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

[otto]

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

Yes, an accused can elect a bench trial regardless of charges.
Trial by Jury or Judge is always a choice.

 

[otto]

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?

Jamie Parhar.

 

[otto]

I have the opinion that the jury needs to be addressed publicly as was the case in this trial. The thoughts of social workers in the jury room is very disturbing in that we don't know if anything the social worker says can influence the jury.

It will be interesting to see if the judge's address to the jury is challenged by the accused. I certainly hope not. jmo.

Given the horrific end to the lives of the victims, I think no camera is a good idea. Let the Judge speak freely without concern for video analysis of his decision.

 

[otto]

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

He's been busy scribbling notes to his lawyer for the last 4 weeks so he apparently has recovered from the 1000 yard stare.
Interesting origin for the phrase ... thanks

 

[MistyWaters]

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

Here's the Alberta Mental Health Act as well.
http://www.health.alberta.ca/newsroom/mental-health-act-patients.html

All three conditions must be satisfied including the person is at risk of harming themselves or others. I'd be surprised if anyone had even an inkling of the violent planning in his head. Mentally ill but not mentally ill enough to demand attention.

 

[otto]

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

There was an evidentiary hearing prior to the trial. Are you saying that evidence was not posted on twitter, or that it was not presented in court?

 

[otto]

Been thinking about this and I like that the services is offered but I think it should be offered only after the trial is over because of the potential to influence a juror.

I know some jurors could use it during the trial but it just seems unfair to the defendants in certain cases.

No worries.
Jurors receive counselling after jury service.
Jurors are not allowed to discuss any aspect of the case prior to delivering a verdict, and Canadian jurors are never allowed to publicly discuss the deliberations.

If jurors are unable to process the testimony, they should be screened prior to trail. For example, one male was excluded from the jury because he is a student. Those who are not pre-excluded, but rather included, on the jury can request to be removed from the jury at any time. Sixteen jurors were selected for that very possibility in this trial. Normally it's 14.

Bottom line ... if jurors can't handle the evidence, the Judge screwed up in accepting that person, and there's an option to opt out of the jury at any time.

 

[otto]

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.

Thank you for clarifying why there was an expectation that the trial would be repeatedly interrupted with requests and complaints. Garland has his void dire hearings and evidentiary hearing - where his "journal" was probably excluded. I agree with whoever posted that he was probably wandering around Nose Hill Park madly re-hashing in his head, in writing, whether he had covered all the "how to get away with murder" points he knew about.

 

[Deleted member 192280]

1. I keep thinking about DG's research...especially him researching something about the amount of force required to cause brain damage.

If, as I said, he wore a mask while at the victims' house, and wanted to reveal his identity after taking them to his farm, then it would make sense that he did not want to cause severe brain damage so that the victims would lose cognition or comprehension. He only needed to physically incapacitate them, not mentally, for his purpose of revenge.

 

[Power of Two]

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

The 1,000 yard stare also describes a look of complete disinterest. I used to work for a physician who had it down to a T.
Another thought, I wonder if DG is medicated at all? Perhaps if he is, that may create a flat affect and give the appearance of a blank look of no emotion.

 

[deugirtni]

The closing arguments are from the Crown and the Defence.. putting their own individual spins on how they see things, and what they had been trying to prove. In the Bosma trial, imho, it seemed like Millard's lawyer was trying to tell Millard's version of events during the closing statement, without Millard ever having testified under oath to tell that version. Jurors seemed to be reminded now and then during the trial that what the lawyers say is NOT evidence, so I'm getting that because something is said in the courtroom by a lawyer, the jury can tend to believe it as truth, rather than seeing it for what it is, which is just someone's spin on things, someone with a vested interest in how things turn out.

I would be really interested to hear, word for word, the trial judge's instruction to the jury. In past trials that I have followed, the judge seems to review much of the testimony and sometimes states whether or not someone may have seemed to be a believable witness, etc. I found it really odd in prior trials that the judge seemed to go into such detail in regard to the evidence that had been presented, because it was, to me, almost like the judge was telling the jurors what to make of the various testimony they heard.

Obviously the jury is going to have respect for the judge's wisdom and experience. With a judge reviewing the evidence like that, in such detail, I can see how there may be room there for errors to be made, and potential appeals to happen as a result. Even a simple word error can cause an entirely different meaning. (For example, a judge in one case I followed, the judge said 'with' instead of 'without', which of course, has an entirely opposite meaning. The judge caught it after the fact, and corrected it.. but just saying that if the jury hears evidence directly from the witnesses, and then the judge reviews it all, there is room for error there)

from the judge's instruction to the jury from another trial:

"I read incorrectly, one part of my own charge about Dr Milroy," Judge tells jury. #Badgerow
Lisa Hepfner ?@HefCHCHNews

Judge says he misspoke, saying "with" not "without" at one point in his charge. Another mistake in evidence about burrs in panties.
Lisa Hepfner ?@HefCHCHNews

I really hope the reporters in this case have their fingers all in tip-top shape for tweeting and reporting on all of these closing remarks to come on Monday and Tuesday!

 

[deugirtni]

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.

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*.

Kind of like how people fight a speeding ticket even when they know they were speeding.

 

[deugirtni]

Been thinking about this and I like that the services is offered but I think it should be offered only after the trial is over because of the potential to influence a juror.

I know some jurors could use it during the trial but it just seems unfair to the defendants in certain cases.

During the time when the jurors are selected, they have a perfect opportunity to tell the judge that they may not be emotionally up to sitting on that particular trial. The judge would surely excuse them and keep them for a less emotionally charged trial. Surely people must know if they can stomach a trial such as this or other ones where the testimony is going to be hard to hear.

 

[deugirtni]

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.

Who though, would be tasked with monitoring their neutrality in each case?

 

[deugirtni]

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

It is possible, but I believe it is extremely difficult to have someone involuntarily 'committed' in Canada any more. jmo

 

[deugirtni]

Yes, an accused can elect a bench trial regardless of charges.
Trial by Jury or Judge is always a choice.

I was going to ask about that. In this case specifically, why then, would DG have opted for a jury trial? It doesn't make sense.

 

[kittymeow]

Kind of like how people fight a speeding ticket even when they know they were speeding.

Yes great example! Obviously much lesser stakes, but still the same concept.

 

[lecomte]

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 don't think it's really fair to question the competence of the psychiatrist/psychologist. They can only deal with whatever the patient/client presents, and if DG was there for a different issue than his grudge against the L's and his murderous intent, then they have no way to know about it. People lie or avoid topics in therapy, and if DG was set on his plan to murder someone, I highly doubt he was going to walk into an appointment and tell his therapist that.

 

[Misschevious]

I was going to ask about that. In this case specifically, why then, would DG have opted for a jury trial? It doesn't make sense.

In my opinion I think DG feels this was the best way to get a not guilty verdict due to resonable doubt to be honest.



Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[MistyWaters]

I don't think it's really fair to question the competence of the psychiatrist/psychologist. They can only deal with whatever the patient/client presents, and if DG was there for a different issue than his grudge against the L's and his murderous intent, then they have no way to know about it. People lie or avoid topics in therapy, and if DG was set on his plan to murder someone, I highly doubt he was going to walk into an appointment and tell his therapist that.

That Garland hid the hard drive in the rafters is a good indication that he didn't talk of his diabolical plans to anyone. But his mother testified he was "an unhappy man" and it's obvious they all knew something just wasn't right but it's probable that those weekly visits to the psychiatrist offered reassurance to the family. But as you say, a psychiatrist can only work with what is given.

I'm also reminded of the De Groods, although he was found NCR.

Is family support sometimes always a good thing? I have begun to wonder of some of these situations wouldn't have ended differently had the family not tried so hard. If Garland had been booted from the family home it's doubtful he could have supported himself and the emphasis on the mental health of street people appears to be greater because of the risk posed to the general public. If someone is being financially supported by their own family then I get the impression "well, then that's their problem." Just my thoughts...