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

[otto]

Yes me too. The worst case scenario in my opinion would be four ****s were coerced into creating a show for the public, enticed to hit and kick an old man (average age by prison standards) in the back or head in return for either safety or a drug fix.

I guess that my view is tainted because I've come to believe through people who are more closely connected to the prison system than I that a lot of what occurs in prisons is still Criminal Organization and drug related, exactly what the rest of us honest and law abiding folk want locked away. What goes on isn't much different than on the outside and for the majority, that rehabilitation is the outcome is almost a joke. When they're released it just means they've sunk to a lower level of what's "normal"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My impression in reading this is that Garland needed protection during the past 2.5 years while waiting for trial. The big question that the lawyer and the defence lawyers association have is why that protection was not in place after the verdict. It looks more likely that the guards had some part in allowing this to happen. I hope that this is properly investigated.

"Ian Savage, the president of the Calgary-based Criminal Defence Lawyers Association, said his organization is calling upon the Remand Centre to explain exactly how the assault happened.

"Obviously a child murder is one of the most horrific things that we as a society would abhor, and while he [was] awaiting trial on that matter he [needed] to be protected from potential assault from other inmates, that's just obvious," Savage said.

"So how this could possibly happen at this stage in the proceedings needs explaining."​

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/douglas-garland-attacked-in-prison-1.3989927

 

[JadeSLeuth]

I was reading about our prisons in Canada and I forget which one but I'm sure a few allow play stations and TVs in their units. This upsets me. I feel privileges like this are ridiculous. Maybe a tv in a common area and if you can't see or hear tough luck. Read a book. Jmo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, DG likes to read....
Cant see him being the video game type tho. TV maybe. I wonder if the channels or shows are filtered at all...

 

[DarkSkink]

He is a waste of skin, having proved he has no respect for human life, and inflicted horrendous pain to victims. I have zero sympathy for him.

Sounds a lot like what was running through DG's head about AL.

 

[rogue ant]

Yeah, DG likes to read....

Indeed. Ugh.

 

[musicaljoke]

The prosecution probably conceded the exclusion of a percentage of the 1400 pieces of evidence by law, but prosecution and Judge still insist that the victims died at the acreage.

Why?

Because torture was in the plan, supported by the purchase of special equipment, research into torture, etc.

Because no evidence excludes the theory.

Because there would have been no reason to remove the bodies from the house if they were already dead.

 

[naz]

Obviously a child murder is one of the most horrific things that we as a society would abhor, and while he [was] awaiting trial on that matter he [needed] to be protected from potential assault from other inmates, that's just obvious," Savage said.

"So how this could possibly happen at this stage in the proceedings needs explaining."

I would not be surprised if R. Center personal says that all prisoners are processed equally, and that no special treatment is accorded to prisoners regardless of their crimes. Basically, the Remind center is underfunded,... some of the guards do not have proper training ... blah blah... It may be hard to prove it was done intentionally, and that the guards did it purposely.

 

[naz]

Easier if you stay log in, sorry again for double post..

 

[otto]

Because torture was in the plan, supported by the purchase of special equipment, research into torture, etc.

Because no evidence excludes the theory.

Because there would have been no reason to remove the bodies from the house if they were already dead.

The judge said that there was no reason to remove dead people from a crime scene, but that's simply not true. It is common for bodies to be moved to a different location to avoid arrest.

People can't be convicted for what is in their mind. Garland could fantasize about all sorts of things, but he can't be convicted of torturing the victims if there's no evidence.

I think the judge made all sorts of interesting leaps in logic during the sentencing in order to justify consecutive sentencing.

 

[MistyWaters]

The judge said that there was no reason to remove dead people from a crime scene, but that's simply not true. It is common for bodies to be moved to a different location to avoid arrest.

People can't be convicted for what is in their mind. Garland could fantasize about all sorts of things, but he can't be convicted of torturing the victims if there's no evidence.

I think the judge made all sorts of interesting leaps in logic during the sentencing in order to justify consecutive sentencing.

The judge's logic was based on the prosecution's theory. The jury found that Garland was guilty beyind reasonable doubt and although they're not required to tell us exactly what led them to that conclusion, it can be assumed they generally agreed with the prosecution's theory.

Therefore one would hardly expect the judge to suddenly dispute the prosecution's theory when imposing the sentence.

