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

[marmot4]

Police probably didn't have evidence of the truck earlier.

I felt at the beginning of the case, with the prosecution's claim that the victims died at the acreage, that the junior prosecutor wanted to in some ways sensationalize evidence found at the acreage regardless of whether it related directly to their deaths.

The ME was unable to say whether the victims died at the Liknes home, but the blood spatter expert had no problem describing the extensive blood loss and violence that one would assume meant that they very likely either died at the home, or died as a result of the injuries inflicted at the home. That is why I suggested that the ME favoured the prosecution when stating that she didn't know whether they died at the home or not ... either that, or she is inexperienced. Her testimony seems, in many ways, to be little more than a self serving support for the prosecution's claim that maybe the victims were still alive in the back of Garland's truck. That does not mean that they were alive at the acreage, but that is what the prosecution wants the jury to believe ... and that justified the introduction of all sorts of gruesome evidence that probably had no role in the murders.

The business about diapers seems completely irrelevant. Diapers were found on the acreage, and there is a photo of two of the victims wearing white underwear or a diaper. If doesn't matter what they were wearing. If they were photographed at the acreage, that is all that matters.

Of course they did not have the evidence earlier cause they STARTED TO COLLECT it on July 2nd! And this should have been their priority, especially in a case of amber alert, they know the stats and the race with time - the first 24h, after that time survival probability decrease significantly.

 

[otto]

Do we know that Garland was taking anti-psychotic drugs for ADHD, or for any other reason?

We know that his medical records were not part of the trial evidence.

What I said is that psychiatrists have to get into people's heads in order to prescribe antipsychotic drugs. I should have added that they do not necessarily prescribe anti-psychotics to all patients, but they still have to get inside the patient's head to determine whether it is required.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

Do we know that Garland was taking anti-psychotic drugs for ADHD, or for any other reason?




I agree. I don't recall any specific reason why he was seeing a psychiatriat so regularly, but I know they can prescribe any number of drugs that fit specific circumstances. These meds to not hsve to even be anti-psychotics. ADHD drugs are not (generslly, at least) an anti-psychotic. Why he kept up such regular appointments for so long would indicate a serious, if not severe, disorder. However, it is possible he appeared in the office as being stable, got his prescription renewals, and went off on his merry way. But do we even know if he took his meds properly as prescribed?

Which all makes me wonder something? Did he have a legitimate drivers license? If he was on anti-psychotics it seems he would not be allowed to drive... is that correct?

You don't take anti-psychotic drugs for ADHD. ADHD alsi doesn't make you psychotic or prone to violence.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

Of course they did not have the evidence earlier cause they STARTED TO COLLECT it on July 2nd! And this should have been their priority, especially in a case of amber alert, they know the stats and the race with time - the first 24h, after that time survival probability decrease significantly.

It was a long weekend. Some of the CCTV came from a house on the corner that was under construction. It would have taken a couple of days to track down the CCTV. It probably was their priority.

 

[otto]

You don't take anti-psychotic drugs for ADHD. ADHD alsi doesn't make you psychotic or prone to violence.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

We don't know that Garland had ADHD. Psychiatrists can have areas of specialization, and still see patients who have a different disorder.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

We don't know that Garland had ADHD. Psychiatrists can have areas of specialization, and still see patients who have a different disorder.

I didn't say he had ADHD

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[marmot4]

It was a long weekend. Some of the CCTV came from a house on the corner that was under construction. It would have taken a couple of days to track down the CCTV. It probably was their priority.

And that's why there are so many cold cases and still that many missing people.

 

[marmot4]

I didn't say he had ADHD

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

If he did not have ADHD he did not visit this specific doc and that's a fact.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

If he did not have ADHD he did not visit this specific doc and that's a fact.

Why do people keep quoting my post on this, lol

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Spellbound]

I certainly did not have the impression that family tried to cover up any mental health problems. They were too open with their answers on the stand. I do wish we knew what he saw a psychiatrist for, but I guess we were not given that info. Whatever the reason was, he apparently was able to keep any thoughts of murder or blood-and-gore subjects to himself. He may have fooled everyone, family, doctors, social/familial acquaintances. Everyone seems to think he was a loner, maybe a bit odd, "unhappy" (according to his mother, I believe). I have no concerns about the treating psychiatrist --- some patients are more clever in hiding things than we might guess.

JMO, of course

 

[Spellbound]

If he did not have ADHD he did not visit this specific doc and that's a fact.

why would you say that? Confused me, sorry. He can see this doctor for many reasons, even if that was the specialty of the practice.

