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

[deugirtni]

http://www.newstalk770.com/2014/09/17/preliminary-hearing-set-for-douglas-garland/

Outside court, Crown Prosecutor Shane Parker says he expects about a third of the witnesses called to be civilians while the remaining two-thirds to be police and evidence-based witnesses.

Defense lawyer Kim Ross says eight months between court appearances isn’t too bad timing-wise, adding they are trying to move this case along as quickly as they can, although he admits to having a lot of disclosure still to go through and some that still needs to get to his office.

 

[kaley]

Kaley! I see you are online... Was it you who found the diver dude on kijiji?

Yeah that was me. He never responded to my emails.

 

[LoriMcA]

Sorry, Cherchri,...I think I'm relying on memory entirely too much these days. For some reason I thought 'silver haired, and kindly' were mentioned, and I went directly to Santa Claus

^^BBM

Okay I HAD to comment....I went directly to lala's avatar...:hilarious: okay ...I'll shuddup now :biggrin:

 

[deugirtni]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/douglas-garland-s-preliminary-hearing-set-for-next-may-1.2011553

The preliminary inquiry will determine whether there's enough evidence to send the case to trial.

Crown prosecutor Shane Parker had the option of going directly to trial but said this will give him a chance for a test run of the evidence.

"I like the idea of a preliminary inquiry," Parker said outside court. "It gives us more time to make sure we're ready once the jury trial is slated to go."

Kim Ross, Garland's lawyer, said a preliminary hearing makes sense considering the vast amount of evidence.

"I think something of this complexity and nature requires a preliminary inquiry," he said.

Ross said he hasn't decided on whether to seek bail for his client.

He declined to respond to questions about why he has not requested a psychiatric assessment for Garland.

Allen Liknes, son of murder victim Alvin Liknes, was in court for the hearing as was a friend of Kathy Liknes. They both declined to speak with reporters afterward.

Parker said police will continue their investigation.

"We always want the investigations to continue on an ongoing basis all the way through," he said.

"We do have outstanding lab results that need to come back and there's other forensic type of evidence that they've got to finalize as well."

Parker said he is not willing to guess when a potential trial in the case could take place.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

OK. Hypothetical. You are DG. You are in jail, charged with a triple homicide you didn't plan, didn't know was going to happen, you were just helping some buddies.
Your parents are in shock and grief that you their son are in jail for triple murder.
Your sister is in shock and grief because her 5 year old nephew and her in laws have been murdered, and because her own brother is in jail charged with the murders.
You know that the families are in shock and grief over their loss, and yearn for the recovery of the remains so they may be placed in a proper final resting place.

You face life in prison if convicted.

You would put "honor among thieves" ahead of all this?

If DG is in fact involved, on what basis does he bring a lawsuit against LE? They have correctly uncovered his involvement in a triple murder.

IMHO

Yes. I would put the "honor among thieves" ahead of all this. Especially if I was going to end up dead for opening my mouth. Since most human beings' tendency is towards life, not many would paint a bullseye on their head...not for love, nor money. IMO Would you?
OK, I'm DG....so I tell my parents I didn't do it, I tell my sister I didn't do it (if she's talking to me at all), I'm sorry about the shock and grief the victims families are in but a) I didn't do it so there's nothing I can do to help them out and b) it's really not my business or my problem...because I didn't do it. If I offered my condolences at this point, they'ld spit in my face. It's not the right time.
I bring the lawsuit against LE about whatever I can, and you can bet your butt I'm gonna find out everything I can nail them with and do it when I get out of here. Every last little thing.
You have no clue whether they have correctly uncovered his involvement in a triple murder. No facts. All you have is what you've been told. You have seen nothing for evidence, you know no more than what they've told all of us. There's no proof made public yet, that uncovers his involvement.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

IMO, a preliminary hearing IS a test drive of the strength of the case the Crown is presenting, so the Crown referring to it as such is appropriate. This is not like the Bosma case where the evidence seems to be so strong that the Crown can be uber-confident in going with direct indictment (no test drive there). Not every case is a slam dunk and especially one where bodies have not been recovered. At this point, the Crown is going forward with forensics combined with circumstantial, so it's not surprising the prelim will be a test drive

As for wanting to "see where we're at" ... the judge will weigh the strength of their case, and if they aren't "at" where they should be, the judge won't send the case on to trial (finit .. no "tweaking" is required or gets to be done to fine-tune after the fact) and the accused can be discharged.

ETA: Kindly, sympathetic and elderly does not equate to stupidity (I hope). As a nice person but also a learned judge, perhaps he won't appear such after he's heard all the evidence, LOL.

It's a rather odd thing to say of evidence don't you think.

A preliminary hearing is NOT to 'test drive' the evidence as SP said. That comment just sent my blood pressure through the roof. It's a bit cocky, disrespectful and totally inappropriate. IMO. I have just totally lost respect for that man.


