5-year-old, grandparents disappear from Calgary home

[GGG]

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

These people deserve a vigorous defense. Not for 19 out of 20 that are guilty but for the 1 of 20 that is incorrectly charged. These lawyers provide a neccessary service for our judicial system.

[Table 5]

Nobody's implied that they don't need defense, or the lawyers themselves are scum. Everyone deserves a lawyer, and somebody has to be that lawyer. I was just noting that these types of cases usually seem to go to that guy.

[Antithesis]

Just want to post my condolences to the family in this horrible situation. I can't imagine what they are going through, and will remember how blessed I am the next time I have to deal with some petty issue that turns into a major catastrophe for one of my children.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by GGG

These people deserve a vigorous defense. Not for 19 out of 20 that are guilty but for the 1 of 20 that is incorrectly charged. These lawyers provide a neccessary service for our judicial system.

I would even argue that in this case a vigorous defense is even more vital than normal. He's pretty much tried, convicted, and deserving the resurrection of the death penalty in Canada in the court of public opinion without even the presence of the bodies of his alleged victims.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I would even argue that in this case a vigorous defense is even more vital than normal. He's pretty much tried, convicted, and deserving the resurrection of the death penalty in Canada in the court of public opinion without even the presence of the bodies of his alleged victims.

I'm sure the family wants to make sure the right person is punished for this as well and not just some poor sucker who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time (I'm not saying that's the case here).

[MillerTime GFG]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I'm sure the family wants to make sure the right person is punished for this as well and not just some poor sucker who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time (I'm not saying that's the case here).

That just shows how much in the public eye this guy is, and how he's already guilty. No one would have assumed you thought that was the case here, but everyone is afraid to even show the slightest bit of compassion towards the suspect. (I'm not saying he should receive any)

[Kjesse]

I'm not sure how anyone can say this guy is guilty. The only basis on which you could think that is, you trust that the police have evidence that he killed them. I haven't heard much... there was a struggle in the house, there was a green truck, and the police swarmed the acreage looking for evidence. We have no idea what they found there, though we know they must have found something.

I tend to trust the police also-- they know what they're doing and wouldn't lay frivolous charges in such a public case. But its impossible for a member of the public to say they know he did it. We all have no clue.

Look what happened with that Vader guy... he was charged and those charges were stayed because they had a lack of evidence. Its not impossible that could happen here too.

[Resolute 14]

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?

Given Canada uses concurrent sentencing, as long as any Murder 1 charge is on the table, he's looking at 25 years before an option for parole. Pleading both charges down to second degree could reduce that to as little as 10 years - but that would be a major grenade for the Crown to juggle. The public backlash would be enormous if he got off lightly. Maybe they split the difference and agree to life with no parole for something like 18 years?

And, of course, this does presume that Garland is the guilty party and that the evidence makes this guilt pretty much unquestionable.

[rayne008]

One lingering thought which has been horribly haunting me.

spoilered for a breaking bad reference.

Spoiler!

- there was evidence of blood at crime scene and drag marks
- those aerial views of forensic workers at the farm
- bomb squad deployed due to hazardous materials on site
- this guy was a chemist.
- CPS determined it was now a homicide investigation

[Minnie]

Rayne, my husband and I were talking about that last night. Horrible to contemplate.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given Canada uses concurrent sentencing, as long as any Murder 1 charge is on the table, he's looking at 25 years before an option for parole. Pleading both charges down to second degree could reduce that to as little as 10 years - but that would be a major grenade for the Crown to juggle. The public backlash would be enormous if he got off lightly. Maybe they split the difference and agree to life with no parole for something like 18 years?

And, of course, this does presume that Garland is the guilty party and that the evidence makes this guilt pretty much unquestionable.

Canada does not have concurrent sentencing for murders anymore. It is now consecutive.

[Hockeyguy15]

Never watched it, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Never watched it, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

They're talking about the possibility that the bodies were "disposed" of using chemicals to completely break them down.

[Stanathan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

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.

American cases, this is Canada, therefore not relevant.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given Canada uses concurrent sentencing, as long as any Murder 1 charge is on the table,

What's the rationale behind concurrent sentencing?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Stanathan

American cases, this is Canada, therefore not relevant.

Same burden of proof required, same jury system, which means the same that happened in those cases (beyond a reasonable doubt) can apply here.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Canada does not have concurrent sentencing for murders anymore. It is now consecutive.

Ahh, yes, you are mostly right. The courts have the option to make the parole ineligibility consecutive but it isn't mandatory. Given Garland would be 79 after 25 years in jail, my point is functionally unchanged - pleading down one count of first degree murder won't make any real practical difference. He's likely to die in jail as it is, and certainly would if he ended up with 45 years before parole. A plea bargain to show the location of the bodies would still likely involve both counts being reduced. Though it would be amusing if he did that, and the judge used the consecutive sentencing aspect to give him 30 years before parole. That'd be fitting...

Originally Posted by darklord700

What's the rationale behind concurrent sentencing?

IANAL, so can't say for certain. I would guess that it relates to the fact that the Canadian justice system places far more weight on the idea of rehabilitation over punishment than the American system does.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by darklord700

What's the rationale behind concurrent sentencing?

What's the rationale behind sentencing someone to multiple consecutive life sentences?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I hope that if there is evidence that he messed with the bodies that they throw any/all tampering with evidence charges against this guy.

The last thing you would want to do is send a signal to (rational) murders-to-be that destroying bodies increases your chances of getting a reduced sentence.

[nik-]

I think "tampering with evidence" charges are pretty damn irrelevant when you're facing three murder charges.

Not sure that's any deterrent at all.