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

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Exactly. I think we have sufficiently shown that these young bucks pretending to be journalists, play hard and fast with the wording.

"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



"Garland appeared in court on charges related to the identity theft of Hartley’s name on July 7, but was released.

Two days later, police confirmed a green truck was seized from Garland’s property and he appeared in court again for an additional charge of possession of a stolen credit card."

http://globalnews.ca/news/1451758/who-is-calgary-triple-murder-suspect-douglas-garland/


You can't argue it both ways, where the one reporter accurately describing the charges is a fast and loose young buck, and the one using "stolen" is the knowledgeable one. Compare the two above and ask yourself who is more credible? The one with the accurate description, or the one that couldn't even get the timeline right?

The fact the one reporter actually got the inside scoop on a TD card sounds like they spoke to someone knowledgeable... directly.

 

[ElleElle]

I prefer the Calgary Sun journalist. No messing around, just the cold hard facts.

 

[Cherchri]

Well as I remember, it's at the same point that she says something like, Why shouldn't a blonde boy be the poster child for mental illness? Does that ring a bell?

I haven't watched in more than a year so it's always possible that the doc/ pr for doc is not the source.

Hope if it's not the experience was, at the very least, enlightening. Sounds like you logged a lot of viewing.

Yes I do recall her saying that in reference to the criticism she received fir sharing her son's photo. She indicated he was in kindergarten in the photo and in reality at the time of her blog he was in grade 8. She felt, regardless, that we need to put a face to mental illness. I certainly enjoyed it. Thank you.

 

[ElleElle]

Sorry if you guys discussed this, but DG is going back to court on the murder charges next week? What evidence do they have?!

 

[Cherchri]

"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



"Garland appeared in court on charges related to the identity theft of Hartley’s name on July 7, but was released.

Two days later, police confirmed a green truck was seized from Garland’s property and he appeared in court again for an additional charge of possession of a stolen credit card."

http://globalnews.ca/news/1451758/who-is-calgary-triple-murder-suspect-douglas-garland/


You can't argue it both ways, where the one reporter accurately describing the charges is a fast and loose young buck, and the one using "stolen" is the knowledgeable one. Compare the two above and ask yourself who is more credible? The one with the accurate description, or the one that couldn't even get the timeline right?

The fact the one reporter actually got the inside scoop on a TD card sounds like they spoke to someone knowledgeable... directly.

I think what you share here only serves to underscore the problem. The problem being, reporters are putting a spin on what they (think) they know - that's what the media is all about. I only rely on live clips with official LE spokespersons and my own process. That is not to say I don't read everything else, I most certainly do but much of it, I take with a grain of salt. There are a few good reporters out there and they have my respect. None of the three global reporters number among the few I respect. Erika Tucker is a digital journalist and for this piece she shared files....With files from Tamara Elliott and Marlisse Silver Sweeney. I doubt they interviewed anyone at all and merely scraped what they could from whence they would. I will reread the Sun piece and share my views if they are worth sharing.

 

[ElleElle]

This sentence does not make sense:

"Friends and family said the couple planned to move to Edmonton and stay for about three months, then re-locate to Mexico before returning to Canada to settle in Edmonton."

Source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Triple+murder+probe+leads+Mexico/10093972/story.html

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I just want to go off on a TV/movie plot line here and ask, does anyone know if LE allowed to legally 'bluff' charges? Meaning, keeping ME's conclusions to themselves regardless of any evidence of death (or non-evidence let's say) to bluff DG with 1st degree charges to get him to talk/turn? I'm thinking doubtful as lawyers wouldn't possibly 'play along' (unless they could until disclosure of evidence in court) and I don't think it would be legal. I'm curious more than anything if this would ever be done to a perp to divulge info about a crime...

 

[Cherchri]

"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



"Garland appeared in court on charges related to the identity theft of Hartley’s name on July 7, but was released.

Two days later, police confirmed a green truck was seized from Garland’s property and he appeared in court again for an additional charge of possession of a stolen credit card."

http://globalnews.ca/news/1451758/who-is-calgary-triple-murder-suspect-douglas-garland/


You can't argue it both ways, where the one reporter accurately describing the charges is a fast and loose young buck, and the one using "stolen" is the knowledgeable one. Compare the two above and ask yourself who is more credible? The one with the accurate description, or the one that couldn't even get the timeline right?

