Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #27

[MistyWaters]

I still think the defense would have brought it up, it's an obvious question.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

This also may be a good example of the misperception that surrounds Defence Attorneys. That they are all a bunch of conniving, unscrupulous, underhanded manipulators looking to poke holes and lie their way through a court case in order to let a guilty person walk free.

It's possible the defence didn't question the shoe prints because there is no reason to use it to create reasonable doubt. We can assume that the defence team and the accused are not strangers to one another. In that the defence has put forth no evidence, suggests to me that perhaps Garland has chosen to allow the justice system to determine his guilt, which is entirely within his rights. The role of the defence then becomes to facilitate the process on his behalf.

 

[marmot4]

If the police bought just one pair of the shoes of which box has been found on the farm then how they could have found a match with both footprints of different size from the crime scene? There is two possibilities why DNA has been found on right shoe after his arrest. First the right shoe was the one he was wearing during crime or somehow DNA was trasferred from one shoe to another after he changed his shoes. It does not change that he could be wearing two shoes of different size during crime for the simple reason to confuse the police.

Actually, there is also a third possibility : AL's DNA could have "appeared" on one shoe during AL's "body disposal" (sorry about that) but why just on the right one?

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Wondering if the reporters will do the same type of live tweeting of the closing args. Has anyone seen that before?

I don't imagine Defense will say much at all TBH. If there was something they wanted to get across, there would have been more from them during testimony. suppose the best they could try for is reasonable doubt... I just don't see them really trying for it - there is just too much stacked against them. I think they'll be brief and then sit down and shut up, as it has basically been all along.

How long is the Crown allowed to speak for? Is it time-limited?
Who goes first?

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Answered one of my own Qs:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3241220/douglas-garland-murder-trial-final-arguments-monday/

"Prosecutor Shane Parker will deliver his closing statement first."

 

[dogmatica]

This really has me worried. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/don-macleod-garland-strategy-1.3975466

 

[Kfox]

I would imagine crown would lay out its case as how they see it and it wont be excessivly long as to keep jury attention and keep it rather freah in their minds however i could be wrong...am at court housetoday and once all is done and am allowed to will let u know how things go

 

[MistyWaters]

Maybe the shed wasnt part of the design but maybe the pump was physically mounted to the floor and walls with bolts and an extensive array of support parts. I am pretty sure there were various parts and connections and in order to simulate a down-hole well pump they may have had to mount certain parts to the shed itself. Like the floor and the walls.

They would have had to have built a simulated bottom of an oil well which I am pretty sure started to have lots of parts to it.
Rather than disassemble anything it may have been much easier to move the whole shed.

Just assuming this was the reason because that one witness seemed to allude that AL owned the shed.

Thanks for the explanation.

Just to note, Garlands involvement in the patent, it just seems so crazy - that he once used false Chemistry credentials while impersonating a dead boy, then goes on to murder 3 people, supposedly because was wrongly denied credit while performing the function of an electrical engineer on an unsuccessful patent....




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[olivebpa1]

Wondering if the reporters will do the same type of live tweeting of the closing args. Has anyone seen that before?

I don't imagine Defense will say much at all TBH. If there was something they wanted to get across, there would have been more from them during testimony. suppose the best they could try for is reasonable doubt... I just don't see them really trying for it - there is just too much stacked against them. I think they'll be brief and then sit down and shut up, as it has basically been all along.

How long is the Crown allowed to speak for? Is it time-limited?
Who goes first?

The only other trial I've followed through Twitter is the bosma trial and the reporters did live tweet the closing arguments the same way as the rest of the trial.

 

[Hatfield]

Wondering if the reporters will do the same type of live tweeting of the closing args. Has anyone seen that before?

I don't imagine Defense will say much at all TBH. If there was something they wanted to get across, there would have been more from them during testimony. suppose the best they could try for is reasonable doubt... I just don't see them really trying for it - there is just too much stacked against them. I think they'll be brief and then sit down and shut up, as it has basically been all along.

How long is the Crown allowed to speak for? Is it time-limited?
Who goes first?

It sure is going to be interesting how the closings go.

Im curious how much detail the prosecution will go into and how much they will try to explain DGs movements that day.

