Still Missing Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 *Guilty* *Appeal* #29

[Lalalacasbah]

Respectfully snipped:

I always wondered why the prosecutor argued that the victims were alive at the farm. Perhaps it was to bypass the search warrant oversight. If it was believed that the victims were alive, then perhaps they had an urgent need to search the property without a warrant. However, given all the blood at the home, evidence that bodies were dragged out, and the time that had passed, was it realistic to believe that they were alive? I never believed that they were alive at the farm, and no evidence was presented that they were alive at the farm. This warrant issue might be why the prosecution boldly claimed that they were alive without presenting supportive evidence.

I thought prosecutors thought victims were alive because they found Nathan's bloody hand print on the wall and were alluding to him balancing himself if unsteady. DG could've beaten them unconscious but not dead although I've always hoped they were deceased before reaching the farm. I do see your point though Otto, could well be a legal strategy for the warrant situation. Ugh, not sure I want to even re-visit this case. Still so sad.

 

[mrazda71]

I thought prosecutors thought victims were alive because they found Nathan's bloody hand print on the wall and were alluding to him balancing himself if unsteady. DG could've beaten them unconscious but not dead although I've always hoped they were deceased before reaching the farm. I do see your point though Otto, could well be a legal strategy for the warrant situation. Ugh, not sure I want to even re-visit this case. Still so sad.

IIRC at the time, it was believed that at least 1 of the 3 might still be alive, after all, WHO would murder a sweet little child???

My heart dropped to my stomach when that disgusting mans face appeared in my Twitter feed ...

 

[MistyWaters]

If there was serious (such as this) issue with the validity of the evidence, wouldn't this have been dealt with before the trial, or at the trial? I know they always hold pre trial hearings to deal with such things?

I guess if DG did not want them to have free reign at his property, he should have left the dead bodies at the home, instead of taking them with him. That way, LE would not have had a valid reason to search without a warrant.

IIRC the issue of the legality of the search already arose during the trial and the trial judge allowed it, so it’s that decision that’s presently being appealed.

“On Thursday, defence lawyer Alias Sanders argued that the trial judge, Justice David Gates, erred when he allowed evidence gathered from the farm to be presented to jurors.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...than-obrien-liknes-appeal-arguments-1.5128566

 

[deugirtni]

Imho, police had a right to enter and look for the 3 missing people.. but I'm thinking a 'look'.. not a days or weeks-long examination.
If after a quick look they couldn't find the missing people, but they found something to indicate they may have been there, that should have given them enough to obtain a legal search warrant.
I remember discussing this issue at the time, and everyone assuming that of course they had a search warrant, and that the police would never risk such an investigation by *not* obtaining a search warrant... I remember discussing that it seemed to be so open-ended, and so long-lasting, and that is unusual for a search warrant, which usually has firm dates attached, and specific items sought. I had wondered if they had received permission directly from the homeowners who were on vacation at the time, so the search warrant may not have therefore been required.. but I believe others argued that even so, the police once again, would never have risked this case by NOT getting a warrant, even if they DID receive permission from the homeowners.
Now it comes to light that police never had one? And as far as I know, there has been no mention of permission being obtained from the homeowners?
This is really hard to stomach.

 

[deugirtni]

From memory, I think DG was pulled over by LE while he was on a public road while driving the green truck. I think they took him in for questioning, and were allowed to hold him for a given length of time without charging him. Was that when LE was doing those searches, and if so, why didn't they arrest him right at the time? They subsequently let him go and later charged him and brought him in again. I'll have to look back to confirm the accuracy of my memory.

I found this info from article linked below:

"Calgary police and RCMP investigators have spent the weekend searching a rural property in Airdrie in connection with the hunt for O’Brien and his grandparents, Alvin and Kathy Liknes, who went missing from the couple’s Calgary home a week ago.

Police were summoned to a farm in the rural northeast corner of Airdrie on Friday night after someone linked it to a green Ford pickup truck similar to one seen in the Liknes’ neighbourhood on the night they disappeared.

Investigators took a man at the acreage in for questioning, but released him Sunday without any charges — though police added he remains a person of interest and they are continuing their search of the property."
Person of interest in missing family case has link to Liknes family, drug lab past

 

[deugirtni]

They released him on the Sunday from questioning regarding the Liknes case, however they still kept him in custody, and police continued to have free reign searching his parents' property, who were also absent from the home while on vacation. I'm shocked that police obtained no search warrant during all that time. Police know better than any of us how important it is to gather evidence by the book, or risk it being unusable:

"Police said the man was released Sunday, but is still a person of interest in their investigation.

