Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #20

[OutOfTheDarkness]

IMO I feel if he has stuck to his "not guilty" since day one then he will likely play the role of a wrongfully accused and be arrogent, I feel they must have had some hush hush tip(s) that led them back to the property. I mean if they were going to the Prelim in May then they clearly had enough evidence to move forward on the charges he currently is incarcerated on.

Yes, but as speculated in the media, they may need extra information to tie certain pieces together, as well as to potentially double check others.

 

[news.talk]

It sure would. I'm also curious how DG will portray himself in court, smug/arrogant or feeble victim? His lawyer will probably advise him and who knows whether he'll even listen to his counsel.

My impression of him, is that he is an anti-social, narcissistic that thinks the world owes him... That his actions were justified because of a perceived injustice.

Sadly, we won't *see* the real Doug Garland.... He will most likely remain silent and stoic. IMHO, I don't see him 'playing' to the Judge or Jury... He strikes me as the kind of person that feels completely justified in his actions and will defend them with his behaviour. I do not think he has remorse or self-awareness... I get the feeling that he is incapable of such introspection. How could he? He murdered a five year old boy?!

 

[news.talk]

Yes, but as speculated in the media, they may need extra information to tie certain pieces together, as well as to potentially double check others.

My personal analysis of LE's return, is relatively standard for this type of case. The Crown has now received most of the depositions and certainly most of the forensic findings, they have also likely had a chance to get a glimpse into the Defense's case during those depositions. The next logical step, is to ensure that all the "I's and T's" are dotted and crossed in response.

It has been said from the start of this case, that it will be a highly technical presentation for the Crown. Every single aspect of the timeline they have created, has to be documented, mapped out and photographed. I highly doubt that they are doing *anything* but solidifying their case.

 

[sheshecanada]

My personal analysis of LE's return, is relatively standard for this type of case. The Crown has now received most of the depositions and certainly most of the forensic findings, they have also likely had a chance to get a glimpse into the Defense's case during those depositions. The next logical step, is to ensure that all the "I's and T's" are dotted and crossed in response.

It has been said from the start of this case, that it will be a highly technical presentation for the Crown. Every single aspect of the timeline they have created, has to be documented, mapped out and photographed. I highly doubt that they are doing *anything* but solidifying their case.

Exactly

 

[deugirtni]

In the summer when this was happening, I had suspected that the police search at 'the acreage' was without a search warrant. Obviously if no search warrant, it would have been *with* the owners' permission.

The reason I suspect there was no search warrant is because the search went on and on for weeks it seemed, and police seemed to be collecting whatever, when I know that in real life, with an official search warrant, it must be very specific in stating the length of time, what LE is trying to locate there, why it is expected to be found there, perhaps what is hoped to be proved/why it is important to a case, etc. Search warrants are never just open-ended, carte blanche, 'hey take as long as you like, and take whatever you want just in case it could come in handy in the trial at some point for some reason'. It doesn't work like that. It seemed to me that the search ended and the property was handed over to DG's parents once they returned from the vacation they were on at the time, and I suspected that was because that is the permission the parents gave to police... for that time period only.

So now that they are searching again, after so longgggg, and just prior to the prelim hearing, I am wondering if perhaps one or more aspects of the search, or one of the things they confiscated during the search, is being argued by the defence in regard to its validity, and/or ability to be included as evidence to a potential jury, due to missing certain requirements of a typical search warrant, which I believe may have been absent in this case.

For example... If I am correct, and police didn't bother with official warrants because they had obtained permission instead from the family themselves, could there have been a part of what was siezed that is now being argued.. things that I wonder about are.. computers, cellphones, video recordings? I know that during a regular search with a search warrant in place, police need additional search warrants (or at least the existing search warrant to contain specific wording) to include information contained within a computer or other electronic devices.

I wonder in this case, *if* there was no official search warrant obtained, and the parents gave permission instead, would that permission be all encompassing, or could the parents later argue that they meant police could search in general, but not inside their computers (as an example). Or, if DG was living there and paying rent to his parents.. would the parents' permission to search their property, have included a renter's quarters and his electronic equipment and/or other belongings of such a renter?

