Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 June 2014 - #8

[PonderingNS]

See now, there he does look physically weaker. But then there's a big difference between doing lab & admin work and doing physically taxing farm work.

Yes , years of healthy physical outdoor farm work would help any frail body toughen up.

 

[puppyraiser]

During the news conference, the chief said something to the effect that it would be remiss of them to not look at other open cases. That, IMO, just didn't come out of the blue, there had to be something found on that farm or the neighbouring properties. I wonder if they found DNA that doesn't match him, his parents or the missing three.

Is it really such a stretch to wonder if there is a connection to some of the missing Edmonton women?
The profile prepared by the RCMP's Behavioural Science Branch suggests he:

Drives a reliable, high-mileage truck, van or sport utility vehicle, and is comfortable driving in rural areas.
Likes to hunt, fish, camp or participate in other outdoor activities.
Has a past or present connection to the area south of Edmonton, including Leduc, Camrose and New Sarepta.
May clean his vehicle at odd times of the day.

 

[matou]

Video of DG in shackles at the link.

Calgary police continue to ask for the public's help. Rural property owners, including oil companies and businesses, are still being asked to search their properties for anything suspicious.

Including oil companies and businesses.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/douglas-garland-charged-with-murder-of-nathan-o-brien-grandparents-1.2707268?cmp=rss

 

[palisadesk]

The one thing I'm worried about is that the defense will actually use the murder of that poor child as a defense.... ie-- What kind of person murders a 5 year old child?... A mentally unstable person, that's who.

A very real possibility (with many precedents in other money-motivated crimes as this one appears to be from information available so far) is that the child's death was accidental. That is, the perpetrator intended to silence the child, tie him up, carry him out to the truck (or something similar) and accidentally smothered him, dropped him or otherwise miscalculated.

There are plenty of precedents for this kind of thing (two that leap immediately to mind are the kidnapping of Cecilia Zhang in Toronto a few years' back, and eons ago, the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. Cecilia's abductor put a towel over her mouth and nose to prevent her making noise that would wake her parents; she was asphyxiated before the assailant realized what had happened. Of course it was still a homicide; eventually the person pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. The Lindbergh kidnapper (probably someone other than the man executed for the crime) only wanted to take the baby for ransom, but apparently accidentally dropped him from the second-story window when the ladder he was using broke as he was climbing down with the baby. The child suffered a severe skull fracture.

From what we know of this accused, he had little or no experience with young children and would not have been intuitively aware of their fragility, not only re respiration but their larger head:body weight ratio makes neck and skull fractures much more likely than in adults.

Not saying this happened, but it is a possibility -- there may have been no intent to kill the child (his value as a "witness" would have been negligible -- a child that age cannot give sworn testimony) but caught off guard, possibly panicking, and with little knowledge of how to handle a young child, the assailant could easily miscalculated the force etc. needed to subdue or silence the youngster.

Canadian law is not the same as U.S. where a death in pursuit of a felony is automatically a first-degree murder (reasoning that since the offender intended the felony, s/he also intended/premeditated whatever additional mishaps occurred), but I think -- would have to look it up -- that the criminal circumstance automatically makes such an accident a murder, not a manslaughter, event under the Criminal Code.

Being mentally unstable does not get someone off the hook, however. A history of schizophrenia (where an individual cannot discriminate between reality and hallucinations) is different, but does not seem to apply here; nor is there a suggestion of neurological disability such as autism, fetal alcohol syndrome etc. that can impair a person's everyday functioning. This individual has been able to hold down responsible jobs, engage in entrepreneurial businesses, etc. -- a case for "not criminally responsible" would be a hard sell, especially if there is evidence of planning and preparation.

 

[jillybean51]

From the way his eye looks in this photo it's possible to imagine what he may have looked like during a struggle...

He was wearing a Paramount Resources Ltd. T-shirt.

He has those dead looking eyes ,kind of like Charles Manson...IMO

 

[aliciabutterfly]

That is some pretty impressive sleuthing, puppyraiser!

 

[PonderingNS]

Did we find out what DG ( or I guess I should say MH, as the judge said he obtained all employment in BC under his assumed name) did while working at the BC institute of Technology ? I cant remember at the moment ?
Got it- apparently a chemical mixer.

I ask because they have a forensic lab.

 

[SuziQ]

Jumping in here out of turn.

