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

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I was thinking the same thing.

Quick question: Would the defense would have been privy to this evidence before the trial? If so, what were they thinking with pleading not guilty? The crown has a hell of a case against him so far, almost flawless.

As I nod my head in agreement I still think back to the O.J trial and the great case the prosecution had early.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

I've read that as well. I find that fact amazing.

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

You'd think, but the "It'll never happen to me" mentality is incredibly pervasive among humans. For pretty much everything. I'd not be surprised if most criminals feel that they won't be caught, and if they are, they won't get the death penalty.

Has occasionally made me wonder if a random spin on the "Wheel of Justice" would be more of a deterrent to crime overall, as you don't know what the consequence of your crime (whatever it may be) would be.

It's because a lot of these crimes are committed with people in a "heated state" or they're crimes of passion. People just aren't thinking about consequences at all in those states, so the penalty is irrelevant.

[Frank the Tank]

Oh that makes sense. Never thought of it like that.

[Northendzone]

as I recall the defence will be cross-examining the forensic police officer today.

I wonder if we will get some insight into the defence's overall strategy as a result of this.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The other practical problem is that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.

No its not, but it does seem like an acceptable outcome for any person committing this type of horrible action against other human beings.

Not justice. Not vengeance. Not a deterrent.
Just removing some garbage.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

as I recall the defence will be cross-examining the forensic police officer today.

I wonder if we will get some insight into the defence's overall strategy as a result of this.

This is what I am wondering. It isn't clear at all at This point what the strategy is for the defense. That's probably by design, but I'm curious what way they're going to go.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

No its not, but it does seem like an acceptable outcome for any person committing this type of horrible action against other human beings.

Not justice. Not vengeance. Not a deterrent.
Just removing some garbage.

It's cheaper to keep them in prison until death. So from a purely garbage management point of you life without the possibility of parole is more effective.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

This is what I am wondering. It isn't clear at all at This point what the strategy is for the defense. That's probably by design, but I'm curious what way they're going to go.

They are probably just going to try and pile on little things to try and create as much doubt as they can. In an investigation this big, there are always going to be some things to point at.

If one custody seal was damaged on the thousands of pieces of evidence, they will try to use that. If one officer took lousy notes or contaminated something, they will play that up. If there was ever another potential suspect, they will use that. Another common tactic is to make up a phantom suspect that theoretically "could have" did the crime. Or they will try to show some type of bias against the defendant.

I followed 2 recent high profile murder trials where things like these were heavily used and in all those situations, the defendants were still found guilty. But there were times that did make you think.

And really, the defense has to make the juror think hard because their job is to show that they did the best job they could. The last thing you want is a defense that mails it in and then the murderer wins an appeal or something.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that we should sentence people to a lifetime of scientology.

They can become Xenu's butt concubine

[MBates]

For what it is worth, the defence lawyers on this file are both excellent people doing the most thankless job ever. I can't post about strategy or what they might be thinking because I know and speak to them.

But let me offer this suggestion - every time you hear evidence of the painstaking hours a police officer put into doing his or her job to the highest standards of competence and professionalism you should at least in part be thanking criminal defence lawyers like them.

While no court or inquiry has ever found actual misconduct by Calgary Police in respect of the David Milgaard wrongful conviction, it was only after the witnesses spent hours being interrogated by CPS that they suddenly gave statements about how Milgaard did it (when as we all know he did not).

I know nobody here was bashing the defence lawyers, but perhaps nobody was thinking about praising them either for the essential job they are doing to make our system legitimate.

And then they go home to their families carrying all of this stuff with them just like everyone else.

And by the way, making up a phantom suspect is not a real thing that is allowed never mind it being a common tactic. You need court permission to run a third party suspect defence and trust me the court doesn't just let you run it if there is no basis for it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MBates

And by the way, making up a phantom suspect is not a real thing that is allowed never mind it being a common tactic. You need court permission to run a third party suspect defence and trust me the court doesn't just let you run it if there is no basis for it.

Maybe not common (I shouldn't have said that), but they did use it recently in the Cody Legebokoff trial.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Maybe not common (I shouldn't have said that), but they did use it recently in the Cody Legebokoff trial.

