

Oh yes, don't forget that! I just really want to hear the defence's opening/closing statement word for word ...

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

In a criminal trial, the Crown begins first and usually provides the jury with an opening statement that summarizes the facts it says will establish its case. It also provides the jury with a summary of evidence it is expected to lead.

Then it begins calling witnesses.


When it finishes its case, the defence then has the option of making an opening statement and calling witnesses.

https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/01/12/pickton_defence_allowed_early_opening_statement.html

 

[Hatfield]

Kevin MartinVerified account ‏@KMartinCourts 1m1 minute ago
Arns agrees with Ross there was significant amount of blood loss. #Garland

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 1m1 minute ago
Arns says she agrees that it appears Kathryn lost a significant amt of blood. #Garland #yyc

Catching up.

The only thing the Defense attorney did with their cross exam was remind the jury that blood was everywhere. They would have been better off saying "no questions".

IMO all signs are pointing to the defense not calling any witnesses and trying to say the prosecution did not prove DG killed them.
They probably even know it wont work but its all they got and anything they do will inflame the jury even more. Their goose is cooked.

I found these comments from the Defense which was said right before trial started

“It’s been a long process for all parties involved so we’re happy to get it going,”"
"As for if the defence will show any evidence, Ross said that decision hasn’t been made yet."
“That’s a decision we’ll be making at the close of the Crown’s case,” he said."

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgar...ence-lawyer-makes-statement-before-trial.html

 

[kdgdid]

I was thinking because he bought a flashlight if he may of bought the towel to wrap around his hand to smash a window on the acreage to gain entrance to the house?

Wasn't he staying at a motel at that point? A motel has towels. He needed a towel he could throw away, it seems. So I agree, he must have wanted to clean up, wipe up or mop up something he considered incriminating. What else do you use a towel for?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[nettie_82]

I was thinking because he bought a flashlight if he may of bought the towel to wrap around his hand to smash a window on the acreage to gain entrance to the house?

Not sure how he would think he was getting in the house. He drove past acreage first while there was a police presence. He knew they were there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MistyWaters]

I agree, he was unsuccessful. But maybe he was laying a foundation for casting doubt at his closing arguments as to whether the Ls and N ever made it out of the house alive.

If true, it speaks to the pathetic defence case, that their best strategy may be to say "he killed them quickly, and only dismembered and burned away their remains. He didn't kidnap or torture them!"
MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My mistake, I thought both opening statements were offered at the beginning of the trial and the defence chose not to give one.

 

[nuclearali]

Anyone want to comment on what they think DG was doing in the house for 1.5 hours? I imagine the struggle only took 10-15 minutes. Does anyone think it was longer? What else was he doing?

I want to know about the video tape with the strange title they found in his office! Can't recall the name right now. What was that video about?

 

[MistyWaters]

Garland - he fled once before. He had a rental car, what if he had money hidden somewhere and was intending to take off. We never really heard how much was in the rafters but he had to have wanted the hard drive removed as well.

So I'd bet he intended to attempt to sneak into the house, police presence or not, what did he have to lose. He had already broken the terms of his release by his proximity that to the average and the late hour.

 

[CentralAlberta]

Kevin MartinVerified account ‏@KMartinCourts 25s26 seconds ago
Linton maintained continuity on Garland's rental car as he made his way towards his family farm on foot. #Garland

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 57s58 seconds ago
It was about 12:50 am on July 14, 2014. That's it for Linton. Defence has no questions #Garland

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 57s58 seconds ago
Linton is done giving his evidence. Not questions from defence. #Garland #yyc


? I feel let down

WHat?? Where's the rest?? That was getting to be an exciting little story.

 

[naz]

I wonder if DG brought the towel to plant someone else DNA? Anyone else..leave it by the burn barrel maybe ?

 

[PrincessButtercup]

Garland - he fled once before. He had a rental car, what if he had money hidden somewhere and was intending to take off. We never really heard how much was in the rafters but he had to have wanted the hard drive removed as well.

So I'd bet he intended to attempt to sneak into the house, police presence or not, what did he have to lose. He had already broken the terms of his release by his proximity that to the average and the late hour.

We did hear that there was cash in the rafters as well as ID in the name of Matthew Hartley too. You would think he would have been smart enough to hide that off property somewhere!!

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[MistyWaters]

We did hear that there was cash in the rafters as well as ID in the name of Matthew Hartley too. You would think he would have been smart enough to hide that off property somewhere!!

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Good point, it certainly appears it was a complete escape plan.

Do you happen to remember in 2014, there was something about him being evicted from the hotel? Certainly no rental car mentioned, iirc it was that he walked across the field. Odd how some of those alternate stories emerge.