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

[news.talk]

Things have changed. The majority are now via CCTV and the courts are able to move through the process at a much faster rate. I sat through 9 cases today and missed a couple when I took comfort breaks. Only DG and 1 other appeared in person. It runs like a well oiled machine. A sausage machine.

Wow. That is different. We're they all quick appearances? Perhaps they are finding it more cost effective for those types of appearances. I know the man power and planning can make these quick outings costly.

ETA: Next appearance, I will have to come sit with you if I can. Together we can get even more info out of the media and gallery.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

it was a joke post in play with things not valid unless a link can be provided.

I Link Therefore I Am!

Nominated for Post of the Year!

 

[wendiesan]

"I Link Therefore I Am!"

Brilliant. Thanks SL.

 

[deugirtni]

When I first heard of appearing via video for a court appearance, even here in my small town for criminals accused of minor offences, I thought, wow, what a great idea, that would save SO much money to not have to lug their sorry butts to the actual courthouse and give them an outing. Loved the idea. For some reason I just never suspected that it would be the prisoner's choice on whether to appear in person, I thought it would be a government decision based on whatever made sense for them that day with that jail with that criminal. They ALL seem to have SO many court appearances while they sit waiting and waiting for their trials, and look how many criminals we have nowadays, and I can't help thinking about the COST. Unbelievable. Why should these people get to have outings when they can just be viewed by video link?

I can speak to a few of your queries...

The remand is not attached but it is a mere 10 minute drive time with traffic. They are both in the core. It is all handled through Alberta Court Services, run out of the CPS Processing Unit.

Unless things have changed, suspects are expected to appear in person for court dates unless there are issues such as Suicide Watch or security concerns precluding them from appearing.

ETA: While logistics may be a slim factor, they have not been an issue to a large degree here.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

"The Crown expects to have all case files ready by the end of the year, and should have all lab results from evidence collected by police at that point.

"We've been through a large bulk of it, but I understand there's still a lot more that's going to come. I understand that we won't have full disclosure until sometime later in November, early December," said defence lawyer Kim Ross.

Garland will remain in custody, but his lawyer is not ruling out a possible bail application.

"I'm still going through the disclosure, we'll make decisions once I get through all that and get instructions from my client," said Ross."

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/cal...appearance-draws-gasps-in-courtroom-1.2768976

 

[Cherchri]

Wow. That is different. We're they all quick appearances? Perhaps they are finding it more cost effective for those types of appearances. I know the man power and planning can make these quick outings costly.

ETA: Next appearance, I will have to come sit with you if I can. Toghether we can get even more info out of the media and gallery.

They were/are very quick. The 9 I sat through all took place between 9 and 12 noon and I slipped out for a couple/few others! In all the cases where there was a need for disclosure or anything to be brought forward - less than 5 minutes. There are I believe 5 video rooms at the remand centre so prisoners can appear simultaneously before 5 different judges. Sooooo many legal aid cases processed yesterday and all brought forward for a week or two. IMO much more cost effective and logistically much more effective to do via CCTV. Must be much easier for all the lawyers too. They don't have to travel or move around, just one after another there and then. There's a phone in the CCTV room for counsel to speak privately with their clients too.... The judge simply tells the prisoner to pick up the phone when it rings, audio us cut and counsel has a phone in a room off the courtroom. Hope to see you next time.

 

[Cherchri]

:drumroll::goodpost::thewave:

Nominated for Post of the Year!

Seconded although the accompanying post was even funnier then there's the "flogging the dead horse" post..... Also right up there.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

:gasp: oh my….chewing…oh geez, can't think about it…never thought of that before Tinker ewwwww.

Yes so sick…..to treat a human in that way is almost as gross as it gets, you still have to go back and rid of the aftermath, one being a child, that's pretty darn sick too if you ask me. Right up there with Pickton and Dahmer - same level of subhuman IMO.

I'm praying this didn't happen (no offense Cherchri and other's theory), I just really hope chemicals weren't involved as I'd have a hard time knowing this happened to anyone

I know it's sick...thinking today that it was pretty gross to actually write. Blechhh :sick:

Yes, you still have to go back and get rid of the aftermath....I would be surprised if he wasn't sickened going back. I think chemicals would've been the best that could've happened to maintain some sort of 'dignity' if you could call it that, for the victims...better than being dismembered and strewn around for animals to eat...or thrown in some body of water to come up bloated and smelling 3 days later...I don't know that there's any good way to get rid of a body...you shouldn't be having to do that in the first place.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

He was. The pair we saw on the perp walk. Quite trendy glasses.

And they look quite expensive...so there's money somewhere.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

It was shocking to hear. It was on Daybreak I believe, you can download it if you are interested in the full interview.

Yes, thanks Lois!

