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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding reporting about criminal acts, digging into the lives of people peripheral to the case, implicating unrelated people in murder, and so on, there are a couple of links that explain the risks of publishing information related to any parties that have some connection to the case:

"In real (Canadian) life, the spectre of contempt is raised when the media appears to try to usurp the role of the courts or influence the course of justice. The law of contempt protects a fundamental principle of justice: civil litigants and persons accused of crimes have a right to a fair trial ...

The risk of contempt arises once a case is sub judice – “under the consideration of the court.” The clock begins running once charges are laid, someone is arrested, or a warrant is issued for a suspect’s arrest – in other words, as soon as the identifiable accused faces specific charges."

http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_other_cjsm_en.pdf


Another site worth reading is this, about defamation:

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/rights/240.aspx

Based on the above links, it is very clear why US talking head crime-watch reporters, such as Nancy Grace, do not exist in Canada. Per Canadian law, she is in contempt of court on a daily basis.
 
Yes but the crime map only shows 2 homicides. So if NO left the property alive, it would have been a kidnapping. So do they not have any evidence of NO acutally being dead? None? Zero? He could be alive somewhere and living with gypsies for all we know.

I noticed that too. There are two confirmed murders at the Parkhill home. Let's consider the possibility that there is blood evidence of the two grandparents, but no blood evidence of the child. That is, there is no deductive proof that the child was murdered at the scene. There is no deductive proof that he was kidnapped. There is no evidence to indicate why he has vanished. It is true, however, that he can no longer be alive. On that basis, police are not prepared to make a statement that the child was murdered at the Parkhill home, although through inductive logic, he probably was. Inductive is not the same as deductive proof, so for now his murder is left in a grey area ... location and circumstances unknown. Perhaps, after trial, that number of murders at the Parkhill home will be changed to 3.
 
I know it's just a TV show but in Breaking Bad they did. How likely is it that an experienced chemist would be in a biker gang?

Speaking from personal knowledge and experience, I say it's very possible bakerlady. The OMG's we see rumbling down the street aren't the only "types" that are associates and affiliates of biker gangs these days. OC (whether gangland, bikers) have lawyers on retainer, computer wizards, cops ... any specialty that can further their criminal enterprise is a bonus to them.
 
Yes but the crime map only shows 2 homicides. So if NO left the property alive, it would have been a kidnapping. So do they not have any evidence of NO acutally being dead? None? Zero? He could be alive somewhere and living with gypsies for all we know.

But the crime map actually says "homicides" occurred at the following 2 times. Then it lists two (identical) times. It doesn't say that "two homicides" occurred.

Maybe I'm nit-picking, but this could mean any number of things. There may be 3 homicides, but only two with estimated times. There may be 3, but only two times were entered (in error?). There may be 3, but all are estimated to take place at the same time, but only 2 times were entered. Or, CPS may be unwilling to disclose any information about the third homicide on this map (which is a service to the public, but, as indicated in the disclaimer, is in no way guaranteed to be complete, accurate, etc.). Especially given the tight-lipped nature of the CPS thus far.

I think we all know that what the police know, and what they are willing to disclose to the public, are two different things. Just MOO.
 
Based on the above links, it is very clear why US talking head crime-watch reporters, such as Nancy Grace, do not exist in Canada. Per Canadian law, she is in contempt of court on a daily basis.

But also, while she might technically be in contempt of court, even under a US legal definition, as media, she's protected by the First Amendment. She isn't protected by the First Amendment in Canada. So it's also about balancing the need for due process with the need for freedom of the press, (IMO).
 
Speaking from personal knowledge and experience, I say it's very possible bakerlady. The OMG's we see rumbling down the street aren't the only "types" that are associates and affiliates of biker gangs these days. OC (whether gangland, bikers) have lawyers on retainer, computer wizards, cops ... any specialty that can further their criminal enterprise is a bonus to them.

Look at the sophistication of skimming P.I.N numbers at ATM's. Some years back I was investigating counterfeit money and had the good fortune to talk with a CSIS fellow who noted that, not only is counterfeiting extraordinarily sophisticated but puts org crime in the upper echelons of the banking industry above that than even the Prime Minister can reach. CIBC and HSBC have been cited for sophisticated laundering and not shell game type stuff either.

In relation to this thread, biker gangs do have their head hunters out there watching bright minds but easily manipulated individuals that would benefit their enterprise. Though lawyers are the most prominent, technologists/engineers are another.

e.g., socially awkward straight A student still a virgin not in a frat meets friend who gets him all those things that his "peers" are experiencing, slowly he is incorporated into the seemingly friendly looking side of org crime. or something to this effect...
 
