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

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

i bet the jury is decided tonight with a verdict tomorrow.

I bet it takes longer for the third murder charge against Nathan. Probably an easy decision to convict for first degree for the grandparents but will take longer to decide for what they'll convict him on for Nathan.

If I had to guess it'll be a second degree conviction for Nathan and two first degree convictions for the grandparents.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by MBates

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...tley-1.3968039


Discuss.

Accused killer Douglas Garland has a long history of criminality, cheating and living elaborate lies but jurors in his triple murder trial were not allowed to hear anything about his past offences.

Isn't that par for the course and fair?

[GGG]

Seems like reasonable exclusions.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Isn't that par for the course and fair?

I did not mean to suggest it was unfair. Just interested to hear others thoughts on what types of stuff do get routinely kept from the jury.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I bet it takes longer for the third murder charge against Nathan. Probably an easy decision to convict for first degree for the grandparents but will take longer to decide for what they'll convict him on for Nathan.

If I had to guess it'll be a second degree conviction for Nathan and two first degree convictions for the grandparents.

Because there is enough reasonable doubt that he left the house alive?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MBates

I did not mean to suggest it was unfair. Just interested to hear others thoughts on what types of stuff do get routinely kept from the jury.

I can understand (in some ways) why its kept from the jury, but does that come back in at sentencing? I realise that its a non-factor here, assuming he is convicted of first degree murder, but in a case where the judge has leeway are prior convictions considered?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MBates

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...tley-1.3968039


Discuss.

I get why this is kept "buried", but let me say what a ####ing scumbag.

#### him.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Because there is enough reasonable doubt that he left the house alive?

Because there could be reasonable doubt he went there with the intention of killing Nathan.

Maybe even a little doubt if he ever had intention of killing Nathan even if he did leave the house alive.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Because there could be reasonable doubt he went there with the intention of killing Nathan.

Maybe even a little doubt if he ever had intention of killing Nathan even if he did leave the house alive.

Once he took him from the house, with the other people he intended to kill, it became intent to kill. That's first degree.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MBates

I did not mean to suggest it was unfair. Just interested to hear others thoughts on what types of stuff do get routinely kept from the jury.

I guess it makes sense, he is being tried for these crimes, his prior history is separate from that.

I guess I would ask you though, if we had a person that had a history of kidnapping and killing teenage girls. And was on trial for kidnapping and killing a teenage girl, wouldn't that be a pattern that should be presented to the jury?

[Flames_Gimp]

this POS is guilty as hell...

[Montag]

Originally Posted by Slava

I can understand (in some ways) why its kept from the jury, but does that come back in at sentencing? I realise that its a non-factor here, assuming he is convicted of first degree murder, but in a case where the judge has leeway are prior convictions considered?

Yes, in sentencing previous criminal convictions are taken into account.

[Snuffleupagus]

After seeing the photo below when he was in his 30's the hair on the back of my neck stood up, I'm almost positive I got into a fight with this guy over a stupid game of pool in the early 90's. After the bouncers broke it up I still remember how he kept hollering "I'm so going to enjoy killing you"

Jesus!

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by 4X4

The prosecution contends that they were killed at his farm..

Wasn't there something a while back about how the volume of blood in the home was the deciding factor when the police started first calling it a murder instead of a disappearance? Or did they present some evidence that showed they were alive after being taken from the home.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by Slava

I can understand (in some ways) why its kept from the jury, but does that come back in at sentencing? I realise that its a non-factor here, assuming he is convicted of first degree murder, but in a case where the judge has leeway are prior convictions considered?

Criminal record is always a main factor for the judge to consider in sentencing.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess it makes sense, he is being tried for these crimes, his prior history is separate from that.

I guess I would ask you though, if we had a person that had a history of kidnapping and killing teenage girls. And was on trial for kidnapping and killing a teenage girl, wouldn't that be a pattern that should be presented to the jury?

The crown can apply to introduce similar fact evidence at trial.

Basically, it's rarely done and complicated. But it can be done in that situation.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Wasn't there something a while back about how the volume of blood in the home was the deciding factor when the police started first calling it a murder instead of a disappearance? Or did they present some evidence that showed they were alive after being taken from the home.

IDK, but off the top of my head, I could see why the physical amount of blood in the house would make the police theorize that someone was murdered. After investigation, they discover that there were three people in the house, and then the amount of blood could become any combination of one person being murdered, and two people taken captive, without wounds... Or maybe two people injured badly... Or maybe three people injured bad enough to lay in the box of a truck for a 25 minute ride to a torture barn.

[Clarkey]

The rehabilitation process failed poor Dougie Garland. If only his prior path as a former class president, med student, meth lab running drug entrepreneur, deceased child identity stealing thief genius was properly rehabilitated by the system this unfortunate circumstance could have been avoided. This case is a further argument for leniency in how we treat of criminals in our superior Canadian society and legal system. All you who support this "alleged" child murdering, psychopathic, sociopath, degenerate, depraved, deviant, torturing murderer write your favorite MLA immediately! Also, forget about taking in foreign refugees, there are hundreds of people like Dougie that need homes in our communities with your children to recover and rehabilitate, sign up now!

[GGG]

Is there any risk of reasonable doubt being found if the jury doesn't believe the prosecution claim that they left the house alive?

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by MBates

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...tley-1.3968039


Discuss.

From that article:

...a psychologist determined that he had "little violence potential to others."