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

[olivebpa1]

Was decapitation ever mentioned during the trial before the closing statement?

Not in the tweets but i wonder if it was mentioned during that testimony and no one tweeted about it. It seems like at least one reporter would have though.

 

[olivebpa1]

Was decapitation ever mentioned during the trial before the closing statement?

Could thay be one of the issues? Was that argued out and the crown wasn't supposed to say that during their closing arguement?

 

[otto]

Regarding the shoe prints. In an investigation class my instructor drew a horizontal line on a chart. He then started to draw a vertical line starting at the end of the horizontal line and asked the class to tell him when the vertical line was the same length as the horizontal line. In the end we had the vertical line 2 inches too short. Looks are deceiving. Distances are deceiving. Some things you just have to see up close and personal to make a determination.

Prints number 13 and 14 overlap, so it doesn't really add up that perspective is causing distortion. The two prints do not appear to be the same size. At the same time, it doesn't matter too much.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...r-nathan-obrien-liknes-arrest-day-5-1.3944917

 

[otto]

Was there blood on the barbell, or just DNA? If just the DNA of the owner, why is it not normal since the owner could have used it?

Pretty sure it was blood on the barbell in the garage ... Kathryn's ... going from memory.

 

[otto]

The prosecution has made an assumption that because there is blood evidence of injury at several locations in the house, the victims were fighting Garland. Garland didn't need a reason to attack the three victims in the first place, so I don't think he needed a reason to continue attacking them as he removed them from the house.

 

[MistyWaters]

Defence theory, condensed version ---

"Those people did not leave the house alive.”
http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/...s+revisited+final+garland/12907019/story.html

“They cannot forensically, or scientifically put Douglas Garland in that address,” he said of the Likneses’ 38A Avenue S.W. home.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...and-to-bloody-triple-murder-scene-lawyer-says

"What happened on the farm, that does not prove to you that Douglas Garland caused the deaths of Alvin Liknes, Kathy Liknes and Nathan O’Brien,” Ross said.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...and-to-bloody-triple-murder-scene-lawyer-says



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[wswallace1]

Defence theory, condensed version ---

"Those people did not leave the house alive.”
http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/...s+revisited+final+garland/12907019/story.html

“They cannot forensically, or scientifically put Douglas Garland in that address,” he said of the Likneses’ 38A Avenue S.W. home.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...and-to-bloody-triple-murder-scene-lawyer-says

"What happened on the farm, that does not prove to you that Douglas Garland caused the deaths of Alvin Liknes, Kathy Liknes and Nathan O’Brien,” Ross said.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...and-to-bloody-triple-murder-scene-lawyer-says



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks Misty -- that seems it in a nutshell. Why all three fail IMO:

1) Only relevant for 1st degree murder charge. Doesn't matter for the grandparents because the computer evidence shows premeditation. Even for Nathan, unless he was killed instantly (which the blood evidence shows was not the case) I would argue (a) Garland made a conscious decision that he had to kill the boy too, showing premeditation, and/or (b) Garland unlawfully confined him in that spare bedroom before killing him, raising the crime to 1st degree murder anyway.

2) So what. There is a ton on non-forensic evidence putting him in that house beyond a reasonable doubt, and plus there is a perfectly logical explanation for the lack of forensic evidence given the haz-mat suits (or whatever their called) found in Garland's possession at the farm. Under the defense theory, no one can ever be convicted of this crime because of the lack of forensic evidence. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They didn't kill themselves.

3) What happened at the farm does prove to me that Garland caused the deaths. That is the only "reasonable" explanation for why he treated the bodies in such a terrifyingly demented and horrific way, and the defense provided zero evidence to suggest any other reasonable explanation. Put another way, even if all we had as evidence was what they found at the farm, and the house wasn't in play at all (let's say it burnt to the ground) there would still be plenty of evidence to convict Garland (mainly the truck, the computer and the DNA found at the farm).

 

[naz]

Defence theory, condensed version ---

"Those people did not leave the house alive.”
http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/...s+revisited+final+garland/12907019/story.html
I'm not sure that it was proven that all 3 were alive when they left the house... He dragged Alvin, maybe he was near death.... but basically all of the above..
“They cannot forensically, or scientifically put Douglas Garland in that address,” he said of the Likneses’ 38A Avenue S.W. home.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...and-to-bloody-triple-murder-scene-lawyer-says

"What happened on the farm, that does not prove to you that Douglas Garland caused the deaths of Alvin Liknes, Kathy Liknes and Nathan O’Brien,” Ross said.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...and-to-bloody-triple-murder-scene-lawyer-says



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not sure that it was proven that all 3 were alive when they left the house... DG dragged Alvin, maybe he was near death.... but basically all of the above.. I think that's why the prosecution brought up the intent , it was his plan..

Without the CCTV , he would have got away... Justice will be served, in the mean time he took a piece out of everyone's heart , as for the family, Jade has said it when re- twitting there is no words... such deep sadness.