Even though police are telling MSM it is just a regular occurrence in preparation for the prelim, move along folks, nothing to see here.. I think it is weird (MOO) they are going back now, after so long, and also so close to the prelim. I don't recall ever having read anything like this in any other cases. After such a long search, I suspected police would have been dotting their i's and crossing their t's very carefully at the time, and wouldn't need to ever bother the parents again to make confirmations, take measurements, verify, etc., as have been suggested as potential reasons for this new search of the property. I'm wondering if perhaps DG's defence has asked for certain potential evidence to be excluded for perhaps reasons stated above, or other, different reasons, and police are now faced with having to go back to correct whatever might be deemed improper, by getting the paperwork and permissions in order. And if that was the case, what would happen if evidence, status, circumstances, conditions of the thing(s) in question had changed since the summer, and more of whatever they obtained in the summer could no longer be obtained, even with the new paperwork in order now.

 

[LoisLane]

Yes, but as speculated in the media, they may need extra information to tie certain pieces together, as well as to potentially double check others.

How about this headline on Global today?
"Tue, Mar 31 : The search on a rural property north of Airdrie is intensifying. Police have been searching the property belonging to the parents of Douglas Garland, who is charged with the murder of Nathan O’Brien and his grandparents Alvin and Kathy Liknes."

http://globalnews.ca/video/1914108/police-continue-to-search-garland-property

There are a lot of markers on the property and some spots are squared off. DG's lawyer makes a comment.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

How about this headline on Global today?
"Tue, Mar 31 : The search on a rural property north of Airdrie is intensifying. Police have been searching the property belonging to the parents of Douglas Garland, who is charged with the murder of Nathan O’Brien and his grandparents Alvin and Kathy Liknes."

http://globalnews.ca/video/1914108/police-continue-to-search-garland-property

Sensationalism?

 

[LoisLane]

Sensationalism?

There are a lot of markers on the property and some spots are squared off. DG's lawyer also comments. I think something is up.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

In the summer when this was happening, I had suspected that the police search at 'the acreage' was without a search warrant. Obviously if no search warrant, it would have been *with* the owners' permission.

The reason I suspect there was no search warrant is because the search went on and on for weeks it seemed, and police seemed to be collecting whatever, when I know that in real life, with an official search warrant, it must be very specific in stating the length of time, what LE is trying to locate there, why it is expected to be found there, perhaps what is hoped to be proved/why it is important to a case, etc. Search warrants are never just open-ended, carte blanche, 'hey take as long as you like, and take whatever you want just in case it could come in handy in the trial at some point for some reason'. It doesn't work like that. It seemed to me that the search ended and the property was handed over to DG's parents once they returned from the vacation they were on at the time, and I suspected that was because that is the permission the parents gave to police... for that time period only.

So now that they are searching again, after so longgggg, and just prior to the prelim hearing, I am wondering if perhaps one or more aspects of the search, or one of the things they confiscated during the search, is being argued by the defence in regard to its validity, and/or ability to be included as evidence to a potential jury, due to missing certain requirements of a typical search warrant, which I believe may have been absent in this case.

For example... If I am correct, and police didn't bother with official warrants because they had obtained permission instead from the family themselves, could there have been a part of what was siezed that is now being argued.. things that I wonder about are.. computers, cellphones, video recordings? I know that during a regular search with a search warrant in place, police need additional search warrants (or at least the existing search warrant to contain specific wording) to include information contained within a computer or other electronic devices.

I wonder in this case, *if* there was no official search warrant obtained, and the parents gave permission instead, would that permission be all encompassing, or could the parents later argue that they meant police could search in general, but not inside their computers (as an example). Or, if DG was living there and paying rent to his parents.. would the parents' permission to search their property, have included a renter's quarters and his electronic equipment and/or other belongings of such a renter?