I'm not understanding the 2nd degree murder charge for Nathan. It only takes a split second to form a premeditated thought. IMO, DG came across the child and made the decision the child was a witness and had to be killed. Wouldn't that be 1st degree murder?

 

[eyesofclay]

Otto! Congrats on making the news! You've contributed so much here and it's great to know it doesn't go unnoticed. http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/story.html?id=10026298

 

[violet56]

Jumping in here out of turn.

I'm not understanding the 2nd degree murder charge for Nathan. It only takes a split second to form a premeditated thought. IMO, DG came across the child and made the decision the child was a witness and had to be killed. Wouldn't that be 1st degree murder?

The definition of premeditation is to "think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand" so since he probably didn't know about Nathan sleeping over he wouldn't have had time to plan how to kill him.

 

[tracyhmcd]

Only thing that stuck out to me from the Garland photos is that he is wearing a Paramount Resources shirt.

That struck me too, and I feel sick that their name is now associated with Garland

 

[jillybean51]

http://mobile.news.com.au/lifestyle...en-more-sinister/story-fnixwvgh-1226987289934

Not related,but another family missing without a trace....

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I think we're both thinking along the same lines. These murders are so beyond normal that his mental health issues could form the basis for a defence.

The article which I think is different now than the one you posted also states he was violent in the past and assault and weapons charges. Throw in mental instability and that's not good.

 

[PennyM]

This article does a pretty good job of explaining the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder in Canada.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bc4804bd-660c-493d-aeb1-3474f182af18

In second degree, there exists the intent to kill, but the person has not deliberated or planned out the murder. Initially I thought the evidence pointed to DG killing Nathan by accident but with 2nd degree the intention is there, so they are saying it was intentional, just not part of the plan, more of a heat of the moment situation.

 

[puppyraiser]

one on one with police chief

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?playlistId=1.1914528

 

[bakerlady]

Jumping in here out of turn.

I'm not understanding the 2nd degree murder charge for Nathan. It only takes a split second to form a premeditated thought. IMO, DG came across the child and made the decision the child was a witness and had to be killed. Wouldn't that be 1st degree murder?

That part puzzled me too but I did some reading on the differences between the two and I would say its fitting.

He was likely killed out of rage and DG would not have planned on him being there nor planned on killing him in the first place.

It appears they have enough evidence to assume DG had been planning killing AL and KL for some time. I think he had either internet history, phone history, witness statements, or he had gone shopping for pertinent supplies.

One of the examples online said that waiting outside of someone's house for them to return with the intention of killing them is first degree murder.

Walking into a shopping mall with a gun and shooting random people is second degree murder.

Even tho both are planned, one is much more personal.

IMO they should be treated the same. Crimes of passion and extreme provoked rage like a father killing a child molester or a wife walking in on her husband in bed with another woman....those are more understandable and can fall under temporary insanity.

I can't think of any other murder that should be lessened by a degree. I find it irrelevant in insulting to the victim.

 

[SuziQ]

The definition of premeditation is to "think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand" so since he probably didn't know about Nathan sleeping over he wouldn't have had time to plan how to kill him.

It must be different in Canada. In the U.S.

Premeditation can occur in a split second when there is enough time to change your mind about killing the person. Also, In the felony/1st degree murder rule, another person killed during the act of another felony, in this case, killing of the grandparents, qualifies this as a 1st degree murder charge. Also the willful murder of a child of tender age usually qualifies as 1st. degree murder.

 

[PennyM]

Killing that takes place during the commission of a kidnapping are upgraded to 1st degree even if not premeditated in Canada. So this leads me to believe there was no evidence at the scene to prove a kidnapping took place, or at least not of NO.

 

[matou]

If Nathan was restrained somehow, locked in a room, tied up, the charge with be upgraded to 1st degree murder IMO. Police have enough info in their investigation to lay 1st degree charges for the murders of the adults. Without Nathan's body, they can only charge him with 2nd degree murder at this point IMO.

 

[bakerlady]

Has LE specifically said NO is the 2nd degree charge and the 1st are AL and KL?

I remember they said someone had left the home alive and I can't find the link. Someone please provide it if you have it.

I keep thinking that AL and DG got in a fight and AL was injured but not dead and DG forced AL and NO and KL to go somewhere with him. Then I think he intentionally killed KL and NO (1st degree) and AL died from injuries sustained (2nd degree).

It's possible right?

Seems like everyone is leaning towards the other scenario tho.