Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #24

[naz]

Since 1992, the Canadian justice system no longer allows a person to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. A person can be found not criminally responsible because of mental illness, but they aren't acquitted if they are in fact guilty. They can also be found unfit to stand trial if they have a mental illness which prevents the person for knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Neither situation applies to DG since the evidence suggests that he understood his actions were morally wrong.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-16.html

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Not_Criminally_Responsible_Due_to_Mental_Disorder

Thank you, but could the evidences also suggest someone who could not control his murderous compulsion ?

 

[ABro]

Yes, which is why I asked the question: What is the evidence that the victims were alive when they arrived at Airdrie?

To which I responded:

Has it ever occurred to you that the time to ask this question is when the prosecution closes its case?

So far the evidence that they COULD have been alive is the ME's testimony.

Presumably, the agreed statement of facts re what the receptionist saw is also relevant to proving they were alive.

Since the first day of trial, you have consistently proclaimed that the prosecutors won't be able to prove the claims made in the opening statement.

Personally, I prefer to wait and see the evidence before making such a call.

 

[MistyWaters]

If the victims were alive and well when kidnapped, there were many factors that could have interfered with the murder such as escape, Garland parents discovering the victims, and Garland changing his mind.

We also should not dismiss the words of Jennifer where she claims that her first statement was that someone had killed her family and taken the bodies. Clearly she did not believe that the victims survived the kidnapping. This, combined with statements from police that the victims would have been in medical distress, contradict the prosecution's theory of live victims at Airdrie.

Jennifer is not an expert in the medical field and I'm certain no jury member would be so foolish as to mistake her emotional reaction, upon walking into a unimaginable horror scene, to be evidence.

As for "could have's" they do not apply in a court of law. Any murder scenario could be interrupted under certain circumstances. Typically the charges that apply would be attempted murder as opposed to kidnapping.

I asked you earlier but I don't think you replied - what evidence has been presented that gives you the impression this is a kidnapping case gone wrong?

 

[otto]

To which I responded:

So far the evidence that they COULD have been alive is the ME's testimony.

Presumably, the agreed statement of facts re what the receptionist saw is also relevant to proving they were alive.

Since the first day of trial, you have consistently proclaimed that the prosecutors won't be able to prove the claims made in the opening statement.

Personally, I prefer to wait and see the evidence before making such a call.

I have expressed doubt that there will be proof that the victims were alive at the Airdrie property. At this point, there is no evidence that they were alive. What I don't understand is why the prosecutor has claimed that they were alive.

 

[otto]

Jennifer is not an expert in the medical field and I'm certain no jury member would be so foolish as to mistake her emotional reaction, upon walking into a unimaginable horror scene, to be evidence.

As for "could have's" they do not apply in a court of law. Any murder scenario could be interrupted under certain circumstances. Typically the charges that apply would be attempted murder as opposed to kidnapping.

I asked you earlier but I don't think you replied - what evidence has been presented that gives you the impression this is a kidnapping case gone wrong?

I completely agree that "could have" does not apply, so the ME claim that they could have been dead, and could have been alive, does not apply. It's meaningless speculation.

 

[MistyWaters]

From the article,: "Before Kraan began presenting the graphic evidence, Court of Queen's Bench Justice David Gates instructed jurors not to conclude Garland is a "bad character" because of the evidence and therefore infer guilt. Instead, he said they could consider it in the context of three issues: identity, murderous intent, and planning and deliberation."

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/...der-liknes-nathan-obrien-hard-drive-1.3959835

"....he said they could consider it in the context of three issues: identity, murderous intent, and planning and deliberation."

Thanks! I knew I read this somewhere, couldn't find the link. It's insightful to note how the jury is being instructed.

 

[olivebpa1]

"Torture" was introduced by the prosecution on the first day of trial, and as such it is part of the prosecution theory that torture relates to the murders. The crown's theory is that torture relates to the victims.

"The Crown alleges that Garland meticulously planned the murders of Alvin and Kathy Liknes, and that five-year-old Nathan O’Brien was tragic collateral damage after staying at his grandparent’s for an “impromptu sleepover.”
It’s alleged that Garland eventually acted on his grudge, after compiling in-depth research on the Liknes couple as well as torture methods and how to kill without emotion."

http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime...ndparents-alvin-and-kathy-liknes-set-to-begin

"The Crown's theory is evidence of files, photos and search history found on a hidden hard drive in the Garland home tells a story of an obsession with torture, killing, kink and murder victims Alvin and Kathy Likness."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...der-liknes-nathan-obrien-hard-drive-1.3959835

You are quoting and linking to articles written by journalists. Those quotes you gave are not the direct words of the crown. As far as i recall the crown has not come right out and said they were tortured. Has it been implied? Maybe. They did present evidence about torture files found on his computer. Obviously that has lead many here as well as the journalists you quoted above to believe that is part of the "story". In the end does the torture matter in terms of a conviction? I don't think so. It's 1st degree regardless, but those files on his computer prove how much research and planning went in to all of this.

