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

[Georgeo]

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.

hope judge knows what is appropriate to say and what isn't!!!

 

[Snoopster]

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?

I'm going to have to go with the "team effort", as motherhoodish as that is, because I was very impressed with the work put in by so many. What about the guy(s) that put hours upon hours in, tediously looking through eye-straining videos? What about the first officers on scene? What about the forensics investigator, sifting through the remains of the burn barrel, looking for any human fragments or evidence of the victims?

Yes, the final chase was exciting, but the overall case effort was so much more than that.
(but, yes, I will admit that the video of the final capture was so cool, wasn't it??)

 

[Hatfield]

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 used to wonder why a defendent who knows there is tons of evidence against them would plead "not guity" and then go through a whole trial.

IMO
Ive come to conclude that they hope something or anything goes in their favor during a trial. Anything can happen and they are hoping for some legal angle that would act in their favor.

There are many ways this could happen.
They may find that LE illegally did a search and seizure or they may find that a witness is now recanting their testimony or a host of other things that can act in their favor during a trial.

The simplest angle they hope for is there is 1 juror on the jury that decides for whatever reason that they wont convict him.

Remember the OJ trial or remember the Casey Anthony Trial. Anything can happen during a trial that can act in their favor.

 

[MistyWaters]

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.

I think it's because of this:

In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

That suggests it's the right of an accused to plead Not Guilty even if they know they're guilty as sin. Because they're not truly guilty until the jury finds them so. If that makes any sense and no it doesn't.......

 

[Kamille]

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.

BBM

I wondered about that too. Even back as far as when he first started saying those things to the jury. Is this something new that they've been instructed to do with all the new concerns and changes to access to mental health help for jurors?

:waitasec:

 

[Kamille]

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.

I think it will depend on what time of day the jury is finally handed the case for deliberation. They have a few things to do before they can even start to deliberate and cast the first vote. Plus they must want to discuss everything with each other. They've been sitting with each other for 4 weeks and have been unable to discuss what they've been seeing and dealing with. And maybe how many of the jurors are looking forward to a peaceful night or two alone in a hotel room.

I think it will go overnight at least on the first day. Perhaps we'll get a verdict late afternoon next Wednesday.

And I would think that Monday will be a more interesting day in the courtroom to hear the Crown pull the whole thing together in their closing statement. Tuesday will be mostly technical legal jargon regarding the charges and the options. And it could take a while since there are three different charges and I assume some lesser charges for the judge to go over.

MOO

 

[olivebpa1]

I think it will depend on what time of day the jury is finally handed the case for deliberation. They have a few things to do before they can even start to deliberate and cast the first vote. Plus they must want to discuss everything with each other. They've been sitting with each other for 4 weeks and have been unable to discuss what they've been seeing and dealing with. And maybe how many of the jurors are looking forward to a peaceful night or two alone in a hotel room.

I think it will go overnight at least on the first day. Perhaps we'll get a verdict late afternoon next Wednesday.

And I would think that Monday will be a more interesting day in the courtroom to hear the Crown pull the whole thing together in their closing statement. Tuesday will be mostly technical legal jargon regarding the charges and the options. And it could take a while since there are three different charges and I assume some lesser charges for the judge to go over.

MOO

I agree. I think it will at least go overnight if they aren't sent away until the afternoon. I'm sure they'll all go in ready to vote guilty 1st degree but they owe it to our justice system to review the evidence and there is quite a bit of evidence.

 

[Cherchri]

Hoping it's OK to share this for Kathy, Alvin and Nathan. http://www.boomviral.net/sarah-mcla...angel-with-pink-left-the-audience-speechless/

 

[naz]

Hoping it's OK to share this for Kathy, Alvin and Nathan. http://www.boomviral.net/sarah-mcla...angel-with-pink-left-the-audience-speechless/

And this one too,[video=youtube;mk7QIsOBsOM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7QIsOBsOM[/video]

 

[Snoopster]

Hoping it's OK to share this for Kathy, Alvin and Nathan. http://www.boomviral.net/sarah-mcla...angel-with-pink-left-the-audience-speechless/

Absolutely beautiful. Sarah and Pink....amazing and so emotionally touching.
Nathan, Kathryn and Alvin are all definitely in the arms of the angels.

As we wait for the verdict, my thoughts are with their loved ones. Hugs to all.

:grouphug:

 

[Female]

BBM

I wondered about that too. Even back as far as when he first started saying those things to the jury. Is this something new that they've been instructed to do with all the new concerns and changes to access to mental health help for jurors?

:waitasec:

I did a ton of reading tonight on judge ethics when it comes to empathy and compassion towards the jury. From what I gather it's essentially psychologically debriefing them about their rights to help and the resources available. Completely fine to do and encouraged especially in longer more gruesome trials. Of course it is decently new as we realize more and more the significant impact being a jury member can have on their mental health.

This website was a good read.


http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/esc-cde/scje-cdej/p5.html

 

[Female]

I did a ton of reading tonight on judge ethics when it comes to empathy and compassion towards the jury. From what I gather it's essentially psychologically debriefing them about their rights to help and the resources available. Completely fine to do and encouraged especially in longer more gruesome trials. Of course it is decently new as we realize more and more the significant impact being a jury member can have on their mental health.

