Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #12

[Lalalacasbah]

What about all the comments about the victims running off to Mexico with their grandson? That's accusing them of a most despicable crime.

I think we're all just trying to be hypothetical and brain storming about ANYTHING being possible, no disrespect is meant to the families or victims. To be honest, the only reason I like to even think about the *possibility* of a far-fetched idea of them being Mexico or DG being 'played' by LE is for the sake of the victims and that meaning - being one little sliver of hope that they would miraculously still be alive. I think truth is stranger than fiction, so maybe wishful thinking on some of our parts for some 'out there' theories. I'm speaking for myself and this is JMO, can't speak for other sleuthers.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

The small things make up the big things; they can describe a persons character and answer crucial questions in round about ways. Using your own example- knowing who purchased DG's toothpaste for him wouldn't solve this case but it would provide insight into his character; especially if it came to be known that, say, it was his mom who bought it for him.

And? It means he's maybe a mama's boy? Maybe she made his lunch for him everyday too! How he lived at home, whether alone or with others is really not of consequence. I understand what you're saying, but this isn't a psychological paper LE is writing here..."round about ways" have no place in a murder trial. Conviction has to be based on hard facts and evidence, circumstantial or otherwise...without a reasonable doubt. I don't really think it matters if his mom bought his toothpaste or not...as a matter of fact, seems to me that if that's the case...DG isn't independent enough to have done this by himself, if he's done anything homicidal at all. Maybe he really has mental issues...sociopathic? Schizophrenic? Disassociation Disorder? I wonder why he hasn't been sent for a psychiatric evaluation yet? Calgary has some of the top forensic psychiatrists is the country. Does this come perhaps on August 14th?

 

[CentralAlberta]

It's weird...not gruesome. Plain weird...KL and AL are even weirder than DG.

And just what are you basing this comment on? AL/KL may come across as unscrupulous given the bankruptcies but even to say that would be unfair since none of us know what the true circumstances were.
Weird I would say not.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

There is a strong motive behind these murders. It seems evident that the motive relates to Alvin Liknes. We know that there were issues with a patent that Garland "altered" for Liknes. Is that enough to justify murder in Garland's mind? Perhaps. If that happened a long time ago, then there is most likely something new that cause Garland to choose murder. The Mexico condo is a recent purchase, and if Garland money is tied up with the condo where the Liknes couple planned to live, then that could be related to motive.

In what way are the parents of a 54 year old accused murder related to the murders?

If DG's sister PG or DG's parents had even a penny invested in the mexico condo and if DG was already wary of AL and his handling of money, maybe DG suspected AL was pulling a fast one of sorts on his sister or parents and that type of 'injustice' (in his eyes of course) pushed him to his limit.

 

[bornofposeidon]

And? It means he's maybe a mama's boy? Maybe she made his lunch for him everyday too! How he lived at home, whether alone or with others is really not of consequence. I understand what you're saying, but this isn't a psychological paper LE is writing here..."round about ways" have no place in a murder trial. Conviction has to be based on hard facts and evidence, circumstantial or otherwise...without a reasonable doubt. I don't really think it matters if his mom bought his toothpaste or not...as a matter of fact, seems to me that if that's the case...DG isn't independent enough to have done this by himself, if he's done anything homicidal at all. Maybe he really has mental issues...sociopathic? Schizophrenic? Disassociation Disorder? I wonder why he hasn't been sent for a psychiatric evaluation yet? Calgary has some of the top forensic psychiatrists is the country. Does this come perhaps on August 14th?

We, well the majority of us, aren't law enforcement though and are not responsible for taking this case to trial. This is a message board where people are free to discuss any thoughts they may have about the cases that intrigue them the most.

 

[CentralAlberta]

I've been working with Tom Cruise on his new movie for 6 months now... we're making good progress. I almost tricked someone close to him into giving me his phone number.

I love it. Maybe you could get me George Clooney's number??:loveyou:

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

:thinking:

Oops you evolved without a sense of humour then? Come into the light out of the darkness

Wub wyoo pwefur I pype whif my pung im my psheek? Or would you like to re-read my Shakespearean with tongue and cheek colored glasses?

 

[Sillybilly]

It doesn't exclude a lot of things, but it would have most likely then been a charge of "Possession of a Stolen Credit Card" as used in this example:

"... identity theft, credit card theft, possession of stolen credit card, possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000 and possession of
http://www.yorkregion.com/news-stor...ed-in-markham-charged-with-credit-card-fraud/
property obtained by crime over $5,000."