 

[olivebpa1]

"Defence confirmed Garland will be seen early next week to discuss placement in a federal institution. Ross said Garland will go to the Edmonton Max. However, he will likely be held at the Calgary Remand Centre for an additional two to four weeks; the time period he’s allowed to file an appeal."

What is there to discuss about his Federal placement if in the next sentence his lawyer says he is going to Edmonton Max? Is Edmonton Max not the final placement?

That quote came from this article

http://globalnews.ca/news/3259757/t...under-close-watch-after-threats-made-sources/

 

[olivebpa1]

The article I just posted also says that he has only been at the remand Centre since the trial started and prior to that he was somewhere where he could be segregated more.

"Garland was brought to the Remand Centre for the trial. He was previously in a segregated unit in a facility outside of the city."

 

[otto]

Blood evidence summary at home

WARNING- THIS IS A LIST OF THE PLACES EACH PERSON BLED

****UPSETTING TO READ****

AL
Master Bedroom - large stain on floor, low to floor splatter on drum, TV, air conditioner, night stand.
Spare Room Door Frame - Large stain
Hallway from master bedroom to top of stairs - drag mark
Upper level Stair - drip and saturation
4th step (Bedroom to main floor)
Stairs from Kitchen to garage - stains
Stairwell Walls - staining
Area beside side door - Transfer, drips and saturation
Garage - splatter indicating AL was near floor

KL
Spare Bedroom - Large staining on right side of mattress, box spring and wall near floor, splatter on head board (medium to low velocity)
Door frame to spare room - drip, saturation, splatter on wall outside of door near floor
Closet Door - hand swipe (Mixed with NO)
Stairwell 2nd floor landing - hand swipe (Mixed with NO) Could these 2 be the same?
7 stairs from main floor to bedroom level - drip stains
Kitchen - fridge and drips on floor
Living room - stains
Tile in front entrance - drips
Stairs from Kitchen to Garage - stains
Stairwell walls - stains
Side Door - stains
Side Door to Front of Garage - drag stain
Front of Garage - large pool

NO
Spare Bedroom Bed - Drips
Closet Door - Hand swipe (mixed with KL)
Stairwell to Second Floor - Hand swipe (mixed with KL)

Blood TRransfer
Patio Doors - AL & KL
7 Stairs leading from Bedrooms to main Floor - KL
Wall Upstairs - KL & NO
Wall at top of Stair well - NO

It looks to me that there a major altercation in the master bedroom with AL, then in the door way to spare room with AL & KL. I think they were trying to protect NO as that is where is blood is found. These 2 grandparents gave all they could to fight off this monster but somehow he came through unscathed. MOO

 

[Deleted member 192280]

I don't think he would have risked going to the sale as he would leave his DNA there.

Not necessarily, he didn't have to touch any item; he could also wear thin gloves. But even if he didn't go into the house, the estate sale must have been the best chance for a last recon mission, to have a most updated look at the planned crime surroundings, so he at least could have been observing from afar, wearing women's wig and clothing, or from inside a vehicle. IMO the estate sale would be a too good opportunity for him to miss: it's the latest "update", and many strangers were allowed (welcome) to be inside the home, which wouldn't be possible on any other day.

 

[deugirtni]

Yes this was pretty much over looked. He said something to the effect of "i'm glad your family turned you in". Very short and spoken directly to DG. Did he know this would be a sore spot with DG? That his own family sided with the Liknes?

It should be noted that 'Allen Liknes' who gave a VIS, was Alvin's twin brother, so it would be pretty natural, imho, to 'side' with the Liknes family. moo

 

[olivebpa1]

It should be noted that 'Allen Liknes' who gave a VIS, was Alvin's twin brother, so it would be pretty natural, imho, to 'side' with the Liknes family. moo

I wasn't questioning if it was normal for DG's family to side with the Likneses. Of course it is! Any decent human being would turn their family member in in this situation. What i am questioning is why did Allen say "I'm glad your family turned you in" during his victim impact statement. That is literally the only thing he said so there has to be a reason. When your victim impact statement is only one sentence and you are speaking directly to the murderer you are expecting your one sentence to make a big impact.

 

[deugirtni]

The judge said that there was no reason to remove dead people from a crime scene, but that's simply not true. It is common for bodies to be moved to a different location to avoid arrest.

People can't be convicted for what is in their mind. Garland could fantasize about all sorts of things, but he can't be convicted of torturing the victims if there's no evidence.

I think the judge made all sorts of interesting leaps in logic during the sentencing in order to justify consecutive sentencing.