This website was a good read.


http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/esc-cde/scje-cdej/p5.html

A little snippet from the page:

"The various aspects of the debriefing consisted of introductions, an explanation of the purpose of the debriefing session, a cautionary note pertaining to non-disclosure of jury discussions, and information about post-trial trauma, signs and symptoms, and mental health resources for jurors."

 

[otto]

This morning I mentioned that the drips from Nathan were connected with blood pooling. I don't use twitter so I don't know how to properly search and link twitter comments, but here is a screen shot.

 

[Kamille]

I did a ton of reading tonight on judge ethics when it comes to empathy and compassion towards the jury. From what I gather it's essentially psychologically debriefing them about their rights to help and the resources available. Completely fine to do and encouraged especially in longer more gruesome trials. Of course it is decently new as we realize more and more the significant impact being a jury member can have on their mental health.

This website was a good read.


http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/esc-cde/scje-cdej/p5.html

Thanks for that. It appears in the part I read that they are discussing a trial debriefing session program in Manitoba with the jury behind closed doors with social workers. And that the judge would authorize this program. I didn't see anything where the judge is supposed to be giving them mental health advice, from the bench, during the course of the trial. But I do know that all provinces have been reviewing the impact of PTSD on jurors and perhaps they have made this recommendation in Alberta?

It's kind of hard to explain why it seems odd that a judge who is supposed to be completely impartial and unbiased about what is legally permitted to be discussed and shown in his courtroom, while he/she is presiding over a case, is admitting to the jury that the evidence against the accused is horrific and trauma inducing, therefore influencing the jury regarding the evidence. Does that make sense?

:waitasec:

MOO

 

[swedie]

My prediction of jury deliberation time is three hours and he will be found guilty of three counts of first degree murder. JMO.

 

[Kamille]

This morning I mentioned that the drips from Nathan were connected with blood pooling. I don't use twitter so I don't know how to properly search and link twitter comments, but here is a screen shot.

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

HTH

 

[Female]

Thanks for that. It appears in the part I read that they are discussing a trial debriefing session program in Manitoba with the jury behind closed doors with social workers. And that the judge would authorize this program. I didn't see anything where the judge is supposed to be giving them mental health advice, from the bench, during the course of the trial. But I do know that all provinces have been reviewing the impact of PTSD on jurors and perhaps they have made this recommendation in Alberta?

It's kind of hard to explain why it seems odd that a judge who is supposed to be completely impartial and unbiased about what is legally permitted to be discussed and shown in his courtroom, while he/she is presiding over a case, is admitting to the jury that the evidence against the accused is horrific and trauma inducing, therefore influencing the jury regarding the evidence. Does that make sense?

:waitasec:

MOO

I was just trying to find a link that discussed it in some way. I originally was going to post that the judge in the tori Stafford case told jurors similar things but of course that's not on record anywhere as that one was under a publication ban. I knew just spouting something like that would get push back since I can't post visual proof.

That particular link just also happened to have that blurb that encompassed almost every aspect of what this judge said to this jury. Vs other links discuss in general the ethical duty of a judge to "take care" of the jury. Their ethics on compassion are murky for sure and we've seen sentencing where emotions maybe dictated the sentencing more than the facts, but addressing a jury with compassion does not appear to be an issue in anything I had read. Murky on when the judge addresses the defendant with compassion (example: swimmer who raped the gal down in the US).

I personally think a judge does have a duty to take care of the jury in legal ethical ways because they are an integral part of the justice system. Without mentally preparing them and informing them of tools at their disposal we may deal with jurors dropping, shutting down and not actually soaking in the information. The jury needs to know they can take breaks for their well being, there's no good way to put that other than to warn of the graphic nature of the case and the evidence.

 

[otto]

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

HTH

I understood it differently - it's hard to know what was said given that the twitter comments seem to be somewhat abbreviated.

 

[otto]

Thanks for that. It appears in the part I read that they are discussing a trial debriefing session program in Manitoba with the jury behind closed doors with social workers. And that the judge would authorize this program. I didn't see anything where the judge is supposed to be giving them mental health advice, from the bench, during the course of the trial. But I do know that all provinces have been reviewing the impact of PTSD on jurors and perhaps they have made this recommendation in Alberta?

It's kind of hard to explain why it seems odd that a judge who is supposed to be completely impartial and unbiased about what is legally permitted to be discussed and shown in his courtroom, while he/she is presiding over a case, is admitting to the jury that the evidence against the accused is horrific and trauma inducing, therefore influencing the jury regarding the evidence. Does that make sense?

:waitasec:

MOO

It makes sense, but at the same time reasonable people know that the evidence contained extreme cruelty. If the Judge did not tell the jury at the beginning of the trial that counselling would be available after the trial, they may have resented the duty they were required to perform. The Judge gave the jury breaks when they were presented with testimony that evoked emotional responses from them, so although it may be perceived that he was oversharing his interpretation of the evidence, it could also be understood as empathy for the jury.

 

[musicaljoke]

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?

I would want to converse with his honour, Justice ...oh now, what was his name. He could fill us in on all the evidence that never made it to court. I think that he must be a sweet man, concerned for others, in spite of hearing horrific evidence himself.

Justice David Gates.