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

[news.talk]

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 – 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 not "more that 200".

The author, in my humble opinion, takes many liberties.

Justin is a very young reporter based out of Vancouver and was never even in Calgary during this time and certainly never attended the pressers. He is merely providing 'filling' for a slow news day. Too bad he has no integrity for the facts.

 

[bakerlady]

http://gawker.com/5627330/new-york-times-warns-newsroom-on-anonymous-sources


Sort of relevant read.

Many people choose to remain anonymous and give up real information. It happens all the time. I wouldn't be so soon to judge whether or not those statements are true or false. But, usually the disclaimer is added, saying that a source insisted on anonymity because he was ‘not authorized’ to speak

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

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

Thank you for proving my point about taking offence when none was intended.

Were I to opine that aliens abducted the 3 victims, I would indeed be wrong, and would be open to be proven so by everyone here. There is nothing wrong with putting that opinion out there, but if someone asks for me to clarify why I think that, or points out there were no UFO sightings that night, then there is nothing wrong with that either. No one is asking you to choose A, B, or C. You seem to want the right to say "It is A, and don't you dare question my theory."

My point was that one must be open to the fact that their opinion might be incorrect or wrong, without taking offence. If someone questions your theory, respond with the answer. In fact, pointing out possible inconsistencies, or factual deficiencies helps in eliminating dead ends and assists in building more in depth, and credible theories. As well, it may generate new leads.

Debate, and open, unrestricted conversation is necessary to evolve.

 

[news.talk]

http://gawker.com/5627330/new-york-times-warns-newsroom-on-anonymous-sources


Sort of relevant read.

Many people choose to remain anonymous and give up real information. It happens all the time. I wouldn't be so soon to judge whether or not those statements are true or false. But, usually the disclaimer is added, saying that a source insisted on anonymity because he was ‘not authorized’ to speak

But he wasn't quoting a new source or reporting new information... He was falsely attributing an old source with inaccurate information.

 

[bakerlady]

But he wasn't quoting a new source or reporting new information... He was falsely attributing an old source with inaccurate information.

Yeah that's why I said sort of relevant...but do we know for sure what he was doing? Did he forget the disclaimer or did he purposely mislead or was he being devious or was he sleep deprived and made a mistake? How do we know?

 

[news.talk]

Yeah that's why I said sort of relevant...but do we know for sure what he was doing? Did he forget the disclaimer or did he purposely mislead or was he being devious or was he sleep deprived and made a mistake? How do we know?

We know his facts are wrong throughout the story.

 

[PonderingNS]

I was looking at the farm pics again and hoping that LE looked underneath all the old machinery and vehicles for hatches. I know, shades of Breaking Bad again, but you cant help but wonder...

 

[news.talk]

I was looking at the farm pics again and hoping that LE looked underneath all the old machinery and vehicles for hatches. I know, shades of Breaking Bad again, but you cant help but wonder...

I am confident that LE were very thorough of the Garland property.

 

[otto]

http://gawker.com/5627330/new-york-times-warns-newsroom-on-anonymous-sources


Sort of relevant read.

Many people choose to remain anonymous and give up real information. It happens all the time. I wouldn't be so soon to judge whether or not those statements are true or false. But, usually the disclaimer is added, saying that a source insisted on anonymity because he was ‘not authorized’ to speak

We know that the information about Garland parking his vehicle on the street and visiting the Liknes family at the end of June did not come from official police channels. Where did it come from? Did Justin, of the Globe and Mail, go to Calgary and interview people that lived on the street? Did people suddenly realize, in the last half of July, that Garland was visiting the Liknes couple at the end of June? Did they see his vehicle parked on the street? Did neighbours of the Liknes family decide to report that information to the Globe and Mail reporter on July 18, almost three weeks after they vanished? That doesn't sound very likely, but where could the information have come from? Is there a bad apple in the police department that is passing investigative information to the newspaper, or is the author embellishing and filling in the blanks with imaginings (clapboard siding) when he doesn't know the facts?

 

[Cattools]

We know that the information about Garland parking his vehicle on the street and visiting the Liknes family at the end of June did not come from official police channels. Where did it come from? Did Justin, of the Globe and Mail, go to Calgary and interview people that lived on the street? Did people suddenly realize, in the last half of July, that Garland was visiting the Liknes couple at the end of June? Did they see his vehicle parked on the street? Did neighbours of the Liknes family decide to report that information to the Globe and Mail reporter on July 18, almost three weeks after they vanished? That doesn't sound very likely, but where could the information have come from? Is there a bad apple in the police department that is passing investigative information to the newspaper, or is the author embellishing and filling in the blanks with imaginings (clapboard siding) when he doesn't know the facts?

