Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #27

[olivebpa1]

Why would they when DNA matching Kathy's came back from behind the licence plate?

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

I seem to be making it a habit tonight of posting the exact same thing as other posters at the same time!

 

[Deleted member 192280]

When the case is over, would like to know:
1. What caused his break downs in the past?
2. Had he committed other murders or tortures before?

 

[wswallace1]

I must say I am a little shocked and unnerved by the postings tonight questioning the evidence as described at the closings. The evidence is overwhelmingly against Garland. Don't fall for the idea that if you can technically quibble with each individual piece of evidence viewed separately in a vacuum that means you have to vote to acquit. The *totality* of the evidence easily surpasses the reasonable doubt threshold -- the truck, the bodies, the boots, the burn pit, the computer -- and on and on. And don't get me started on this "two separate incidences" nonsense. You don't dismember and incinerate three human bodies on your property if you weren't involved in their death. If that is your argument for doubt, it is the very definition of "unreasonable." Sorry for the rant but I'm new and it's late and I've had enough. (All IMO)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spellbound]

Also I hope the jury doesn't forget about this little nugget of info....truck drove in the alley way. Easily could have dropped off his capture kit and suit to retrieve after walking back to the residence. Again since defense wanted to point out the figure wasn't carrying anything. Likely another thing DG wrote down. "Notice how I'm not carrying anything because I previously stashed it" all smug like. Imo.

SBM, BBM

I don't know if it could even be seen in the video what this person walking around was wearing. He could have had the tyvek suit already on, for all I know. As for the capture-kit, everything is small enough to be in pockets (handcuffs, baton, chloroform if needed, etc). He did not have to carry a bag to bring these things.

JMO

 

[ABro]

Could you please post the link for that fact? I must have missed it. TIA

Someone on this board made up the two different shoe sizes by looking at photos with very typical distortions. It was never mentioned in court. So no I can't provide a link to disprove something that someone made up out of thin air any more than you can provide a link to an MSM reference to two different sized Scholl shoes because there were no different-sized shoes. This is a classic example of how misinformation spreads.

 

[ILoveDateline]

No I was totally the same way when I read about the metal shavings! It was the one thing defense said that made me stop and think! And then I was like "hey he got me" because there I am questioning my husband about metal shavings when it doesn't even matter!

Really?! Don't drink the water! All of the gaps the defense were trying to point out were pointing out to me the exact precautions or clean up that DG took. The evidence that DG researched that exact lock, and the expert testimony that it was tampered with is more credible to me than the lack of shavings. It was obviously tampered with. I can't discount that because no metal shavings were found. All MOO.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

 

[ABro]

I agree it wasnt needed and was just saying the prosecution should not have tried to claim it was proven. It wasnt needed to be proven. Plenty of other evidence.

Closing arguments are not proof or evidence.They are the prosecution's version of events or "narrative." I found the Crown's summations very plausible. For the purpose of the conviction, whether or not you believe the narrative may only be critical (and I hesitated before writing "only" here) for Nathan's case. Anyone who thinks Alvin's and Kathy's murders weren't planned is not reasonable IMO.

ETA: It's possible the judge might also instruct the jury in a manner that would allow a first degree conviction even if some members believe the little boy was killed at the house. Also the jury does not have to be unanimous on what they believe happened or how things went down, just that the accused is guilty.

People who frequent boards like this one often have a hard time accepting they can't know everything. It's just not possible. It's only on fictional tv shows and movies, where writers can fill the gaps using their imaginations.

 

[olivebpa1]

Really?! Don't drink the water! All of the gaps the defense were trying to point out were pointing out to me the exact precautions or clean up that DG took. The evidence that DG researched that exact lock, and the expert testimony that it was tampered with is more credible to me than the lack of shavings. It was obviously tampered with. I can't discount that because no metal shavings were found. All MOO.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

Definitely not drinking that Kool-Aid! I've believed DG is guilty of three counts of first-degree murder from the beginning and nothing defense has said during this trial has changed my mind. When I said the question raised about the shavings made me stop and think I just meant out of pure curiosity. The lock was drilled. That is a fact. So whether or not there are metal shavings does not change that fact.

 

[Hatfield]

JMO
There is no doubt that the totality of the evidence should allow the jury to render a verdict of guilty for DG in this case.

With that said, I feel its important to always review how both sides present their evidence and their cases because sometimes all it takes is one thing to have a mistrial or cause some other problem. Just look what is happening today that the judge is having to review some issues from yesterday.

My guess as to what one of the issues they are talking about is when the Crown brought up DG's college education that was mentioned. I dont recall there being any evidence presented as to his formal education. Its probably something relatively minor that the judge will be able to instruct the jury to ignore some testimony to get around the issue.

This case seems so overwhelming with the evidence that I dont think there was anything too major that would cause it to be derailed.

 

[MistyWaters]

Photo distortion -
For folks who are fascinated by websleuthing but have never heard of photo distortion, it's extremely common therefore always an important factor to consider.

Here's a link that illustrates why what we think we see in a photo is not always accurate.

https://photographylife.com/what-is-distortion

Anyone who still chooses to believe there's two different sizes of shoe prints found in the Liknes residence, you'd need to also conclude the CPS is inept and the Prosecution is corrupt and the defence is incompetent. Not one of the above, but all three.

I agree with Abro, this is exactly how misinformation about a case spreads. Let's be smarter than that.

 

[otto]

Exactly. The absurdity of some of this stuff just makes you want to release the tension with a little humour. We all knew that his defence team were going to have to say something, but some of the stuff they were throwing out there was...well absurd. Almost as if they got some of it from their rather "odd" client.