The fact the one reporter actually got the inside scoop on a TD card sounds like they spoke to someone knowledgeable... directly.

Apologies for the two separate posts. I'm using an iPad and there are some impediments. Re: Kevin Martin of the Sun.... A seasoned court reporter with more than 25 years under his belt. I would suggest he should have direct access to information as it emanates from the courts. I was disappointed to see his own bio has a glaring error in it. So would I trust everything he writes? No. Spot the error ....
Kevin Martin
Calgary Sun

Kevin Martin follows legal issues for the Calgary Sun - responsible for the day-to-day coverage of trials at the Calgary Court Centre, focusing primarily on criminal matters, as well as writing a column once ever two weeks on justice issues. Born in Montreal and spending his formative years in Ottawa, he's called Alberta home since 1984 and has been with the Calgary Sun, almost exclusively on the court beat, for more than a quarter century after receiving his journalism training at Algonquin College in Ottawa. His many years haunting Calgary's courtrooms give him a unique perspective on the law.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Indeed! My newshound nose twitched way back on July 9 on this issue which is why I pressed on with it. Of course I could be wrong but I am going to stick with it. I did ID the POI here before it was made known and of course was shouted down and snipped. (Understandably). Point is I was right and some young buck saw my post before the snip and claimed a scoop took him a whole day and a bit..... Guess he had to sort out all the legal angles before he could publish. So some of this I come by via search methodology, connecting the dots and some on pure instinct. Also maybe a touch of logic/deductive reasoning.

I think what you share here only serves to underscore the problem. The problem being, reporters are putting a spin on what they (think) they know - that's what the media is all about. I only rely on live clips with official LE spokespersons and my own process. That is not to say I don't read everything else, I most certainly do but much of it, I take with a grain of salt. There are a few good reporters out there and they have my respect. Nine of the three global reporters number among the few I respect. Erika Tucker is a digital journalist and for this piece she shared files....With files from Tamara Elliott and Marlisse Silver Sweeney. I doubt they interviewed anyone at all and merely scraped what they could from whence they would. I will reread the Sun piece and share my views if they are worth sharing.

Yes... it's hard to stomach when someone puts a spin on what they (think) they know. I'm certain every journalist, some you personally respect, and some that work for Global, have all run into quick deadlines, and threw something together that wasn't quite worded accurately. The fact TD isn't up in arms about being "falsely" linked to an identity theft makes the Sun story even that much more credible.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Apologies for the two separate posts. I'm using an iPad and there are some impediments. Re: Kevin Martin of the Sun.... A seasoned court reporter with more than 25 years under his belt. I would suggest he should have direct access to information as it emanates from the courts. I was disappointed to see his own bio has a glaring error in it. So would I trust everything he writes? No. Spot the error ....
Kevin Martin
Calgary Sun

Kevin Martin follows legal issues for the Calgary Sun - responsible for the day-to-day coverage of trials at the Calgary Court Centre, focusing primarily on criminal matters, as well as writing a column once ever two weeks on justice issues. Born in Montreal and spending his formative years in Ottawa, he's called Alberta home since 1984 and has been with the Calgary Sun, almost exclusively on the court beat, for more than a quarter century after receiving his journalism training at Algonquin College in Ottawa. His many years haunting Calgary's courtrooms give him a unique perspective on the law.

Yes... trust her instead.

"Erika Tucker
Web Coordinator

Erika works with a team of digital journalists, covering national and international breaking news for GlobalNews.ca.

Erika began working at Global Toronto in 2008, field producing for the local News Hour, often with a focus on health stories. She joined the national GlobalNews.ca team in 2012."

http://globalnews.ca/author/erika-tucker/

Released, then brought back in on stolen credit card charges. Yikes.

