Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #21

[dogmatica]

Actually, the question of first or second degree murder is interesting. If his plan was to abduct two victims, take them alive to the acreage, torture them (there seems to be evidence to support this), and murder them, then although he planned to murder them, he did not plan to murder them at the Liknes home. In fact, he could have changed his mind at any time after the abduction and left them alive, or the live victims could have been discovered on the acreage by his parents.

If the plan went South in the first few minutes of the kidnapping, then that may fall under second degree murder. He had no intention of murdering the victims in the Liknes home, and there was never a plan to harm Nathan. I suppose that is where the defence has room to make an argument for a lesser conviction and sentence.

The Crown may need to argue that all three victims were alive at the acreage in order to secure a first degree murder conviction, but I'm skeptical that this is possible ... we'll see.

If a person is murdered during the commission of a kidnapping or while unlawfully confined, that’s first degree murder – whether or not the perp intended to kill from the outset. If he went there to abduct/kidnap/confine, and they were killed in that process – that’s first degree murder – including Nathan.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Maybe I missed this detail but when was it stated that Nathan's blood was recovered at the home? I don't recall hearing any specifics yet detailing forensic analysis of blood or DNA from any of the scenes.

There was a reference to a small handprint in blood - it doesn't mean it was Nathan's' just because it was small, but ....
:tears:

 

[olivebpa1]

There was a reference to a small handprint in blood - it doesn't mean it was Nathan's' just because it was small, but ....
:tears:

It could also be nathan's handprint but someone else's blood. Poor little boy. It makes me sick to think about how scared he must have been.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

I'm here for a little while, waiting for 10:00!
:HHJP:

 

[Cherchri]

A good close-up of the Ford F150. Note the damaged headlight on the driver's side. Is that not something one can get pulled over for? Risky?
http://live.cbc.ca/Event/Douglas_Garland_triple_murder_trial

 

[garbagetweet]

I haven't seen any court room updates this morning from local media on Twitter. Is the trial still continuing at 10am today?

Edit: nevermind, looks like things should get going ASAP.

 

[meterclicks]

I haven't seen any court room updates from local media on Twitter. Is the trial still continuing at 10am today?

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 4m4 minutes ago
Day 5 of Douglas #Garland triple-murder trial will begin any minute. #yyc

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Bill GravelandVerified account ‏@BillGraveland 1m1 minute ago

The Douglas #Garland triple murder trial is about to resume in Calgary. Two witnesses today - both police officers.

 

[Kamille]

The crown has to prove that the victims were alive at the acreage, the defence does not have to refute dramatic claims made in opening statements. The crown may argue that there is evidence of blood at the acreage, but the victims were dismembered, so of course there is blood. An aerial photo of the victims on the ground 24 hours later does not prove that they were alive for those 24 hours. Evidence of Kathryn on meat hooks does not prove that she was alive. However, urine on a diaper at the acreage does prove that she was alive. That does not prove that all three were alive. Furthermore, we have already heard that blood and hair on Jennifer's shoes was very likely from Nathan - suggesting that he had received a severe head injury and was very likely mortally wounded in the initial attack.

The defence can question blood experts about the amount of blood at the Liknes home and, on that basis demonstrate, as police said in the first week after the kidnappings, that they were at the very least in "medical distress" (which I always understood as requiring medical care to live).

The Crown does not have to prove where the victims were actually killed if there is no evidence to prove it either way. The Crown is entitled to put together their version of events based on the evidence that has been collected and the witnesses who will present it and wind it into a narrative, that makes sense, for the jury. Without any statement from the accused, why wouldn't they go with the working theory that it was his intent to kill them, it was no accident with any of them? Considering the planning involved, it sure appears that way. It would make no sense to try to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the least possible charges because they don't know. It's up to the jury to decide if he should be given the benefit of "doubt". And he didn't have to kill Nathan if his death wasn't part of the original plan. So killing him also became his intent. It only takes seconds to form intent and I'm pretty sure that Nathan did not represent any physical threat to him. I guess the experts are going to suggest that there was just not enough blood from any of the victims in the house to say definitively that one or more died there so they have to go with the assumption that all three may still have been alive when they were taken to the farm. Makes sense to me. And definitely warrant a first degree charge on all three of them.

It is up to the defence to counter the Crown's working theory with their own questions to the witnesses and possibly an alternative theory or just an obvious disagreement with what the Crown is proposing. Ultimately it is up to the jury to come to their own conclusions based on the evidence that is put before them. They can certainly reject the Crown's theory and go with one of their own if they choose when rendering their verdict. And they will be instructed that opening and closing statements are not evidence and should not factor into their own deliberations.

