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

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Its not a "hatred", its more bewilderment that they can defend certain people with a straight face. I am no expert in law but its been my understanding that they know the evidence that is stacked against their client prior to the trial starting/plea being made. When faced with that information I cant believe that this type of thing even hits the court room. Do they not counsel their client to make a logical choice in their plea?

I understand there is a need for fair trial and representation but cant comprehend how these type of cases can still go through. But I understand that is only my opinion.

As it has been said 100 times before, the job of the defence lawyer in many of these cases isn't to prove the guy didn't do the crime. Their job is to make sure that the justice system is unbiased and to make sure the prosecution provides all evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty...they are not defending the actual person per se but the judicial process.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Valerie Fortney
@ValFortney
Cross examination by defence lawyer Jim Lutz: suggests the cameras create one blended image. Yes, says Gagnon. #Garland


Defence trying to poke holes in the validity of the photos. How does this lawyer ask these types of questions without gagging on his own bile at the same time?

Very likely the same things were said about the defence lawyers for:

Robert Baltovich, Richard Brant, James Driskell, Anthony Hanemaayer, Clayton Johnson, Dinesh Kumar, David Milgaard, Gregory Parsons, Guy Paul Morin, Tammy Marquardt, William Mullins-Johnson, Romeo Phillion, John (Jack) Salmon, Sherry Sherrett-Robinson, Thomas Sophonow, Steven Truscott, Kyle Unger, Erin Walsh, Jack White, Ron Dalton, Randy Druken, Gordon Folland, Peter Frumusa...and every other person wrongfully convicted but not famously enough for you to have heard of them.

https://www.aidwyc.org/cases/historical/

Canada does not have a good record when it comes to wrongful convictions of people who were seen at the time as clearly guilty. If you want Garland to go to jail for the rest of his life and not need to question the validity of that result, you need Mr. Lutz asking those very questions on your behalf.

I wonder if any of the police, prosecutors, judges, and pitch-fork carrying citizenry gagged on bile at all when the convictions I listed above were undone in some cases after the best years of the person's life had been taken from them for something they never even did and the real guilty person went unpunished?

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Once again I have to ask myself how a defense lawyer can stand up and try to support an individual like this when they have to know he is clearly guilty. Unbelievable.

Originally Posted by greyshep

How does this lawyer ask these types of questions without gagging on his own bile at the same time?

In the words of the immortal MBates, I will quote his post. I hope this will put this kind of drivel to rest, because presumption of innocence is a thing. The Charter is a thing.

Ok, I'll bite...

Criminal defence lawyers are statistically among the lowest paid and hardest working members of the profession, who by the very nature of the people and subject matter they deal with, necessarily operate with the highest regard for ethics.

Your righteous indignation betrays your superficial understanding of what it means to have a justice system as typically defined in an advanced constitutional democracy.

You see, to avoid the appalling injustices of rule by lynch mob or totalitarian decree, one must accept that an integral part of a system that seeks (and sometimes even provides) truly just outcomes is to ensure that a person who the government declares through its armed officers should be imprisoned has his or her rights protected in a fair and impartial hearing.

In that sense, I defend people charged with heinous crimes so that you and the rest of society can sleep at night unencumbered by worry that innocent people are languishing away in prison falsely punished on your behalf for things they did not do.

Defence lawyers have families, just like you. Walk the same streets as you. Are victims of crime just like you. We suffer through horrific images and evidence no more no less than do police, judges, prosecutors, and jurors.

Your employ of 'morality' as a measure of what defence lawyers must lack in order to defend "people like that" misses completely that it is society's very application of morality which gives the defence lawyer his mandate.

It is precisely because I serve the morality of a society governed by the rule of law that I not only defend "people like that" but do so with pride, a true sense of purpose, and I sleep just fine.

I will certainly agree with you it takes special people to be good criminal defence counsel. But not because they reap fame and fortune through corruption of their morals. Rather, because we ignore the angry mob mentality, the threats, the sneers and the jokes and we fearlessly make arguments on behalf of those who have often times no other hope and to whom it would be all too easy for us to act unjustly.

Parenthetically, on occasion, we even have the privilege and simultaneous terrifying burden of representing factually innocent people. Wrongfully accused. They are a real thing.

Eloquence and wit aside, boiled down to its essence - it's an incredibly tough job at times - but somebody's gotta do it. And it is fairly clear you will not be answering the call. So...you're welcome.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by MBates

Very likely the same things were said about the defence lawyers for:

Robert Baltovich, Richard Brant, James Driskell, Anthony Hanemaayer, Clayton Johnson, Dinesh Kumar, David Milgaard, Gregory Parsons, Guy Paul Morin, Tammy Marquardt, William Mullins-Johnson, Romeo Phillion, John (Jack) Salmon, Sherry Sherrett-Robinson, Thomas Sophonow, Steven Truscott, Kyle Unger, Erin Walsh, Jack White, Ron Dalton, Randy Druken, Gordon Folland, Peter Frumusa...and every other person wrongfully convicted but not famously enough for you to have heard of them.

https://www.aidwyc.org/cases/historical/

Canada does not have a good record when it comes to wrongful convictions of people who were seen at the time as clearly guilty. If you want Garland to go to jail for the rest of his life and not need to question the validity of that result, you need Mr. Lutz asking those very questions on your behalf.

I wonder if any of the police, prosecutors, judges, and pitch-fork carrying citizenry gagged on bile at all when the convictions I listed above were undone in some cases after the best years of the person's life had been taken from them for something they never even did and the real guilty person went unpunished?

I am sorry if I have personally offended you and your passion for the role of the defence.