MOO

I'm expecting a quick verdict. The defence has essentially claimed that because the evidence is circumstantial, it's meaningless. I don't think the jury will agree.

 

[Hatfield]

I am curious what day and time DG went to the home for his recon mission and somehow got close enough to see the Schlage lock brand. Maybe he was able to park across the street with a powerful binocular or a spotting scope to make out the brand.

Somehow he had to know the brand in advance.

One thing this trial taught me is how easy it is for someone to drill out a lock. If you google "how to drill a lock" there are tons of videos and some people can do it in 1 or 2 minutes. Pretty scary. May have to consider installing some of the newer anti-drillable locks they are making now.

 

[ABro]

JMO
There is no doubt that the totality of the evidence should allow the jury to render a verdict of guilty for DG in this case.

With that said, I feel its important to always review how both sides present their evidence and their cases because sometimes all it takes is one thing to have a mistrial or cause some other problem. Just look what is happening today that the judge is having to review some issues from yesterday.

My guess as to what one of the issues they are talking about is when the Crown brought up DG's college education that was mentioned. I dont recall there being any evidence presented as to his formal education. Its probably something relatively minor that the judge will be able to instruct the jury to ignore some testimony to get around the issue.

This case seems so overwhelming with the evidence that I dont think there was anything too major that would cause it to be derailed.

I think his mother might have testified to him going to med school.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

I'm expecting a quick verdict. The defence has essentially claimed that because the evidence is circumstantial, it's meaningless. I don't think the jury will agree.

Yes, I don't think anyone wants to reward DG for his meticulous planning.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Slebby]

His mother did testify to his attendance at medical school.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3184687/d...to-testify-on-2nd-day-of-triple-murder-trial/

Doreen described her son as an intelligent but unhappy man. She testified that he obtained a degree in science and also attended medical school, but later dropped out because of a breakdown.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Hatfield]

Photo distortion -
For folks who are fascinated by websleuthing but have never heard of photo distortion, it's extremely common therefore always an important factor to consider.

Here's a link that illustrates why what we think we see in a photo is not always accurate.

https://photographylife.com/what-is-distortion

Anyone who still chooses to believe there's two different sizes of shoe prints found in the Liknes residence, you'd need to also conclude the CPS is inept and the Prosecution is corrupt and the defence is incompetent. Not one of the above, but all three.

I agree with Abro, this is exactly how misinformation about a case spreads. Let's be smarter than that.

This is JMO

I agree distortion exists in photography but when looking at just 13 and 14 and looking at the angle of the camera and the doorway. The two shoe prints are right beside each other and only inches thick so I just dont think the distortion angle would cause 14 to look so much smaller than 13 in this particular shot.

Ive taken a photography 101 course and have some basic experience with photography. If distortion alone caused that big a difference then I would lose money in a bar bet. LOL

My guess is for whatever reason DG wore two different shoe sizes. I have to think one is a womens 13 and one is a mans 13. He may have had a bum foot and needed a larger size for one of them. He is quirky enough to do something like this. LOL

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=109868&stc=1

 

[otto]

Good photo gallery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/13/douglas-garland-trial_n_14730598.html

 

[otto]

This is JMO

I agree distortion exists in photography but when looking at just 13 and 14 and looking at the angle of the camera and the doorway. The two shoe prints are right beside each other and only inches thick so I just dont think the distortion angle would cause 13 to look so much smaller than 14 in this particular shot.

Ive taken a photography 101 course and have some basic experience with photography. If distortion alone caused that big a difference then I would lose money in a bar bet. LOL

My guess is for whatever reason DG wore two different shoe sizes. I have to think one is a womens 13 and one is a mans 13. He may have had a bum foot and needed a larger size for one of them. He is quirky enough to do something like this. LOL

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=109868&stc=1

We've known throughout the trial that there is something off about the shoes. Jason Young (NC) wore shoes that were two sizes smaller when he murder his wife, so it wouldn't be the first time a murderer made plans to disguise footprints at a crime scene. If the measurement strips in the photos are all of equal length, then I would agree that the footprints are of different sizes.

 

[MistyWaters]

This is JMO

I agree distortion exists in photography but when looking at just 13 and 14 and looking at the angle of the camera and the doorway. The two shoe prints are right beside each other and only inches thick so I just dont think the distortion angle would cause 14 to look so much smaller than 13 in this particular shot.

Ive taken a photography 101 course and have some basic experience with photography. If distortion alone caused that big a difference then I would lose money in a bar bet. LOL

My guess is for whatever reason DG wore two different shoe sizes. I have to think one is a womens 13 and one is a mans 13. He may have had a bum foot and needed a larger size for one of them. He is quirky enough to do something like this. LOL

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=109868&stc=1

In the photo the white measuring scales/tapes whatever they be called that are beside each shoe print are different lengths as well, shorter or longer in relation to the distortion of the shoe print. Don't just judge by your eye, measure by comparison and you will notice the variances. That is the proof of photo distortion because the measuring tapes should be consistent in length.

 

[MistyWaters]

We've known throughout the trial that there is something off about the shoes. Jason Young (NC) wore shoes that were two sizes smaller when he murder his wife, so it wouldn't be the first time a murderer made plans to disguise footprints at a crime scene. If the measurement strips in the photos are all of equal length, then I would agree that the footprints are of different sizes.

I don't recall the defence mentioning anything about 13W shoe size being too large, other than suggesting there was no evidence Garland owned the shoes and the video from Princess Auto was unreliable, no fingerprints, hair, or DNA.

But the 13W shoes were mentioned several times by both sides.