Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 June 2014 - #4

[otto]

I do believe that story was from the 2005 court transcript. Although it wouldn't be the first time a story was told to gain sympathy from the court, one would be intelligent not to make up a story during testimony. I suspect there is some truth to it.

He had two years at the University of Edmonton in the faculty of science, his grades were high enough in 1979 for admission to the undergraduate department in the faculty of medicine. He claims that he had a horrific vehicle accident, had a breakdown, quit school, and was mixing chemicals required to make meth; some of which were lethal. He was charged in relation to drugs, fled from Alberta to British Columbia, assumed the identity of Matthew Hartley (who died in a vehicle accident at the age of 14, his 12 year old sister Jill died at the same time). For seven years, Garland lived in Vancouver and claimed to have BSc in Chemistry. He worked for the gov't as a quality control analyst. With 30 staff under his direction, he had a breakdown in 1997 and was fired. This was his second breakdown. He was denied unemployment claims because of identify theft. He returned to Alberta and successfully represented himself in an appeal for benefits. He was imprisoned for 39 months for the drug convication. The identity theft was dealt with at the time of sentencing. He lived on his parents farm until recently, where he finds himself in jail ... charged with attempting to use a false identity for an indictable offence.

There's probably some truth to the facts that he had a breakdown in his third year of university and again that he had a breakdown when he had to much responsibility at work. He was fired in 1997. I'm not convinced that he fell asleep at the wheel. Maybe it happened. It's quite possible that he has had a third recent breakdown related to stress ... perhaps financial stress. Does he attempt to blame some sort of external force for his breakdowns? How has he explained he previous breakdowns to his parents?

http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/...2005/03/03/garland-v-m-n-r-2005-tcc-176.shtml

 

[ztzt]

Thanks for finding the article which resolves any question about DG being involved in Matt H's death. His mother doesn't know him.

Even if DG was involved in Matthew Harley's death, it's still possible the teen boy's mother didn't and still doesn't know the driver who caused the accident.

 

[otto]

I doubt it.... he had ran a few businesses under his real name in the past decade. Neighbours and people who know him personally seem to know him as "Douglas Garland" only. Charged with identity theft, sure. But trying to live life with a different identity overall, doesn't seem like it. Well, not anymore I mean lol. Maybe he learned his lesson not to take it that far after the first time he tried.

After his prison time, he has a small internet presence related to imaginary companies that have no substance.

He was arrested for having false documents related to an indictable offence. I think it's likely that the false papers relate to the green truck, but perhaps the false identity document from July 4 was something that was on his dresser ... something he kept as a souvenier ... a straw man charge to detain him until there is more evidence of murder.

It feels odd to write Canadian English, but it seems right for a Canadian case.

 

[ztzt]

Are you thinking that he was trying to convince everyone that he was indeed Mathew Hartley, that he had in fact survived the horrific crash that took the life of his sister? He was "role playing" to try to fool people into believing his false identify?

I first thought this a bit absurd, but now to think of it, not entirely impossible. There could be the scenario (however unlikely) that, DG somehow got Matthew Hartley's identity, and "role played". When he told the court he was traumatized by a horrific car crash caused by him falling asleep behind the wheel, he could be meaning he, Matthew Harley the 14 year old driver, fell in asleep behind the wheel and caused a collision (but survived).

This would confirm Eldrick's post #631 "fabrication".

However, if he never had the car crash traumatizing him, there was some other event in his life causing his breakdown.

 

[Carol]

Hi all. In the gap while we wait for the search to resume, I'll just muse about some intriguing aspects of the case.

The 'fake ID' charge would seem to be totally contrived to hold the POI. (LE can and does trump up minor or non-existent offences as needed to hold a suspect.)

It could be something as simple as they found an old ID card while searching the farm house and have decided to call that "possession". I don't even think in Canada possessing a fake ID is illegal, it has to actually be used for there to be an offense. That's probably why the current charges speak to "an intent to commit an indictable offense" using the fake ID.

On the one hand, this could indicate they have very little to incriminate the POI that they would need such a charge.

Of course it works the other way: they may have such strong indications about the POI that they have no hesitation about using the ID charge if they are confident that more significant charges will be coming.

LE certainly won't be telling us about that. But we can surmise a bit from what we know and don't know. They requested and were granted a long adjournment on what would normally be a rather mild charge. Consider it this way: if a random person were picked up on the street with a fake ID, there'd never be this kind of custody requested or granted. It's a hint to us that communications with prosecution and judge are such that the need for judicial support was made evident.

