Douglas Garland Trial - Guilty- 1st degree- 3 counts / 75 years no parole.

[Mccree]

Does the Jury sequestered tonight or tomorrow after the judges instructions?

[greyshep]

Kevin Martin
@KMartinCourts
No evidence of filings to show lock on Liknes home was drilled, says Ross. No evidence even of a drill. #Garland



How else would you create holes like that in a lock, seriously?

[me_dennis]

One thing I've never understood is how a jury member would NOT be biased after hearing all the evidence. Regardless of there being no evidence that places Garland at the Liknes home, or no evidence that the 3 were killed at the home, I feel like if I were a member of the jury, it would be hard to find him not guilty regardless of the lack of direct evidence as mentioned. I would probably think he's guilty based on the opening arguments.

I understand that it's "innocent until proven guilty" but personally, it would take a lot more to convince me that he's innocent (or not guilty I should say) versus convincing me that he is guilty.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Kevin Martin
@KMartinCourts
No evidence of filings to show lock on Liknes home was drilled, says Ross. No evidence even of a drill. #Garland



How else would you create holes like that in a lock, seriously?

For reference is anyone hasn't seen the photo



Not sure how Ross could say that.

[CaptainCrunch]

Can a lawyer object to a closing statement. In Canadian Law does the prosecution and defense have a right to rebut the closing statement?

[Otto-matic]

Ross said "violent and fatal struggle" happened in Liknes home- said yet if #Garland why was there no blood/DNA on floor mat of truck

Ross:-if the crown theory is correct and in Liknes home wearing Delta 2 shoes-there's no DNA on truck floormat he tells jury #Garland

Ross: "there is no blood or DNA found in the bed liner of that truck" #Garland

Ina Sidhu ‏@CTVInaSidhu 6m6 minutes ago
More
Ross says if someone is going to move bodies in daylight - you better make sure they're concealed. He says there are no bodies in that truck

Ross: There is nothing that places Douglas #garland in that house @CTVCalgary

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

For reference is anyone hasn't seen the photo

[IMG]

Not sure how Ross could say that.

To me its all just an attempt at misdirection. It really doesnt matter what was used to disable the lock. They are just grasping at anything that the defence can use to try establish some obscure form of "doubt".

[MBates]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Can a lawyer object to a closing statement. In Canadian Law does the prosecution and defense have a right to rebut the closing statement?

No not really. After closing arguments you can complain to the judge that your opponent has done something wrong / incorrect / misleading and ask for the judge to instruct the jury to ignore something that was argued.

[greyshep]

-Ross: white tarp "not laid out, covering" truck bed. "There are no bodies in that truck." #Garland

-If you don't want anybody to see what was in the truck, says Ross, you'd cover it better. #Garland

So apparently you have to completely cover the back of a truck for there to be bodies in the back of a truck. Interesting. They will have to include that advice in the next edition of how to kill and get away with it.

[Otto-matic]

Nancy Hixt ‏@NancyHixt 5s6 seconds ago
More
Ross: no evidence #Garland ever had a pair of shoes matching prints found at Liknes home (although empty box was found at Garland home)

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

Ross said "violent and fatal struggle" happened in Liknes home- said yet if #Garland why was there no blood/DNA on floor mat of truck

@CTVCalgary

Not that a rebuttal is needed, but if they get one, this opens a point for the Crown: No other DNA was found. Whoever killed them, they managed to not drop any or enough DNA to be discovered. Since this is clearly not a murder-suicide as the bodies were gone, and the DNA of the victims wound up at the Garland farm, what other possible conclusion is there?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by me_dennis

One thing I've never understood is how a jury member would NOT be biased after hearing all the evidence. Regardless of there being no evidence that places Garland at the Liknes home, or no evidence that the 3 were killed at the home, I feel like if I were a member of the jury, it would be hard to find him not guilty regardless of the lack of direct evidence as mentioned. I would probably think he's guilty based on the opening arguments.

I understand that it's "innocent until proven guilty" but personally, it would take a lot more to convince me that he's innocent (or not guilty I should say) versus convincing me that he is guilty.

This is the kind of thing I'm questioning of myself too. Not exactly the bias per se, but questioning my use of common sense vs. cold hard logical facts.

Seeing as there is no DNA evidence connecting him to the home, if one was being absolutely logical, you would have to acquit, right?

However, common sense tells me that there was a motive, his truck was seen leaving the scene, and there were aerial images of three bodies on his property, and therefore he's likely guilty.

Is a jury member supposed to be a robot in these situations?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

Nancy Hixt ‏@NancyHixt 5s6 seconds ago
More
Ross: no evidence #Garland ever had a pair of shoes matching prints found at Liknes home (although empty box was found at Garland home)

There was footage of him wearing those shoes at Princess Auto

[calgarygeologist]

I find this to be a really interesting case and I'm trying to remain objective when watching the case unfold. The Crown and police have done an excellent job of putting together the crime that was committed but actually matching that crime to Garland requires a bit of speculation. It is unlikely that someone else killed the victims but at the same time there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to implicate Garland of murder. I wonder how long the jury will take to come to a decision or if it will become a hung juror situation.

[Ace]

The lack of DNA at the house is not Reasonable doubt in my opinion, reasonable doubt would be if they found someone else's DNA at the house. And if I was a juror trying to be a robot, the prosecution bringing up the suit evidence explains why there isn't any...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I find this to be a really interesting case and I'm trying to remain objective when watching the case unfold. The Crown and police have done an excellent job of putting together the crime that was committed but actually matching that crime to Garland requires a bit of speculation. It is unlikely that someone else killed the victims but at the same time there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to implicate Garland. I wonder how long the jury will take to come to a decision or if it will become a hung juror situation.

I didn't hear all the evidence, but it seems to be a very strong circumstantial case. Stronger than OJ.

[burn_this_city]

There was a mountain of evidence implicating Garland. He will be found guilty based on what was reported in the media. This isn't a highly circumstantial case, hell the bodies are seen from an aircraft above and their DNA was everywhere on the farm. Unless Grandma and Grandpa Garland did it there is only one suspect.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

There was a mountain of evidence implicating Garland. He will be found guilty based on what was reported in the media. This isn't a highly circumstantial case, hell the bodies are seen from an aircraft above and their DNA was everywhere on the farm. Unless Grandma and Grandpa Garland did it there is only one suspect.

I've this on TV before.

It was Garlands mortal enemy in an elaborate attempt to frame him.

[greyshep]

So much desperation in these arguments...

Valerie Fortney
@ValFortney
"No doubt there is DNA" of victims at #Garland farm; but it doesn't mean he caused their deaths. Says they are two separate events.

So I guess they are suggesting that all three went over there for a bbq around the burn barrel and fell in by accident?

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Kevin Martin
@KMartinCourts
No evidence of filings to show lock on Liknes home was drilled, says Ross. No evidence even of a drill. #Garland



How else would you create holes like that in a lock, seriously?

Looks like it was drilled. I learned long ago that when I drill metal to use a big ass magnet underneath to catch filings.