 

[MistyWaters]

I completely agree that "could have" does not apply, so the ME claim that they could have been dead, and could have been alive, does not apply. It's meaningless speculation.

Expert opinion, sure I suppose the defence at times might consider it speculation.

This case is largely based on circumstantial evidence so if you're expecting a whole lot of facts to be established, that's not going to happen.

 

[otto]

You are quoting and linking to articles written by journalists. Those quotes you gave are not the direct words of the crown. As far as i recall the crown has not come right out and said they were tortured. Has it been implied? Maybe. They did present evidence about torture files found on his computer. Obviously that has lead many here as well as the journalists you quoted above to believe that is part of the "story". In the end does the torture matter in terms of a conviction? I don't think so. It's 1st degree regardless, but those files on his computer prove how much research and planning went in to all of this.

That's true. The articles were written on Jan 16, the first day of the trial. That is when the prosecution introduced the theory that torture is part of the evidence of first degree murder.

 

[otto]

Expert opinion, sure I suppose the defence at times might consider it speculation.

This case is largely based on circumstantial evidence so if you're expecting a whole lot of facts to be established, that's not going to happen.

The only thing that is being established are the facts of the case. One of the facts is that the ME is unable to state whether the victims were alive or dead when they left their home.

 

[Snoopster]

OK....I sense things are getting a bit heated here. No doubt we are all concerned about this case. Let's stop calling each other out and get back to identifying evidence that the Crown has put forth and that the Defense has challenged.

We all (at least those that have posted, so others please feel free to speak up) believe that DG is guilty, but it is yet to be proven in court. Someone recently posted that they were frustrated that DG was given the benefit of the doubt in court and didn't just plead guilty. I say to them that that would be the end of our "justice system" if we jumped to conclusions as to who deserved a full trial and who didn't.

I'm jumping down off my high horse now. Sorry about that.
I think we are all soooo concerned about this case. It is devastating that these people, including a perfectly innocent 5 year old, were mercilessly murdered.

I will TRY to wait patiently for the Crown to finish laying out their case. I can't promise that I won't be impatient!

 

[MistyWaters]

The only thing that is being established are the facts of the case. One of the facts is that the ME is unable to state whether the victims were alive or dead when they left their home.

Either this is the first trial you've ever followed or you're just being obtuse.

Expert opinion is not the same as "facts".

 

[ABro]

Expert opinion, sure I suppose the defence at times might consider it meaningless speculation but that's their call, not mine or yours. I don't recall their objections, do you?

This case is largely based on circumstantial evidence so if you're expecting a whole lot of facts to be established, that's not going to happen.

Not sure what you're trying to say here but circumstantial evidence is totally about establishing facts:

Evidence which may allow a trial judge or jury to deduce or logically infer a certain fact from other established facts, which have been proven.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CircumstantialEvidence.aspx

 

[tracyhmcd]

The prosecution may still present something that shows the victims were alive in Airdrie. I can't see, though, how DG could drive with live victims in his truck bed from southwest Calgary to Airdrie (as the CCTV may show), arrange for a place to hold them, grab a shower, converse with parents and then dare to leave when there could be a risk that someone might find the three or they might somehow escape.

But this trial has been full of horrible surprises, so I guess we'll see...

 

[MistyWaters]

Not sure what you're trying to say here but circumstantial evidence is totally about establishing facts:


http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CircumstantialEvidence.aspx

i'm thinking of, for example, the Delta 2 shoes. It is not a fact that Garland was wearing Delta 2 shoes and left bloody footprints although the circumstantial evidence certainly points that direction.

It is not a fact that the victims died at the Garland acreage, although the expert opinion of the ME opens the possibility.

What are "facts" when weighing the circumstantial evidence that's been presented by the end of the trial is for the jury to decide.

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference."

Link added by Sillybilly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

 

[ABro]

i'm thinking of, for example, the Delta 2 shoes. It is not a fact that Garland was wearing Delta 2 shoes and left bloody footprints although the circumstantial evidence certainly points that direction.

It is not a fact that the victims died at the Garland acreage, although the expert opinion of the ME opens the possibility.

What are "facts" when weighing the circumstantial evidence that's been presented by the end of the trial is for the jury to decide.

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference."

The following facts were established at the trial:

The bloody footprints at the house were a near perfect match for Size 13 Delta 2 shows.

A Delta 2 shoebox for size 13 shoes was seized from Garland's house.

Garland was shown on video wearing a pair of shoes that appear to be Delta 2.

From these established facts, the jury can infer the fact that it was Garland who left the footprints. This is how circumstantial evidence works.

At this point, we need to see more facts to support the claim that the victims were killed at the acreage. I certainly believe we will see these facts established as testimony continues.

