Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #12

[bornofposeidon]

Thinking of evidence, I sure hope LE doesn't make the mistake that was made in the Tori Stafford case where LE failed to obtain a separate warrant for the contents of Rafferty's computer, resulting in that evidence not being allowed at trial. While the rest of Canada knew the damaging evidence, the jury didn't get to hear it. Fortunately they made the right call without it, but it was agonizing waiting for the big G word.

It was specifically this case that showed me how well our court system actually works. By disallowing the laptop Judge Heeney protected Rafferty's rights, avoiding any major appeals, all the while trusting that the jurors would find Rafferty guilty. The evidence, even without the laptop, was proven without a reasonable doubt and therefore there was only one possible verdict.

Sure, Canada's court system has seen some major blunders but at it's core it is civil and fair and it works. I trust that the person/people responsible for the murders of KL, AL and NO will receive the same protection of their charter rights that MR received. No one in this case will be going to jail if they are in fact totally innocent.

IMO

 

[kaley]

Hi everyone, I haven't posted for a while partly because I haven't had time to sleuth on my own and partly because I have been trying to read every post and get caught up. Some VERY interesting stuff!

Anyway, I did have one thought while reading all the posts. Is it possible that LE leaked the fact that they were searching in Mexico to distract the media and the public from the fact that they also have teams searching elsewhere? Panama perhaps? It would be a good idea on their part because we already know about the condo in Mexico so it wouldn't surprise anyone if they were to search in Mazatlan but the Panama info isn't as public. iMO

 

[CentralAlberta]

And it's too bad there aren't any Websleuths in Mazatlan. Or are there?

Maybe someone is going for the winter and can do some sleuthing in their spare time. (Wish it was me!)

 

[LoisLane]

Here is another article talking about DG. This sort of touches on the comments made about a "sting" as well as working with the suspect and building a relationship so he lets his guard down.

I am on an IPad so I can't cut and paste from the article.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ies_key_to_douglas_garland_investigation.html

 

[LoisLane]

Quote:

The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) provides responsive front-line death investigation and death certification services.

Vision

We shed light on death by:
◾certifying the cause and manner of death in accordance with the Fatality Inquiries Act
◾assisting and educating Albertans in time of grief
◾maintaining and developing a centre of excellence in forensic pathology and toxicology

Role

When a death occurs suddenly or it cannot be explained, the OCME conducts an investigation, under the authority of the Fatality Inquiries Act.

We hold each of our investigations to determine:
◾who died
◾where they died
◾when they died
◾why they died
◾how they died

http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/fatality/ocme/Pages/default.aspx

Fatality Inquiries Act

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=F09.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=077973999X

Yes, I have seen this as well. I am curious for more technical info. I will purchase the Fatality Inquiries Act and see what I can find.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Mr Big is an investigative strategy that is used when police are confident in their knowledge of who is responsible for a crime, but they lack that one piece of information that allows them a successful prosecution. A Sting is similar. Both are staged situations meant to draw the suspect in such that he/she provides that missing link. There is a different scenario for each suspect, depending on the weakness of the suspect.

For example, suppose there is a robbery where the murder victim is stabbed multiple time. Investigators locate the knife. They identify the owner of the knife, confirm that the owner was desperate for money, confirm with roommates that the knife owner returned out of sorts late on the night of the murder, discover that the knife owner left town immediately after the murder, and can physically place the knife owner between the murder and his residence immediately after the murder. Suppose that the one piece of evidence they are missing is DNA, and it is not yet legal to compel a suspect to provide DNA. A sting will be set up to obtain DNA from the suspect. The weakness in that particular suspect might be that he is a loner, a loser, unpopular, a drinker, and always hard up for money. The sting might be an attractive woman befriending him, inviting him to a staged party, and being generous with money. A scene will be staged where it is likely that the suspect will provide that DNA, and a warrant will be issued to collect that evidence within the specific timeframe of the sting.

Although each sting, or Mr Big scenario, requires different staged scenes, the concept has been around for a very long time. It is not used after the person of interest has been arrested, charged, and there are no other suspects. A sting, or Mr Big, scenario takes months of preparation and is a last resort, not the first decision.