However Garland, 54, remained in custody charged with identity theft in an unrelated case. He appeared in court briefly Monday on closed-circuit video and a judge adjourned the matter until a bail hearing Wednesday.
....
Officers continued Monday searching an acreage and surrounding property near Airdrie, a bedroom community north of Calgary, where Garland lived with his parents."

Person of interest in Calgary missing boy case had troubled past

 

[otto]

IIRC, police were making a short list of people who might have issues with AL/KL from the get-go, DG was on that list and DG was on LE's radar right off the bat. Then the truck footage came through, so a more definite link. I remember being surprised to hear DG was on a list of 4-5 people LE were looking at right at the beginning.

What I remember is that police asked media to publish a photo of the truck because they wanted to find the owner. That would suggest that Garland's name was not on a short list, but that there was a vehicle of interest and an unknown driver.



Live: The search for Nathan O’Brien and his grandparents

 

[Satchie]

I feel like we're potentially missing a lot of facts: for example, police may have gotten a search warrant, but didn't wait for it before entering the farm because they don't have to wait for a search warrant if there's a possibility of rescuing victims.

Fortunately, police would not just assume that all three were dead and that there was no need to try to rescue a little boy until they got the proper paperwork. Fortunately, police have their priorities straight.

 

[deugirtni]

I feel like we're potentially missing a lot of facts: for example, police may have gotten a search warrant, but didn't wait for it before entering the farm because they don't have to wait for a search warrant if there's a possibility of rescuing victims.

Fortunately, police would not just assume that all three were dead and that there was no need to try to rescue a little boy until they got the proper paperwork. Fortunately, police have their priorities straight.

But it seems the appeal is based on the judge allowing evidence that was obtained without the search warrant.. but we have no idea what evidence was collected before they obtained one, or when/if they obtained one, etc.

 

[otto]

I thought prosecutors thought victims were alive because they found Nathan's bloody hand print on the wall and were alluding to him balancing himself if unsteady. DG could've beaten them unconscious but not dead although I've always hoped they were deceased before reaching the farm. I do see your point though Otto, could well be a legal strategy for the warrant situation. Ugh, not sure I want to even re-visit this case. Still so sad.

I think there was too much blood all over the Liknes home, and outside leading to the driveway, for the victims to be alive after the attack. After hearing the prosecution theory that the victims were alive at the farm, I kept waiting for evidence. There was none. It was simply stated and re-stated as though fact.

After the truck was identified, Garland was brought in for questioning. If police had grounds to believe that the victims were on the property, that was the time for them to gather evidence and get a search warrant. It sounds like the appeal is on the basis that police had nothing more than a still image of a truck. Then, without a search warrant, they swarmed the farm. If this was done because police reasonably believed the victims were alive, perhaps they need to explain how that was possible given the bloody crime scene.

 

[deugirtni]

I'd like to know how much evidence was collected *before* they bothered to obtain a search warrant. They only have powers to enter and search if they believe lives are at stake, not to have free reign searching every nook and cranny for days. There would have been a small window for them to search for live bodies in danger. They had him in jail for days and they released him from questioning on the Sunday, but yet kept searching into the week. I wonder at which point they actually got their search warrant. Man this sounds like a big mess. Not that holding another trial would end in a different result, but there are reasons why we have these search and seizure laws.

 

[otto]

I'd like to know how much evidence was collected *before* they bothered to obtain a search warrant. They only have powers to enter and search if they believe lives are at stake, not to have free reign searching every nook and cranny for days. There would have been a small window for them to search for live bodies in danger. They had him in jail for days and they released him from questioning on the Sunday, but yet kept searching into the week. I wonder at which point they actually got their search warrant. Man this sounds like a big mess. Not that holding another trial would end in a different result, but there are reasons why we have these search and seizure laws.

It would be a big concern if the prosecutor's office failed to apply for a search warrant prior to the massive search, moreso if they tried to justify the oversight by suggesting that there was reasonable belief that victims were alive days after discovering the massive blood loss at the crime scene. If there was no real justification for the search without a warrant, I think the evidence discovered during the search is rejected.

I understand that Garland wants a reduced sentence. We know that he went to the house to confront Alvin. From that point forward, there are questions about whether he genuinely intended to murder everyone, or whether things got out of hand really fast and he got the upper hand. Perhaps he wants concurrent sentencing, or 2nd degree convictions for two of the victims. In the recent murders of Jasmine Lovett and her daughter, both charges are second degree. Maybe that means that charges for Nathan should also be second degree.

 

[MistyWaters]

It appears only the constitutional legality of the initial cursory search that’s being raised in this appeal. But after that brief search, assumably LE was granted a search warrant as a result of those findings. So if the initial search was illegal, there was also no cause to conduct subsequent searches, I think is the basis of this appeal.

