Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #16

[Sillybilly]

SP had mentioned something about the Crown choosing to go ahead with this...I'm simply pointing out that the decision isn't only up to the Crown. DG has a RIGHT to the preliminary inquiry and could have chosen it as well. SP mentions that he chose not to go directly to indictment in a case such as this...again, it's not all about the Prosecution. The Defense has a say in it as well. That's why it was bolded.

If the Crown decides to apply to the Attorney General for direct indictment, the accused does NOT have the right to a preliminary hearing. That's the whole concept of direct indictment.

from:
http://www.kruselaw.ca/blogpost?post=20140804

A direct indictment occurs where the Attorney General “prefers an indictment” to send a case directly to trial. Therefore the accused loses his or her important right to have a preliminary hearing. This results in the accused being forced to forgo the very important strategic advantage of fully discovering the case against him or her before the trial. It is generally not a good sign for the defence when a direct indictment is preferred by the Crown

 

[Power of Two]

Another thought. Forensic Investigators at the scene must have a very good idea regarding the time of the murders. Even though we have a vague window of between 10 pm and 10 am, they must surely have pinpointed a smaller window of time. Blood, gore, feces, urine have a very different look, texture, smell, colour as time passes. What is fresh at 10 pm is going to be darkened, congealing, and dried by mid-morning. Or not.. depending on the timing of the crime. I also wonder if there was evidence which was in varying stages of exposure, thereby giving clues as to who met their demise first? I cannot bear to think that it was a long, torturous affair with the perp forcing any of the victims to witness the demise of the others. I am just a battle-weary nurse who has seen my share of body fluids, old and new, and these questions have been in my brain for too long.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

So, the Prosecution isn't even thinking that far ahead to the trial yet....interesting way to put it..."you don't get to the playoffs until you get through the regular season". There's some more professionalism for you from the Crown. "In a case like this I was against direct indictment"...why? If the evidence is all there...I really don't get it. Get in there, present your case, lock him away for as long as possible and be done with this. :/
Wonder why Parker didn't go directly to the playoffs? They've got enough evidence...why waste time and money? But then again, Matthew DeGrood has a preliminary inquiry as well...and he got caught pretty much red-handed, plus there were bodies. Wonder why DeGrood gets the preliminary inquiry? Is this where the defense would be presenting him as NCR?

This could be a way for them to prepare to seal any holes the defense might try to punch through, and have answers for their reasonable doubt type questions also I'm thinking.

If they were hasty to go right to play offs, they might not think of a scenario the defence might use come trial time and be left surprised which might create reasonable doubt. Just my layman thoughts here too.

Also, since evidence is voluminous it could be a tangled web they want to lay out and present in a clear defined way to the courts. I'm wondering if this is part of the test driving, figuring out how to explain and use demonstrations for some complicated stuff the best way possible with no room for holes for the defence. JMO.

 

[deugirtni]

Yes, I was looking for the report when ALJr was quoted as saying he himself had last seen DG FOUR years ago, not 'last' year... I thought I was going crazy, but then I did find at least one instance of the '4 years' being reported. It has never waivered that ALJr said the last time AL communicated with DG was 7 years ago.

We saw this back on an earlier thread posted by Lori McA http://globalnews.ca/news/1438148/mi...rs-fourth-day/

From about 1:20 to 2:15 in the video...from a phone interview the reporter/news channel had with Allen:

"He doesn't believe Douglas Garland and his father Alvin Liknes had spoken in about seven years."
"Allen last saw Douglas Garland at Thanksgiving, at his in-laws last fall..."

 

[Jess]

The pervasive atmosphere here is that LE has not/ is not doing their job when there is no proof or hint of this. That the public is not being kept informed; we have no right to be kept informed. There shouldn't be any 'hints' or leaks. That LE is replete with bad characters who have tunnel vision.

As far as I can tell LE and the Crown are following Canadian Law giving due respect to the rights of the accused. IF they weren't, do you not think the defense attorney would be asking to have the case dismissed or at least ask for bail ? Remember, the alleged murderer was arrested . There had to have been some compelling evidence given, of which we are not party to, in order to have happened.
As we, the public, are not in danger, we do not have the right to be informed of evidence, witnesses, results of lab testing. Sure we are all curious, but WE DO NOT have to be informed.

In every profession in the world, there are good and bad members .. Until we hear in court, of LE's tunnel vision and rush to judgement, we should have some faith in the Canadian process of law.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

If the Crown decides to apply to the Attorney General for direct indictment, the accused does NOT have the right to a preliminary hearing. That's the whole concept of direct indictment.

from:
http://www.kruselaw.ca/blogpost?post=20140804

This is the instruction to the Defendant:

You have the option to elect to be tried by a provincial court judge without a jury and without having had a preliminary inquiry; or you may elect to be tried by a judge without a jury; or you may elect to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury. If you do not elect now, you are deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury. If you elect to be tried by a judge without a jury or by a court composed of a judge and jury, or if you are deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury, you will have a preliminary inquiry only if you or the prosecutor requests one. How do you elect to be tried?