Its not going to change how I feel about this situation though. I am amazed how aggressive people on this board can get when someone expresses a personal opinion of current events.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

In the words of the immortal MBates, I will quote his post. I hope this will put this kind of drivel to rest, because presumption of innocence is a thing. The Charter is a thing.

This thread has really illuminated, for me at least, the importance of the criminal defense lawyer. Taken out of the television and put in a context as a protection not only of an individuals rights to due process, but as a check to ensure due diligence, has really modified my view of the system as a whole.

Thank you to everyone who have been able to bring this point out. I don't think I will ever think of a defense lawyer as someone defending a client as much as someone defending the very concept of our system.

[automaton 3]

Criminal defense lawyers fill one of the toughest, and most essential roles of our legal system.

Unfortunately their trade is often the victim of Hollywood dramatization. The members of the defense bar that I know, are some of the hardest working, serious and ethical people out there. There are some fly-by-nighters out there for sure, in my opinion they are a small minority.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by greyshep

I am sorry if I have personally offended you and your passion for the role of the defence.

Its not going to change how I feel about this situation though. I am amazed how aggressive people on this board can get when someone expresses a personal opinion of current events.

Aggressive? Probably because you're actively criticising a role that is commendable and essential to the functionality of any fair legal system.

If you don't like the optics, that's totally ok, but if you think questioning the morality of an already thankless job that serves to protect our human rights isn't going to inspire an equal amount of disgust to what you're feeling and expression of personal opinions, then you're wrong.

Just as it's your right to express an opinion, it's others' right to express theirs in contradiction.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by greyshep

I am sorry if I have personally offended you and your passion for the role of the defence.

Its not going to change how I feel about this situation though. I am amazed how aggressive people on this board can get when someone expresses a personal opinion of current events.

In your view what should be the process for a crime like this. How should Garland be defended and who should do it? And would this type of defense stand up to appeal.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by greyshep

I am amazed how aggressive people on this board can get when someone expresses a personal opinion of current events.

The issue isn't with you expressing an opinion. It's the snotty way you've gone about expressing it, casting aspersions on the character of someone you know nothing about. That's what people are reacting to.

You may not like that there are defence lawyers for the scummiest of the scummiest amongst us, but you should. Without a proper defence for the accused, the entire system falls apart. You should be glad that there is balance to the scale.

You should also crawl off the cross of martyrdom you've constructed for yourself. Jesus doesn't like the competition.

[greyshep]

Well obviously I touched a nerve, cause I see nothing but a waterfall of upset folks criticizing and jumping on a personal observation.

Sorry fellas. Lets all calm down a bit alright? I will try be more careful with my expressions/observations so I dont incite such an army of anger. (even though it feels like I have to curtail my opinion)

Lets try to get the thread back on topic of this specific case now.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by Minnie

You should also crawl off the cross of martyrdom you've constructed for yourself. Jesus doesn't like the competition.

Oh my goodness. Give that garbage a rest please. Lets move on.

[CedarMeter]

Ya, it's not looking good for, Garland. Lock em up with the sodomites.

[Flash Walken]

"I see that you have made arguments contrary to my opinion, but I'm not going to really read them or incorporate them into my thinking if it means re-examining my pre-existing, uninformed belief. I'm just going to re-state my previously stated, uninformed opinion more assertively and then suggest people who disagree with me stop responding so I don't have to continue to dismiss conflicting information and opinions because I don't like the way they make me feel."

[morgin]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Well obviously I touched a nerve, cause I see nothing but a waterfall of upset folks criticizing and jumping on a personal observation.

Sorry fellas. Lets all calm down a bit alright? I will try be more careful with my expressions/observations so I dont incite such an army of anger. (even though it feels like I have to curtail my opinion)

Lets try to get the thread back on topic of this specific case now.

I mean, you could try re-examining your opinion too, and realize that hey, maybe you hadn't thought of it from all angles and perhaps there's more to it. I'm not sure that's the same as curtailing, but maybe you are so emotionally invested in never being wrong that it feels that way.

[greyshep]

Wow guys. What would you like me to say so the thread can move back onto topic?

I already apologized for offending anyone with a passion on the defence topic. (obviously it came across as sarcastic?) Maybe another situation where written words are misunderstood as it doesnt capture all the emotions/meanings that were intended?

I'm not sure where dog piling on is furthering things here though.


I am glad there is defence lawyers willing to do this unenviable task.

[calgaryblood]

This forum is extremely lucky to have a poster like MBates part of the board. His posts are top notch.

[me_dennis]

DNA evidence being presented tomorrow... we'll see what the crown has put together. hopefully it's a home run for conviction.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Well obviously I touched a nerve, cause I see nothing but a waterfall of upset folks criticizing and jumping on a personal observation.

Sorry fellas. Lets all calm down a bit alright? I will try be more careful with my expressions/observations so I dont incite such an army of anger. (even though it feels like I have to curtail my opinion)

Lets try to get the thread back on topic of this specific case now.

Even while apologizing you hedge by saying you have an opinion, and that you have been somehow silenced because of the push-back in this thread.

I'm quite glad that we do not live in a society where neither the police, nor the prosecution, nor the defence lawyers, nor the public reading 500 word media articles, decide guilt.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

[Clarkey]

What is the detail around the aerial footage? Was it an amateur with a drone??

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

What is the detail around the aerial footage? Was it an amateur with a drone??

Nope, it was a company hired to photograph a few areas with nothing to do with the case. It was just a fluke that he was taking pictures on July first and second, the first day the bodies were there and the next day they weren't. The camera he uses is 1.5 million dollars or something like that.