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.
MistyWaters said:
Look at it this way - of the following, what's more serious
To plan to kill someone?
or
To plan to kidnap and confine someone? And so happens they get killed.

Because those are the two different types of 1st Degree murder charges.

Maybe you're comparing this case to the Bosma case? If so, the two are different. Here there's a ton of evidence proving planning and deliberate intention to murder in the Garland case.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter which is more serious - my point being - a death that occurs during a kidnapping or unlawful confinement is first degree murder. The jury HAS to know that that is a road they are allowed to take to arrive at a first degree murder conviction. Even if they believe all the murders were planned and deliberate - they still need to know this option. And one of the biggest questions is - was nathan's murder planned or spontaneous? If the jury finds it was NOT planned - they can still find him guilty of 1st degree, if they believe he was killed while unlawfully confined, and or kidnapped - both which the Crown contends happened. It's crucial information for the jury. And if the judge does NOT allow for them to find that road to 1st degree (like in the Bosma case), he must instruct that.

I'm hoping the others are correct in that he just hasn't got there yet.
 
Spellbound said:
I think he may be going through the charges separately, the murder options now, and perhaps the kidnapping after the break.



Thank You for all the answers! The jury is sureky well-prepared once they begin deliberations.

I sound like a broken record, but what a fantastic court system you have. I cannot believe you have as many cases where it seems a likely murderer is on trial and the jury finds them not guilty.
Click to expand...

We really do. Except when it comes to sentencing - in Canada, typically sentences are far lighter than (I feel) they should be. Sitting in a court room here and watching how cases are processed - it's like a well oiled machine. Very good system.
 
dogmatica said:
It doesn't matter which is more serious - my point being - a death that occurs during a kidnapping or unlawful confinement is first degree murder. The jury HAS to know that that is a road they are allowed to take to arrive at a first degree murder conviction. Even if they believe all the murders were planned and deliberate - they still need to know this option. And one of the biggest questions is - was nathan's murder planned or spontaneous? If the jury finds it was NOT planned - they can still find him guilty of 1st degree, if they believe he was killed while unlawfully confined, and or kidnapped - both which the Crown contends happened. It's crucial information for the jury. And if the judge does NOT allow for them to find that road to 1st degree (like in the Bosma case), he must instruct that.

I'm hoping the others are correct in that he just hasn't got there yet.
Click to expand...

The judge informed the jury what road to take. Element 6 - planned and deliberate.

That's what I recalled reading by tweet.

Section 231 (2)
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-231.html
 
dogmatica said:
I am baffled that the judge didn't address the kidnapping/unlawful confinement - he did not say that was a path to 1st degree murder, only the intent/deliberate act. He didn't say it was NOT an option either - just didn't mention it? Or did I miss something? That's a crucial piece of info!! Even if Garland didn't plan to kill NO, if he was killed during what the jury believes was unlawful confinement or kidnapping (BOTH of these are put forward by the Crown), then that's 1st degree. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

I believe the issue here is that we are assuming that the charge can utilize both sections 230 and 231 of the criminal code. Section 230 is the one that would be in play if the conviction came as a result of the kidnapping/confinement aspect. Section 231 would be for the planned and deliberate aspect of the murder. Section 230(a) is also the one that has some elements already dismissed by the Supreme Court, even though the government has not repealed it, and is probably the one that you would not want to use unless that is all you have to rely on. Convicting someone of first degree murder based on that section might warrant an appeal and if you've also got a ton of evidence that points to planned and deliberate, I'd think the preferred thing for the Crown to do would be to only use section 231 which is airtight at the moment I believe.

Just guessing really :dunno:

MOO
 
Judge Gates said a few times.. use your common sense. I will take that as" who else could have done it" ?.. imho.

This judge was very precise, meticulously going over the evidence.. I also do hope he will give the jurors more guidance concerning Nathan...
 
Here is an old news story regarding Section 230 of the Criminal Code and how it affected the Travis Vader verdict.

What is Section 230(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada?

Section 230(a) of the Criminal Code states that a culpable homicide is murder “whether or not the person means to cause death… and whether or not he knows that death is likely to be caused” by intentionally causing bodily harm while committing or attempting to commit a crime or trying to flee afterward.

Robbery is one such offence but the section also references offences ranging from hijacking a plane and acts of piracy to kidnapping, arson and aggravated sexual assault.

[...]

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Section 230(a) unconstitutional in the case of R. v. Roderick Russell Martineau.
Click to expand...



http://globalnews.ca/news/2945753/travis-vader-verdict-what-is-section-230-of-the-criminal-code/
 
Kamille said:
I believe the issue here is that we are assuming that the charge can utilize both sections 230 and 231 of the criminal code. Section 230 is the one that would be in play if the conviction came as a result of the kidnapping/confinement aspect. Section 231 would be for the planned and deliberate aspect of the murder. Section 230(a) is also the one that has some elements already dismissed by the Supreme Court, even though the government has not repealed it, and is probably the one that you would not want to use unless that is all you have to rely on. Convicting someone of first degree murder based on that section might warrant an appeal and if you've also got a ton of evidence that points to planned and deliberate, I'd think the preferred thing for the Crown to do would be to only use section 231 which is airtight at the moment I believe.