Thank you for your explanation. It is very interesting and clear. I am very open-minded and like to look at things from all angles...often it is the path least taken that intrigues me. Although past history is an excellent indicator of future behaviour and results, it sometimes goes another direction. Progress is made in this world by doing things differently and perhaps discovering methods that have been untried but prove successful and/or useful. IMO, the discovery of certain information on the side of the victims regarding business, etc., gives us some hope that there may be another scenario that will find these people alive and well. That is where my opinions are coming from... hope that the victims are safe; hope that this may be a new investigative technique that LE may be taking in order to find the victims alive. Until the judge's gavel comes down, I will always maintain hope and pray for these people, and yes, perhaps come up with crazy scenarios for a better outcome than what we are looking at. If in fact the suspect is guilty of murdering this family, then my hope is that justice is served as well as he be gotten the help he needs.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I don't think that the police are feeling like they are on trial, or that someone is shooting at their feet regarding solving murders. They follow the evidence. In this case, in the period of two weeks, the evidence led investigators from the crime scene, to the truck, to the truck's owner, to the Airdrie property, to fast tracking forensics, arrest, and the laying of charges. If police made assumptions or jumped the gun, at what step did that happen?

Counter-examples to the belief that police make quick arrests due to "feeling they are on trial" are high profile cases that go cold. The murder of an RCMP officer is high profile.

"On December 13th 1997, 52-year-old Peter Sopow and his 47-year-old girlfriend, Lorraine McNab, were shot to death on her acreage just south of Pincher Creek. The victims were ambushed and shot outside and their bodies were then dragged into a horse trailer on the property. The bodies were found in that locked horse trailer just before noon on December 15th.

Sopow, a 32-year veteran of the RCMP at the time of his death, was the father of two grown children, and a Sergeant with the Fort Macleod detachment.
McNab was a kindergarten teacher at Canyon School in Pincher Creek and was the mother of two teenaged children. She and Sopow were both divorced and had been dating for about six months.

http://www.country95.fm/news.asp?ID=7835

Jane Johnson appears to come from a prominent family, also high profile.

"Jane JOHNSON and her daughter Cathryn were murdered in their home on the evening of September 3rd, 1996. The culprit(s) set fire to the residence in an effort to conceal the crime.

It is believed that this was not a chance or random act perpetrated by someone committing a break-in or an assault as evidence gathered does not support this. Further, it is believed the killer(s) knew the victims and were aware of their day-to-day patterns."

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cc-afn/johnson-jane-cathryn-eng.htm

It seems that if police make an arrest in two weeks, they are jumping the gun, but if the case goes cold, they are incompetent. What is the correct amount of time for an arrest to be made such that the community has confidence in the abilities of investigators and prosecutors?

Hi Otto, IMO, the arrest should be made in the case when someone is suspected and there is evidence to substantiate, but the investigation should continue until there is irrefutable proof that there in fact is not another possible option. I believe that LE in this case are doing the right thing. They are continuing to investigate all possible leads. They do not appear to be incompetent, nor have they jumped the gun. They clearly feel they have just cause required to charge DG and enough evidence to substantiate that charge, but are also looking into the "maybe slim possibility" that something else has occurred or someone else is involved. There is no way they could have let DG walk away on $ 750 bail when logic and evidence suggests that there is a very high probability he was involved. Had they not arrested him when they did, knowing he is a high risk flight possibility, they could very well have let a guilty party loose, and possibly never to be found. Do you happen to know what happens if in fact the trial does not convict DG and he goes free? Are LE able to re-charge him later? I suppose a stay would give them another year to find more evidence, but what happens after that? Is it possible that a murderer can go free and never be charged with the same crime a 2nd time? Just curious.

 

[Cherchri]

If anyone here could sit down with a senior investigating officer in this case and question him about DG, what specific questions would you ask at this time?

 

[LoisLane]

If anyone here could sit down with a senior investigating officer in this case and question him about DG, what specific questions would you ask at this time?

I would ask...

Do you have sufficient amounts of blood and body fluids from all three victims NO, KL, AL to suggest that they have been murdered?