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadia...minary_Inquiry

 

[Lalalacasbah]

What are thoughts on this..? If DG lived for a significant length of time out West and used the MH alias for years, did he completely assume that new name? Or did he use it only when it suited him ie: employment situations? If he used it for 'convenience', I would speculate that it could be confusing and tiresome to keep switching back and forth. If he assumed it totally and completely for his new persona, did he ever 'slip up' and inadvertently use his real name? The big question for me, though, is did anyone in his immediate family know/suspect/have a hunch that he was operating in any fashion with the MH alias??? Did he just drop out of sight out West (for years) or was he in contact with family at all? I cannot fathom that his folks would have no contact with him for that length of time. Wondering also if he had a Passport? Just wonder if he was double-dipping, so to speak??

I'm so curious about this also. I'm also wondering if there are/were other aliases. But like you said, can be tiresome to keep track (or a challenge for DG to try?)

It's hard to tell the family dynamic too. I watched a true crime show last night and when police came knocking on a suspect's door, the mother of the suspect answered and told the police - she believes her son is a psychopath and thinks he's very capable of killing and let them search the house. The mother and the sister told LE the gun in question was gone from the house the time of the crime, very cooperative family going against their own brother/son. I'm sure they were terrified of him. Same for DG? Or…

Are his parents enablers who keep bailing him out and forgiving him like some parents do for bad behavior? I'd sure like to know. They haven't appeared at court sessions yet, but could be because of the media. Very hard to tell.

 

[ABro]

If a scenario is plausible with what evidence you have in front of you then, technically, it's tunnel vision to completely dismiss it.

Yes, and right from the outset of this case, I heard criminologists/ex-cops speculate there was probably more than one person involved in this crime. I would guess that's how the cops were leaning too. But then the evidence led them elsewhere, to a one-suspect crime. Likely, they shifted when the evidence didn't back up the initial theory of more than one suspect.

You yourself said LE would be remiss to look into AL's business dealings. Working for several different companies over the years is evidence of nothing, unless you intuitively speculate that it seems fishy. It's that intuition that leads to digging deeper into all the players in those businesses, even though you have a suspect in custody. Hypothetically, what if a random search of some directors other companies turns up MH as an employee? So much for dismissing intuition.

I have never dismissed intuition. It's a starting point. It leads you to evidence. It's not, however, a substitute for evidence, [modsnip]

Here's what I said yesterday:

Feelings can prompt you to explore certain avenues and perhaps find evidence. BUt until that happens, feelings are just feelings no matter how good you think your feelings are.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-16&p=10983195#post10983195

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Happy birthday little NO. Thanks to sillybilly for letting us know it's his birthday. What a day for his parents and family, I'm sad thinking about it. Poor little guy, this day will haunt his family forever

 

[Tinkerbel1]

The pervasive atmosphere here is that LE has not/ is not doing their job when there is no proof or hint of this. That the public is not being kept informed; we have no right to be kept informed. There shouldn't be any 'hints' or leaks. That LE is replete with bad characters who have tunnel vision.

As far as I can tell LE and the Crown are following Canadian Law giving due respect to the rights of the accused. IF they weren't, do you not think the defense attorney would be asking to have the case dismissed or at least ask for bail ? Remember, the alleged murderer was arrested . There had to have been some compelling evidence given, of which we are not party to, in order to have happened.
As we, the public, are not in danger, we do not have the right to be informed of evidence, witnesses, results of lab testing. Sure we are all curious, but WE DO NOT have to be informed.

In every profession in the world, there are good and bad members .. Until we hear in court, of LE's tunnel vision and rush to judgement, we should have some faith in the Canadian process of law.

Agreed, due respect has been given to this case. As were the cases of David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, Romeo Phillion, James Driskell (sentenced to death), William Mullins-Johnson, Robert Baltovich, Anthony Haanemayer, and Kyle Wayne Unger among others. Be careful. Just sayin`.

 

[Krystine]

OMG! Yuck! You and Stan talk about such gross things! :gasp:

Put a hot compress on it, sterilize a scalpel or small knife and lance it (if you poke it with a pin or needle that works too)..let it drain and sop up the pus with a compress...be sure not to tough the compress as its very contagious fluid...clean with rubbing alcohol or peroxide, followed by an antimicrobial or antibiotic cream on it after. Cover with gauze and tape.

Enjoy!

I don't actually have a boil,...but since we had stan in the room, I thought he might know

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I'm so curious about this also. I'm also wondering if there are/were other aliases. But like you said, can be tiresome to keep track (or a challenge for DG to try?)