If so, it does set up a bit of a drama in the way of putting a ticking clock on finding some stronger evidence. They could request a longer custody on flight risk concerns for the fake ID charge, but we won't know that for a couple of days when the issue of bail comes up.

We also can deduce a bit from the lack of protective wording LE has presented about the POI. When LE has an informant or person they deem to be uninvolved, they tend to go overboard in emphasizing that "so-and-so is not considered a suspect". Even when LE speaks about a suspect, they tend to use softer language until the point at which they are ready to level charges. We've had none of that kind of language - NONE. It strongly suggests they have no protective instinct toward the POI.

Personally I won't rush to judgement. Right now we have a POI whose guilty of having a checkered past, and not much else. All of us have seen where inadvertent theories and public pressure have led LE to tunnel vision and wrong suspects.

 

[otto]

I first thought this a bit absurd, but now to think of it, not entirely impossible. There could be the scenario (however unlikely) that, DG somehow got Matthew Hartley's identity, and "role played". When he told the court he was traumatized by a horrific car crash caused by him falling asleep behind the wheel, he could be meaning he, Matthew Harley the 14 year old driver, fell in asleep behind the wheel and caused a collision (but survived).

This would confirm Eldrick's post #631 "fabrication".

However, if he never had the car crash traumatizing him, there was some other event in his life causing his breakdown.

Douglas Garland used Matthew Hartley's identify for seven years, depicting himself as 5-6 years younger than his actual age. He had a social insurance number in Hartley's name. He was fired in 1997 after a breakdown, and in 1999 he was arrested to serve 39 months in prison for attempting to cook drugs. He was role playing for 7 years. When he swore that he survived an horrific asleep-at-the-wheel vehicle crash, had he admitted to his false identify?

 

[Carol]

Unless the timeline doesn't fit, or there are legitimate details available, couldn't the whole 'car crash' story possibly be a fabrication?
In assuming the identity of MKH, maybe DG took parts of the real life story of the poor deceased young boy and wove that into his new fake persona.
Who knows... just my mind wandering probably.

To me the timeline would kind of fit. MKH and sister were killed in a crash with someone, that someone could have been DG, who would have been around 21 at the time.

I have seen the news report that MKH's mother did not know DG, which could certan be true, or could be a way of not commenting, or other reason.

But if we accept the report from MKH's mother, there are other possibilities like separate crash, DG adopting someone else's story as his own, or an imaginary crash.

Drug traffic and drug use aren't always mutually exclusive, so DG could have needed "breakdowns" as a story to cover for issues that were actually caused by drug use.

 

[swedie]

Sorry if I offended, and you're right the important part is that they are alive, and anyone who knows of them could verify this.

I expect that DG's parents are not allowed to be at the property while the warrant is being served.

Heck no I wasn't offended at all SD. I just didn't understand your post. That's why I walked the dog to clear my head, mucho bettero now hahaha. Too much time sitting, waiting impatiently, on pins and needles, pray for a positive outcome while reading all this horrific stuff can cause cobwebs to form. BTW love your posts and theories SD, you're a very logical and deep thinker and very knowledgeable might I add also. Welcome to AL, KL and Nathan's forum.

 

[Carol]

It's tough to fight a "Please please please can I stay?!" And speaking from experience, when a young one wants to give you free time without separation anxiety... You jump on it.

This, to me, just seems like one of those times that you think "what could go wrong" that turns into "why didn't I do it differently"... This is every parent's nightmare. Regardless of the circumstances that lead up to it, the parents have my every sympathy for having to live with the memory of making that choice.

Agree, in my experience it wouldn't be unusual at all. With the grandparents having a moving sale, the O'B family could have been coming and going daily to assist. I can envision a perfectly natural scenario where NO says "I wanna stay with grandma" and the mother thinks "Fine, I'll be coming back in the morning anyway to help clean up from the yard sale" and it's as simple as that.

 

[MaraSleuth]

I don't think most parents would want to leave their child asleep at someone elses house and have them wake up and realize mom is suddenly gone in the morning. Or worse, the middle of the night. It was probably more like Nathan was having so much fun at grandma & grandpa's that he didn't want to leave so mom agreed to let him stay the night.