Even though police are telling MSM it is just a regular occurrence in preparation for the prelim, move along folks, nothing to see here.. I think it is weird (MOO) they are going back now, after so long, and also so close to the prelim. I don't recall ever having read anything like this in any other cases. After such a long search, I suspected police would have been dotting their i's and crossing their t's very carefully at the time, and wouldn't need to ever bother the parents again to make confirmations, take measurements, verify, etc., as have been suggested as potential reasons for this new search of the property. I'm wondering if perhaps DG's defence has asked for certain potential evidence to be excluded for perhaps reasons stated above, or other, different reasons, and police are now faced with having to go back to correct whatever might be deemed improper, by getting the paperwork and permissions in order. And if that was the case, what would happen if evidence, status, circumstances, conditions of the thing(s) in question had changed since the summer, and more of whatever they obtained in the summer could no longer be obtained, even with the new paperwork in order now.

I would expect they got whatever warrant necessary, regardless of permissions, length of time, and/or search criteria. The press coverage was heavy, and no one would want to have any technical issues down the line...

 

[LoisLane]

The back of the house where the patio is appears to have been dug up.

Marker 1:08
http://globalnews.ca/video/1914108/police-continue-to-search-garland-property

 

[Lalalacasbah]

My impression of him, is that he is an anti-social, narcissistic that thinks the world owes him... That his actions were justified because of a perceived injustice.

Sadly, we won't *see* the real Doug Garland.... He will most likely remain silent and stoic. IMHO, I don't see him 'playing' to the Judge or Jury... He strikes me as the kind of person that feels completely justified in his actions and will defend them with his behaviour. I do not think he has remorse or self-awareness... I get the feeling that he is incapable of such introspection. How could he? He murdered a five year old boy?!

I pretty much see him the same as you, and I get the feeling he thinks everyone else is stupid and inferior to him. It's sickening to harm a child.

He's in protective custody because of the child factor probably and everyone knows child killers aren't welcome in GP, but I still find it strange that word got out in GP in the first place to make him a target for lifers to harm.

Remand sounds a bit cushy to me, but I must remember - innocent until proven guilty. Just seems doubtful to me if a drug dealer killed a kid in a drive by if they'd get PC at a Remand centre, but who knows….maybe they would.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

How about this headline on Global today?
"Tue, Mar 31 : The search on a rural property north of Airdrie is intensifying. Police have been searching the property belonging to the parents of Douglas Garland, who is charged with the murder of Nathan O’Brien and his grandparents Alvin and Kathy Liknes."

http://globalnews.ca/video/1914108/police-continue-to-search-garland-property

There are a lot of markers on the property and some spots are squared off. DG's lawyer makes a comment.

Interesting, when I read that I think - picking up the pace. Makes one wonder if a little tip is snowballing into more than they thought.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

The back of the house where the patio is appears to have been dug up.

Marker 1:08
http://globalnews.ca/video/1914108/police-continue-to-search-garland-property

Yeah, it does look like that. I had to replay a couple times to tell if the patio or whole house was raised up. Looks like it's just the angle, house is on ground in front and then patio raised above ground in back. Took the screen shots:

 

[LoisLane]

Yeah, it does look like that. I had to replay a couple times to tell if the patio or whole house was raised up. Looks like it's just the angle, house is on ground in front and then patio raised above ground in back. Took the screen shots:

View attachment 72033View attachment 72034

It looks like a couple columns are in place to support it but it is raised off the ground appears to be floating and no railings or steps, it isn't up to code. It just looks odd to me. It never had the railings in the photo from the summer. Maybe it is the angle and light and season that makes it appear dug up.

Here is an image from the summer... The grass along the edge is very green, probably from the extra moisture coming from the dirt ground under the deck. I am curious how deep it is.

The back part of the house where the deck is in comparison to the basement windows just seems off. Almost that one end was built before the other. I wonder if they have a cellar in the house.
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_...e.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpg

 

[news.talk]

In the summer when this was happening, I had suspected that the police search at 'the acreage' was without a search warrant. Obviously if no search warrant, it would have been *with* the owners' permission.