It's hard to tell the family dynamic too. I watched a true crime show last night and when police came knocking on a suspect's door, the mother of the suspect answered and told the police - she believes her son is a psychopath and thinks he's very capable of killing and let them search the house. The mother and the sister told LE the gun in question was gone from the house the time of the crime, very cooperative family going against their own brother/son. I'm sure they were terrified of him. Same for DG? Or…

Are his parents enablers who keep bailing him out and forgiving him like some parents do for bad behavior? I'd sure like to know. They haven't appeared at court sessions yet, but could be because of the media. Very hard to tell.

Wow! I thought my mom was the only one that would do that!! Lol (and she would, no doubt about it!) That`s a very, very good and valid point. Typically what we tend to see though is `not my Johnny!` I wonder what DG`s parents did do? (If anything).

 

[Sillybilly]

This is the instruction to the Defendant:

You have the option to elect to be tried by a provincial court judge without a jury and without having had a preliminary inquiry; or you may elect to be tried by a judge without a jury; or you may elect to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury. If you do not elect now, you are deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury. If you elect to be tried by a judge without a jury or by a court composed of a judge and jury, or if you are deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury, you will have a preliminary inquiry only if you or the prosecutor requests one. How do you elect to be tried?

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadia...minary_Inquiry

What you are posting relates to a preliminary hearing ... not a direct indictment where you claimed DG has a right to the preliminary hearing. That right flies out the window when the Crown seeks a direct indictment (aka "preferred indictment").

from:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CriminalLaw/LawArticle-96/Preferred-Indictment.aspx

Nor is there any right to a hearing before the Attorney General in making the decision to prefer indictment.

 

[Jess]

Agreed, due respect has been given to this case. As were the cases of David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, Romeo Phillion, James Driskell (sentenced to death), William Mullins-Johnson, Robert Baltovich, Anthony Haanemayer, and Kyle Wayne Unger among others. Be careful. Just sayin`.

We cannot compare a case from 1969 to today. Most of those cases were done without the forensics that are available to us today. Remember that the RCMP were also involved in the Airdrie search so we had two separate police forces looking at evidence and timelines.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I don't actually have a boil,...but since we had stan in the room, I thought he might know

Oh! lol....I just about read..."Since we had Stan in the room, I thought he might..." lol. That's why it is very, very important to read posts carefully...that's how rumors get started...lol :angel2:

 

[ABro]

Agreed, due respect has been given to this case. As were the cases of David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, Romeo Phillion, James Driskell (sentenced to death), William Mullins-Johnson, Robert Baltovich, Anthony Haanemayer, and Kyle Wayne Unger among others. Be careful. Just sayin`.

No system is perfect and you always need to be vigilant. But there's a difference between vigilant and paranoid.

Vigilant is acting when you see that the police or prosecution are acting without sufficient grounds. Paranoid is when you claim that because a system isn't perfect, it's always wrong.

The people who work on wrongful prosecution cases have a checklist of things they look for.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

What you are posting relates to a preliminary hearing ... not a direct indictment where you claimed DG has a right to the preliminary hearing. That right flies out the window when the Crown seeks a direct indictment (aka "preferred indictment").

from:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CriminalLaw/LawArticle-96/Preferred-Indictment.aspx

That's not how I understand it. I understand it to mean the Defendant has the right to a preliminary hearing. The quote is referring to a statement the Judge must relay to the Defendant. The judge is asking how the defendant would like to be tried, and the Judge is also stating that the Prosecutor as well as himself (defendant) have the right to request a preliminary hearing. I'm not understanding how all of a suddent the above quote which is part of the legal proceedings, gets turned around at the Prosecutors discretion and erases a defendant's rights.?? Thoroughly confused.

 

[Krystine]

This is the instruction to the Defendant:

You have the option to elect to be tried by a provincial court judge without a jury and without having had a preliminary inquiry; or you may elect to be tried by a judge without a jury; or you may elect to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury. If you do not elect now, you are deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury. If you elect to be tried by a judge without a jury or by a court composed of a judge and jury, or if you are deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury, you will have a preliminary inquiry only if you or the prosecutor requests one. How do you elect to be tried?

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadia...minary_Inquiry

I'm not commenting either way about the methods and protocols of justice,...but you know wiki is user fed information, right? Anyone can contribute what they think they know. It's not usually all that credible to quote Wiki.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I'm not commenting either way about the methods and protocols of justice,...but you know wiki is user fed information, right? Anyone can contribute what they think they know. It's not usually all that credible to quote Wiki.

No, I'm sorry I didn't.

 

[Krystine]

No, I'm sorry I didn't.

I didn't know either, until I took a course last year. Love your posts lately, tho', my friend...