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.
Was decapitation ever mentioned during the trial before the closing statement?
Was decapitation ever mentioned during the trial before the closing statement?
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.
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?
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
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
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).
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.
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?
Thank-you.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
I don't have the energy to backtrack on specific wording in the posts and argue with you.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'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?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 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 😊I was in court monday but thought i had to wait til jusry was out for deliberations