5-year-old, grandparents disappear from Calgary home

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Stanathan

I think it's fair to say that despite not having bodies, the accused is the person who committed the crime. I have been told by a CPS violent crime investigator from a previous case that they will not lay charges in these types of cases unless they are convinced that the evidence they already have will be enough for a conviction of the charges.

They don't mess around with accusations and charges, they only get one shot at it.

My guess is that most cases of wrongful conviction also started with the police being convinced they had evidence to convict. I'm not trying to defend whoever did this crime but I'm seeing a whole lot of "innocent until proven guilty, except in this case we know it's him" sentiment in this thread which is disturbing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I agree. But there is also a lot of pressure on them to get an arrest in this case. Hopefully they have enough to get a conviction.

Was there? Until Monday afternoon, it was a missing persons case. The public focus was more on finding information that could lead to their being found rather than the need to arrest somebody.

IMO, a lot of the response is a post-hoc reaction to the arrest itself. Probably triggered (and quite naturally so) by the change of emotional state that occurs when that nagging feeling in the back of your mind that they are already dead is confirmed. A need for justice (or vengeance) then becomes the primary emotion for most.

[Stanathan]

Originally Posted by edslunch

My guess is that most cases of wrongful conviction also started with the police being convinced they had evidence to convict. I'm not trying to defend whoever did this crime but I'm seeing a whole lot of "innocent until proven guilty, except in this case we know it's him" sentiment in this thread which is disturbing.

You might be right if we are talking charges being thrown out in court but wrongful conviction means convicted of the charges then evidence later absolved the convict. This is not brought on by a lack of evidence as you suggest, sometimes it's because of planted evidence, juries or judges making poor decisions, lack if technology (no ability to test DNA a while ago, etc. Even then there is the appeal process.

Unless the CPS was under pressure to charge him early because they thought the public or someone specific was in imminent danger, I believe they feel they have what they need to convict and survive the appeal process.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Was there? Until Monday afternoon, it was a missing persons case. The public focus was more on finding information that could lead to their being found rather than the need to arrest somebody.

IMO, a lot of the response is a post-hoc reaction to the arrest itself. Probably triggered (and quite naturally so) by the change of emotional state that occurs when that nagging feeling in the back of your mind that they are already dead is confirmed. A need for justice (or vengeance) then becomes the primary emotion for most.

It was a public case with a ton of media attention throughout Canada. There was a lot of pressure to get some kind of answers - being finding these the missing or arresting someone for the crime.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Stanathan

You might be right if we are talking charges being thrown out in court but wrongful conviction means convicted of the charges then evidence later absolved the convict. This is not brought on by a lack of evidence as you suggest, sometimes it's because of planted evidence, juries or judges making poor decisions, lack if technology (no ability to test DNA a while ago, etc. Even then there is the appeal process.

Unless the CPS was under pressure to charge him early because they thought the public or someone specific was in imminent danger, I believe they feel they have what they need to convict and survive the appeal process.

I'm sure they feel that way on every charge, but everyone charged isn't found guilty.

[JeanLucPicard]

I was reading the Globe and mail article "Suspect appears in court as search for Calgary family continues". A lot of information (although superficial) about the history of business the grandparent was involved in. As the case progresses I'd be really interested in knowing more about what exactly was the business history of both Alvin Liknes and Garland, and any business they did together. Hopefully the release that information overtime.

[nik-]

I assume that they'll be trying to leverage a reduced sentence for him for the location of the bodies? Not sure how effective it will be in Canada, since there's no death penalty to take off the table and he's likely going to be in jail the rest of his life anyway.

[CubicleGeek]

Originally Posted by nik-

I assume that they'll be trying to leverage a reduced sentence for him for the location of the bodies? Not sure how effective it will be in Canada, since there's no death penalty to take off the table and he's likely going to be in jail the rest of his life anyway.

It will be a terrible injustice if he is found guilty and he uses the bodies as a bargaining chip to somehow avoid spending the rest of his life in prison. It actually sickens me that the bodies can be used for bartering better terms period.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by CubicleGeek

It actually sickens me that the bodies can be used for bartering better terms period.

Pros and cons to it though.

Finding the bodies gives that much more evidence in building a solid case. It may barter for better terms, but I would think it increases the odds of a guilty verdict. And in reality how much better are the terms going to be? Moving it down to one 1st degree and two 2nd degree instead?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Stanathan

You might be right if we are talking charges being thrown out in court but wrongful conviction means convicted of the charges then evidence later absolved the convict. This is not brought on by a lack of evidence as you suggest, sometimes it's because of planted evidence, juries or judges making poor decisions, lack if technology (no ability to test DNA a while ago, etc. Even then there is the appeal process.

