Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #17

[deugirtni]

As I stated earlier, he didn't have to mention the 'who's' or the 'hows' or the 'wheres' or the 'whys', but a simply statement saying that the ME has provided irrefutable proof that the victims are deceased, would have been informative, and not risky to the accused, or the case, or the trial, if it were in fact true.

Just to add to news.talk's comment -

Say, for example, Chief Hanson was more revealing of details, and he said "we base the determination that the 3 missing are deceased on the following: DNA testing proved that the massive volume of blood found in the L home belonged to the 3 victims, and was so voluminous as to be incompatible with life" IMO, this is too much information, and it could be argued to be inflammatory or sensational, or an impediment to the accused's right to a fair trial. It's possible the determination was based on even more gruesome evidence - such as brain matter, or traces of other vital organs, or evidence of dismemberment. imo, defence counsel would cry foul if that degree of detail was revealed.

Just speaking for myself, I did not need to hear that degree of detail from Chief Hanson in order to believe the Ls and NO are dead.

JMO

 

[otto]

I guess I'm a little confused by your comment because it looks like things are already well on their way to tainting the jury pool. What more could have been said that would be more inflammatory than "they're dead" and this green truck has been spotted on CCTV driving around the area several times the night they went missing; we have a POI that we want to talk to and oh...he's got a prior criminal record, and we're hoping they're alive and POI has breached his bail conditions and this is now a murder, we cannot release the accused's name, etc. The mention of any particular forensic evidence wouldn't make the accused look any more guilty than he already does. IMO

The jury pool is not tainted because victims are declared deceased, police request community tips in locating a vehicle, or the name of the accused is published. The accused is presumed innocent. People have faith that the police arrested the correct person, and that this will be proven during trial. If it's not, life still goes on. 12 people, in a city of more than a million, that couldn't care less about a family murder are not hard to find.

 

[news.talk]

As I stated earlier, he didn't have to mention the 'who's' or the 'hows' or the 'wheres' or the 'whys', but a simply statement saying that the ME has provided irrefutable proof that the victims are deceased, would have been informative, and not risky to the accused, or the case, or the trial, if it were in fact true.

The Chief cannot and will not speak on behalf of the Medical Examiner. All he can do, is provide a summary that has a conclusion:

But as one of the few people who's actually viewed the forensic evidence tying accused triple killer Douglas Garland to the disappearance of three Calgarians, Chief Rick Hanson says he has absolutely no doubt. "They are dead" he says, matter-of-factly.

It's impossible to argue with someone who has all the facts: Hanson already knows what is soon to be presented before a judge and lawyers in court, and he has a one-word answer for those asking if the trio is certainly, without-any-doubt dead... but when all the evidence points to one thing, we would be remiss if we weren't totally honest, as painful as we know that is for the family, and for the community.

 

[otto]

This case was covered by BBC and CNN.

I can't find a CCN link, but the BBC article was posted before it was known that the accused was related to the victims, and that the child was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. On July 7, when the BBC article was posted, it was still considered to be very bizarre case. Today, it's just another family dispute that ended in murder.

 

[news.talk]

I can't find a CCN link, but the BBC article was posted before it was known that the accused was related to the victims, and that the child was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. On July 7, when the BBC article was posted, it was still considered to be very bizarre case. Today, it's just another family dispute that ended in murder.

The point remains that it the case was covered by international media at some point.

 

[otto]

The point remains that it the case was covered by international media at some point.

At one point, before people understood what this was about, it presented a rather crazy scenario: that of estate sale people being targeted by lunatics. That grabs everyone's attention. Today, it's a family dispute that ended in murder, a common event that interests few outside of the family.

The case of a lunatic finishing work and then murdering five friends at an end of year school party ... that's a crazy situation that is not common. That was also mentioned in the BBC news, but there was hardly any interest on this website.

 

[news.talk]

At one point, before people understood what this was about, it presented a rather crazy scenario: that of estate sale people being targeted by lunatics. That grabs everyone's attention. Today, it's a family dispute that ended in murder, a common event that interests few outside of the family.

The case of a lunatic finishing work and then murdering five friends at an end of year school party ... that's a crazy situation that is not common. That was also mentioned in the BBC news, but there was hardly any interest on this website.

Time will tell whether the UK and American news outlets follow up on the story.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I'm confused by your comment.

I'm not sure what you are looking for. On the one hand, if LE does not release enough information, you find it so strange, suspicious, and your seem to suspect LE of either not quite getting it right, or that their failure to reveal evidence must indicate they don't have much evidence. Yet when I describe the reasons not to tell too much in order to respect the rights of the accused, you say they've already tainted the jury pool with the information they have released. Which is it? What would you like to see? More info? Less info? More respect for the rights of the accused? Less?

LE walks a very fine line between informing the public, protecting the rights of the accused, and seeking justice for victims and their families. It's not as easy as you seem to think. IMO, in this case, they have done an exceptional job. They have informed the public as much as they need to, nothing more. It is so easy to be an armchair "sleuth" but quite another to be the LE professional carrying the responsibility to balance all the priorities - for victims and their families, for the public, for justice, and all without trampling the rights of the accused. I'd love to hear your suggestions for how they should be doing their jobs.

IMO

All I am saying is that based on the information LE has already released...what difference would it make if they also said "enough blood was found at the residence to tell us that the victims are all dead". It's not new information. It's just another way of saying "they are dead"...but have added a little bit more info as to why they think that.