 

[YYC]

I have expressed doubt that there will be proof that the victims were alive at the Airdrie property. At this point, there is no evidence that they were alive. What I don't understand is why the prosecutor has claimed that they were alive.

Since the opening statement, the Crown have presented the following to support the claim that the victims were still alive when they were taken to the farm. If I have forgotten something please add more facts.

1) DG's internet research
a) how to knock someone unconscious
b) torture methods
c) diapered restrained women

2) Duffel bag contents
a) BATON - not a weapon to kill but disable or force into submission
b) TWO SETS OF HANDCUFFS - DG knew how to make sure the victims were dead (from his books, like to check out the victims' pulse and breathing); nevertheless, he brought 2 handcuffs with him. Why would he need 2 pairs of handcuffs for dead people.
c) DAGGER - he didn't use the dagger but a hard object/weapon to hit the head.
- If his intent had been to kill he could have used the dagger or a gun with a silencer.

3) DG directed his hits to the victims' heads. If someone wants to knock somebody out that is where he would aim.

4) His possessions included the following:
a) numerous shackles and leather restraints
b) taser patrons
c) insulin - although no one has diabetes
Why would he need any of this if he intended to kill the victims right away?!

5) blood stopper - normally used to stop or slow bleeding in alive subjects

6) adult diapers - makes more sense that he got them for persons he intended to keep alive for some time

7) liquid nitrogen bottles (2 very large and one small bottle) were almost empty
- possibility of use for torture but also for cryogenic promession to destroy body parts/mix with soil in the garden (Sully was very excited there) - hiding evidence in plain sight

Still to be confirmed next week:
8) On the aerial photo, the adult victims still have diapers 2 days after the attack.
9) As we heard the aerial photo shows the victims lying prone, face down. If the victims were held as dead in the south building trailer (due to such a confined space) I speculate that their bodies would be kind of bent and stiff (rigour mortis) on the aerial photo rather then in a relaxed/straight pose.

 

[MistyWaters]

The following facts were established at the trial:

The bloody footprints at the house were a near perfect match for Size 13 Delta 2 shows.

A Delta 2 shoebox for size 13 shoes was seized from Garland's house.

Garland was shown on video wearing a pair of shoes that appear to be Delta 2.

From these established facts, the jury can infer the fact that it was Garland who left the footprints. This is how circumstantial evidence works.

At this point, we need to see more facts to support the claim that the victims were killed at the acreage. I certainly believe we will see these facts established as testimony continues.

Truthfully, I have never followed another trial where the prosecution was expected to prove the location where death occurred. In my unprofessional experience, my understanding is that the opening statements are a plausible theory and certainly evidence based, but it's not always possible to factually prove the entire scenario from beginning to end, especially in a no body case. It's up to the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine if what they heard is adequate to convict beyond reasonable doubt.

In your opinion, if the Prosecution does not present facts to prove the three were alive at the acreage, leaving the possibility that one or all died at the Likeness home or in transit, then what? The jury would be instructed to find Garland Not Guilty of First Degree Murder, even if they all believed beyond reasonable doubt that he was responsible for their murders, with premeditation?

That just does not make sense to me. What am I missing?

 

[otto]

Truthfully, I have never followed another trial where the prosecution was expected to prove the location where death occurred. In my unprofessional experience, my understanding is that the opening statements are a plausible theory and certainly evidence based, but it's not always possible to factually prove the entire scenario from beginning to end, especially in a no body case. It's up to the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine if what they heard is adequate to convict beyond reasonable doubt.

In your opinion, if the Prosecution does not present facts to prove the three were alive at the acreage, leaving the possibility that one or all died at the Likeness home or in transit, then what? The jury would be instructed to find Garland Not Guilty of First Degree Murder, even if they all believed beyond reasonable doubt that he was responsible for their murders, with premeditation?

That just does not make sense to me. What am I missing?

Nothing. I asked earlier whether murder that happens during kidnapping results in first degree murder, and the answer is yes. I didn't know that, or didn't remember that, until someone kindly link the legal reference.

 

[Slebby]

A couple thoughts -
I believe it's possible the victims were alive when transported to the farm. Why? Because if they were already dead, what did he have to gain by taking them to the farm? No torture plan could play out. It would be way more dangerous and incriminating to keep the bodies for the apparent sole purpose of - incinerating and obliterating them. Why take the chance, unless they were still alive, and the idea of carrying out the torture ideas (as outlined in the testimony re the hard drive) was still very much a possibility? IOW, I think if they were dead, he would have left the bodies in the L home and just gotten out of there.

Re the bloody crime scene at the L home - in the initial stages of the investigation, it is understandable for the ME to suggest someone could be in medical distress. There was a great deal of blood, certainly. But the ME could not initially say for sure if it was the blood of one, two or three victims without proof through DNA analysis. I don't think we can compare the ME's preliminary speculation in the media to her later sworn testimony based on detailed forensics. One is a starting point based on a preliminary look, the other, educated and informed by detailed investigation.

IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk