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

[me_dennis]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

One of the witnesses, I think it was the DNA expert, said that there was some DNA found in the kitchen from an unidentified male. It wasn't linked to Alvin, Douglas, Nathan or the O'Brian's younger boy. They wasn't much discussion or questioning about that DNA and I don't think that the defence asked about it during cross examination.

But wasn't there an estate sale at the Liknes house in the weeks leading up to the murder? It could have been anyone. I wonder how the DNA expert was able to weed out any unknown DNA found at the scene.

[ernie]

I know everything nowadays when the public discusses crimes such as this is DNA DNA DNA!

One thing to keep in mind is no DNA found at the scene does not equal he didn't leave any DNA. Just that if he did they couldn't find it or distinguish it adequately from other sources etc. From what I've seen there is adequate evidence to convict even if you ignore DNA completely.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

How difficult is it to plant DNA evidence? Anyone have a realistic guess, that doesn't include television examples. Or is the notion of effectively doing this something from a cheap whodunnit novel?
Assuming Garland is guilty, it's fortunate he didnt plant the DNA of at least one other individual behind at the residence.
That might have provided an avenue for reasonable doubt?

For the truck alone, the only DNA they found was when they removed and license plate and disassembled the truck bed. I would think secretly planning DNA in those areas would be pretty hard.

[Slava]

I suppose the evidence of him being at the house is circumstantial, but there is no doubt they were at his farm and the defence noted that in their closing arguments. So it seems pretty much open and shut. They basically admitted the goings on at the farm, so unless there is some kind of evidence that someone else killed them at the house and decided to just bring them to the farm for him to do what he pleased it should be straight-forward.

And frankly, without a defence case of some kind it does boggle the mind how they would anticipate the jury coming to that kind of conclusion.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by me_dennis

But wasn't there an estate sale at the Liknes house in the weeks leading up to the murder? It could have been anyone. I wonder how the DNA expert was able to weed out any unknown DNA found at the scene.

If I remember correctly, the estate sale was earlier that day, so there would've been a ton of people coming and going in that house. Did the police ask for people who had been at the house that day to submit DNA so as to eliminate them from the investigation?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

If I remember correctly, the estate sale was earlier that day, so there would've been a ton of people coming and going in that house. Did the police ask for people who had been at the house that day to submit DNA so as to eliminate them from the investigation?

I don't know if they asked for or collected DNA but I remember the police asking anyone that was at the estate sale to stop by the community centre right after the family went missing. If I remember correctly they had, or expected, about 300 people.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Slava

I suppose the evidence of him being at the house is circumstantial, but there is no doubt they were at his farm and the defence noted that in their closing arguments. So it seems pretty much open and shut. They basically admitted the goings on at the farm, so unless there is some kind of evidence that someone else killed them at the house and decided to just bring them to the farm for him to do what he pleased it should be straight-forward.

And frankly, without a defence case of some kind it does boggle the mind how they would anticipate the jury coming to that kind of conclusion.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the prosecution was also being quite clear that the victims left the house alive so they sort of counter the DNA "problem" (which isn't really a problem) by placing the scene of the deaths to the farm.

[REDVAN]

Looks like this is in the hands of the jury right now.

The judge gave some evidence summaries according to the tweets. Reminding them certain facts of the case (for example, 1. that the defense agrees the victims are dead, 2. The images showing the green truck do not show the driver, etc).

Also reminding them that each count must be decided on separately.

Personally, I don't see how you can convict on 1 or 2, and not the third. But let's see how the jury decides. I am hoping for a quick verdict.

[GGG]

Are they allowed to go 2nd degree / Mansalughter for each charge?

If so there could be reasonable doubt that he planned and intended to kill the child or Grandma while still convicting him of 1st degree on the Grampa. But I agree you couldn't get not guilty on one and guilty on the others

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Looks like this is in the hands of the jury right now.

The judge gave some evidence summaries according to the tweets. Reminding them certain facts of the case (for example, 1. that the defense agrees the victims are dead, 2. The images showing the green truck do not show the driver, etc).

Also reminding them that each count must be decided on separately.

Personally, I don't see how you can convict on 1 or 2, and not the third. But let's see how the jury decides. I am hoping for a quick verdict.