Depends on kids/situation. My parents have been watching my sisters kids since they were babies with lots of sleepovers. My nieces sleep over my parents all the time and would be ok with waking up in the night seeing my sister isn't there. They just cuddle gramma and go back to bed. . My son same age would freak right out,

 

[swedie]

Families can have a funny way of excusing each other's pasts. We see DG one way but he could have been seen by his family as a smart, quirky guy who screwed up when he was younger and ended up paying the price. They could have even pitied him for the trauma he suffered due to his car accident. He did his time. He was no longer a fugitive. I can think of a few reasons that AL would have chosen him to be a business partner.

If he stood out to the family as being completely unstable and dangerous, I'd think that LE would have been paying him a visit on Monday or Tuesday rather than Friday.

Unless they couldn't find him Monday or Tuesday nor Wednesday or Thursday. Could be why LE put the picture of the truck out on Friday. Asking for the public's help. MOO.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Douglas Garland used Matthew Hartley's identify for seven years, depicting himself as 5-6 years younger than his actual age. He had a social insurance number in Hartley's name. He was fired in 1997 after a breakdown, and in 1999 he was arrested to serve 39 months in prison for attempting to cook drugs. He was role playing for 7 years. When he swore that he survived an horrific asleep-at-the-wheel vehicle crash, had he admitted to his false identify?

http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/...2005/03/03/garland-v-m-n-r-2005-tcc-176.shtml

The above link is the judgement from the appeal heard Feb 11, 2005.

Quote : "[2] Mr. Garland is in his mid-forties. He suffers from attention deficient disorder (ADD). It was clear that he was agitated throughout the trial, but it was also apparent that he was an intelligent individual. Mr. Garland attended medical school in Alberta for one year until he suffered a breakdown. He also seems to have been traumatized by causing what he described as a horrific accident due to falling asleep at the wheel."

It would be unwise for someone to offer up an overtly untrue story during testimony for fear of penalty, credibility issues etc... the story was told in 2005, long after prison, BC, and the other issues. IMO, there's some truth there, be it embellished, dramatized or otherwise.

 

[Carol]

A bit regarding the pickup truck... I'm a bit surprised the truck photo had to be released publicly.

First off, from the google street views, the neighboring house and its outdoor cameras are beyond obvious. LE would have noticed these cameras promptly so they should have had several days to work with the video. The truck itself is pretty distinctive in model and unique features. LE has instant access to vehicle records matching that narrow description. So based on a lot of assumptions (which may or may not be correct!) this means LE should have been able to run down the truck lead independently without going public. So that leaves us to wonder why they had to release the truck picture, so many days after the events.

It's possible the truck may have been unregistered and didn't come up in LE searches. But driving around an unregistered truck in Calgary is big risk unto itself given how prevalent photo camera traffic enforcement is in the city.

The missing persons case was many days old by then, and the family would have been quizzed as to what friends and family might have such a pickup truck. Why didn't any family member say anything about a family member with a pickup truck, or a farm with such trucks?

So overall it's a bit surprising and disappointing to me that they had to publicize the truck and rely on a tip in order to connect it back to the family.

It's also intriguing they say it was spotted more than once between 10 and 10. Those times are key, as I believe they've said the mother left at by 10 pm and returned the next morning at 10 am. So when LE speaks about the truck, they are referencing not times not from the surveillance video, but time of day milestones established by the mother leaving and coming back. Why that and not the times on the video?

 

[wendiesan]

This is my first time on here but I have been following over the past few days. This is the first time I have heard this quote from JO. "he wasn't supposed to be here"? I wonder why she left her boy there if she knew of anything there that might put him in danger?

my bolds.

Response to the bolded sentence.

She didn't. It's that simple. JO didn't leave Nathan in a situation which she suspected might prove dangerous to him. She left him in the care of people who had already proven their love and care for her and her children--her own mother and stepfather.

Nathan was loved by his mother, his father, his brothers, and his grandparents, and everyone in his extended family.
Nathan, like a lot of little boys--like my grandson--liked to have sleepovers with his grandparents, and, if it had been a long day, and he really wanted to have some grandma and grandpa time, he might have asked his mom if he could stay.
So his mother, knowing how he had such a wonderful relationship with her mother--his grandmother, said yes.

Also. You couldn't "have heard this quote from JO" because she didn't say it. Your quote is inaccurate. Another reason why it's necessary to go, when possible, to the source material.

This is excerpted from my transcript of the press conference in order to show the context in which that quote occurred.

Reporter: Can I ask another question? Do you feel Nathan is out there?

RO I think so because Nathan wasn't supposed to be there and so..

JO I know he is out there that's why--

RO He's out there.

JO We know he's out there.