Ok. I will assume that means judge allowed them to do it. Don't have time to investigate pre-trial motions. But a quick Google search reveals that he was subject to a contempt of court hearing for refusing to properly answer questions about the supposed other suspects. So I'm not sure this case supports you as much as it does me:

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/5724226

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MBates

Ok. I will assume that means judge allowed them to do it. Don't have time to investigate pre-trial motions. But a quick Google search reveals that he was subject to a contempt of court hearing for refusing to properly answer questions about the supposed other suspects. So I'm not sure this case supports you as much as it does me:

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/5724226

No, you're right. I was just going by recent memory of tactics used, but in retrospect it wasn't really a legitimate tactic as much as it was a desperate effort.

I doubt it will be the last time someone tries it though. I was just spitballing what might be tried based on what was tried recently.

[foshizzle11]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ay-9-1.3953278

The lead forensic investigator in the Douglas Garland triple murder trial told jurors none of the accused's fingerprints or DNA was ever found in the Liknes' home...

I find this the most interesting statement:

Officers returned to the Garland farm to seize those ashes from the burn pit 10 months after the initial search.

Would this statement give anyone some doubt about the evidence in the barrel? Do we know who's teeth, bones and jewelry were found in this burn barrel yet? Or are they too charred/ruined to provide DNA evidence?

This is all very interesting.

[burn_this_city]

Even if the burn barrel evidence is compromised the DNA found on the saws should be compelling enough.

Depending how hot the fire gets you can't get DNA from bones, this was the case in the Tim Bosma trial from last year.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Even if the burn barrel evidence is compromised the DNA found on the saws should be compelling enough.

Depending how hot the fire gets you can't get DNA from bones, this was the case in the Tim Bosma trial from last year.

That was a tough but interesting one to follow from a legal standpoint. Like you said, the bloodletting evidence was more than enough to show someone was murdered. The defense tried to play it as each co-defendant blaming each other, but in the end it didn't make a difference as the judge said it didn't matter who the trigger man was if both were involved in the planning and cover-up.

There were also chain of custody, contamination, and poor note keeping aspects pointed out by the defense, but the evidence was overwhelming.

Honestly, you can be 99.9% perfect as a crime scene investigator, but in a murder trial with a thousand pieces of evidence, that one mistake no matter how small becomes magnified. It just goes to show how hard their job must be.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by MBates

For what it is worth, the defence lawyers on this file are both excellent people doing the most thankless job ever. I can't post about strategy or what they might be thinking because I know and speak to them.

But let me offer this suggestion - every time you hear evidence of the painstaking hours a police officer put into doing his or her job to the highest standards of competence and professionalism you should at least in part be thanking criminal defence lawyers like them.

While no court or inquiry has ever found actual misconduct by Calgary Police in respect of the David Milgaard wrongful conviction, it was only after the witnesses spent hours being interrogated by CPS that they suddenly gave statements about how Milgaard did it (when as we all know he did not).

I know nobody here was bashing the defence lawyers, but perhaps nobody was thinking about praising them either for the essential job they are doing to make our system legitimate.

And then they go home to their families carrying all of this stuff with them just like everyone else.

And by the way, making up a phantom suspect is not a real thing that is allowed never mind it being a common tactic. You need court permission to run a third party suspect defence and trust me the court doesn't just let you run it if there is no basis for it.

I appreciate the tough job they have and commend them for their ability to represent others no matter how terrible. But I wish them nothing but the worst of luck in this specific case.

[CaptainCrunch]

some day, I hope we'll be able to plug into peoples memories and be able to download the crimes.

But of course then they'll be ruled inadmissible

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ay-9-1.3953278



I find this the most interesting statement:



Would this statement give anyone some doubt about the evidence in the barrel? Do we know who's teeth, bones and jewelry were found in this burn barrel yet? Or are they too charred/ruined to provide DNA evidence?

This is all very interesting.

It will be interesting how the prosecution places him in the home going forward if they have no direct evidence. They even admitted the key fob could have been from multiple vehicle types, not just a Tundra

[Otto-matic]

Tech expert today, going through hard drive of Garland.

Ina Sidhu ‏@CTVInaSidhu 7m7 minutes ago
More
In the crown's opening address we heard - research showed "a fascination with restrained and diapered women" #garland

Ina SidhuVerified account
‏@CTVInaSidhu
Graphic details -- Kraan found a folder called "gore" - last accessed July 1, 2014 - has 87 pics of dead or dismembered people

Ugh this guy was extremely messed up.