 

[katwalnr]

DG has a hatred for humanity and anyone like the
Likenes' who had love, family admiration and loyalty. Everything he could never achieve.
I'm guessing his bitterness would extend to the jury of his peers. He is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame and the power he has to shock and destroy people's sense of safety. That is a factor in choosing trial by jury. JMO.

 

[lecomte]

If he was on anti-psychotics it seems he would not be allowed to drive... is that correct?

(Rsbm)

Not necessarily. People react differently to different drugs, and I think you're told to see how you react to them before driving.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Spellbound]

You don't take anti-psychotic drugs for ADHD. ADHD alsi doesn't make you psychotic or prone to violence.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

:loveyou:yes, I know that PB . I misunderstood otto's post I was replying to.

 

[katwalnr]

She needs an endorsement deal. ☺☺☺

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

She does not. Why should anyone profit from this horrific crime? The young woman
was doing her job. What about the millions of take downs we don't hear about?

 

[Spellbound]

(Rsbm)

Not necessarily. People react differently to different drugs, and I think you're told to see how you react to them before driving.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

yes, you are right. When I think of the word "anti-psychotic" I tend to think worse problems than I should. My bad this time .... and I hate to make an opinion based on a person's medications and what that may infer. Thanks for the correction/reminder.

 

[Power of Two]

Do we know that Garland was taking anti-psychotic drugs for ADHD, or for any other reason?




I agree. I don't recall any specific reason why he was seeing a psychiatriat so regularly, but I know they can prescribe any number of drugs that fit specific circumstances. These meds to not have to even be anti-psychotics. ADHD drugs are not (generally, at least) an anti-psychotic. Why he kept up such regular appointments for so long would indicate a serious, if not severe, disorder. However, it is possible he appeared in the office as being stable, got his prescription renewals, and went off on his merry way. But do we even know if he took his meds properly as prescribed?

Which all makes me wonder something? Did he have a legitimate drivers license? If he was on anti-psychotics it seems he would not be allowed to drive... is that correct?

A kabillion people take anti-psychotic medication and are able to function well in their personal lives and drive. If a person has a seizure disorder and is on anti-seizure medication, that is another ball of wax and definitely impacts and influences their driver's license status. Who is to say he even had a valid driver's license?

 

[Tealgrove]

Psychiatrists are only as effective as their patients allow them to be.

DG could have been court ordered to see a psychiatrist for whatever reason but that doesn't mean he was being honest with his Doctor.

My father saw a psychiatrist for years and never told him the truth. He went because he was forced by my mother to go. So he went. He came home with a prescription for sleeping pills and saw the Doctor every two weeks. Nothing changed, he hid what was going on but continued to see the psychiatrist. I have no idea what they talked about but as far as what ailed my father, I can assure you, sleeping pills was not the answer.

IMO DG didn't want help. He wanted to do what he wanted to do and think the way he wanted to think. He wasn't about to risk changing all that because a lot of mentally ill people like how they feel and think. Once they take the drugs they don't like how they feel and then they don't take them.

God only knows what he was telling his psychiatrist. I have to believe that if he was telling his Doctor he had thoughts of murdering people and torturing them that the Doctor would have reported him or had him committed somehow.

ALL MOO

 

[deugirtni]

It was court ordered that he see a psychiatrist as part of his release conditions. Garland spent four years obsessing about revenge, so no one kept him balanced during that time.

That court order was ages ago and would not have been in effect in 2014. I think another poster was correct in determining that he needed to be active in seeking mental health assistance in order for his medications to continue to be prescribed... and possibly also for his disability cheque to continue arriving each month. (Yes, I am jumping to assume that DG was on some kind of disability financial assistance, since it seemed that he had not really worked at a 'real job' since he returned home years ago).

 

[deugirtni]

Do we know that Garland was taking anti-psychotic drugs for ADHD, or for any other reason?

I agree. I don't recall any specific reason why he was seeing a psychiatriat so regularly, but I know they can prescribe any number of drugs that fit specific circumstances. These meds to not have to even be anti-psychotics. ADHD drugs are not (generally, at least) an anti-psychotic. Why he kept up such regular appointments for so long would indicate a serious, if not severe, disorder. However, it is possible he appeared in the office as being stable, got his prescription renewals, and went off on his merry way. But do we even know if he took his meds properly as prescribed?

Which all makes me wonder something? Did he have a legitimate drivers license? If he was on anti-psychotics it seems he would not be allowed to drive... is that correct?

Who said he was on anti-psychotics, besides speculation of one person on our forum? Another member posted information suggesting that DG's psychiatrist was a specialist in adult ADD/ADHD, and we already know as fact from the past that DG indeed had that condition. If we put two and two together, we'd come to the conclusion that he was being seen for that diagnosis by a specialist in that area. I wonder though, if his drivers license was in his own name, or in the other guy's name. moo.