Just guessing really :dunno:

MOO
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem airtight for Nathan imo. K and A for sure - planned and deliberate. But I can see the jury being unsure of whether NO was killed as a result of planning or a heat of the moment panic thing (I believe it was very much deliberate). But very simply - the Crown contends they were kidnapped. Therefore, as I understand it, the jury must be instructed to find 1st degree for Nathan, even if they don't believe his death was planned - if they agree with that.
 
dogmatica said:
It doesn't seem airtight for Nathan imo. K and A for sure - planned and deliberate. But I can see the jury being unsure of whether NO was killed as a result of planning or a heat of the moment panic thing (I believe it was very much deliberate). But very simply - the Crown contends they were kidnapped. Therefore, as I understand it, the jury must be instructed to find 1st degree for Nathan, even if they don't believe his death was planned - if they agree with that.
Click to expand...

If DG took Nathan from the home alive, his death was planned and deliberate. It's really as simple as that. And the Crown believes that there is no evidence that Nathan was killed in the home. And they made that quite clear.

MOO
 
Kamille said:
If DG took Nathan from the home alive, his death was planned and deliberate. It's really as simple as that. And the Crown believes that there is no evidence that Nathan was killed in the home. And they made that quite clear.

MOO
Click to expand...

Agreed - but what if they believe he was killed at the house and that it wasn't planned. Could they not still find it to be 1st degree, if they believe he was killed in the home, without planning, but whilst unlawfully confined? I guess my issue is - it's another road to 1st degree, if they find the road of deliberate and or kidnapping (to the farm while alive) did not occur. Make sense?
 
[video=twitter;831975752975282177]https://twitter.com/BillGraveland/status/831975752975282177[/video]
 
dogmatica said:
Right, but culpable homocide and 1st degree murder aren't necessarily the same thing. I believe you can commit culpable homicide but it doesn't necessarily mean 1st degree.
Click to expand...

That's true, there is also a provison in section 231 for kidnapping and confinement. But I guess you also can't say he planned to kidnap Nathan either? And we don't know if he actually did kidnap him. If he was deceased in the home then he didn't. If he wasn't, then the murder was planned and deliberate at the farm.

And if he did kill him in the home, then he made a conscious decision to do so, as I'm sure Nathan was not a threat and his life was not in danger. And even if it only took him a matter of seconds to decide that, it is still planned and deliberate.

MOO
 
Judge: any last questions?
Jury: We don't need to deliberate, do we?
 
Kamille said:
That's true, there is also a provison in section 231 for kidnapping and confinement. But I guess you also can't say he planned to kidnap Nathan either? And we don't know if he actually did kidnap him. If he was deceased in the home then he didn't. If he wasn't, then the murder was planned and deliberate at the farm.

And if he did kill him in the home, then he made a conscious decision to do so, as I'm sure Nathan was not a threat and his life was not in danger. And even if it only took him a matter of seconds to decide that, it is still planned and deliberate.

MOO
Click to expand...

Good logic there. Maybe that's what the judge/crown is relying on. I don't believe planning comes into play with kidnapping (or UC) - I believe they only have to prove one was UC or kidnapped, and dies as a result - for a 1st degree murder charge. If this isn't addressed by the judge at all, I'd love to ask a lawyer why not.
 
[video=twitter;831975752975282177]https://twitter.com/BillGraveland/status/831975752975282177[/video]
 
I predict verdict announced as 'arrived at' by 2:30pm tomorrow; revealed in court by 4:00pm: Guilty in the 1st on all three.
Entire city of Calgary collectively celebrates and remembers/mourns Alvin, Kathy, and Nathan. IMO, MOO, ETC.
There is no one in Calgary not following this trial to some degree.
 
dogmatica said:
Agreed - but what if they believe he was killed at the house and that it wasn't planned. Could they not still find it to be 1st degree, if they believe he was killed in the home, without planning, but whilst unlawfully confined? I guess my issue is - it's another road to 1st degree, if they find the road of deliberate and or kidnapping (to the farm while alive) did not occur. Make sense?
Click to expand...

No decision tree was tweeted out about NO, but judge did say it is different than A&K. Nathan's decision tree should include forcible confinement. If the crown was right during their closing statement they said that if Nathan was alive outside of that bedroom it was forcible confinement as a five-year-old can not stand up to a grown man and gey away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 148 more.
Total: 2,911 (members: 149, guests: 2,762)

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
2,762
Total visitors
2,911
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,328
Messages
18,155,033
Members
231,707
Latest member
Cases
Back
Top