Purpose[edit]

The purpose of the preliminary inquiry is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to set the matter down for trial before a Justice of the Superior Court.[1] In practice the Inquiry is used to test the strength of the Crown’s case.

Its purpose is also "to protect the accused from a needless, and indeed, improper, exposure to public trial where the enforcement agency is not in possession of evidence to warrant the continuation of the process." [2]

It is an "expeditious charge-screening mechanism"[3]

Prior to the amendments in 2005, it has also been used as a venue for discovery.[4]

The inquiry judge has a general power to regulate the inquiry process under s. 537. The judge may require counsel to define the issues for which evidence will be called (see s.536.3), and may further limit the scope of the inquiry under section 536.5 and 549.

Further to that, the Prosecution is not the only party that can request a Preliminary hearing.

Setting of Preliminary Inquiry[edit]

Under s. 536, at sometime before the setting of a preliminary inquiry date, the judge must read the accused his election address:

“
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/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Preliminary_Inquiry

What does "kindly, sympathetic and elderly does not equate to stupidity" mean? I'm not sure how this ties in to my comment?

 

[Cherchri]

For anyone interested in how the judiciary functions. http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/independent_impartial-en.asp?l=5

 

[Sillybilly]

Whatever it's considered...gossip, opinion, etc. What's the relevance? I've gone to family events and haven't spoken one-on-one with someone...it means nothing. I'm not a loner and I'm not up to anything bad. Sometimes, a person just doesn't feel like being social...maybe there's a lot on their mind, whatever, it means nothing.

I was responding to Lala's post where they wondered if it was gossip and I provided a source that indicated it was not gossip because it came from a family member.

 

[Sillybilly]

What does "kindly, sympathetic and elderly does not equate to stupidity" mean? I'm not sure how this ties in to my comment?

<snip>

I was responding to Kristine's post.

 

[Sillybilly]

It's a rather odd thing to say of evidence don't you think.

A preliminary hearing is NOT to 'test drive' the evidence as SP said. That comment just sent my blood pressure through the roof. It's a bit cocky, disrespectful and totally inappropriate. IMO. I have just totally lost respect for that man.


Purpose[edit]

The purpose of the preliminary inquiry is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to set the matter down for trial before a Justice of the Superior Court.[1] In practice the Inquiry is used to test the strength of the Crown’s case.

Its purpose is also "to protect the accused from a needless, and indeed, improper, exposure to public trial where the enforcement agency is not in possession of evidence to warrant the continuation of the process." [2]

It is an "expeditious charge-screening mechanism"[3]

Prior to the amendments in 2005, it has also been used as a venue for discovery.[4]

The inquiry judge has a general power to regulate the inquiry process under s. 537. The judge may require counsel to define the issues for which evidence will be called (see s.536.3), and may further limit the scope of the inquiry under section 536.5 and 549.

Further to that, the Prosecution is not the only party that can request a Preliminary hearing.

Setting of Preliminary Inquiry[edit]

Under s. 536, at sometime before the setting of a preliminary inquiry date, the judge must read the accused his election address:

“
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/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Preliminary_Inquiry

What does "kindly, sympathetic and elderly does not equate to stupidity" mean? I'm not sure how this ties in to my comment?

Not sure what warranted the barrage of information and bolding in response to my post. From what I can determine, everything you bolded is about a test drive of the evidence:

"test the strength of the Crown’s case" (Crown's case is all based on evidence and if it's not strong enough in the test drive, the case gets dismissed; if it's strong enough, the accused gets committed to trial)

"to protect the accused from a needless, and indeed, improper, exposure to public trial where the enforcement agency is not in possession of evidence to warrant the continuation of the process" (not enough evidence from the Crown and the case gets dismissed against the accused)

"It is an "expeditious charge-screening mechanism" (screening/test [drive] of the evidence required to support the charge and going on to trial)

"you will have a preliminary inquiry only if you or the prosecutor requests one" (not really sure why that is bolded, but because either one can request a test drive of the evidence against the accused, it's an equal opportunity)

God forbid that SP used the word "drive" ... humanicus horribilus :biggrin:

 

[news.talk]

Not sure what warranted the barrage of information and bolding in response to my post. From what I can determine, everything you bolded is about a test drive of the evidence:

"test the strength of the Crown’s case" (Crown's case is all based on evidence and if it's not strong enough in the test drive, the case gets dismissed; if it's strong enough, the accused gets committed to trial)

"to protect the accused from a needless, and indeed, improper, exposure to public trial where the enforcement agency is not in possession of evidence to warrant the continuation of the process" (not enough evidence from the Crown and the case gets dismissed against the accused)

"you will have a preliminary inquiry only if you or the prosecutor requests one" (not really sure why that is bolded, but because either one can request a test drive of the evidence against the accused, it's an equal opportunity)

God forbid that SP used the word "drive" ... humanicus horribilus [emoji3]

I have a feeling that the "test drive" comment was more for explaining the preliminary hearing to the lay person - An attempt to help explain what it entails and why they do it.

