Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #11

[Sillybilly]

I agree... I made a career based on facts. During that career, whenever LE arrested someone very early in an investigation... When the Crown laid homicide charges so quickly, it has meant that they have obtained irrefutable evidence that they have the right suspect. Without bodies, the bar has been set much higher for quality and quantity of evidence. In a high profile crime much as this, they wouldn't risk their entire case UNLESS they were certain the evidence could support it.

Generally agree, news.talk ... but then again, we have the Audrey Gleave case out of Ontario where 1st degree murder charges were quickly laid against DLS ... subsequently sprung and charges withdrawn when forensic evidence came back not matching up

 

[news.talk]

Generally agree, news.talk ... but then again, we have the Audrey Gleave case out of Ontario where 1st degree murder charges were quickly laid against DLS ... subsequently sprung and charges withdrawn when forensic evidence came back not matching up

I should have qualified my statements with a "generally" disclaimer.

I'm this case, they waited for the forensic evidence to come back before laying charges. They had the suspect picked up on lesser charges but waited till they had irrefutable proof.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I think that there were a few mistakes in that article.

I was unsure as it does sound 'fictionalized' in a way, which irks me not knowing what MSM articles are truly facts and what's embellished for readership. This article is very misleading (if indeed unfactual) and makes it sound as if there were possible meetings in the neighborhood or at the home between DG and AL prior to the crime at the end of June. It also mentioned AL was not around/not visible much during the sale which can let imaginations run wild with where he could've been (cleaning out office or in meetings with someone). Wording changes everything!:gaah:

 

[otto]

There were some comments in the last few days about Calgary having some old money families, and many new money families (oil boom). I'm not convinced that old money or new money means entitled. New money, in general, tends to show off a bit more. I decided to look a little further into it. Calgary is a diverse city with opportunities for established, as well as new, Canadians. Per capita, the population is well educated, has a good quality of life, and has numerous employment opportunities. Given the demographics of Calgary, I think people expect straight up information from police about a triple murder simply because a lack of information could present a danger to the population. It would be a much bigger problem for police if they were looking for a second or third suspect in these murders, where that information was withheld, and another member of the extended family was murdered. It is better for everyone if police are straight up with the community, and that the community respect the need of the police to protect the integrity of the investigation for the trial.

◾Calgary has the highest concentration of head offices in Canada, per capita, and the highest personal income in the country.
◾Calgary is ranked #1 in the world for quality of living. (Eco-City Ranking, Mercer 2010)
◾Calgary has the lowest unemployment rate and the lowest tax rates in Canada. More than 90,000 new jobs are expected to be created here over the next five years —the highest in Canada.
◾Calgary is a global centre for the energy, finance, and transportation/logistics industries.
◾Calgary has the highest employment rate in Canada for newcomers and the third highest diversity rate in the country.
◾Calgary has the highest percentage of post-secondary educated citizens in Canada and the largest concentration of entrepreneurs.

http://haskayne.ucalgary.ca/programs/mba/yyc-advantage
(more at link)

 

[ABro]

Usually that would be qualified by "a source close to the investigation"?

Maybe, but not always.

Also, remember the cops said the truck was seen in the area.

The circling comment came from an article about a tall house with video and was not sourced to the police or the homeowner.

There's no reason to decide that the "circling detail is more correct than the parked detail. In fact, the parking is sourced to police.

Sometimes giving even a minor detail about a source makes the source identifiable.

 

[Cherchri]

<rsbm>

That's just plain crappy journalistic interpretation ... at no time did LE reveal that the vehicle was parked near the house.

Too true SillyBilly. Journos have taken great liberties in putting a different spin on things in this case. We have pontificated a few times! However, I dare say at one point on June 29/30 that vehicle was parked at or near the property. It would have to have been for DG to carry out his dastardly deed. Perhaps cameras picked up the vehicle in motion more than once and then parked. If it had never parked, I doubt LE would have found it suspicious.

 

[Wondergirl]

WADR kaley, as frustrating as it can be at times, there are other cases where it has taken a long time for sleuthers to come up with new information that may be relevant (i.e. had the Bosma thread from May 2013 been closed when we were speculating/theorizing about his involvement in Laura Babcock's disappearance and his father's "suicide", would we now be discussing the 1st degree murder charges against Millard for both those individuals?) FWIW, LE does read these boards, and if it takes 40 pages to come up with 1 smidgeon of information that may prove valuable in their investigation or another avenue that they hadn't considered, it's worth it.

Another example ... Wondergirl queried about other online nicks for DG. Just because we haven't found any yet doesn't mean we won't. Lots of sleuthing takes place behind the scenes. We can't find something we don't look for.

ITA.