 

[MistyWaters]

Thanks Misty -- that seems it in a nutshell. Why all three fail IMO:

1) Only relevant for 1st degree murder charge. Doesn't matter for the grandparents because the computer evidence shows premeditation. Even for Nathan, unless he was killed instantly (which the blood evidence shows was not the case) I would argue (a) Garland made a conscious decision that he had to kill the boy too, showing premeditation, and/or (b) Garland unlawfully confined him in that spare bedroom before killing him, raising the crime to 1st degree murder anyway.

2) So what. There is a ton on non-forensic evidence putting him in that house beyond a reasonable doubt, and plus there is a perfectly logical explanation for the lack of forensic evidence given the haz-mat suits (or whatever their called) found in Garland's possession at the farm. Under the defense theory, no one can ever be convicted of this crime because of the lack of forensic evidence. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They didn't kill themselves.

3) What happened at the farm does prove to me that Garland caused the deaths. That is the only "reasonable" explanation for why he treated the bodies in such a terrifyingly demented and horrific way, and the defense provided zero evidence to suggest any other reasonable explanation. Put another way, even if all we had as evidence was what they found at the farm, and the house wasn't in play at all (let's say it burnt to the ground) there would still be plenty of evidence to convict Garland (mainly the truck, the computer and the DNA found at the farm).

Excellent job at refuting! Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

My next attempt at condensing the defence theory was going to be even shorter, only six words.

"Move along. Nothing to see here."

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm not sure that it was proven that all 3 were alive when they left the house... DG dragged Alvin, maybe he was near death.... but basically all of the above.. I think that's why the prosecution brought up the intent , it was his plan..

Without the CCTV , he would have got away... Justice will be served, in the mean time he took a piece out of everyone's heart , as for the family, Jade has said it when re- twitting there is no words... such deep sadness.

Yes, I agree.

It the spin from the defence statement is interchanged, it could be concluded that "what happened on farm....proves those people did not leave the house alive". Which of course implicates his client.

 

[naz]

Yes, I agree.

It the spin from the defence statement is interchanged, it could be concluded that "what happened on farm....proves those people did not leave the house alive". Which of course implicates his client.

The crown had so much evidences, I'm being cynical but personally I think the defense was?were honing their trade.. a big case. You have a right to the best defense, but best out of nothing is not much.

 

[subwaydreaming]

I may have missed this but have any of DG's acquaintances, friends/former friends, schoolmates, or former girlfriends come forward to give some insight on his personality?

I know he is viewed as a loner, but surely he has had interactions and minor relationships over the years. Or is it just too heartbreaking that people don't even want to comment?

 

[naz]

I may have missed this but have any of DG's acquaintances, friends/former friends, schoolmates, or former girlfriends come forward to give some insight on his personality?

I know he is viewed as a loner, but surely he has had interactions and minor relationships over the years. Or is it just too heartbreaking that people don't even want to comment?

Not much that have I've seen, but I will venture I think he is paranoid schizophrenic murderer. If I remember there was a post about him suffering from ADHD, seems so inadequate, it is fairly common condition ... Allen has described DG as sneaky.. I don't want to have any money spent on him.. let him stew.

 

[Wondergirl]

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

Thank-you.

Wish I had read that post last night before I gave up reading and went to bed.

 

[Wondergirl]

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.

I don't have the energy to backtrack on specific wording in the posts and argue with you.

Your mannerism and tone conveyed fact on this subject, when you are only speculating yourself - that is ALSO how rumors get started.

I merely congratulated a poster (albeit the wrong poster ) for an astute observation regarding their observation of the difference in the appearance of sizes of footprints.

I did not notice the difference at all. The fact that some of the exhibits were not mentioned by LE, added a further interesting element - for ME.

 

[Kfox]

I was in court monday but thought i had to wait til jusry was out for deliberations

 

[PrincessButtercup]

I may have missed this but have any of DG's acquaintances, friends/former friends, schoolmates, or former girlfriends come forward to give some insight on his personality?

I know he is viewed as a loner, but surely he has had interactions and minor relationships over the years. Or is it just too heartbreaking that people don't even want to comment?

I've asked this myself many times. DG grew up in a smaller community where he has resided for most of his life. He would have gone to school with the same people for his school career... where are the people who knew him?

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[naz]

I was in court monday but thought i had to wait til jusry was out for deliberations

Don't get tempted. hah.. Although I think you are safe, you are not a juror.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

I was in court monday but thought i had to wait til jusry was out for deliberations

You are allowed to post about anything that was said while the jury was present 😊

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Wondergirl]

I hate to say this, but I really do think Garland wanted Alvin to witness Kathy and himself being tortured. I think he did horrible things to them both - like pull their teeth out and things that we will never know.

If we remember he meticulously researched this crime at length, and we know we are only left with the scraps and bits of evidence that stacked up against him in spite of his efforts to go unnoticed- then we will realize that the vast amount of details we cannot know would likely scar us forever.

I can't think of another crime worse than this one - especially given the small child being sacrificed in his plan as well.

He deserves to rot and I have no doubt that he will.

I don't think anyone directly involved in this case will ever be the same person.

This was a heinous crime - torturous - and thankfully the sick SOB is going to pay for what he did.

Thank-you LE for catching him.