Do you have evidence that any or all three victims NO, KL, AL may be outside of Canada?

Can you determine that a missing person case can translate to a homicide if they have not accessed known bank accounts and credit cards in a certain period of time? Was this the basis for your conclusion of a homicide in this specific case?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

If anyone here could sit down with a senior investigating officer in this case and question him about DG, what specific questions would you ask at this time?

What role are we in when we sit with the Sr. Investigative officer, and would we be in such a position as to be able to ask about evidence and have it disclosed?

If he/she couldn't disclose any information regarding evidence, my question to them would be: "Can you share what other theories, if any, you have explored and/or investigated in relation to this case?

If he/she could disclose information regarding evidence, my question would be: "Can you give me an example of some solid evidence that points to the suspect?"

 

[Cherchri]

What role are we in when we sit with the Sr. Investigative officer, and would we be in such a position as to be able to ask about evidence and have it disclosed?

If he/she couldn't disclose any information regarding evidence, my question to them would be: "Can you share what other theories, if any, you have explored and/or investigated in relation to this case?

If he/she could disclose information regarding evidence, my question would be: "Can you give me an example of some solid evidence that points to the suspect?"

So the scenario is: an opportunity to sit down with a senior officer who has investigated DG extensively and have an off the record discussion. No holds barred but everything remains off the record.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

True, but in the Pickton case it wasn't another inmate who stood to gain, it was an undercover cop just doing his job. Just because someone is arrested and in jail charged with murder doesn't mean that LE won't continue to obtain any evidence they can prior to trial.

ETA: I have a strong feeling this strategy would not work with DG ... given his supposed intelligence and having represented himself in a lawsuit, IMO he seems like Wiley Coyote who wouldn't fall for such a tactic. As he's sitting in jail, not sure what elaborate scheme LE could cook up to win him over.

I am of the same opinion of DG as per your "ETA" comment above. He is extraordinarily quiet it seems, and IMO he won't say anything to anyone that he doesn't have to answer "yes" or "no" to. I also get the feeling that he may purposely play "dumb" in order to gain sympathy from LE...such as his question at his bail hearing after he was told that he could not go to the acreage. Quote: "I live on a farm and I sometimes work past 9:00 pm, will the residence be on the farm?" Unless he was sleep-deprived, totally in shock over the arrest and almost incoherent, I can't imagine someone of his claimed "intelligence" would ask such a question, immediately after he was told he could not go to the acreage. Either he wasn't processing the information properly or he was purposely playing "dumb" or "helpless" to gain sympathy and perhaps be viewed as "simple, or not all there".

 

[studyer]

I am of the same opinion of DG as per your "ETA" comment above. He is extraordinarily quiet it seems, and IMO he won't say anything to anyone that he doesn't have to answer "yes" or "no" to. I also get the feeling that he may purposely play "dumb" in order to gain sympathy from LE...such as his question at his bail hearing after he was told that he could not go to the acreage. Quote: "I live on a farm and I sometimes work past 9:00 pm, will the residence be on the farm?" Unless he was sleep-deprived, totally in shock over the arrest and almost incoherent, I can't imagine someone of his claimed "intelligence" would ask such a question, immediately after he was told he could not go to the acreage. Either he wasn't processing the information properly or he was purposely playing "dumb" or "helpless" to gain sympathy and perhaps be viewed as "simple, or not all there".

Or there was something on the farm that he was wondering if he would be able to gain access to again.

 

[Deleted member 117120]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sympathy/10099708/story.html
In this entry "Sympathy for all By Lxxxxx Cxxxxxxx Cxxxxxx, Calgary Herald August 8, 2014" it states from this person who has known the Garland family for nearly 40 years that the Garland parents have two daughters. I only knew of the one daughter PG. I also take from this entry similar to the letter from the Minister of the Garland family's church, that the over riding theme is that those closest to the family have accepted this crime as being committed by DG.

 

[otto]

Yes, I have seen this as well. I am curious for more technical info. I will purchase the Fatality Inquiries Act and see what I can find.

