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

[calgarygeologist]

Lots of interesting stuff came out today. I'm actually really fascinated by this kinda stuff and these types of cases. The weirder and really bizarre murders, trials and investigations are something that I can't turn away from.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by jayswin

How would the early details not make you think that far?

Regardless of the reasons for these particular murders the level of detail suggests this was no standard angry revenge killings.

I guess I was just thinking that he was mad at Alvin likens - reading about all the stuff he had made it clear to me that he seems to be more of a real sadistict SOB.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by jayswin

How would the early details not make you think that far?

Regardless of the reasons for these particular murders the level of detail suggests this was no standard angry revenge killings.

I was commenting on the "serial" comment. Based on what I have heard and read about this case I didnt see any reason to make the leap that he is a serial killer where he has done this kind of thing multiple times prior to the Liknes events.

From all the info I have read it seems like a pretty disturbing specific planned and targeted murder. Nasty stuff all around.

Does that make more sense to you? What is a "standard angry revenge killing" anyways???

[me_dennis]

with all the evidence released today, it makes you wonder what kind of sick plan Garland had for Alvin.

[Swift]

I hate reading this thread. I just hope the little boy's death was quick and painless, in his sleep preferably, and he didn't have to witness any of this horror or endure torture at the hands of this evil ####.

[jwslam]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Garland is one of the biggest losers I've read about in ages. Lives with mom and dad, murders a child and two adults over a stupid patent that no one profited from. Just ridiculous.

Yet he won't lose the right to live because our society is against capital punishment. There needs to be some law that implements reciprocal punishment so he gets what he dishes out.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by jwslam

Yet he won't lose the right to live because our society is against capital punishment. There needs to be some law that implements reciprocal punishment so he gets what he dishes out.

Would your idea reduce crime and reduce the cost of the legal system?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by greyshep

I was commenting on the "serial" comment. Based on what I have heard and read about this case I didnt see any reason to make the leap that he is a serial killer where he has done this kind of thing multiple times prior to the Liknes events.

From all the info I have read it seems like a pretty disturbing specific planned and targeted murder. Nasty stuff all around.

Does that make more sense to you? What is a "standard angry revenge killing" anyways???

Yeah, not quite sure what I meant either. I guess by "standard revenge killing" I mean someone who goes crazy over something and even if planned out, just gets the job done.

To me this showed that he had a "taste" or "fondness" if you will to murder, independent of this feud that led to the murders. Like he seemed like a capable murderer. Does that make more sense?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by jwslam

Yet he won't lose the right to live because our society is against capital punishment. There needs to be some law that implements reciprocal punishment so he gets what he dishes out.

Considering the case you just described something worse than capital punishment.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

A question for anyone with knowledge of our legal system from all the way back on page 1 of this thread. There was a quote from the judge telling the jurors not to google the garland case lest they may become influenced by what they find online.

This is really surprising to me because a friend of mine just did jury duty for a fairly prominent case here in Calgary and he said that it was absolutely insane how sequestered they were for the entire trial. No contact with the outside world, no TV, no Internet, no radio, no cell phone, no talking to family. All stayed at a hotel and under guard 24/7. Jurors couldn't even go for a smoke alone or talk to the hotel staff. They were totally shut out of civilization, except the trial, for a significant period of time. And the way he described it, it wasn't just after main trial while they were deliberating, it was the whole time.

So why would the judge be worried about jurors googling the case?

Also, jury duty sounded like hell. He said several of the jurors really didn't want to be there because they were hurt bad financially by being forced to attend. Like a stay at home mom on the jury who took care of her young kids while dad worked. They only let you out of jury duty if you are the only income. But it forced them to spend thousands they couldn't afford on child care while the trial was going on. And multiple jurors had similar stories.

Sorry for the derail, just really curious. This is obviously a tragic case and the guy sounds to be guilty as sin.


EDIT: texted my friend and he said it was only for deliberations. My mistake.

[pope04]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Would your idea reduce crime and reduce the cost of the legal system?

It'd sure help a lot of people sleep better at night.

[Mr.Coffee]

those books on how to commit murder and get away with it...

getting the impression based on the evidence here that he didn't read it very well.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

those books on how to commit murder and get away with it...

getting the impression based on the evidence here that he didn't read it very well.

What sick and twisted individual writes those kind of books anyways?

[CaptainCrunch]

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

A question for anyone with knowledge of our legal system, from all the way back on page 1 of this thread. There was a quote from the judge telling the jurors not to google the garland case lest they may become influenced by what they find online.

This is really surprising to me because a friend of mine just did jury duty for a fairly prominent case here in Calgary and he said that it was absolutely insane how sequestered they were for the entire trial. No contact with the outside world, no TV, no Internet, no radio, no cell phone, no talking to family. All stayed at a hotel and under guard 24/7. Jurors couldn't even go for a smoke alone or talk to the hotel staff. They were totally shut out of civilization, except the trial, for a significant period of time. And the way he described it, it wasn't just after main trial while they were deliberating, it was the whole time.

So why would the judge be worried about jurors googling the case?

Also, jury duty sounded like hell. He said several of the jurors really didn't want to be there because they were hurt bad financially by being forced to attend. Like a stay at home mom on the jury who took care of her young kids while dad worked. They only let you out of jury duty if you are the only income. But it forced them to spend thousands they couldn't afford on child care while the trial was going on. And multiple jurors had similar stories.

Sorry for the derail, just really curious. This is obviously a tragic case and the guy sounds to be guilty as sin.

I thought I had read that the jury in this case isn't actually sequestered and won't be until deliberations begin. But what you describe sounds pretty unfair.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by jwslam

Yet he won't lose the right to live because our society is against capital punishment. There needs to be some law that implements reciprocal punishment so he gets what he dishes out.

Yeah, state-sanctioned torture. That'll solve everything.

[CaptainCrunch]

I've always thought that there should be a voluntary death penalty. If your caught and have overwhelming evidence against you and you get a looong sentence, when you get to the cell there's a stool with a noose on it. If you want to exit, exit.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by greyshep

I thought I had read that the jury in this case isn't actually sequestered and won't be until deliberations begin. But what you describe sounds pretty unfair.

I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure he said they only deliberated for a day or two and that would be no big deal.

Can it change case to case?

[Coach]

Just a random curiosity:

What would need to be involved in giving someone capital punishment? Like, if a judge wanted to give that sentence, what would have to happen in order for it to actually go through?

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure he said they only deliberated for a day or two and that would be no big deal.

Can it change case to case?

Not a lawyer, but that's what I thought. The judge decides on a case by case basis.