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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
The prosecution and defence theories differed in other ways to what was discussed here as well.

Was anyone surprised by the Prosecution's detailed theory about the sequence of the attack? That Alvin was attacked in bed first, then Kathy in bed in the spare room? That neither were instantly killed, proven by blood elsewhere in the house, supported their theory this was not a random attack, robbery etc. It was indicative of a "a capture", the "capture kit" mentioned several times, then connecting the capture to the CCTV in the truck, research and stalking found on the hard drive, aerial photos, etc.

It was an excellent manner of tying all the evidence together. Anyone who hasn't read the tweets but has followed the case, it's a very logical summation IMO.
 
For shoe picture 13 + 14 the one thing that really has me convinced that 14 is smaller than 13 is if you assume both rulers are the same size and then look at the inside round part of the heel.

You have to expand the photo large to see this good. So first expand larger and then look to where there is a pointy end of the middle part of the heel and it looks like LE tried to line up the end of the ruler with that pointy part. Now look at where the end of the ruler goes on shoe 14 and then on shoe 13.

Assuming rulers are the same it sure looks like shoe 14 ruler goes out to end of tip of shoe where on shoe 13 the ruler does not make it to end of tip of shoe.
Which makes me conclude that shoe 14 is smaller than 13.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=109868&stc=1
 
The defense closing argument yesterday: Kim Ross said that DG did not kill AL, KL andNO. Is Kim Ross not under oath? That was a blatant lie. He darn well knowsthat his client killed, dismembered and burned the victims’ bodies. When all evidence is absorbed in its entirety,there is no other logical person who could have done this. How is this ethical for him to statethis? I realize judge will address thefact that opening and closing arguments are not evidence, but still….. is therenot a code of ethics where a lawyer is not allowed to state what is known to bea lie?
 
Georgeo said:
The defense closing argument yesterday: Kim Ross said that DG did not kill AL, KL andNO. Is Kim Ross not under oath? That was a blatant lie. He darn well knowsthat his client killed, dismembered and burned the victims’ bodies. When all evidence is absorbed in its entirety,there is no other logical person who could have done this. How is this ethical for him to statethis? I realize judge will address thefact that opening and closing arguments are not evidence, but still….. is therenot a code of ethics where a lawyer is not allowed to state what is known to bea lie?
Click to expand...
No, Kim Ross is not under oath and the closing statement is not testimony

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
 
Even if the shoes were different sizes, does it matter unless there were actually two people carrying out this crime?

What caught my eye is that they don't appear to be from the same set; the left shoe looks newer (cleaner) than the right to me. I think perhaps he owned two identical pair (likely two different sizes) because he liked that shoe and would sometimes get them mixed up. I have done that... have three sets of one style, and one size is different from the other two... I might accidentally pick up the wrong matches.

JMO
 
JadeSLeuth said:
Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 2m2 minutes ago
Crown Shane Parker: "Kill Without Joy.. a perfect manual for a man w a thousand yard stare. Emotionless but still waters run deep" #Garland

Kevin MartinVerified account ‏@KMartinCourts 37s38 seconds ago
#Garland stewed for years over Alvin Liknes, says Crown prosecutor shame Parker.

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 38s39 seconds ago
Doug #Garland is all about domination, said Parker. "He neither forgave nor forgot, he stewed." he said of Garland's grudge.

Bryan LabbyVerified account ‏@CBCBryan 44s45 seconds ago
Parker : "He neither forgave, nor forgot, he stewed" referencing Garland's obsession with the Alvin and Kathy Liknes. #Garland
Click to expand...

I love this description. Are transcripts from trials ever released or at least opening and closing arguments? If this is how Shane Parker spoke we missed a great deal in the tweets. So much more passion that what was conveyed.
 
As ABro has stated, "closing arguments are not evidence". Evidence is evidence.

I don't know how many times I have heard a jury declare that "they just didn't believe the defendant".

A wealth of evidence has been presented and all of us here have used our brains to filter in and out what is and isn't real. What is possible and what is not. What makes sense and what does not. The jury will do the same thing.

IMO there is reason to believe WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT, that DG killed all 3, dismembered them and cremated them. I believe he was the guy who disabled the lock, broke into their house and took them. I believe that some sort of torture, autopsy, occurred at the farm and I believe that as a result of a wealth of circumstantial evidence and concrete physical evidence. I believe the Likneses were put in diapers.

IMO the Jury will believe all that based on evidence and common sense. They will link it together. They will NOT believe DG wasn't driving the truck or didn't have the shoes in question. They will believe what makes sense based on the evidence.

I have no fear. The Jury will convict on 3 counts of first degree murder based on the totality of the evidence, circumstantial, as well as in your face concrete evidence.

JMO
 
Re metal shaving. I say magnetic drill grabbed them, or he hosed off the whole thing. Remember the hose was right there.
 
Hatfield said:
For shoe picture 13 + 14 the one thing that really has me convinced that 14 is smaller than 13 is if you assume both rulers are the same size and then look at the inside round part of the heel.

You have to expand the photo large to see this good. So first expand larger and then look to where there is a pointy end of the middle part of the heel and it looks like LE tried to line up the end of the ruler with that pointy part. Now look at where the end of the ruler goes on shoe 14 and then on shoe 13.

Assuming rulers are the same it sure looks like shoe 14 ruler goes out to end of tip of shoe where on shoe 13 the ruler does not make it to end of tip of shoe.
Which makes me conclude that shoe 14 is smaller than 13.

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

<modsnip>

From Cold Pizza's link, the source of twitter photos are from a TV screen.
"As Parker goes over the timeline before and after the family&#8217;s disappearance, some of the most compelling photo exhibits flash across the TV monitors in the main courtroom as well as an overflow one."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Spellbound said:
Even if the shoes were different sizes, does it matter unless there were actually two people carrying out this crime?

What caught my eye is that they don't appear to be from the same set; the left shoe looks newer (cleaner) than the right to me. I think perhaps he owned two identical pair (likely two different sizes) because he liked that shoe and would sometimes get them mixed up. I have done that... have three sets of one style, and one size is different from the other two... I might accidentally pick up the wrong matches.

JMO
Click to expand...

I agree it really doesnt matter now. For me I just found it really interesting.
 
Tealgrove said:
As ABro has stated, "closing arguments are not evidence". Evidence is evidence.

I don't know how many times I have heard a jury declare that "they just didn't believe the defendant".

A wealth of evidence has been presented and all of us here have used our brains to filter in and out what is and isn't real. What is possible and what is not. What makes sense and what does not. The jury will do the same thing.

IMO there is reason to believe WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT, that DG killed all 3, dismembered them and cremated them. I believe he was the guy who disabled the lock, broke into their house and took them. I believe that some sort of torture, autopsy, occurred at the farm and I believe that as a result of a wealth of circumstantial evidence and concrete physical evidence. I believe the Likneses were put in diapers.

IMO the Jury will believe all that based on evidence and common sense. They will link it together. They will NOT believe DG wasn't driving the truck or didn't have the shoes in question. They will believe what makes sense based on the evidence.

I have no fear. The Jury will convict on 3 counts of first degree murder based on the totality of the evidence, circumstantial, as well as in your face concrete evidence.

JMO
Click to expand...

Agreed, the jury will ask themselves, why did DG took them to the acreage. He could have left them at home but he took a big chance by transporting them....
 
Spellbound said:
Even if the shoes were different sizes, does it matter unless there were actually two people carrying out this crime?

What caught my eye is that they don't appear to be from the same set; the left shoe looks newer (cleaner) than the right to me. I think perhaps he owned two identical pair (likely two different sizes) because he liked that shoe and would sometimes get them mixed up. I have done that... have three sets of one style, and one size is different from the other two... I might accidentally pick up the wrong matches.

JMO
Click to expand...

My opinion, it matters a great deal.

The possibility that the bloody shoe prints found in the Liknes residence matched shoes from an empty 13W Delta 2 shoebox found in Garland's office is the only piece of evidence that remotely connects him to inside the crime scene. No hair, no DNA, no fingerprints.

Hypothetically, if it is discovered that an expert witness lied or manipulated evidence during testimony on the witness stand, they face perjury charges. When they are employed by a police department, the reputation of the entire division is at stake. For the defence it's a real win as wrongdoing such as that often is indicative of intentional framing and entrapment, and would likely result in charges against the accused being dropped.
 
Tealgrove said:
As ABro has stated, "closing arguments are not evidence". Evidence is evidence.

I don't know how many times I have heard a jury declare that "they just didn't believe the defendant".

A wealth of evidence has been presented and all of us here have used our brains to filter in and out what is and isn't real. What is possible and what is not. What makes sense and what does not. The jury will do the same thing.

IMO there is reason to believe WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT, that DG killed all 3, dismembered them and cremated them. I believe he was the guy who disabled the lock, broke into their house and took them. I believe that some sort of torture, autopsy, occurred at the farm and I believe that as a result of a wealth of circumstantial evidence and concrete physical evidence. I believe the Likneses were put in diapers.

IMO the Jury will believe all that based on evidence and common sense. They will link it together. They will NOT believe DG wasn't driving the truck or didn't have the shoes in question. They will believe what makes sense based on the evidence.

I have no fear. The Jury will convict on 3 counts of first degree murder based on the totality of the evidence, circumstantial, as well as in your face concrete evidence.

JMO
Click to expand...

Yes to everything you just said!! &#128077;
 
ABro said:
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.
Click to expand...
Including the author.
 
Hatfield said:
For shoe picture 13 + 14 the one thing that really has me convinced that 14 is smaller than 13 is if you assume both rulers are the same size and then look at the inside round part of the heel.

You have to expand the photo large to see this good. So first expand larger and then look to where there is a pointy end of the middle part of the heel and it looks like LE tried to line up the end of the ruler with that pointy part. Now look at where the end of the ruler goes on shoe 14 and then on shoe 13.

Assuming rulers are the same it sure looks like shoe 14 ruler goes out to end of tip of shoe where on shoe 13 the ruler does not make it to end of tip of shoe.
Which makes me conclude that shoe 14 is smaller than 13.

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

Pretty sure those are not rulers. Little short don't you think? They look like information tags to me to identify what the numbers refer to.
 
I'm going to agree with many of you. If you think the shoes are 2 different sizes you are in essence calling into question the integrity of the case, LE and the Crown prosecutor. There's a famous statement, if you hear hoofbeats look for horses not zebras. I think some of you are looking for zebras here. JMO.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
 
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.
 
PrincessButtercup said:
I'm going to agree with many of you. If you think the shoes are 2 different sizes you are in essence calling into question the integrity of the case, LE and the Crown prosecutor. There's a famous statement, if you hear hoofbeats look for horses not zebras. I think some of you are looking for zebras here. JMO.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
See, I don't understand the big deal about two different shoe sizes. Let's say there are. I believe DG is the type of guy who would purposely put on a different size shoe and leave prints just to confuse investigators. He read all those crime books. It's the first thing I thought of when I read people thought the shoe size was different. I can even see DG wearing shoes that weren't his size to throw off investigators.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 104 more.
Total: 2,460 (members: 105, guests: 2,355)

Online statistics

Members online
105
Guests online
2,355
Total visitors
2,460
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,785
Messages
18,113,512
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top