I sure hope the appeal argument is grasping at straws. ETA: It’s reminding me of other ridiculous examples of appeals, such as a vehicle weaving down the road with a burnt out headlight so police pull over the driver and also find a bin full of cocaine. Do they have the right to charge the driver with the drug bust if they didn’t suspect there was cocaine in the vehicle until it was stopped, sometimes not. Craziness, how laws protect the criminals IMO.

“Rideout said the July 4, 2014, search of the sprawling property, which included multiple outbuildings, was conducted in less than two hours.

She said it wasn’t a thorough search for evidence, but one to hopefully find living victims.

“They would not have cleared this property in one hour and 45 minutes had they searched every box,” Rideout said.

“They were there to look for live victims.”...”
Convicted triple murderer Douglas Garland is entitled to a new trial, his lawyer says

 

[otto]

It appears only the constitutional legality of the initial cursory search that’s being raised in this appeal. But after that brief search, assumably LE was granted a search warrant as a result of those findings. So if the initial search was illegal, there was also no cause to conduct subsequent searches, I think is the basis of this appeal.

I sure hope the appeal argument is grasping at straws.

“Rideout said the July 4, 2014, search of the sprawling property, which included multiple outbuildings, was conducted in less than two hours.

She said it wasn’t a thorough search for evidence, but one to hopefully find living victims.

“They would not have cleared this property in one hour and 45 minutes had they searched every box,” Rideout said.

“They were there to look for live victims.”...”
Convicted triple murderer Douglas Garland is entitled to a new trial, his lawyer says

That seems to be at the centre of this - that despite 8 metre long bloody drag marks, blood throughout the house, and the determination of "medical distress" (presumably due to abundant blood evidence), there was an assumption that the victims were still alive several days later. I find that incredulous. I distinctly recall the prosecution stating that the victims were alive at the farm and waited for evidence throughout the trial, but it was never presented - merely stated as fact.

Does that mean that they searched without a warrant, did not find evidence of living victims, but did find evidence that the victims might be deceased, and on that basis they obtained a search warrant? I'm very curious to see how this is decided.

 

[MistyWaters]

That seems to be at the centre of this - that despite 8 metre long bloody drag marks, blood throughout the house, and the determination of "medical distress" (presumably due to abundant blood evidence), there was an assumption that the victims were still alive several days later. I find that incredulous. I distinctly recall the prosecution stating that the victims were alive at the farm and waited for evidence throughout the trial, but it was never presented - merely stated as fact.

Does that mean that they searched without a warrant, did not find evidence of living victims, but did find evidence that the victims might be deceased, and on that basis they obtained a search warrant? I'm very curious to see how this is decided.

That’s what I gather as well - the initial search under “exigent circumstances” (according to LE) for any live victims instead revealed evidence that supported a search warrant in order to collect further evidence.

I will admit I was also a little baffled at the prosecution’s insistence any of the victims left that home alive particularly because of the video showing the tarp covering up something in the back of the green pickup truck. But now it makes sense, to your idea, yes indeed that theory just happened to also support the initial search.

 

[deugirtni]

This was a long time ago, so my memory is rusty.. but.. wasn't it said that Nathan had been in bed with his grandmother? So if that is correct, and a bunch of blood was there, and a bunch of blood was wherever Alvin was accosted, that might appear to look like '2' individuals.. then add in the apparent child's handprint in blood in the hallway? They may have, based on common sense, feared that both Alvin and Kathy were deceased, but hoped that Nathan might still be alive? An amber alert had been issued for him also. LE said they were awaiting test results, presumably to determine whose blood was where, and included in the crimescene. They may not have had the same clarity about Nathan's death, which precipitated the 'exigent' search?

But yes, will certainly be interesting, since, had they not entered withOUT the search warrant, would they have ever had enough to actually enter legally to find all of that evidence?

And yes otto, sometimes prosecutors make statements in court which are not backed up with evidence, and yet they would obviously 'stick' in jurors' minds, and sometimes they also convolute things so that you can't figure them out except by doing an indepth analysis. Doesn't seem fair in that regard... I think perhaps the only way to discount those types of statements and convolutions would be for the accused to take the stand and offer up evidence to the contrary, which is his right NOT to do, and in so doing, the accused gives up other 'rights'. Very interesting.

 

[Sillybilly]

Although an obvious crime scene, the fact that no victims were found either dead or alive at the scene, and that an Amber Alert was issued, would seem to support LE's belief that at least some of the three could be alive.

“It’s still a missing persons investigation. We’re hopeful we’ll find these family members alive.”

BTW, what we now think doesn't really factor in ... it's what LE believed possible at that time.