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I don't know.. I think getting rid of the body is probably a way more troublesome detail than doing the murder itself. to find someone who knows how to 'dissolve a human', I would think would be a bonus that any murderer might like to gain more info about. The body seems to tell so much, and it most times seems to be found, even when murderers have gone to lengths to hide it.
Personally I can't see it. And I feel it is unfair to hold someone in the same disdain as the deranged Dahmer fellow if the someone hasn't been convicted yet, and we don't even have a smoking gun for evidence. It seems to me that sometimes bodies take awhile to appear or be found, and so let's give it some more time. Perhaps someone will stumble upon something over the winter months.

Yes, we will have to reserve judgement on this one until we know more about the evidence etc. Good idea.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

"The Crown expects to have all case files ready by the end of the year, and should have all lab results from evidence collected by police at that point.

"We've been through a large bulk of it, but I understand there's still a lot more that's going to come. I understand that we won't have full disclosure until sometime later in November, early December," said defence lawyer Kim Ross.

Garland will remain in custody, but his lawyer is not ruling out a possible bail application.

"I'm still going through the disclosure, we'll make decisions once I get through all that and get instructions from my client," said Ross."

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/cal...appearance-draws-gasps-in-courtroom-1.2768976

Nice! Yeah...the disclosure...see? They got it! Just like I said! lol Don't know what all the fuss was about! :smiliescale:

Well, it looks like there might be a bit of a light at the end of the tunnel for DG here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but would Defense be applying for bail if there was 'damning' evidence in the disclosure marking him as a "sure bet" for the murderer?

 

[Sillybilly]

Well, it looks like there might be a bit of a light at the end of the tunnel for DG here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but would Defense be applying for bail if there was 'damning' evidence in the disclosure marking him as a "sure bet" for the murderer?

<rsbm>

I think it would depend on whether or not the "damning" evidence would result in a Guilty verdict for 1st degree (i.e. mandatory life sentence with no possibility of parole for the 25 years, and no credit for time served in pre-trial custody). If, for example, he pled Guilty or was found Guilty of a lesser charge, credit for time served could be applied.

 

[Sillybilly]

My west coast brain isn't too awake yet, so I don't think ^^ came close to answering your question (am on a roll here ... cinnamon roll, high blood sugar ). Just consider it a miscellaneous tidbit :biggrin:

Regardless of the evidence and whether his lawyer thinks the evidence is damning or not, he is there to represent DG, and if DG wishes to apply for bail, his lawyer can either

- convince his client it is not in his best interest (for whatever reasons) or
- do as his client instructs (zealously represent) OR
- part ways with his client if they can't come to terms on how to proceed

KR could advise that bail might not be granted based on the evidence or that he is a flight risk, but there would be no harm in applying, even it was ultimately denied.

Whether guilty or not, I suspect DG may not wish to apply based on fears for his personal safety.

Did I come close this time? :floorlaugh:

 

[Tinkerbel1]

<rsbm>

I think it would depend on whether or not the "damning" evidence would result in a Guilty verdict for 1st degree (i.e. mandatory life sentence with no possibility of parole for the 25 years, and no credit for time served in pre-trial custody). If, for example, he pled Guilty or was found Guilty of a lesser charge, credit for time served could be applied.

Isn't credit for time served given anyway? I know it used to be doubled for time served but I think that's changed now. I was talking specifically about an application for bail. Would that be granted if he was likely to be found guilty for either 1st degree or a lesser charge? Probably not I wouldn't think. I found something below:

Justification for detention[edit]

In Canada, there are only three grounds for detaining an accused prior to sentence. They are commonly referred to as primary grounds, secondary grounds, and tertiary grounds.

Primary grounds refers to whether detention is necessary to ensure the accused's attendance in court.[10] Considerations include the accused's criminal history, their behaviour in the matter before the court, their connections (or lack of) with the jurisdiction, and the type of offences before the court.

Secondary grounds refers to whether detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public. This includes whether there is a substantial likelihood the accused will commit a further offence or interfere with the administration of justice.[10]

Tertiary grounds refers to whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, and is generally reserved for very serious offences. The four factors to consider are:[10]
the apparent strength of the prosecutor's case,
the seriousness of the offence,
the circumstances surrounding the offence, including whether a firearm was used, and
if found guilty, whether the accused is liable to a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment, or if a firearm was involved, faces a minimum of 3 year of jail.
Burden of proof[edit]

Generally, the prosecutor has the burden to show on a balance of probabilities why the accused should be detained. However, the accused has the burden to show why he or she should be released if they are charged with the following offences:[10]
an offence committed while at large on a release,
an offence committed at the direction or in association with a criminal organization,
a terrorism offence,
certain offences under the Security of Information Act,
a weapons trafficking offence,
certain violent offences (including attempted murder) where a firearm was used,
an offence that involved a firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, or prohibited weapon while under a weapons prohibition,
any offence if the accused is not an ordinary resident of Canada,
an offence of failing to comply with release conditions or failing to attend court, or
certain offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that carry the possibility of a life sentence.