For the defense I am guessing they will try to say that the prosecution did not prove DG was the one who committed the murders because none of DG DNA or anything else at the L's house ties directly to DG. It may be just a brief sentence or two from the defense is my guess.

I think the defense knows the outcome is going to be guilty no matter what they do at this point so I suspect they will be very brief. They dont want to inflame the jury and if they try to say outlandish theories it will backfire and they know it.

Ive been somewhat surprised at the defense or lack thereof throughout this trial.

If it was this bad for them then surprised they didnt try for a sentencing plea deal before now.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

It sure is going to be interesting how the closings go.

Im curious how much detail the prosecution will go into and how much they will try to explain DGs movements that day.

For the defense I am guessing they will try to say that the prosecution did not prove DG was the one who committed the murders because none of DG DNA or anything else at the L's house ties directly to DG. It may be just a brief sentence or two from the defense is my guess.

I think the defense knows the outcome is going to be guilty no matter what they do at this point so I suspect they will be very brief. They dont want to inflame the jury and if they try to say outlandish theories it will backfire and they know it.

Ive been somewhat surprised at the defense or lack thereof throughout this trial.

If it was this bad for them then surprised they didnt try for a sentencing plea deal before now.

We don't seem to see as many plea deals in Canada for murder cases.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[PrincessButtercup]

If the shed was part of the design, it would have been removed from the property when Garland's work was removed, and it wasn't.

I can see AL leaving the shed because he had no use for it or no where to put it, maybe he had PG ask her parents if they minded him just leaving it there. They seem like a family that could use all the storage they could get.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[JadeSLeuth]

I would imagine crown would lay out its case as how they see it and it wont be excessivly long as to keep jury attention and keep it rather freah in their minds however i could be wrong...am at court housetoday and once all is done and am allowed to will let u know how things go

Awesome, thank-you Kfox! We'll all be looking forward to hearing your story later!

:cheers:

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 2m2 minutes ago
At Douglas #Garland trial for closing arguments. Largest crowd I've seen here since the first day.

 

[olivebpa1]

Sounds like it is busy at the courthouse today.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 1m1 minute ago
There IS an overflow courtroom available (1204) #Garland

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 2m2 minutes ago
People are pushed up against courtroom doors hoping to get into one of two rows not reserved for family/media #Garland

 

[olivebpa1]

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 1m1 minute ago
There IS an overflow courtroom available (1204) #Garland

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 2m2 minutes ago
People are pushed up against courtroom doors hoping to get into one of two rows not reserved for family/media #Garland

I didn't realize that there were only two rows available for the public. So in the Overflow courtroom do they show video?

 

[MistyWaters]

Garland lived on the property for much of his life - it was his home. Liknes had no reason to put a shed on Garland property, so naturally I wonder whether he paid rent.

The point is that payment to rent space on the property would clarify the business relationship between Liknes and Garland. If there was no payment, it suggests one type of business relationship (one consistent with Garland's claims), if there was payment, another type.

Okay. Well I can understand why questioning that relationship would be appropriate in Small Claims Court.

But in a murder trial I think the defence team would risk crossing the line into blatant antagonization of the jury if they went down any road that insinuated Garland was justified in planning to commit diabolical murders over a failed well pump.







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bravo]

I didn't realize that there were only two rows available for the public. So in the Overflow courtroom do they show video?

Yes they do.

 

[olivebpa1]

Okay. Well I can understand why questioning that relationship would be appropriate in Small Claims Court.

But in a murder trial I think the defence team would risk crossing the line into blatant antagonization of the jury if they went down any road that insinuated Garland was justified in planning to commit diabolical murders over a failed well pump.







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree. In terms of a murder trial why a shed was on the property and whether or not he paid rent means absolutely nothing. I don't think Alvin took advantage of Garland but for argument's sake let's say he did. It still does not justify murdering three people. The defense really has no argument here so why even bring it up.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Meghan GrantVerified account ‏@CBCMeg 3m3 minutes ago
First row in gallery is all homicide cops (10ish) who would have worked Operation Amber -- Many for days on end w/out going home #Garland

Bill GravelandVerified account ‏@BillGraveland 5m5 minutes ago
Closing arguments only 10 minutes away in the Douglas #Garland triple murder trial. The case goes to the jury tomorrow.