Could we ask him? Perhaps email him with our questions in a non-judgemental way, something along the lines of we're just trying to figure out what happened and noticed this new info?

 

[otto]

Could we ask him? Perhaps email him with our questions in a non-judgemental way, something along the lines of we're just trying to figure out what happened and noticed this new info?

That's a great idea! He might be shocked to learn that his article is being scrutinized for accuracy.

 

[Cattools]

That's a great idea! He might be shocked to learn that his article is being scrutinized for accuracy.

There's a twitter account address at the bottom of the article. I don't tweet, and I think email is a bit more private. Somebody could tweet him and ask for his work email.

 

[Krystine]

Thank you for proving my point about taking offence when none was intended.

Were I to opine that aliens abducted the 3 victims, I would indeed be wrong, and would be open to be proven so by everyone here. There is nothing wrong with putting that opinion out there, but if someone asks for me to clarify why I think that, or points out there were no UFO sightings that night, then there is nothing wrong with that either. No one is asking you to choose A, B, or C. You seem to want the right to say "It is A, and don't you dare question my theory."

My point was that one must be open to the fact that their opinion might be incorrect or wrong, without taking offence. If someone questions your theory, respond with the answer. In fact, pointing out possible inconsistencies, or factual deficiencies helps in eliminating dead ends and assists in building more in depth, and credible theories. As well, it may generate new leads.

Debate, and open, unrestricted conversation is necessary to evolve.

Not interested in going on the defensive on this, you came in as a 'third party' and had nothing to do with my initial comments. I'm not sure you know what I commented on. Is this like reality tv, where you form "alliances"?

 

[Cattools]

There's a twitter account address at the bottom of the article. I don't tweet, and I think email is a bit more private. Somebody could tweet him and ask for his work email.

Actually he has a website and his email address was there. e: jackgiovannetti@gmail.com any volunteers?

 

[Cattools]

Did everybody just log out? Is this one of those good ideas nobody wants to do?
I'll do it.

The question is really about having a source for the line "One of the many vehicles to park near the house, police would later reveal, belonged to Mr. Garland..." because we do not dispute that he "visited" the Liknes's house, though we could point out that subsequently being accused of 3 murders kind of takes the visit out of visiting

 

[studyer]

Any idea why LE would not have followed DG in the days following their decision to arrest/charge him? In the hope that he would lead them to the remains.
What I'm wondering is whether they were in fact following him and because he had got too close to the crime scene (risking contamination) they were forced to arrest him that night? But had he not arrived on the farm, he may have been tailed for longer?
Just a thought.

 

[ABro]

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 – 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.

Wow, it seems like this reporter can do no right. He says life changed the day Garland was arrested for murder -- and that's deemed wrong -- off by nine days.

Maybe you don't agree but I think the laying of murder charges and the end of hope that the three people were still alive can be called life changing.

The 200 people figure has been cited in other news reports. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ing-calgary-boy-grandparents/article19449772/

Couldn't the house have both clapboard and siding?

I'm not sure why this reporter is being bashed like this. It's not clear to me there are any errors in the article.

 

[Cattools]

Wow, it seems like this reporter can do no right. He says life changed the day Garland was arrested for murder -- and that's deemed wrong -- off by nine days.

Maybe you don't agree but I think the laying of murder charges and the end of hope that the three people were still alive can be called life changing.

The 200 people figure has been cited in other news reports. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ing-calgary-boy-grandparents/article19449772/

Couldn't the house have both clapboard and siding?

I'm not sure why this reporter is being bashed like this. It's not clear to me there are any errors in the article.

I think, for me, is the issue regarding whether DG parked near the house or attended the sale, or was at the house anytime that weekend other than when the incident took place.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Not interested in going on the defensive on this, you came in as a 'third party' and had nothing to do with my initial comments. I'm not sure you know what I commented on. Is this like realike tv, where you form "alliances"?

I'm not a third party, and everything I wrote today is relevant to any and all posts of yours, including the one that got mod snipped after you took offence to me questioning your theory that no one who is 54 can lift 200 lbs.

Again, I encourage you, Krystine, to keep putting your theories and questions out there as you see fit. I also encourage you to answer when others ask questions, debate when you feel you have a differing point of view, and relent when your theories collapse under scrutiny. We all do it.

Your opinions are welcome, and just as important and relevant as everyone else's on here. Try and just enjoy the exchange of information.

 

[bakerlady]

Actually he has a website and his email address was there. e: jackgiovannetti@gmail.com any volunteers?

I think you would get more info/attention from a tweet to him. JMO. Why not try both?