MOO

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Nancy HixtVerified account ‏@NancyHixt 58s59 seconds ago

Judge is talking to the jury about how to treat the agreed statement of facts that was read in court Thursday #Garland.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

The Crown does not have to prove where the victims were actually killed if there is no evidence to prove it either way. The Crown is entitled to put together their version of events based on the evidence that has been collected and the witnesses who will present it and wind it into a narrative, that makes sense, for the jury. Without any statement from the accused, why wouldn't they go with the working theory that it was his intent to kill them, it was no accident with any of them? Considering the planning involved, it sure appears that way. It would make no sense to try to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the least possible charges because they don't know. It's up to the jury to decide if he should be given the benefit of "doubt". And he didn't have to kill Nathan if his death wasn't part of the original plan. So killing him also became his intent. It only takes seconds to form intent and I'm pretty sure that Nathan did not represent any physical threat to him. I guess the experts are going to suggest that there was just not enough blood from any of the victims in the house to say definitively that one or more died there so they have to go with the assumption that all three may still have been alive when they were taken to the farm. Makes sense to me. And definitely warrant a first degree charge on all three of them.

It is up to the defence to counter the Crown's working theory with their own questions to the witnesses and possibly an alternative theory or just an obvious disagreement with what the Crown is proposing. Ultimately it is up to the jury to come to their own conclusions based on the evidence that is put before them. They can certainly reject the Crown's theory and go with one of their own if they choose when rendering their verdict. And they will be instructed that opening and closing statements are not evidence and should not factor into their own deliberations.

MOO

:goodpost:

 

[Cherchri]

The Crown does not have to prove where the victims were actually killed if there is no evidence to prove it either way. The Crown is entitled to put together their version of events based on the evidence that has been collected and the witnesses who will present it and wind it into a narrative, that makes sense, for the jury. Without any statement from the accused, why wouldn't they go with the working theory that it was his intent to kill them, it was no accident with any of them? Considering the planning involved, it sure appears that way. It would make no sense to try to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the least possible charges because they don't know. It's up to the jury to decide if he should be given the benefit of "doubt". And he didn't have to kill Nathan if his death wasn't part of the original plan. So killing him also became his intent. It only takes seconds to form intent and I'm pretty sure that Nathan did not represent any physical threat to him. I guess the experts are going to suggest that there was just not enough blood from any of the victims in the house to say definitively that one or more died there so they have to go with the assumption that all three may still have been alive when they were taken to the farm. Makes sense to me. And definitely warrant a first degree charge on all three of them.

It is up to the defence to counter the Crown's working theory with their own questions to the witnesses and possibly an alternative theory or just an obvious disagreement with what the Crown is proposing. Ultimately it is up to the jury to come to their own conclusions based on the evidence that is put before them. They can certainly reject the Crown's theory and go with one of their own if they choose when rendering their verdict. And they will be instructed that opening and closing statements are not evidence and should not factor into their own deliberations.

MOO

100%!

 

[JadeSLeuth]

re: Agreed Statement of Facts

Bill GravelandVerified account ‏@BillGraveland 40s40 seconds ago
"The exhibits have not been altered or contaminated," said Gates. Said the same rules apply to the integrity of the crime scene. #Garland

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 40s40 seconds ago
Justice Gates explains that the ASF states that the evidence (truck, #Garland shoes) have not been altered, except for testing at labs. #yyc

Kevin MartinVerified account ‏@KMartinCourts 56s56 seconds ago
"The defence is conceding the integrity of the various items seized by the police," Justice Gates says of admission of continuity. #Garland

Nancy HixtVerified account ‏@NancyHixt 2m2 minutes ago
Justice Gates tells jury they must treat those details as proven facts. (No bank activity by Likneses...continuity of exhibits etc) #garland

 

[Kamille]

But I just read in post #900 by Sillybilly, Crown's opening statement indicated they had, in fact, been killed at the farm:

Yes...sorry. That was kind of a rhetorical question. If no one can prove where they were killed, why wouldn't the Crown go with the theory that they were killed after the abuction, at the farm. It just makes the first degree charges more solid if the jury agrees with this theory.

MOO

 

[olivebpa1]

Is it common for the defense to concede that all evidence was treated properly? The only other trial I have followed is the bosma trial and I don't remember an agreed statement of facts regarding evidence collection. Why would the defense concede to that? Wouldn't they want to leave that little bit of doubt in the jury's mind that maybe the evidence was contaminated?

 

[LoisLane]

The crown has to prove that the victims were alive at the acreage, the defence does not have to refute dramatic claims made in opening statements. The crown may argue that there is evidence of blood at the acreage, but the victims were dismembered, so of course there is blood. An aerial photo of the victims on the ground 24 hours later does not prove that they were alive for those 24 hours. Evidence of Kathryn on meat hooks does not prove that she was alive. However, urine on a diaper at the acreage does prove that she was alive. That does not prove that all three were alive. Furthermore, we have already heard that blood and hair on Jennifer's shoes was very likely from Nathan - suggesting that he had received a severe head injury and was very likely mortally wounded in the initial attack.

The defence can question blood experts about the amount of blood at the Liknes home and, on that basis demonstrate, as police said in the first week after the kidnappings, that they were at the very least in "medical distress" (which I always understood as requiring medical care to live).

Unless the hair was a wig. There was a photo of the hair and it seemed longer and thicker than Nathan's.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Bill GravelandVerified account ‏@BillGraveland 1m1 minute ago
After he purchased the shoes Detective Budd passed them to one of the other investigators. Shoes and box now being made an exhibit. #Garland

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 1m1 minute ago
Budd shows court pair of white running shoes he bought after receiving an email about possible match with footprint at Liknes home #Garland

Nancy HixtVerified account ‏@NancyHixt 2m2 minutes ago
Budd investigated footprints found at Liknes home. He saw pic of shoe box found at #Garland residence-then bought matching pair from Walmart

Kevin MartinVerified account ‏@KMartinCourts 3m3 minutes ago
More
Det. Budd purchased size 13 Dr. Scholl's shoes after receiving an email from his sergeant about a possible footprint match. #garland

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 3m3 minutes ago
Budd says he called a Walmart who put aside a pair of Dr. Scholls Delta 2 13W. He bought them and has the shoes in court today #Garland #yyc

Bill GravelandVerified account ‏@BillGraveland 4m4 minutes ago
Budd said he saw a photo of a shoe box at the #Garland residence. Went to a Wal-Mart and bought size 13 shoe in that brand.

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 5m5 minutes ago
Budd investigated a footprint found at the Liknes house #Garland

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 7m7 minutes ago
Budd says there were photos from #Garland residence of Dr. Scholls shoe boxes. #Garland #yyc

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 30s31 seconds ago
Questioning of Det. Budd is over. Sgt. Lynn Gallen is about to take the stand as an expert in footwear #Garland #yyc

Bill GravelandVerified account ‏@BillGraveland 54s55 seconds ago
Budd said he had no idea if #Garland ever owned any of those shoes. He was only tasked with buying shoes to match for footprints.

Kevin MartinVerified account ‏@KMartinCourts 1m1 minute ago
Det. Budd tells defence lawyer Kim Ross he had no involvement with a Dr. Scholl's shoe box photographed at #Garland farm in same size.

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 1m1 minute ago
Budd has no personal knowledge of what kind of footwear Douglas #Garland has owned/worn. #yyc

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 2m2 minutes ago
Budd says he never went to #Garland farm, never handled any boxes from farm, doesn't know what was in boxes there. #Garland #yyc

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Nancy HixtVerified account ‏@NancyHixt 2m
This is one of the pictures of footprint found at Liknes home June 30/14 by police #garland

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Kevin MartinVerified account ‏@KMartinCourts 1m1 minute ago
Sgt. Gallen is a member of the forensic crime scenes unit and has been with Calgary police since 1992. #garland

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 1m1 minute ago
Gallen has been a member of CPS forensic crime scene unit since ~2002. #Garland #yyc

Nancy HixtVerified account ‏@NancyHixt 1m1 minute ago
Sgt Gallen has worked in forensic crime scene unit since Oct 2002. #Garland. She has footwear comparison training

Bill GravelandVerified account ‏@BillGraveland 2m2 minutes ago
Judge asking jury not to flip ahead to start reading her report on the investigation until testimony gets that far. #Garland

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 3m3 minutes ago
Crown wants next witness Sgt. Lynn Gallen to be qualified as expert in footwear impressions from forensic crime scenes #Garland

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 3m3 minutes ago
Gallen will testify about make and model and size of out-sole shoe impressions, she is an uncontested expert. #Garland #yyc