The reason I suspect there was no search warrant is because the search went on and on for weeks it seemed, and police seemed to be collecting whatever, when I know that in real life, with an official search warrant, it must be very specific in stating the length of time, what LE is trying to locate there, why it is expected to be found there, perhaps what is hoped to be proved/why it is important to a case, etc. Search warrants are never just open-ended, carte blanche, 'hey take as long as you like, and take whatever you want just in case it could come in handy in the trial at some point for some reason'. It doesn't work like that. It seemed to me that the search ended and the property was handed over to DG's parents once they returned from the vacation they were on at the time, and I suspected that was because that is the permission the parents gave to police... for that time period only.

So now that they are searching again, after so longgggg, and just prior to the prelim hearing, I am wondering if perhaps one or more aspects of the search, or one of the things they confiscated during the search, is being argued by the defence in regard to its validity, and/or ability to be included as evidence to a potential jury, due to missing certain requirements of a typical search warrant, which I believe may have been absent in this case.

For example... If I am correct, and police didn't bother with official warrants because they had obtained permission instead from the family themselves, could there have been a part of what was siezed that is now being argued.. things that I wonder about are.. computers, cellphones, video recordings? I know that during a regular search with a search warrant in place, police need additional search warrants (or at least the existing search warrant to contain specific wording) to include information contained within a computer or other electronic devices.

I wonder in this case, *if* there was no official search warrant obtained, and the parents gave permission instead, would that permission be all encompassing, or could the parents later argue that they meant police could search in general, but not inside their computers (as an example). Or, if DG was living there and paying rent to his parents.. would the parents' permission to search their property, have included a renter's quarters and his electronic equipment and/or other belongings of such a renter?

Even though police are telling MSM it is just a regular occurrence in preparation for the prelim, move along folks, nothing to see here.. I think it is weird (MOO) they are going back now, after so long, and also so close to the prelim. I don't recall ever having read anything like this in any other cases. After such a long search, I suspected police would have been dotting their i's and crossing their t's very carefully at the time, and wouldn't need to ever bother the parents again to make confirmations, take measurements, verify, etc., as have been suggested as potential reasons for this new search of the property. I'm wondering if perhaps DG's defence has asked for certain potential evidence to be excluded for perhaps reasons stated above, or other, different reasons, and police are now faced with having to go back to correct whatever might be deemed improper, by getting the paperwork and permissions in order. And if that was the case, what would happen if evidence, status, circumstances, conditions of the thing(s) in question had changed since the summer, and more of whatever they obtained in the summer could no longer be obtained, even with the new paperwork in order now.

I have no doubt that LE had a warrant. I have seen warrants that had no time frame specified... Just the scope of the investigation - House, computers, property, out-buildings.... Often they have no idea how long a search will take, so time is not something specified on a warrant. That only comes into play jn the case of case of business for example, that has to shut down to accommodate a search.

For LE to focus such a comprehensive search without a warrant, just land-owners permission, would have been tantamount to throwing out the case before it begins. It is relatively easy to obtain a search warrant, and judging by what we are assuming was their evidence up until that initial search, they would have been stupid not to get one. They expected to find remains in some form... The crux of their case.

 

[news.talk]

There are a lot of markers on the property and some spots are squared off. DG's lawyer also comments. I think something is up.

It's possible. It's even more possible IMO, that the Reporter is trying to bulk up the story due to lack of actual information. They would also want to get the Defense angle for that same purpose... Not much actual story to tell.

They very likely have testimony from a deposed witness to findings or theories that require further support or rebuttal.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

It looks like a couple columns are in place to support it but it is raised off the ground appears to be floating and no railings or steps, it isn't up to code. It just looks odd to me. It never had the railings in the photo from the summer. Maybe it is the angle and light and season that makes it appear dug up.

Here is an image from the summer... The grass along the edge is very green, probably from the extra moisture coming from the dirt ground under the deck. I am curious how deep it is.