I have no idea how they should be doing their jobs, seems they're doing a fine job...I was just wondering about what I view as a microscopic difference in information released. I don't think that would've caused any problems at all. JMO "They are dead" vs. "They are dead because we found this 'smoking gun that;s how we know for certain...". I dont' see how that's inflammatory or trampling on anything. Obviously sheer ignorance on my part.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

The jury pool is not tainted because victims are declared deceased, police request community tips in locating a vehicle, or the name of the accused is published. The accused is presumed innocent. People have faith that the police arrested the correct person, and that this will be proven during trial. If it's not, life still goes on. 12 people, in a city of more than a million, that couldn't care less about a family murder are not hard to find.

Innocent question for the 'firing squad'. Just for interests sake and out of curiousity. Just a little survey (if allowed).

How many here believe that DG is innocent until proven guilty? And how many here are wishing we had the death penalty back to hang the , just based on what LE has told us for sure?

Just a thought-provoking thought. Obviously we can't have an anonymous showing of hands on here. But think about yourself...which one have you put your hand up for?

 

[news.talk]

All I am saying is that based on the information LE has already released...what difference would it make if they also said "enough blood was found at the residence to tell us that the victims are all dead". It's not new information. It's just another way of saying "they are dead"...but have added a little bit more info as to why they think that.

I have no idea how they should be doing their jobs, seems they're doing a fine job...I was just wondering about what I view as a microscopic difference in information released. I don't think that would've caused any problems at all. JMO "They are dead" vs. "They are dead because we found this....". I dont' see how that's inflammatory or trampling on anything. Obviously sheer ignorance on my part.

I think the difference is that under law, they CANNOT state what the evidence is that leads the Medical Examiner to conclude that the victims are deceased. The Chief cannot speak for the ME, and besides, the ONLY information the public has the right to know, is that they are no longer pursuing a missing persons case, and that a suspect has been charged in the homicide.

 

[otto]

Innocent question for the 'firing squad'. Just for interests sake and out of curiousity. Just a little survey (if allowed).

How many here believe that DG is innocent until proven guilty? And how many here are wishing we had the death penalty back to hang the , just based on what LE has told us for sure?

He's presumed innocent. He will have his day in court. I believe that he is guilty.
Capital punishment is barbaric. ISIS, also known as ISIL, practices capital punishment.
Canadians practice humane methods for rehabilitating people that have committed criminal acts.

 

[news.talk]

Innocent question for the 'firing squad'. Just for interests sake and out of curiousity. Just a little survey (if allowed).

How many here believe that DG is innocent until proven guilty? And how many here are wishing we had the death penalty back to hang the , just based on what LE has told us for sure?

I FULLY support the presumption that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. I personally don't believe in the death penalty and hope that our justice system is effective at uncovering the truth.

ETA: I cannot comment as to DG's innocence as I have not seen the evidence and trust our legal system to make that determination.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

He's presumed innocent. He will have his day in court. I believe that he is guilty. Capital punishment is for barbarians, like ISIS.

Capital punishment or some similar fate indeed is for barbarians such as ISIS. Totally agree. Madness has to stop somehow, C/P sounds like the only option in this case...it's beyond horrible.

 

[deugirtni]

JMO, but I would not classify this case as a family dispute.

At one point, before people understood what this was about, it presented a rather crazy scenario: that of estate sale people being targeted by lunatics. That grabs everyone's attention. Today, it's a family dispute that ended in murder, a common event that interests few outside of the family.

The case of a lunatic finishing work and then murdering five friends at an end of year school party ... that's a crazy situation that is not common. That was also mentioned in the BBC news, but there was hardly any interest on this website.

 

[otto]

Capital punishment or some similar fate indeed is for barbarians such as ISIS. Totally agree. Madness has to stop somehow, C/P sounds like the only option in this case...it's beyond horrible.

He'll get his 25 years in prison before parole. It will be interesting to see if the new consecutive sentencing law will come into play with this triple homicide.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I think the difference is that under law, they CANNOT state what the evidence is that leads the Medical Examiner to conclude that the victims are deceased. The Chief cannot speak for the ME, and besides, the ONLY information the public has the right to know, is that they are no longer pursuing a missing persons case, and that a suspect has been charged in the homicide.

Thank you for explaining it so clearly and well, I get it now.:_ Interesting that the ME is not called upon to offer her findings in the case, and as to why she has deemend them deceased as part of a joint info session with LE then. More more well-rounded communication. I think a simple statement such as our examination has evidence to prove that the victims are indeed deceased. Enough said. Perfect. Cut and dried.]

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I'm kinda wondering who the forensic accountings work for: LE? Crown? Defense?
Who's checking into all pantent stuff between DG and AL; and who's checking into the plethora of AL's business dealings? Besides our wonderful brilliant sleuth, Stan Laurel.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

k

He'll get his 25 years in prison before parole. It will be interesting to see if the new consecutive sentencing law will come into play with this triple homicide.

If it does, I suppose DG can kiss his goodbye...he's 54. Pretty much done if that happens. Bleary outlook. Dying in prison. I would probably kill myself somehow than have to live past my death in there. Not a great scenario. I would think the Defense would at least try to get those sentences concurrent.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I can't find a CCN link, but the BBC article was posted before it was known that the accused was related to the victims, and that the child was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. On July 7, when the BBC article was posted, it was still considered to be very bizarre case. Today, it's just another family dispute that ended in murder.

That's the black and white version The grey areas suggest something else is amiss. Sorry, having a difficulty time ignoring those grey areas.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

It would be cool to do a 2 sided 'vision board'...with everything we know from LE, MMS and all the sluethers. I bet it's not quite so black and white.
To me black and white is the Matthew DeGrood case...this one...not so much....just thinking out loud.