I find it interesting that at least some MSM are referring to the victims as 'presumed victims', as headlined here in The Toronto Star, "Son of presumed victim watches Douglas Garland’s court appearance", and yet media and others are asking Garland what he did with the bodies, and do not seem to even notice that Garland is charged, but not convicted. It bothers me that people are so willing to presume guilt even with such little information to support this (no smoking gun, no reported DNA in the man's vehicle, no bodies, etc). IMHO, I can't stop picturing the 'real purps' celebrating their luck in having LE and MSM already hanging this DG person, and not even bothering to investigate other avenues.
Could you please list your references for your statement regarding the media speaking to Garland and for your statement that the police are "not even bothering to investigate other avenues"?
From the onset CPS spokesman, Kevin Brookwell, said 'there were signs that the homeowners "did not leave on their own volition." '
(
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/calgar...on-their-own-volition-1.1894229#ixzz37z3hsqh0)
Therefore, Nathan O'Brien, Kathryn Liknes, and Alvin Liknes were all, in fact, victims of crimes which could have included causing a person to be confined or imprisoned against their will to be included in the charges of kidnapping and forcible confinement. As well, S/Sgt. Doug Andrus stated “Based on what we’ve seen at the scene, we believe there was a violent incident at the residence." (
http://globalnews.ca/news/1433136/p...ncident-occurred-inside-missing-familys-home/) Therefore, at least one of the three people was assaulted and was a victim of assault.
So, Nathan O'Brien, Kathryn Liknes, and Alvin Liknes are victims. Perhaps they are missing and presumed dead, but they are still victims nonetheless. It could also be said that the three people are presumed to be murder victims. Still victims.
JMO, but I think the word was inappropriately used by The Star. However, the use of the word doesn't affect how people view DG.
Alan Pearse of the Criminal Defence Lawyers Association has already protested that the "perp walk" into the Calgary Remand Centre made DG look guilty and was a form of public shaming. (
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07/18/douglas-garland_n_5601252.html) DG's lawyer, Kim Ross hadn’t read the letter and had no comment regarding either the letter or "the handling of his client." (
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/07/1...hief-complaining-of-douglas-garland-perp-walk)
About the questions. Let's not get too carried away. Your statement is incorrect when you say "the media and others". According to the footage, one reporter asked the questions. Your statement is also incorrect when you say DG was asked "what he did with the bodies". He wasn't. He was always referred to as Mr. Garland by the reporter. The questions, IMO, implied not so much that DG was a kidnapper or a murderer but that he was implicated in some way--as a witness, as an observer, as an accomplice, as someone who learned information after the fact. Lots of possibilities. I think if a reporter believed DG had been found guilty of murdering the three disappeared people, the questions would have been more targeted. For instance: Is is true you threw the knife in the Bow?
In fact of the actual eight questions, three asked DG is he'd like to make a statement, and a fourth is more specific asking if he had anything to say to Nathan's parents. Three other questions ask if he has knowledge of the whereabouts of the three disappeared people. The eighth question referred to working with the police, that is helping to find Nathan, Kathy, and Alvin. (
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...knes-1.2707268)
JMO, but one of the purposes of a perp walk, if you choose to call it that, is to allow people to see the subject's face who may have seen him in a context that could exonerate the subject, or perhaps lead to other investigative possibilities, or witnesses may call with information to strengthen the crown's case. It seems more likely that by hunching and hanging his head, a subject could be trying to hide his height, or distort his body's proportions, or make it more difficult for people to recognize his features. The way DG is slouching down the street, he seems slope shouldered and shorter than the plainclothes officers with him. IMO, a subject's posture does not necessarily reflect that the subject is feeling shame so much as the subject trying to disguise himself. However, and this is just my opinion, a 54 year old man who refuses to co-operate fully with a police and family investigation into the disappearance of his sister's five year old nephew should be ashamed of himself. Given the expression on DG's face, he was not shamed or worried, he was angry. (Again, that's JMO)
You say there is such little information to support a supposition of DG's guilt, but that does not mean that people will not speculate about DG's possible involvement nor should it mean that they are prevented from speculating because not all information has yet been made public. For instance, the charges that have been laid imply that evidence has been found of planning the crime--that's what is needed for first degree murder charges. As you've alluded to, not all evidence has been made public. In fact very little has been made public. The O'Brien/Liknes family have said very little to the public through the media. That does not mean that there is no evidence. It just means that all the evidence has not yet been revealed to the public, and may never be known publicly. The forensic and other units were at the Parkhill crime site for quite some time. According to various media accessibilities by CPS, evidence has been steadily going into the Crime Lab and returning from the Crime Lab to CPS since the beginning of the case. IMO, the CPS has been building it's case, piece by piece for the same length of time.
After the Pickton case, the fact that there are "no bodies" does not mean an act of murder can not be proven. Therefore, it is not enough for the criminal in question to simply dispose of the bodies of his victims and throw away his murder weapon/s. His defence can't really be, you can't find my gun or the bodies, so that proves I'm smarter than you. That being said, it is my understanding that DG has not confessed to any crimes regarding Nathan and his grandparents. So far the evidence appears to be circumstantial, but, because it has been so thorough, it may prove to be far more deadly than anything any perpetrator might ever have expected to face.