It's downloadable here ... free:

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=F09.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=077973999X

 

[otto]

Hi Otto, IMO, the arrest should be made in the case when someone is suspected and there is evidence to substantiate, but the investigation should continue until there is irrefutable proof that there in fact is not another possible option. I believe that LE in this case are doing the right thing. They are continuing to investigate all possible leads. They do not appear to be incompetent, nor have they jumped the gun. They clearly feel they have just cause required to charge DG and enough evidence to substantiate that charge, but are also looking into the "maybe slim possibility" that something else has occurred or someone else is involved. There is no way they could have let DG walk away on $ 750 bail when logic and evidence suggests that there is a very high probability he was involved. Had they not arrested him when they did, knowing he is a high risk flight possibility, they could very well have let a guilty party loose, and possibly never to be found. Do you happen to know what happens if in fact the trial does not convict DG and he goes free? Are LE able to re-charge him later? I suppose a stay would give them another year to find more evidence, but what happens after that? Is it possible that a murderer can go free and never be charged with the same crime a 2nd time? Just curious.

There has to be probable grounds for an arrest. Garland was arrested for possessing false identity documents and released, as he should be. It is not a violent offence and there's no risk to the public. Investigators said that they were fast tracking forensics. The results must have been made available on July 14, when Garland was arrested for murder.

If Garland is found not guilty, the prosecutors office can (and most likely will) appeal the decision and retry the case. The verdict can be appealed by the crown or the defence.

 

[LoisLane]

It's downloadable here ... free:

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=F09.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=077973999X

Hmmm... Must be my IPad. I will try it from my PC later. Thanks.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

There has to be probable grounds for an arrest. Garland was arrested for possessing false identity documents and released, as he should be. It is not a violent offence and there's no risk to the public. Investigators said that they were fast tracking forensics. The results must have been made available on July 14, when Garland was arrested for murder.

If Garland is found not guilty, the prosecutors office can (and most likely will) appeal the decision and retry the case. The verdict can be appealed by the crown or the defence.

Thanks! I was actually looking for information on Double Jeopardy in Canada. Maybe I didn't ask the question correctly.


I think I found what I was looking for here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

 

[otto]

The fact that crown prosecutors can appeal a verdict is probably one of the least known facts about the Canadian Criminal Justice system. Some may recall the trials of Ms Amanda Knox, where there was absolute outrage that prosecutors would be so backwards, unjust, corrupt ... and so on ... that they could appeal a verdict. What surprised me most was that people in the US were completely unaware of the fact that Canada also allows for both prosecutors and defence counsel to appeal verdicts. Canada is not backwards, unjust, or corrupt, but has the same laws. The objective is to seek the truth and, if it takes two tries for the defence, or two tries for the prosecution, so be it. Similar to the Italian appeal process, the case is not reheard, or retried, but instead the transcript is studied and both crown attorneys and defence counsel can submit arguments.

Appeals

"Appeal courts exist to make sure that courts do not make mistakes applying the law. Most decisions at one level of court can be appealed to a higher court. In some cases the accused person or the Crown prosecutor must have a judge's permission to appeal. This is called leave to appeal.

Crown prosecutors may appeal an acquittal or, in the case of a conviction, ask an appeal court to increase the offender's sentence. An offender may appeal a conviction or ask an appeal court to decrease their sentence. Appeal rights and the procedure on appeal vary depending on how the offence was tried.

The Crown prosecutor's right to appeal a conviction is limited to “questions of law,” such as the admissibility of evidence or the interpretation of the Criminal Code. In most appeals, the appeal court does not listen to the evidence again. Witnesses are rarely required to testify again. The appeal court studies a transcript from the trial and listens to arguments from both Crown and defence lawyers. Appeal courts have the power to decide whether the lower court correctly interpreted the law or handed down a fair sentence.

Most summary conviction appeals go to the next level of court, known by different names in different provinces and territories. Appeals of indictable offences go to a court of appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada hears appeals from provincial appeal courts when “leave” is granted or when the Criminal Code gives a right of appeal."

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/guide/seck.html

 

[stan laurel]

Or there was something on the farm that he was wondering if he would be able to gain access to again.

maybe he wanted to leave a letter to his family?