I was a bit surprised with the length of time the judge took giving his instructions. I suppose its normal but I didnt realize he would do another review of the trial in a step by step manner. From reading the tweets it does make sense in that it should make the job of the jury a bit clearer though.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are they allowed to go 2nd degree / Mansalughter for each charge?

If so there could be reasonable doubt that he planned and intended to kill the child or Grandma while still convicting him of 1st degree on the Grampa. But I agree you couldn't get not guilty on one and guilty on the others

Garland was charged with 2nd degree for Obrien's death, so the Crown is already of the opinion that his death was not premediated.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are they allowed to go 2nd degree / Mansalughter for each charge?

If so there could be reasonable doubt that he planned and intended to kill the child or Grandma while still convicting him of 1st degree on the Grampa. But I agree you couldn't get not guilty on one and guilty on the others

Kevin Martin
@KMartinCourts
"There are four possible verdicts open to you on each count." Guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, or not guilty. #Garland


Yes each count (Alvin, Kathy, Nathan) will require a verdict. I could see a possibility that it goes 1st, 1st and 2nd.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Garland was charged with 2nd degree for Obrien's death, so the Crown is already of the opinion that his death was not premediated.

He was originally charged with second degree but it was upgraded to first degree just like the Grandparents. I believe that is why the Crown was trying to show evidence that the family was not killed in the home. Killing them (or Nathan specifically) outside the home would be premeditated and first degree.

[Slava]

I didn't realize that they had 13 jurors and then draw a card to exclude one. At any rate, the jury is now sequestered and will deliberate until 9pm. If no verdict is reached, they begin deliberations again at 9am and continue that schedule until they reach a verdict. Hopefully they make quick work of this and all get to sleep in their own beds this evening.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are they allowed to go 2nd degree / Mansalughter for each charge?

If so there could be reasonable doubt that he planned and intended to kill the child or Grandma while still convicting him of 1st degree on the Grampa. But I agree you couldn't get not guilty on one and guilty on the others

The prosecution contends that they were killed at his farm. If the jury agrees that that is what happened, then first degree is the correct conviction for all three. If Nathan and Kathy were killed at the house, and Alvin taken to the farm for torture, then it would be second degree for the two, and first degree for Alvin.

You can't break into a house to kidnap (and ultimately torture and kill) one person, find three people, and then take all three to another place and then kill them, without it becoming first degree for the other two. If he killed Kathy and Nathan at the house, because they were "in the way" of getting to Alvin, it could be second degree, or possibly manslaughter.

I was surprised when I heard that it was three counts of first degree. Surprised and sickened. I guess I assumed that even the angriest person would be there to kill the man that he blames for a bad business deal. His wife and grandchild, I would have assumed, would be killed on site (only because they happened to be there), and the torture saved for the primary target.

Maybe Kathy was also a target. Maybe his plan was to kill her in front of Alvin, to double up the torture. That might be why he (allegedly) kept her alive, and took her to the farm. Which would mean that Nathan also warrants first degree, because now there were two people to kill in front of Alvin, before Alvin met his end.

This is some of the worst sh*t I've ever had the displeasure of thinking about. I could never be a defense lawyer, or a prosecutor, or a homicide cop.

[CedarMeter]

Kevin Martin ‏@KMartinCourts 10m10 minutes ago
More
Jurors will deliberate until 9 pm tonight and continue at 9 in the morning if they haven't reached a verdict. #Garland

[Slava]

Some interesting information here about the search and police actions when they were hoping to find attached least Nathan alive. It's pretty chilling and sad though, given that we know the outcome. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/ful...-in-your-midst

[killer_carlson]

i bet the jury is decided tonight with a verdict tomorrow.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Slava

I didn't realize that they had 13 jurors and then draw a card to exclude one. At any rate, the jury is now sequestered and will deliberate until 9pm. If no verdict is reached, they begin deliberations again at 9am and continue that schedule until they reach a verdict. Hopefully they make quick work of this and all get to sleep in their own beds this evening.

There were originally 14 (2 extras) but one was dismissed earlier, due to a death in his/her family, I believe.

[MBates]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...tley-1.3968039


Discuss.