As I understand it, and I could be very wrong, the consecutive sentencing is at the discretion of the judge. It was an option available to him.

Personally, I was very surprised that DG's own lawyer asked for a sentence of 50 years, rather than the usual 25 years. It seemed to me that the judge then figured, well, if the criminal's own lawyer is asking for 50 years, and the criminal is currently 57 years old, it isn't going to make a difference at all to the criminal whether he's in for 50 or 75 (since DG would be 107 years old even with the 50 years, and perhaps dead by then), so I might as well make the victims and the public and the prosecution happy by going with 75.

There is an article at this link where someone was asking why a certain killer was only sentenced to 25 years even though he was convicted of 4 separate murders. In that case it was because the murders were performed before the new law came into effect (in 2011), even though the trial and convictions occurred after the new law was in effect. This article was written in late 2014, but it gives some information in regard to consecutive and concurrent sentencing.

The Criminal Code of Canada, which is the legislative framework criminal law is built on in this country, spells out when a judge can impose consecutive sentences.

Section 718.3 of the code says a judge can impose a consecutive sentence when a person is convicted of a crime while currently serving a sentence for a previous crime; if the law calls for both a fine and a jail sentence to be imposed for the same conviction; or when the accused is found guilty of multiple crimes, and multiple jail sentences, fines or a mix of both are imposed.

Other sections of the act specify that consecutive sentences must be applied if the accused used a firearm, or imitation firearm, in the commission of the crime; if the accused is found guilty of a terrorist act; or commits certain crimes -such as the illegal possession or use of explosives -as part of a criminal organization.

Section 718.2 (c) of the Criminal Code adds, "where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh[.]"

But Canada operates under a common-law system, which means that societal customs and previous rulings must be taken into account when a judge makes his or her sentencing ruling to ensure the law is enforced in a consistent manner.

In general, concurrent sentences are imposed when the crimes the accused is convicted of are considered to be connected to the same general circumstances. Consecutive sentences are generally used when the crimes represent distinct, separate incidents that are unrelated to each other.

http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/...a-case-of-concurrent-vs-consecutive-1.1433230

Here is the link to where the Criminal Code is referenced in above article:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C%2D46/page-180.html#h-266

 

[casesensitive]

I wasn't questioning if it was normal for DG's family to side with the Likneses. Of course it is! Any decent human being would turn their family member in in this situation. What i am questioning is why did Allen say "I'm glad your family turned you in" during his victim impact statement. That is literally the only thing he said so there has to be a reason. When your victim impact statement is only one sentence and you are speaking directly to the murderer you are expecting your one sentence to make a big impact.

It's possible that Allen had written more, but was too emotional and knew he couldn't read it all. He had just listened to Jenn and Rod's statements before his turn. I wouldn't be able to keep my composure either. Just a guess on my part.

 

[deugirtni]

I wasn't questioning if it was normal for DG's family to side with the Likneses. Of course it is! Any decent human being would turn their family member in in this situation. What i am questioning is why did Allen say "I'm glad your family turned you in" during his victim impact statement. That is literally the only thing he said so there has to be a reason. When your victim impact statement is only one sentence and you are speaking directly to the murderer you are expecting your one sentence to make a big impact.

I misunderstood your post, sorry. I wonder if we got the 'condensed version' of the twin's VIS, via tweets? Is there anywhere where it is published what the VISs said in their entirety? It sure wasn't much of an impact statement, if that is all there was to it? I took Allen's statement as simply being grateful that he was caught, since without that truck being recognized, who knows what would have happened? I doubt if there is more to it, since I doubt if Alvin's twin would have known anything about DG or his family. I believe he also lived in a different city, IIRC. jmo

 

[deugirtni]

Obviously a child murder is one of the most horrific things that we as a society would abhor, and while he [was] awaiting trial on that matter he [needed] to be protected from potential assault from other inmates, that's just obvious," Savage said.

"So how this could possibly happen at this stage in the proceedings needs explaining."

I would not be surprised if R. Center personal says that all prisoners are processed equally, and that no special treatment is accorded to prisoners regardless of their crimes. Basically, the Remind center is underfunded,... some of the guards do not have proper training ... blah blah... It may be hard to prove it was done intentionally, and that the guards did it purposely.

Then again, maybe not so hard to prove since it was caught on CCTV?

 

[naz]

Then again, maybe not so hard to prove since it was caught on CCTV?

I should have quoted Otto post in his entirety. I did not made it clear that I was referring to the guards involvement.