The "stolen" designation wasn't used for the property because it wasn't taken, it was fraudulently obtained by using the stolen credit card. Much like a credit card being obtained using a fraudulent ID, rather than being taken from someone. There is a difference.

Most likely?? I see we're back at square one. All depends which section of the CCC he was charged under, 342.1(a) or 342.1(c) ...

(a) "steals a credit card", one would think the card would be on the accused in order for it to be determined that it was stolen by them;

(c) "possesses ... knowing it was obtained by ..." would indicate it was in the accused's possession, but unknown whether he or someone else had committed the offence of stealing it.

We are still left with the question of, what was the crime/offence that was committed that resulted in him having the card on him? Did he steal it, manufacture it, get it from someone else who stole it? They went with whatever charge they would be able to prove. Still doesn't exclude that he MAY have stolen it.

FWIW, the term "possession of a stolen credit card" is not the actual wording of a charge under the CCC. The only references to it in the CCC are (a) to (f) under Section 342.1

 

[Tinkerbel1]

What a disrespectful tone. In the context of the bigger discussion a group was having, the conversation was around why DG only applied for his SIN at age 20. The discussion fanned out a little and this was an offshoot of that.

My apologies, no disrespect intended. Incredulous would be more like it. I don't understand why his age at the time of procuring his SIN number, where his tuition, his living expenses or the wherewithal of his coffee money is relevant to him being charged with a triple homicide? I thought WS was an "open" discussion and not one of "a group", again, my apologies for commenting Cherchri. I'm new to WS and I've read all the threads and comments related to this case but I still maintain that whatever oddities DG may display he may have come by some through no fault of his own. There may be some mental illness here, there may be psychological disorders, there could be a lot of things, that are unique to the individual. What I see a lot of is DG's bones pretty much being picked clean by some....I'm simply sticking up for a human being that may not be guilty as charged. No matter what crime a person did or did not commit, they still had a childhood, they still had their upbringing, their parents still love them and perhaps they weren't as socially adept as others, but that shouldn't be license for us to sit and pick absolutely everything about that person apart. The question is, did he do it, or didn't he?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

lol...oh goodness!

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Most likely?? I see we're back at square one. All depends which section of the CCC he was charged under, 342.1(a) or 342.1(c) ...

(a) "steals a credit card", one would think the card would be on the accused in order for it to be determined that it was stolen by them;

(c) "possesses ... knowing it was obtained by ..." would indicate it was in the accused's possession, but unknown whether he or someone else had committed the offence of stealing it.

We are still left with the question of, what was the crime/offence that was committed that resulted in him having the card on him? Did he steal it, manufacture it, get it from someone else who stole it? They went with whatever charge they would be able to prove. Still doesn't exclude that he MAY have stolen it.

Again... the article that says it was a TD Bank card with MH's name on it sort of blows most of the speculation out of the water. No, it's not LE, but it's a crime reporter, in Calgary, with 25 years of experience and the inside contacts that come with it, naming DG and TD Bank in MSM and not worried about a lawsuit from anyone... like every other theory here, we basically have likely vs. unlikely to go on.

 

[Sillybilly]

We, well the majority of us, aren't law enforcement though and are not responsible for taking this case to trial. This is a message board where people are free to discuss any thoughts they may have about the cases that intrigue them the most.

Not to mention that forensic psychologists will be studying the alleged perp wrt the same types of things we are discussing. Did he torture animals, did he wet the bed, was he a difficult child, etc.

 

[Female]

[modsnip]

There are a few in every group aren't there

I've been lurking. Went many a time to post only to remind myself I had no account. It's been interesting to read all the theories. I was born and raised in Airdrie and have a close family member with CPS who had worked on scene at the L residence. They have spoken about some aspects of what they saw, what JO said upon police arrival etc. They of course were privy to some of the evidence found on the acreage as well. They don't give me too much info as they love their job and respect the family and the investigation but I've gotten enough. Can't wait to see if my theory based on first hand cop info is anywhere near what will come out in court.

 

[Sillybilly]

Again... the article that says it was a TD card with MH's name on it sort of blows most of the speculation out of the water. No, it's not LE, but it's a crime reporter, in Calgary, with 25 years of experience, and the inside contacts that come with it, naming DG and TD Bank in MSM and not worried about a lawsuit from anyone... like every other theory here, we basically have likely vs. unlikely to go on.

Well, Thank You. In all the kerfuffle, i missed that very specific reference.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Well, Thank You. In all the kerfuffle, i missed that very specific reference.