When I get off holidays, I will have more time to dedicate to digging more on DG. There's more there, but, man, do we ever need just a tiny, annonymous nudge, for the online sleuthing....[emoji362]

 

[winnnancy]

I am not sure we should close the thread as of yet but I am still confused why this thread is still in the missing category. I have seen several cases on this site get moved from the missing to the located forum soon after LE made the determination that the victims were presumed/declared deceased.

Mods? Just wondering....

They're still missing?

 

[Sillybilly]

I wonder what middle name and dob DG was using related to the MKH identity. BC court records show an MRH, dob 1966 was issued a speeding violation Aug 20 2005 in Richmond, BC.

 

[Wondergirl]

I wonder what middle name and dob DG was using related to the MKH identity. BC court records show an MRH, dob 1966 was issued a speeding violation Aug 20 2005 in Richmond, BC.

I do hate to go there, out of respect for the deceased, but I fear DG was prolific with his use of the MKH identity.

Historical searches may prove fruitful in that regard.

Jmo

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

???
I'm referring to this website and the perception some users have that because their posts might be more- prolific-, that they have the patent on being right. "Right fighting" and trying to overwhelm others' opinions is not cool, IMOO.

It swings both ways though... There are many who don't want the realities of their theories questioned, and take insult when there was none intended.

It should go without saying, but if you put theories out there, ON A PUBLIC FORUM, they are subject to any and every scrutiny by everyone else on the forum. It's crowdsourced brainstorming, and no matter how negative it may be interpreted, it's positive for people to point out incorrect facts, to challenge assumptions, and to ask for clarification.

If you can keep an open mind, and be prepared to accept being wrong, then perhaps the final result will be wisdom.

 

[Cattools]

About the truck circling the neighborhood, that initially made me think DG might not have been alone and was waiting for someone to come out of the house (leading to me think there was more than him involved) however, after reading the article I posted yesterday it was the first time I heard the truck being in neighborhood described differently - it says he 'visited' the home and was 'parked', which changes things a little. The article sounds as if DG visited and was parked at the end of June, like he was meeting with AL or something and it happened outside of the sale but I'm still wondering if the article embellished rather than state facts, so who knows. Here is what the article states about the truck:

"Over the last weekend of June, hundreds streamed through the front door of the blue-grey clapboard house at 123 38A Avenue in Calgary – the Liknes home. One of the many vehicles to park near the house, police would later reveal, belonged to Mr. Garland, whose sister, Patti, was in a common-law relationship with Alvin and Kathryn Liknes’s son Allen." (BBM)

"Why he may have visited the Liknes home around the end of June remains a mystery and the subject of theories in Calgary and the town of Airdrie." (BBM)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ry-struggle-with-grim-puzzle/article19682368/

This is what I have heard LE say at the presser on July 4 by Andrus:

-the truck was seen several times over the course of the night
-the truck was spotted during the course of the evening and the course of when the incident occurred
-cannot tell if there is more than one person in the truck
-truck was only spotted on the road
-cannot say if the truck was at the sale
-cameras catch the truck driving through the neighbourhood


A reporter asked if there was any footage at the scene, or if the driver was ever seen getting out of the truck and (I believe) the response was no, the truck was seen on the road.
I think he also said that they had taken steps to identify the truck and were now asking for the public's help.

 

[ABro]

This is what I have heard LE say at the presser on July 4 by Andrus:

-the truck was seen several times over the course of the night
-the truck was spotted during the course of the evening and the course of when the incident occurred
-cannot tell if there is more than one person in the truck
-truck was only spotted on the road
-cannot say if the truck was at the sale
-cameras catch the truck driving through the neighbourhood


A reporter asked if there was any footage at the scene, or if the driver was ever seen getting out of the truck and (I believe) the response was no, the truck was seen on the road.
I think he also said that they had taken steps to identify the truck and were now asking for the public's help.

The presser took place July 4. The article was written July 18.

The reporter could very well have gathered new info over those two weeks.

You can't just assume the reporter is wrong.

 

[news.talk]

The presser took place July 4. The article was written July 18.

The reporter could very well have gathered new info over those two weeks.

You can't just assume the reporter is wrong.

The article was an editorialized version of the story. In this medium, writers take more liberties than with spot news stories. Generally, if a reporter has obtained new information from a source, that is what they lead with. The fact that no credit has been given or the statements further qualified, tells me that the writer simply embellished the facts to fit his prose.

 

[ABro]

The article was an editorialized version of the story. In this medium, writers take more liberties than with spot news stories. Generally, if a reporter has obtained new information from a source, that is what they lead with. The fact that no credit has been given or the statements further qualified, tells me that the writer simply embellished the facts to fit his prose.

The statement is attributed to police.

