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

[Bill Bumface]

Is it possible that the defense was just hoping a door would get opened by the crown bumbling something, but it didn't happen, so they are now out of options for anything but a limited defense?

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by MBates

Would anyone be calling for leniency or lauding the accused as a gentleman if he had pleaded guilty and admitted to doing these things?

If he did these things, why on earth would you expect him to be kind to the family during the trial process?

I dont think anyone would be calling for leniency, but we might at least see that he does possibly have some remorse for the killing of the child. And possibly even have the thought that he might regret his actions as a whole.

I suppose that is essentially the only desire I would have with a guilty plea....that it shows he is taking ownership of his actions rather than dragging those left behind through more pain and anguish.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Is it possible that the defense was just hoping a door would get opened by the crown bumbling something, but it didn't happen, so they are now out of options for anything but a limited defense?

That seems like a bit of a 'Hail Mary.'

But sometimes you got what you got.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

I wouldn't read anything into this.

The defence will set out in their closing all of the missing pieces of evidence and all the problems with the evidence presented.

Is there enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the only rational inference is guilt? That will be up to the jury.

How effective will that be though, I mean by not calling any defense witnesses to impeach what the prosecution laid out is the jury going to pay a lot of attention to that in closing arguments?

Does this open the way for Garland to appeal based around ineffective defense council?

I'm guessing that the only thing that he can do is remind the jury what the definition of reasonable doubt is, and maybe say that the crown failed to reach that level with the evidence and testimony presented.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by greyshep

I dont think anyone would be calling for leniency, but we might at least see that he does possibly have some remorse for the killing of the child. And possibly even have the thought that he might regret his actions as a whole.

I suppose that is essentially the only desire I would have with a guilty plea....that it shows he is taking ownership of his actions rather than dragging those left behind through more pain and anguish.

Which I totally understand...I guess what I am saying though is, if he brutally murdered and maybe tortured these people, what particular reason is there for expecting remorse and regret and taking responsibility? It strikes me a little odd that people seem surprised he would during the trial be behaving in a way that does not show empathy for his fellow human beings.

[PepsiFree]

Yeah, if you think he's guilty, then reliving the trial or just going through it for his own entertainment is about 100 down on the "worst and most disgusting things Douglas Garland ever did" list. It's barely worth mentioning.

Why someone expects a guy who likely murdered three people (including a child) and did so in the ways the evidence is suggesting to have human decency is nearly baffling.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm against killing anyone. I'm all for giving the prisoner the choice if there's no doubt that he's guilty.

you can rot here for life, or here's some staples and a light socket.

I do advocate in bringing back sentences at hard labor.

I also believe that there should be two types of prisons. One for first time offenders or minor criminals that are heavy on rehabilitation and education and trying to give people the tools to function in society.

For the dirtbags who rape and kill and harm, and who molest kids or kill kids. Take em out to a field and give them 24 hours to dig a hole, then at the end of the 24 hours into the hole they go and the lid goes on top. The only possession you get is a bucket, that you can use to piss and poop in, get your soup in, or bail yourself out when it rains.

[tvp2003]

If there's a silver lining, it's that the Crown put forward a very compelling case against Garland based on what little physical evidence was available.

For someone who apparently researched this extensively and tried to cover up his heinous crime, it looks like Garland will have failed badly in his attempt.

[Clarkey]

Defending a Murderer, now on 2 and 7!

[calgaryblood]

Pretty crazy story on how they caught him.

http://m.calgarysun.com/2017/02/09/r...esting-garland

Infrared video captured triple-murder suspect Douglas Garland crawling through a stand of trees as a rookie Calgary cop moved in to arrest him.
Const. Jamie Parhar, now a three-year member of the Calgary Police Service, said she and her partner volunteered to assist investigators tracking Garland in the early morning hours of July 14, 2014.
But by the time Parhar reached the accused multiple killer’s location hiding in a line of trees not far from Garland’s Airdrie farm, she and her partner had become separated.
"I wasn’t concerned until HAWCS asked me where my backup was, where my partner was ," said Parhar, daughter of deputy police chief Sat Parhar.
That’s when Parhar decided to stop her pursuit and wait for other officers.

[CedarMeter]

That video footage they released is very cool. Hawcs is an amazing helicopter.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Pretty crazy story on how they caught him.

http://m.calgarysun.com/2017/02/09/r...esting-garland

Yes and while not conclusive evidence, its another one of the circumstantial piences and it suggests he knew he needed to run because he did something.

Let's say the defence put on evidence he ran because he did something else, let's say, had some pot plants on the acreage, and that gave him a reason to run.

In this case, they aren't going to put him on the stand to explain the running.

Admirable job by the police on this case, and the prosecution. I'm a little wondering the defence here, I know they're at the top of their game but I expected more pushback.

[calgaryblood]

This is the video of the arrest via the Hawcs helicopter.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mobile/off...drie-1.3277693

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, if you think he's guilty, then reliving the trial or just going through it for his own entertainment is about 100 down on the "worst and most disgusting things Douglas Garland ever did" list. It's barely worth mentioning.

Why someone expects a guy who likely murdered three people (including a child) and did so in the ways the evidence is suggesting to have human decency is nearly baffling.

I certainly didnt "expect" that he would, just hoped that maybe after seeing the evidence stacked against him before the trial that he might have a shred of humanity left and possibly spared the family the anguish. I realize its a bit of a dream, but stranger things I am sure have happened.

-------------------------------------

Also slightly relates to my question a few pages ago too. Maybe Mbates could answer this... How much of the evidence is seen by the defence prior to entering a plea? Would they have known that they were up against a stacked deck and could they have tried to counsel their client that it may not be worth proceeding? Does this happen?

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I don't care what all the regressive lefties have to say about what a 'civilized society' should do, this POS needs to get his arse beat in prison! Repeatedly!

Amen!

[Flames_Gimp]

He should get the Jeffrey Dahmer broomstick treatment

[DionTheDman]

Ah, yes. State-sanctioned torture. The hallmark of civilized society. I, too, think we should emulate ISIS and North Korea.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Ah, yes. State-sanctioned torture. The hallmark of civilized society. I, too, think we should emulate ISIS and North Korea.

enough with your regressive leftist jibber jabber!

[Montag]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Also slightly relates to my question a few pages ago too. Maybe Mbates could answer this... How much of the evidence is seen by the defence prior to entering a plea? Would they have known that they were up against a stacked deck and could they have tried to counsel their client that it may not be worth proceeding? Does this happen?

Yes, defense counsel are never surprised at what evidence the Crown presents at trial. They are required to give defense everything they intend to use at trial. This is called "disclosure". If you think about it, it would be pretty much impossible to properly defend someone without it.

In terms of persuading someone to plead guilty. Yes, a judge will take a guilty plea into account when deciding sentence generally. In this case, with 3 counts of first degree murder; there's really no leeway there. First degree murder is an automatic life sentence with parole set at 25 years. There is no incentive at all to plead guilty. It's within his right to get a full trial so he got one.

If it makes you feel better it might be helpful to think about the trial as a public service. When all this stuff is exposed to the public, nobody can say that he was treated unfairly or that there is some sort of chance there was a mistake.

This trial almost certainly cost millions to run. It is worth it. The public can rest easier knowing that they got the right guy. The public also knows that justice was served. It may also be helpful to consider that the government really does have unlimited resources when it comes to trials like these. Defense counsel protecting regular people from the overwhelming power of the government is very real.

[Slava]

Interesting thoughts from a lawyer on this case: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...975466?cmp=rss

Hopefully there aren't any holes and this guy is locked in one.