The prosecutor is not required to show cause why an accused should be detained, and may consent to the release of an accused. Similarly, the accused may concede that the prosecutor can show cause (or if the accused has the burden of proof, indicate they do want to show cause why they should be released) and consent to their detention.

Prior to 2010, it was not uncommon for accused criminals, particularly in cases where there was a strong likelihood of conviction, to consent to their own detention. This was because it had become customary for judges to grant double time credit and even triple time credit for time served prior to sentencing. Amendments to the Criminal Code that took effect in 2010 greatly reduced the discretion of judges to offer credit for time served in remand in excess of the actual time served. Only credit in equivalent to time and a half is now permitted, and even then only in extraordinary circumstances. As a result, defendants are now much less willing to consent to detention, and Crown prosecutors are less willing to consent to the release of the accused.

If an accused is ordered detained, the court may order that they not communicate with certain individuals while they are in custody awaiting their trial and sentencing.[10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_(Canada)

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Yup! You came close!

OutoftheDarkness' post had mentioned that "KR was not ruling out the possibility of a bail application"...which sounds to me like he may very well be supportive of it and be able to bear the burden of proof as to why it should be granted, so possibly, at this point in his review of the disclosure documents, he must not have found anything that he knows for sure would veto the application. JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

Isn't credit for time serve be given anyway? I know it used to be doubled for time served but I think that's changed now. I was talking specifically about an application for bail. Would that be granted if he was likely to be found guilty for either 1st degree or a lesser charge?

Time served is a consideration by the judge at sentencing, but if found of guilty of 1st degree murder with the mandatory life sentence, there is no provision for time served. Sorry, can't find a link right now, but it has been discussed in many other cases.

WRT bail application, it depends on what evidence and information is presented by the prosecution if they are opposing release on bail and what the defence is able to input wrt reasons the accused should be released on bail.

from very long but informative article:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ng-case-bail-canada+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

When confronted with a prosecution argument that the charge is too serious for bail to be granted, the defence lawyer should point to the case law which clearly enunciates that gravity is not an obstacle to bail. As noted by McEachern CJ in R v Nguyen (1997) 119 CCC (3d) 269 (BCCA) at paragraph 13:

The circumstances of the offence, and the gravity of the offence, however are something else. Murder is the most serious offence under our law, with the exception, perhaps, of treason. But &#8220;gravity&#8221; by itself is not conclusive because if it were, no one convicted of murder could be released, contrary to what has been long established practice.

Even if bail is not applied for pre-trial, and an ultimate conviction was rendered at trial, an appeal could be launched and an application for bail could still be made at that time pending appeal.

from same link above:

In R v Khan (1998) 129 CCC (3d) 443 (Man. CA), bail was granted on two counts of first degree murder, one pending his new trial for the alleged murder of his sister and one pending his appeal from conviction for the murder of his wife

 

[Sillybilly]

Yup! You came close!

OutoftheDarkness' post had mentioned that "KR was not ruling out the possibility of a bail application"...which sounds to me like he may very well be supportive of it and be able to bear the burden of proof as to why it should be granted, so possibly, at this point in his review of the disclosure documents, he must not have found anything that he knows for sure would veto the application. JMO

Not trying to be contentious, but i don't think that is necessarily so . Defence lawyers are wiley, smooth, and very good at double-speak when saying things that can be interpreted either way. He could also be saying "not ruling out the possibility" so as not to show his hand but having us think it is still a consideration, thus leaving us with the impression that he believes in his client's innocence (regardless of what disclosure leads him to believe). Seriously, would we want a defence lawyer to say "guy doesn't have a hope in hell based on what I've seen"?

 

[Sillybilly]

Personal experience (no link )

At one time I was an advocate for a woman who was stalked by her ex-husband. He was ultimately charged and convicted of criminal harassment. At one point during the trial, his very well known, successful defence lawyer turned around, made a sweeping gesture towards us and boomed "and the only reason these people are in court today is to watch my client squirm". During recess, I approached him and lambasted him wrt that statement, saying he knew full well that we were there to see justice served. His face went red and he puffed up when announcing "I can say anything I want in defence of my client".

Guy's a jerk but wins many cases .. not that one

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Yup! You came close!

OutoftheDarkness' post had mentioned that "KR was not ruling out the possibility of a bail application"...which sounds to me like he may very well be supportive of it and be able to bear the burden of proof as to why it should be granted, so possibly, at this point in his review of the disclosure documents, he must not have found anything that he knows for sure would veto the application. JMO

The fact he threw the decision in his client's lap could be a distancing of himself from it. Of course he has to take direction from his client, but to state it publicly feels like "Don't look at me. I didn't choose it."

You can read it damning or weak... still no further ahead.