Douglas Garland Trial - Guilty- 1st degree- 3 counts / 75 years no parole. - Page 28 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Kjesse · 02-13-2017, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I find this to be a really interesting case and I'm trying to remain objective when watching the case unfold. The Crown and police have done an excellent job of putting together the crime that was committed but actually matching that crime to Garland requires a bit of speculation. It is unlikely that someone else killed the victims but at the same time there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to implicate Garland of murder. I wonder how long the jury will take to come to a decision or if it will become a hung juror situation.

The test is not scientific unassailable complete proof he did it. The test is "beyond reasonable doubt." It does not require speculation to conclude Garland did it, but it does require construction of the circumstances.

Based on the construction of the known evidence, "reasonable" doubt seems hard to find.

I could think of instances of "unreasonable" doubt. For example, it was really Garland's elderly parents who did this, and poor Garland jr. just happened to have a hate on for someone the 80-year-olds killed.

Kjesse · 02-13-2017, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

I didn't hear all the evidence, but it seems to be a very strong circumstantial case. Stronger than OJ.

Agreed, but, not because of the amount of evidence, but rather because OJ's lawyers gave the maximum push-back possible. The OJ lawyers made effort to make the LAPD look like the bad guys, and in part succeeded.

The Garland lawyers are not arguing race, planting evidence, turning this into a nation-wide race debate, or the like.

I'd say in both cases the accused did it and its been proven.

calgarygeologist · 02-13-2017, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delgar

The test is not scientific unassailable complete proof he did it. The test is "beyond reasonable doubt." It does not require speculation to conclude Garland did it, but it does require construction of the circumstances.

Based on the construction of the known evidence, "reasonable" doubt seems hard to find.

I could think of instances of "unreasonable" doubt. For example, it was really Garland's elderly parents who did this, and poor Garland jr. just happened to have a hate on for someone the 80-year-olds killed.

Garland could have "hired" someone to kill them though. He could have done various recon and background for the hired killer but had someone else do the actual crime. Part of the plan could have been for the hitman to bring the bodies back to the farm so that Garland could dispose of them. Yeah, it is a crazy thought.

GGG · 02-13-2017, 04:29 PM

If one element of the prosecution case has reasonable doubt is that enough to acquit?

Quote:

Alvin, Kathy and Nathan were still alive when they were taken from the crime scene Parker tells jury #Garland

My understanding of the ME evidence is that it is inconclusive whether they were killed in the house. So there is reasonable doubt if they left the house alive. I'm not sure that matters in the overall question of did he do it but legally if one element of the case has reasonable doubt then do you have to find not guilty?

greyshep · 02-13-2017, 04:39 PM

Kevin Martin
@KMartinCourts
"Mr. Garland did not cause the deaths of Alvin Liknes, Kathy Liknes, or Nathan O'Brien," says Kim Ross. #Garland

These are the type of definitive statements made by the defence that I personally would have a really hard time making in a case like this. Which is obviously why I could not be a defence lawyer.

I can understand trying to raise doubt, but a definitive statement like that would have to be a stretch for any lawyer wouldnt it?

*I am being specific to this case and the evidence that we have all been exposed to.*

automaton 3 · 02-13-2017, 04:43 PM

The reporter might be paraphrasing...?

I can see Ross saying something like "the Crown has not established that Garland..."

greyshep · 02-13-2017, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by automaton 3

The reporter might be paraphrasing...?

I can see Ross saying something like "the Crown has not established that Garland..."

Good point, maybe thats true.

darklord700 · 02-13-2017, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greyshep

Kevin Martin
@KMartinCourts
"Mr. Garland did not cause the deaths of Alvin Liknes, Kathy Liknes, or Nathan O'Brien," says Kim Ross. #Garland

The defense hammers on the only hole in the Crown's case and that is Garland's DNA was not found in the Liknes house. Without DNA, you cannot prove Garland was there that night to commit the murders according to the defense.

But you cannot use what the Crown did not prove (Garland's presence at the Liknes house) to nullify what the Crown has definitively proved (victims' DNA recovered from the Garland's farm and the aerial photos).

Kjesse · 02-13-2017, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Garland could have "hired" someone to kill them though. He could have done various recon and background for the hired killer but had someone else do the actual crime. Part of the plan could have been for the hitman to bring the bodies back to the farm so that Garland could dispose of them. Yeah, it is a crazy thought.

That's still first degree murder.

Kjesse · 02-13-2017, 06:34 PM

"not one drop of blood, not one strand of hair" (of Garland) at the Likness residence.

That's the best the defence has on its side to raise reasonable doubt. Hey, they have to try.

steve9981 · 02-13-2017, 06:48 PM

nm

Pizza · 02-13-2017, 11:18 PM

Northendzone · 02-14-2017, 08:05 AM

assuming garland did it, it seems amazing that there was no DNA at the Liknes house, but then there was stuff left around the farm.

I was wondering the other day, why the police stopped him the night they shot the video from HAWCS - why not let him get closer tot eh famr, to see what he was up to, although I suppose the issue wuith that approach could be that if he got to wherever it was that he was headed, he could have potentially destroyed a key piece of evidence.

on one hand garland clearly appears to be the most likely suspect; however, there sure seems like there is enough missing pieces to create reasonable doubt - of course my opinion is just based on what I have read, and I will admit I have not read every tweet summarizing the trial, and every article int eh enws.

GGG · 02-14-2017, 08:14 AM

Was any other DNA found in the house that didn't belong to the victims who couldn't be eliminated as a suspect?

If so it becomes the murderers DNA was not found at the scene.

So while it's surprising that a murderer didn't leave DNA at the scene it doesn't go to doubt because we know they got murdered and someone did it without leaving DNA.

CaptainCrunch · 02-14-2017, 08:41 AM

Wasn't one of the pieces of evidence found on the farm a bottle of DNA destroying cleaner?

I wouldn't be out of the question for him to wear enough clothing to limit contact and then to clean the areas he touched before he left the house.

undercoverbrother · 02-14-2017, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Count me in the group of folks that wants to know, and once I do, I'm very glad I got to find out.

I have enough images and memories in my head that I can't get rid of. I don't need anymore.

Hopefully, justice is served.

belsarius · 02-14-2017, 09:56 AM

It's not surprising for me that none of his DNA was found at the house. From the evidence this is someone who was meticulous in his planning and preparation. It seems reasonable to me that he would have been very aware of leaving evidence at the scene and been less concerned about his victims blood.

I believe everyone deserves their day in court but nothing in the closing argument really causes any doubt in my mind. Especially when they make definite statements which are contradicted by evidence. Garland needs to spend the rest of his miserable existence in prison.

DiracSpike · 02-14-2017, 09:59 AM

I agree, this guy planned it down to the last detail. I find it a bit ironic that if he had been satisfied killing them in their house instead of transporting them to his farm to enact his sick revenge fantasy it would have been orders of magnitude more difficult to find and subsequently convict him.

EldrickOnIce · 02-14-2017, 10:31 AM

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?

calgarygeologist · 02-14-2017, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGG

Was any other DNA found in the house that didn't belong to the victims who couldn't be eliminated as a suspect?

If so it becomes the murderers DNA was not found at the scene.

So while it's surprising that a murderer didn't leave DNA at the scene it doesn't go to doubt because we know they got murdered and someone did it without leaving DNA.

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.