Out of curiosity, is a "show cause" hearing in the states the same thing as our preliminary hearings? I am not versed on U.S. courts but I hear that term a lot.

 

[Sillybilly]

I have a feeling that the "test drive" comment was more for explaining the preliminary hearing to the lay person - An attempt to help explain what it entails and why they do it.

Out of curiosity, is a "show cause" hearing in the states the same thing as our preliminary hearings? I am not versed on U.S. courts but I hear that term a lot.

A show cause hearing is a bail hearing .. to show cause why the accused should or should not be granted bail.

ETA: Above relates to criminal cases ... can mean other things in other areas of law.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

http://www.newstalk770.com/2014/09/17/preliminary-hearing-set-for-douglas-garland/

Okay, I know we're all dissecting wording, but it's hard not to lol!

Curious as to why KR says 'they are trying to move this case along as quickly as they can'. That gives me the impression they (him and DG) want this settled and done with. That doesn't give me the innocent vibe, but again, I'm probably reading too much into it :gaah:


ETA - 1/3 civilian witnesses and 2/3 police witnesses?? So less physical evidence? That doesn't sound good almost... Police can testify what they saw. Civilians can too. Seems strange...

 

[Cherchri]

A show cause hearing is a bail hearing .. to show cause why the accused should or should not be granted bail.

ETA: Above relates to criminal cases ... can mean other things in other areas of law.

Thank you. Most of the cases I sat through last week were show cause. Because cause was not shown they were all held over for a week or two weeks in many cases because the person in remand had not yet spoken with legal aid. So that all makes perfect sense now.

 

[Cherchri]

Okay, I know we're all dissecting wording, but it's hard not to lol!

Curious as to why KR says 'they are trying to move this case along as quickly as they can'. That gives me the impression they (him and DG) want this settled and done with. That doesn't give me the innocent vibe, but again, I'm probably reading too much into it :gash:


ETA - 1/3 civilian witnesses and 2/3 police witnesses?? So less physical evidence? That doesn't sound good almost... Police can testify what they saw. Civilians can too. Seems strange...

I would think of police witnesses as more physical evidence - maybe I misunderstand? They gathered evidence and attended the crime scenes so saw and collected, no? I can't imagine there could be many civilian witnesses. I know someone posted on this before but I'm still trying to figure out who they could be. The person who identified the truck? Character witnesses? The neighbour who saw the greenhouse lights on all night and burning all day the next day? An employee of one of the landfill sites? Would love to hear other suggestions. All speculative of course.

 

[stan laurel]

Yes, definetly!

ETA... But why would DG be willing to sit in jail for it? Couldn't he have presented compelling testimony to LE that would have given them reasonable doubt?

It could get him killed on the inside or outside, oR, it will be his coup de grace (I hope I used that right) come court time, a final dagger.

 

[news.talk]

I would think of police witnesses as more physical evidence - maybe I misunderstand? They gathered evidence and attended the crime scenes so saw and collected, no? I can't imagine there could be many civilian witnesses. I know someone posted on this before but I'm still trying to figure out who they could be. The person who identified the truck? Character witnesses? The neighbour who saw the greenhouse lights on all night and burning all day the next day? An employee of one of the landfill sites? Would live to hear other suggestions. All speculative of course.

They could also be witnesses speaking to pre-meditation such as buying chemicals. They could also be witnesses to after the crime such as dump sites or car washes.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

<rsbm>

Got used in what capacity?

<rsbm>

If he "got used" in whatever capacity that results in evidence pointing toward him for 1st degree murder, and he fails to give up the real culprits, how do you think that could ultimately justify a lawsuit against LE?

I'm going to keep my theory to myself if you don't mind...there's no point discussing it as all it becomes is a trainwreck...I don't enjoy those at all and they serve no good purpose as far as I'm concerned. I suspect your questions will be answered as this unfolds. Part of my theory is that he's been used...and has been left holding the bag. Jury's still out on the evidence...no one knows what they have...it's all speculation. Must wait for the trial or further developments.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Where are you "seeing" this? Do you mean from the descriptions of his demeanour by media? Do you "see" this from the pictures or video from the so-called perp walk? There's just a lot here, and I'm curious as to how you arrived at these observations. You think he's mad, you think he's biding his time...and so on.

Perception...from many sources.

 

[news.talk]

Those of you that theorize that there was an accomplice, how does that play into the investigation? Specifically, do you think LE got tunnel vision and gave up before exploring other avenues?

I ask because from what I know from family in LE, more specifically homicide, CPS detectives are among the most respected in the country. Their closure rate is above the national average and they are some of the most professional investigators in the business. I have never known them to have tunnel vision, in fact, they specifically work separate angles to avoid such problems.