 

[MistyWaters]

Although an obvious crime scene, the fact that no victims were found either dead or alive at the scene, and that an Amber Alert was issued, would seem to support LE's belief that at least some of the three could be alive.

“It’s still a missing persons investigation. We’re hopeful we’ll find these family members alive.”

BTW, what we now think doesn't really factor in ... it's what LE believed possible at that time.

The appeal is also based on the premise LE didn’t have cause to believe the victims would be found alive at Garland’s farm as he wasn’t a prime suspect. But it was his sister who identified his green truck and told LE about his longstanding grievance against Alvin so I think that’s a weak argument as well.

“Defence counsel Alias Sanders argued an “exigent” search of the 40-acre property northeast of Calgary wasn’t warranted, because police didn’t have sufficient evidence to believe the missing victims were there.

“What was lacking was a reasonable lead these people were on the farm,” Sanders told a three-member Alberta Court of Appeal panel.

Sanders said there were other suspects at the time and that police believed there were two people involved in removing the couple and the grandchild from their Calgary home.

“At that time, could they have gotten a (search) warrant? The answer is no.”...”
Convicted triple murderer Douglas Garland is entitled to a new trial, his lawyer says

 

[otto]

That’s what I gather as well - the initial search under “exigent circumstances” (according to LE) for any live victims instead revealed evidence that supported a search warrant in order to collect further evidence.

I will admit I was also a little baffled at the prosecution’s insistence any of the victims left that home alive particularly because of the video showing the tarp covering up something in the back of the green pickup truck. But now it makes sense, to your idea, yes indeed that theory just happened to also support the initial search.

That is what I'm thinking, but I also think it should be a legal problem regarding search warrants. Realistically, the fruits of the poison tree were allowed during trial. Can police demonstrate that they would have searched Garland's property for deceased people even if they had not searched for living people? That would be a different argument, I suppose that means another trial, but it is also the only way step out from under the appearance of search warrant violations. Another option would be to demonstrate why at least one victim was presumed to be alive a few days after the bloody scene. If there was blood evidence of all three victims, then a few days later the victims can be presumed dead.

I need to break it down:

Police were looking for 3 people at the farm. Police did not need a search warrant because they were worried about the welfare of the 3 people. They were not found. Police argue that they did not search all buildings so they returned with a warrant. Presumably nothing prevented them from searching all buildings.

I wonder if we can see a copy of the warrant. Does it say needed to search more buildings, or evidence of dead bodies?

There was ample evidence at a related crime scene which strongly implied that the victims were deceased when, or shortly after, they were dragged out of the crime scene. It was a few days before Garland's truck was found on CCTV footage, and then another day or so to connect it with Garland. Could police realistically expect living victims, or is the evidence fruits of the poison tree?

I suppose Garland is hoping that a ruling in his favour allows him to negotiate for a better sentence and to change the charge to 2nd degree. He'll bargain to spare the family another trial.

 

[otto]

This was a long time ago, so my memory is rusty.. but.. wasn't it said that Nathan had been in bed with his grandmother? So if that is correct, and a bunch of blood was there, and a bunch of blood was wherever Alvin was accosted, that might appear to look like '2' individuals.. then add in the apparent child's handprint in blood in the hallway? They may have, based on common sense, feared that both Alvin and Kathy were deceased, but hoped that Nathan might still be alive? An amber alert had been issued for him also. LE said they were awaiting test results, presumably to determine whose blood was where, and included in the crimescene. They may not have had the same clarity about Nathan's death, which precipitated the 'exigent' search?

But yes, will certainly be interesting, since, had they not entered withOUT the search warrant, would they have ever had enough to actually enter legally to find all of that evidence?

And yes otto, sometimes prosecutors make statements in court which are not backed up with evidence, and yet they would obviously 'stick' in jurors' minds, and sometimes they also convolute things so that you can't figure them out except by doing an indepth analysis. Doesn't seem fair in that regard... I think perhaps the only way to discount those types of statements and convolutions would be for the accused to take the stand and offer up evidence to the contrary, which is his right NOT to do, and in so doing, the accused gives up other 'rights'. Very interesting.

I agree. If there is no evidence of Nathan's blood at the crime scene, then indeed, there was justification to search for him without the delay of obtaining a warrant. My impression is that Garland is arguing that there should not have been a search, and when there was and the three were not found, anything that was found could not legally be used to obtain a search warrant.

I agree with making bold statements without evidence that stick in someone's mind in this trial, I don't agree with convoluted. Those bold statements did not sit well with me at the time. Prosecutors want to tell a story that logically leads the juror from the start of an incident to gotcha. They want the jury to believe the prosecutor and to convict.