Unless the CPS was under pressure to charge him early because they thought the public or someone specific was in imminent danger, I believe they feel they have what they need to convict and survive the appeal process.

I'm sure CPS has what they consider to be enough evidence to find him guilty, and the most likely scenario is that he is indeed guilty. But only the court (in this case or an appeal) can actually find him guilty. I'm just objecting to the number of posts here along the lines of "they wouldn't have charged him if they didn't think they could prove he was guilty, therefore he must be guilty". Let the courts decide.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Pros and cons to it though.

Finding the bodies gives that much more evidence in building a solid case. It may barter for better terms, but I would think it increases the odds of a guilty verdict. And in reality how much better are the terms going to be? Moving it down to one 1st degree and two 2nd degree instead?

You could also consider it a humanitarian gesture to the parents. Getting closure may be worth shaving a few years off the sentence. A deal with the devil is unpleasant but sometimes might be the right thing to do.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I doubt he gives up the bodies as it would hinder his chances to get acquitted. Unless the cops have a rock solid, 100% without a doubt case, there's still a chance he can walk, particularly with no bodies or murder weapon. Then it becomes about proving not only that he did it, but that a murder even took place. Unfortunately he has very little incentive to give up the location of the bodies because he's getting life regardless, there's no deal to get him out in 10 years or something because any such deal would cause a public outrage.

[Stanathan]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I'm sure CPS has what they consider to be enough evidence to find him guilty, and the most likely scenario is that he is indeed guilty. But only the court (in this case or an appeal) can actually find him guilty. I'm just objecting to the number of posts here along the lines of "they wouldn't have charged him if they didn't think they could prove he was guilty, therefore he must be guilty". Let the courts decide.

I didn't proclaim him guilty and I know how the legal system works. With that said, I believe he is guilty. This is a high profile case, it's not your regular criminal case of theft or assault etc. and therefore I doubt they are charging in this kind of case unless they believe without a shadow of a doubt there will be a conviction.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Stanathan

This is a high profile case, it's not your regular criminal case of theft or assault etc. and therefore I doubt they are charging in this kind of case unless they believe without a shadow of a doubt there will be a conviction.

OJ, Casey Anthony and Robert Blake strongly disagree. These things do happen. I agree they shouldn't charge without being 100% sure, doesn't mean they don't do it.

[calgarygringo]

Next thing is who defends this guy? I have not seen anything other than the lawyer for the fraud charges mentioned anywhere. Is the same one going to do this or what sleeze bag lawyer is going to try to spin this one backwards and sideways?:mad

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by calgarygringo

Next thing is who defends this guy?

Balfour Der is probably already on the case. That guys seems to specialize in defending high-profile scum.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by calgarygringo

Next thing is who defends this guy? I have not seen anything other than the lawyer for the fraud charges mentioned anywhere. Is the same one going to do this or what sleeze bag lawyer is going to try to spin this one backwards and sideways?:mad

Kim Ross is his lawyer according to this article.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/20.../21810941.html

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by calgarygringo

Next thing is who defends this guy? I have not seen anything other than the lawyer for the fraud charges mentioned anywhere. Is the same one going to do this or what sleeze bag lawyer is going to try to spin this one backwards and sideways?:mad

http://www.derburgis.com/who-we-are/

Seems to me these are the types of cases Balfour Der ends up defending (recall the guy who killed that family with his cement truck).

Anyways the lawyer who ends up taking the case won't be a sleeze bag. As much as everyone has revenge fantasies and is blood-lust after this guy, this case (as every case) requires due process.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by calgarygringo

Next thing is who defends this guy? I have not seen anything other than the lawyer for the fraud charges mentioned anywhere. Is the same one going to do this or what sleeze bag lawyer is going to try to spin this one backwards and sideways?:mad

Originally Posted by Table 5

Balfour Der is probably already on the case. That guys seems to specialize in defending high-profile scum.

This article from today states that the same lawyer that was assigned to him under the earlier charges was representing him in court under the murder charges.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/20.../21810941.html

The case was adjouned to Aug. 14. while Garland's lawyer, Kim Ross, awaits disclosure.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I haven't seen Balfour as the lawyer in any of the more recent high profile cases. Usually he's the go to guy in these cases. Also won't call him a scumbag cause I like having our justice system and not say Saudi Arabia's.