The back part of the house where the deck is in comparison to the basement windows just seems off. Almost that one end was built before the other. I wonder if they have a cellar in the house.
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_...e.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpg

It's amazing how different the photos look now compared to that green grass of summer. That grass looks flawless, almost too perfect. Maybe DG offered to lay new grass down while his folks were gone? We've never seen the yard before LE swooped in. Maybe it was soil and DG offered to build that deck and lay grass while they were gone and maybe he got that grass down just in time before LE showed up.

A cellar is a good angle as well. Do many rural homes have them I wonder...where's Stan, he'd probably know! I could see it, especially if Alberta is known to get the odd, rare tornado but I guess they're more likely used to store food and goods aren't they?

The footage shows police almost grid searching right around the rim and in the back yard close to the house I think. Could be nothing, but what a sinking feeling to see that. If DG disposed of any evidence right there on the grass and possibly under his parent's deck that's just warped, knowing him and his parents would be close to whatever might be there.

 

[LoisLane]

It's amazing how different the photos look now compared to that green grass of summer. That grass looks flawless, almost too perfect. Maybe DG offered to lay new grass down while his folks were gone? We've never seen the yard before LE swooped in. Maybe it was soil and DG offered to build that deck and lay grass while they were gone and maybe he got that grass down just in time before LE showed up.

A cellar is a good angle as well. Do many rural homes have them I wonder...where's Stan, he'd probably know! I could see it, especially if Alberta is known to get the odd, rare tornado but I guess they're more likely used to store food and goods aren't they?

The footage shows police almost grid searching right around the rim and in the back yard close to the house I think. Could be nothing, but what a sinking feeling to see that. If DG disposed of any evidence right there on the grass and possibly under his parent's deck that's just warped, knowing him and his parents would be close to whatever might be there.

I am thinking the deck has been there prior to his parents departure that weekend. I just wonder if the house has an addition(s) and if there is a cold storage or food cellar below grade and how deep the house drops down behind that deck. I don't see any windows at grade either on that section of the house which would be necessary if there are bedrooms so I wonder what is in that part of the house. It appears higher than the other side of the house where there are two ground level windows.

As for the grass, it is a weed and them being farmers they would have the perfect mix of dandelion killer (RoundUp) and easily maintained the grass. They have what appears to be very long drain spouts running on the sides of the home away from the house. Possibly they have a lot of moisture thru the winter and need to direct it far away from the house so as not to flood the basement. I bet it can get really muddy under the deck this time of year.

I just find the configuration of the backside of the house off. I wonder if DG helped with any construction or renovations to the home.

ETA... I was trying to find more shots of the home and came across this image that is linked to this thread. Does anyone know why?
Nevermind! It was linked to a story in New Mexico 7 days before the truck pick was issued. Very weird that it was linked to a news page for this case.
http://www.ipick.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/53363aeae37cd.image_.jpg
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-249585.html
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/ne...cle_bc1e2dd5-859d-5bb7-b1a6-c844e22fce2d.html
http://www.ipick.ca/calgary/police-looking-for-new-leads-in-missing-persons-case

 

[CentralAlberta]

Is it possible DG's parents have been out starting their spring cleaning and found something suspicious? They then contacted police. I can't see them spending much time out in their yard last summer, I know I wouldn't if I were them, just in case I found something to indicate my son could have killed 3 people, one of them being a child. It wouldn't be that I was trying to protect my son if guilty but just how sick I would be feeling and not wanting to face it. It is now several months later and that initial shock would be gone so I could better handle the reality of it all.

 

[Sillybilly]

Very weird that it was linked to a news page for this case.

<rsbm>

No weirdness involved Lois .. I recall when a WSer posted/linked that pic here; can't recall their reason, but it did cause a smidge of confusion at the time (and apparently is still doing so, LOL). You are correct that is has NOTHING to do with this case.

I don't know the precise technical explanation, but once someone downloads or links to a pic, it can establish some type of connection that brings it up in future searches (might be something to do with trackbacks?). NM ... blech