So,in fact, Nathan's father, Rod O'Brien, made the comment in answer to the unknown reporter's question (the CPS PR officer did not identify reporters, nor did reporters identify themselves). It seems to me that RO and JO had, by the time of the presser, decided Nathan couldn't have been the target of the crime since the sleepover was spontaneous. It was not a planned visit that some sex offender or extortionist could have found out about and then planned the abduction of the young boy.

The reporter, at least the way I'm reading it, was asking if the parents thought Nathan was still alive. His dad was saying that no one had a reason to kill his son, so he believed Nathan was alive, somewhere. And Nathan's mother, who had seen the aftermath of the violence first hand, and who may have seen an indication that her stepfather was gravely injured in an attack, and knew that her mother was in danger of becoming in medical distress, agreed with her husband that Nathan was alive.

The reporter was also, IMO, referring to that "sixth sense" mothers and fathers tend to have with their children, asking not about logical deductions or hard evidence, but rather asked about what their hearts, their gut instincts were telling them. And the parents, again IMO, were saying that they believed their child was still alive.

I'm going to rant now about a phrase that rankles, so feel free to skip this section if you want.

Rant
The phrase "in the wrong place at the wrong time" should be banned from use in the English language in any discourse in which it is used to indirectly take responsibility for a crime away from the perpetrator and shifting that burden onto the victim. Period. Full stop.

It is victim blaming at its finest. In this case, for example, it manages to blame the two adult primary victims: AL and KL. And then, an added bonus, it blames the secondary victims, one in particular, JO. That phrase shifts the blame from scum of the earth kidnapping felons to the parent and grandparents.

Nowhere has it been shown that there were signs that an attack was coming. Nowhere has it been shown that AL received threatening letters, or telephone messages, or emails or texts that he shared with JO or RO. Nowhere has it been shown that KL or AL would have allowed a little one to stay with them if an angry ex-con was demanding money from them.

At no point have we heard that JO claimed psychic powers, nor that she been given the gift of second sight. JO could not predict that her precious little boy would be harmed. Neither could she should be expected to somehow read the mind of a drug addicted criminal. And there is no rule that a mother should never, ever allow her child to spend any time out of her sight.

Wrong place? Was Nathan left in a rat infested crack house? Was plaster falling off the walls? Was the foundation crumbling? Was Nathan's bed going to be a torn blanket on a floor crawling with roaches? Was he alone in a seedy hotel? Was the house in a rough neighbourhood where street lights were broken, where there was no running water? Was it next to a half-way house? Did sex offenders live next door?

Those would be wrong places. That was not what JO did.

A warm, comfortable house in a pleasant, seemingly well organized and well looked after neighbourhood should not be remotely considered the wrong place for a little boy to spend the night with the grandmother and grandfather who loved him.

Wrong time? After a long day helping with the sale, playing with neighbourhood friends, it seems to me that by 10:00 Nathan might have been already falling asleep, and it probably seemed to be the best decision--let him fall asleep and go home in the morning rather than wake him up by buckling him into his car seat, waking him again after the ride home to unbuckle and get him changed and into bed. Not a wrong time.

This is a tragedy, and, because most human beings are pretty superstitious on some level or other, we hold talismans in front of us to try to give us protection from suffering a similar fate. If we convince ourself that someone else was hurt because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, then if we are in the right place at the right times, we cannot be hurt. Right?

Not so much.

The person or people who didn't belong, who were in the wrong place, were the lowlifes who participated in this crime. They deserve to carry all the burden of their actions.

And there's never a right time for assault or for kidnapping or for murder.
End of rant

I think it should never be doubted that Nathan was loved by his family.

I believe Nathan's family would never knowingly put any child in danger, much less their beloved little boy, and that they did not do so in this case.

 

[Carol]

[/B]

Unless they couldn't find him Monday or Tuesday nor Wednesday or Thursday. Could be why LE put the picture of the truck out on Friday. Asking for the public's help. MOO.

Perhaps, but if LE is looking for DC, then they would put out DC's image, not the image of a truck that may or may not be used by DC.

We also have some suggestion that their hunt for the truck was genuine, as seen by the RCMP canvassing the Brooks area where there was a sighting of a similar truck.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

A bit regarding the pickup truck... I'm a bit surprised the truck photo had to be released publicly.