"The charges against Garland are in connection with ID and a bank card allegedly in the name of a young Alberta boy whose identity he assumed while unlawfully at large during the 1990s."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/a...and+could+released+Friday/10014971/story.html


"The Crown has agreed to the release of Douglas Garland, the person of interest in the mysterious disappearance of a Calgary family, on unrelated charges."

"Police released him from that detention, but charged him with an unrelated identity theft. The Crown has since added a second charge of possessing a TD bank card that was obtained by crime.

The identity and bank card charges relate to the name of Matthew Hartley, an Alberta teen killed in a 1980 car crash and whose name Garland took while on the lam from police in the 1990s."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/07/0...on-of-interest-in-liknes-family-disappearance


Sorry... there's just nothing other that a reporter's use of the word "stolen" to think it was a card of one of the victims.

These were the links in post #413.

Even DG's lawyer points out that it's unrelated:

"“I’ve only been retained on the charges that are unrelated to any other investigation that’s ongoing,” Ross said."

 

[Tinkerbel1]

We, well the majority of us, aren't law enforcement though and are not responsible for taking this case to trial. This is a message board where people are free to discuss any thoughts they may have about the cases that intrigue them the most.

Oh boy! My apologies again! I am new here! Message board? Have you seen everything posted? I wonder if LE has most of the information that's been dug up on here! It's pretty incredible...and a fine job too! Point taken. Well, I guess what intrigues me the most is the perhaps unintentional display of entitlement to dissect someone to the point of oblivion as a matter of discussion. It just really bothers me because IMO every person has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter what the circumstances. DG has not been convicted ... and my comment was in answer to a statement that was made regarding who paid for his tuition, and living expenses...not about taking the case to trial. I simply would like to know why we feel that we have the right to invade a person's privacy to the point of questioning why his parents were camping when this was happening? Why his parents haven't responded to this? Who paid for tuition when he was in his 20's and how his sister is in a relationship with AL's son? IMO, it has no bearing on this case at all, but could (and probably has) caused a lot of damage to people, who may or may not deserve it. JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

These were the links in post #413.

Even DG's lawyer points out that it's unrelated:

"“I’ve only been retained on the charges that are unrelated to any other investigation that’s ongoing,” Ross said."

Seems he spoke too early, given at least some is going to be used as evidence in the murder trial :biggrin:

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Not to mention that forensic psychologists will be studying the alleged perp wrt the same types of things we are discussing. Did he torture animals, did he wet the bed, was he a difficult child, etc.

With all due respect, I wet the bed til I was 12. I also took a package of gum from a store when I was 11. I picked some flowers out of the neighbors flower bed and brought them home to my mom when I was 6. I picked up a cigarette at the bus stop when I was 6 and puffed on it...all of these things are not things of a well-adjusted child I wouldn't say...I suffered a severe depressive episode five years ago, but that does not make me any more capable of committing a crime. And if I did commit a crime, it's not because I wet the bed til I was 12. I'm just saying...I think that people nowadays have to be more mindful of how they treat other people...and yes, a forensic psychiatirist would be asking those questions, which we aren't forensic psychiatrists any more than the majority of us are law enforcement. Which no one bothered to answer my question about why he hasn't been sent for a psychiatric assessment as of yet?

 

[Shags0sh]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheDarkness
These were the links in post #413.

Even DG's lawyer points out that it's unrelated:

"“I’ve only been retained on the charges that are unrelated to any other investigation that’s ongoing,” Ross said."

IMO semantics.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

There is nothing appalling about the first article. It portrays a very accurate life of living with a child with a mental illness. The only way people who have no idea what it like are going to have empathy for these children/adults and their parents are for people like this speaking up.

What I did find appalling was when I read, in the second article, that the father had no contact with his son for 2 years and did not live with him for several years. Here he is trying to speak as an expert when really he doesn't have a clue. Even what his wife writes to him is subject to his interpretation. Only those who have been subject to the trauma, fear and heartbreak of what a son or daughter with a mental illness is like truly knows. All others can do is offer support and be thankful on a daily basis their children aren't inflicted. When a child is strickened with a physical illness whole communities come together to offer support. Parents and children/young adults who are afflicted with mental illness suffer in silence.

This could very well be how it was for DG and his parents. It could be they are 'in hiding' because maybe deep in their hearts they knew he was capable of something like this. Unfortunately there is very little help and support for these families until something happens. I pray that they are receiving the help they need at this horrendous time in their lives.

What an absolutely eloquent, kind, compassionate and loving thing to say!!! Love, light and blessings to you kind soul, as well as to ALL of the victims here...including DG.