Sure, let's look at the Hell's Angels gang. What did they have to do with the three murders in Parkhill? Did a loser from Airdrie tell the gang to kill a five year old child, so they did?

You can paraphrase any member's comments, simplify the intent and make them appear nonsensical. Since there is precious little to sleuth at this point, have at it!
 
But also, while she might technically be in contempt of court, even under a US legal definition, as media, she's protected by the First Amendment. She isn't protected by the First Amendment in Canada. So it's also about balancing the need for due process with the need for freedom of the press, (IMO).

According to the US First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, media can say pretty much anything they want about anyone at any time. In my humble opinion, the concept of "respect the autonomy of others" doesn't seem to exist in the context of Freedom of Speech. In Canada, Freedom of Expression has limitations. For example, declaring that the WW2 Holocaust did not happen is a punishable criminal offence. That is, media can say whatever they want as long as they respect the autonomy of others.
 
According to the US First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, media can say pretty much anything they want about anyone at any time. In my humble opinion, the concept of "respect the autonomy of others" doesn't seem to exist in the context of Freedom of Speech. In Canada, Freedom of Expression has limitations. For example, declaring that the WW2 Holocaust did not happen is a punishable criminal offence. That is, media can say whatever they want as long as they respect the autonomy of others.
The sensationalism and reckless disregard for the victims and their loved ones, makes me grateful to work in Canada. I have always found that for the most part, Canadian News agencies have more integrity and respect.
 
You can paraphrase any member's comments, simplify the intent and make them appear nonsensical. Since there is precious little to sleuth at this point, have at it!

I can't actually see any connection between a 1992 arrest for cooking meth for the purpose of trafficking, a motorcycle gang, and the murder of a five year old child in 2014. In fact, members of motorcycle gangs might take offence at the suggestion that they have some connection to a man that is accused of murdering a young child at his grandparent's home.
 
stan laurel I am not going to flame you, but praise you for all your hard work :)

As soon as I looked him up and saw a "Panama" mention, I really think you're on to something.

Same... superior sleuthing, stan laurel!
 
Look at the sophistication of skimming P.I.N numbers at ATM's. Some years back I was investigating counterfeit money and had the good fortune to talk with a CSIS fellow who noted that, not only is counterfeiting extraordinarily sophisticated but puts org crime in the upper echelons of the banking industry above that than even the Prime Minister can reach. CIBC and HSBC have been cited for sophisticated laundering and not shell game type stuff either...

Offshore Scotiabanks (especially in Mexico) have also been accused regarding money laundering,
 
Why would DG go there himself when he could use any dumpster within a 100 mile (or more) radius of the crime scene.

Perhaps DG didn't know there were cameras at the dump. Just liked he seemed not to know about neighbourhood CCTV. Also, he might have been panicked regarding the unexpected presence of NO and just doing whatever seemed right in the moment. Maybe he didn't think about dumpsters 100 miles away. Also, just because we saw CPS removing things from the dump doesn't mean that they are related to this case, or any criminal case for that matter.
 
The sensationalism and reckless disregard for the victims and their loved ones, makes me grateful to work in Canada. I have always found that for the most part, Canadian News agencies have more integrity and respect.

I agree and like that we don't have squawking "news" like they have stateside. I find Nancy Grace vile.
 
Is there a reason to assume NO left the property alive? Let's say for a moment that there was blood evidence of 2 murder victims at the house - NO and one of the Likneses. This would mean one of the Likneses left the property with DG.

If you recall early in the investigation and Amber alert, the police suggested NO might be in the company of his grandfather AL. They even went so far as to describe his distinctive walk. They did not say "or his grandmother". Why do you think that is?

One possible theory - what if, in the CCTV footage showing DG's truck, it appeared that there was a passenger in the truck, and the passenger could be either identified as AL or at least a man-sized passenger, so definitely not KL. At that time, police may not have known with certainty if AL went along willingly with DG. Hence the AL description in the NO Amber alert.

Please be assured, I am not at all suggesting AL was part of the crime, only that police may not have known for sure early on. He could have conceivably gone with DG either against his will, at gunpoint, or as a way to try to bargain with DG - maybe with a promise of getting cash from a bank machine or something?

Then, later in the investigation, when the Airdrie property or DG's truck were searched, maybe evidence was uncovered to indicate AL was also dead. Thus the 3rd murder charge, just not attributed to that Parkhill address.

Just trying to make sense of some of these facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
2,578
Total visitors
2,728

Forum statistics

Threads
603,216
Messages
18,153,479
Members
231,673
Latest member
Viki Cowan
Back
Top