That's an interesting opinion you have about the Globe and Mail. It's not a newspaper with a reputation for making up facts or stories. And, no, you don't get to invent some juicy details because it's a feature and not a news story. Journalism is journalism whether it's spot news or long form.

 

[news.talk]

The statement is attributed to police.

That's an interesting opinion you have about the Globe and Mail. It's not a newspaper with a reputation for making up facts or stories. And, no, you don't get to make up some juicy details because it's a feature and not a news story. Journalism is journalism whether it's spot news or long form.

It has nothing to do with my opinion of the reporter or the Globe. I am just stating that this is an editorial recap and informing you that in my business, any new leads would be at the top of the story, not buried in the middle. It is not uncommon for writers, especially when they weren't at the actual news conference, to take liberties with the truth.

Trust me, if there was an actual source that generated new information, the story would be written much differently.

 

[Krystine]

It swings both ways though... There are many who don't want the realities of their theories questioned, and take insult when there was none intended.

It should go without saying, but if you put theories out there, ON A PUBLIC FORUM, they are subject to any and every scrutiny by everyone else on the forum. It's crowdsourced brainstorming, and no matter how negative it may be interpreted, it's positive for people to point out incorrect facts, to challenge assumptions, and to ask for clarification.

If you can keep an open mind, and be prepared to accept being wrong, then perhaps the final result will be wisdom.

There is a lot being tossed around that is not factual, but based on users' own opinions. In the posts I contributed today, I was sharing my opinion..
We are all at risk of being 'wrong' in our various theories in this crowd sourced brain storm, it's not cancer to be wrong.
WS is a crowd sourced think tank and a public forum...so how can anyone's opinion be "wrong"? It all goes into the pot.
PS> I didn't realize I had to choose from theory A,B,or C

 

[bakerlady]

The statement is attributed to police.

That's an interesting opinion you have about the Globe and Mail. It's not a newspaper with a reputation for making up facts or stories. And, no, you don't get to invent some juicy details because it's a feature and not a news story. Journalism is journalism whether it's spot news or long form.

I read Daily Mail on a daily basis with my morning coffee and have been doing so for as long as I can remember. Don't judge me but that site is definitely based on quantity over quality and you have to not take it too seriously. I tend to think real journalism is dead.

But anyways the site is FULL of typos and misinformation and they seriously need to hire new editors. It seems to be a sweat shop news site that just wants to be the first source and they click 'submit' before even proofreading a darn thing.

 

[news.talk]

I read Daily Mail on a daily basis with my morning coffee and have been doing so for as long as I can remember. Don't judge me but that site is definitely based on quantity over quality and you have to not take it too seriously. I tend to think real journalism is dead.

But anyways the site is FULL of typos and misinformation and they seriously need to hire new editors. It seems to be a sweat shop news site that just wants to be the first source and they click 'submit' before even proofreading a darn thing.

There was a time when 'facts' were more important than ratings. Sadly, we live in an age where sensationalism trumps facts and instant news and the rush to be first is more important than the truth.

There still are a few of us "old dogs" out there that don't give a flying fig about those things.

 

[otto]

The article was an editorialized version of the story. In this medium, writers take more liberties than with spot news stories. Generally, if a reporter has obtained new information from a source, that is what they lead with. The fact that no credit has been given or the statements further qualified, tells me that the writer simply embellished the facts to fit his prose.

The Globe and Mail article states that "Life on Range Road 291 changed forever at 1:30 a.m. on July 14." In truth, everything changed on July 5: "Calgary police have confirmed a massive operation at a rural property in Airdrie is linked to the search for a missing boy and his grandparents." The author is off by 9 days.

The Globe and Mail article states: "Over the last weekend of June, hundreds (the family estimated up to 200 people including children) streamed through the front door of the blue-grey clapboard (should that be aluminium siding?) house at 123 38A Avenue in Calgary &#8211; the Liknes home."

The Globe and Mail articles states: "One of the many vehicles to park near the house, police would later reveal, belonged to Mr. Garland." I have never read that in any news article, nor heard it in a police press conference. What was said was that a vehicle was seen several times in the area of the crime scene during the hours when the family vanished. If it is true that the vehicle was parked near the house, there must be at least two more media reports with the same information. Where are they?

The Globe and Mail states: "Why he may have visited the Liknes home around the end of June remains a mystery and the subject of theories in Calgary and the town of Airdrie." The author seems to take some liberties. A "vehicle in the area" is now parked on the street and Garland is visiting the Liknes couple.

The author states: "more that 200 people walked through their home and bought much of what they owned". We don't know what was sold. That has never been released. Hundreds of people is now "more than 200".

I have problems with the article, as it seems more flowery than factual.
The author, in my humble opinion, takes many liberties.