First off, from the google street views, the neighboring house and its outdoor cameras are beyond obvious. LE would have noticed these cameras promptly so they should have had several days to work with the video. The truck itself is pretty distinctive in model and unique features. LE has instant access to vehicle records matching that narrow description. So based on a lot of assumptions (which may or may not be correct!) this means LE should have been able to run down the truck lead independently without going public. So that leaves us to wonder why they had to release the truck picture, so many days after the events.

It's possible the truck may have been unregistered and didn't come up in LE searches. But driving around an unregistered truck in Calgary is big risk unto itself given how prevalent photo camera traffic enforcement is in the city.

The missing persons case was many days old by then, and the family would have been quizzed as to what friends and family might have such a pickup truck. Why didn't any family member say anything about a family member with a pickup truck, or a farm with such trucks?

So overall it's a bit surprising and disappointing to me that they had to publicize the truck and rely on a tip in order to connect it back to the family.

It's also intriguing they say it was spotted more than once between 10 and 10. Those times are key, as I believe they've said the mother left at by 10 pm and returned the next morning at 10 am. So when LE speaks about the truck, they are referencing not times not from the surveillance video, but time of day milestones established by the mother leaving and coming back. Why that and not the times on the video?

The released picture appears to be taken during daylight. Perhaps it was circling before 10pm... and after.

In theory, if no-one close to the initial investigation recognized the truck, or were reluctant to come forward about the truck given some sketchy speculative reason, what would LE be left with? There is so much more to this, that won't be revealed or confirmed for a long, long time. If LE felt that they had to release the picture of the truck, and had to act on a tip to find it, I suspect there was a legitimate need. Given that a child was involved, I suspect there was more urgency to act than if it were just the adults missing.

That reward-noreward scenario... weird.

 

[SamKelly1965]

.l ¿m

 

[AnjL]

Just catching up here. Here are some of my thoughts:

-Is it possible that DG showed up at the community Center and used the fake ID to report that he -as MKH-was at the sale? Maybe that's where the current charge of possession and/or use of fake ID on the fourth comes in?

-Now that it's been reported that DG and AL were in business together and had a falling out, I wonder if it had something to do with the many patents that AL held. Someone mentioned the patent connection on the prior thread. Has anything come of this?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Everything above is JMO!

 

[swedie]

I don't think most parents would want to leave their child asleep at someone elses house and have them wake up and realize mom is suddenly gone in the morning. Or worse, the middle of the night. It was probably more like Nathan was having so much fun at grandma & grandpa's that he didn't want to leave so mom agreed to let him stay the night.

Unless he was use to spending a lot of time with grandma and grandpa. Some kids love to be with their grandparents away from the everyday life at home with their siblings. They feel like they are special because they get undivided attention. I hate to say this but I pray that if NO is gone, he was taken in his sleep and didn't witness anything horrific. MOO.

 

[swedie]

A bit regarding the pickup truck... I'm a bit surprised the truck photo had to be released publicly.

First off, from the google street views, the neighboring house and its outdoor cameras are beyond obvious. LE would have noticed these cameras promptly so they should have had several days to work with the video. The truck itself is pretty distinctive in model and unique features. LE has instant access to vehicle records matching that narrow description. So based on a lot of assumptions (which may or may not be correct!) this means LE should have been able to run down the truck lead independently without going public. So that leaves us to wonder why they had to release the truck picture, so many days after the events.

It's possible the truck may have been unregistered and didn't come up in LE searches. But driving around an unregistered truck in Calgary is big risk unto itself given how prevalent photo camera traffic enforcement is in the city.

The missing persons case was many days old by then, and the family would have been quizzed as to what friends and family might have such a pickup truck. Why didn't any family member say anything about a family member with a pickup truck, or a farm with such trucks?

So overall it's a bit surprising and disappointing to me that they had to publicize the truck and rely on a tip in order to connect it back to the family.

It's also intriguing they say it was spotted more than once between 10 and 10. Those times are key, as I believe they've said the mother left at by 10 pm and returned the next morning at 10 am. So when LE speaks about the truck, they are referencing not times not from the surveillance video, but time of day milestones established by the mother leaving and coming back. Why that and not the times on the video?

Carol as I have posted before in case you may have missed it, it is only my speculation but maybe LE were looking for DG and his truck from Monday to Friday and they were no where to be found, therefore they released the picture to the public in desperation, asking for assistance in locating it and DG. Also as I've said before, IF DG did this crime and on the Sunday night and LE were looking for him for five days, he could have drove many, many miles with those family members. They could be anywhere. This is why I believe LE are working inside out, starting at the home and expanding outward. MOO.