 

[goodasgold]

I just want to go off on a TV/movie plot line here and ask, does anyone know if LE allowed to legally 'bluff' charges? Meaning, keeping ME's conclusions to themselves regardless of any evidence of death (or non-evidence let's say) to bluff DG with 1st degree charges to get him to talk/turn? I'm thinking doubtful as lawyers wouldn't possibly 'play along' (unless they could until disclosure of evidence in court) and I don't think it would be legal. I'm curious more than anything if this would ever be done to a perp to divulge info about a crime...

I had this same thought and still wonder if this is what is happening. Maybe DG is talking and that is what led them to Mexico. JMO

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I just want to go off on a TV/movie plot line here and ask, does anyone know if LE allowed to legally 'bluff' charges? Meaning, keeping ME's conclusions to themselves regardless of any evidence of death (or non-evidence let's say) to bluff DG with 1st degree charges to get him to talk/turn? I'm thinking doubtful as lawyers wouldn't possibly 'play along' (unless they could until disclosure of evidence in court) and I don't think it would be legal. I'm curious more than anything if this would ever be done to a perp to divulge info about a crime...

There is a heavy risk involved in potentially playing that game.

"In February, Vader filed a $150,000 lawsuit against the RCMP and claimed they set him up on a false charge of obstructing justice. That charge was also stayed shortly before Vader was scheduled to go on trial.

Vader alleges RCMP officers never meant for him to stand trial on the obstruction charge and only meant to damage his credibility and block his bail application. Police also hoped to increase Vader’s “mental stress” and buy themselves time to gather evidence against him, the lawsuit stated."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...gainst-man-accused-of-alberta-couples-murder/

 

[Cherchri]

Yes... trust her instead.

"Erika Tucker
Web Coordinator

Erika works with a team of digital journalists, covering national and international breaking news for GlobalNews.ca.

Erika began working at Global Toronto in 2008, field producing for the local News Hour, often with a focus on health stories. She joined the national GlobalNews.ca team in 2012."

http://globalnews.ca/author/erika-tucker/

Released, then brought back in on stolen credit card charges. Yikes.

No definitely not her instead. He does attend trials so is getting firsthand info "live". I was just having a dig at him for not noticing the error in his own bio. Because of that error, I would not trust everything he writes.

 

[studyer]

No definitely not her instead. He does attend trials so is getting firsthand info "live". I was just having a dig at him for not noticing the error in his own bio. Because of that error, I would not trust everything he writes.

What is the error? The typos?

 

[Cherchri]

What is the error? The typos?

Being nit picky Studyer but if this is how one promotes one's self as a writer, then not top notch in my book. I have bolded two errors but there are several more. Anyway, I am not being very serious about this just nitpicking because we are debating which reporter is more credible.

Kevin Martin follows legal issues for the Calgary Sun - responsible for the day-to-day coverage of trials at the Calgary Court Centre, focusing primarily on criminal matters, as well as writing a column once ever two weeks on justice issues. Born in Montreal and spending his formative years in Ottawa, he's called Alberta home since 1984 and has been with the Calgary Sun, almost exclusively on the court beat, for more than a quarter century after receiving his journalism training at Algonquin College in Ottawa. His many years haunting Calgary's courtrooms give him a unique perspective on the law.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

No definitely not her instead. He does attend trials so is getting firsthand info "live". I was just having a dig at him for not noticing the error in his own bio. Because of that error, I would not trust everything he writes.

Trust nothing anyone writes. Simple.

However, in this case, especially given the amount of detail in the Sun story, I would suspect he (or someone else) would have broken the MASSIVE story that "DG is in possession of one of the victims credit cards" if that were actually the case. Everything, even your own "young buck fast and loose" theory, points to possessing a "stolen" credit card of one of the victims, as being a highly unlikely event.

 

[Sillybilly]

I just want to go off on a TV/movie plot line here and ask, does anyone know if LE allowed to legally 'bluff' charges? Meaning, keeping ME's conclusions to themselves regardless of any evidence of death (or non-evidence let's say) to bluff DG with 1st degree charges to get him to talk/turn? I'm thinking doubtful as lawyers wouldn't possibly 'play along' (unless they could until disclosure of evidence in court) and I don't think it would be legal. I'm curious more than anything if this would ever be done to a perp to divulge info about a crime...

Disclosure is something that is ongoing up until trial, not something that just occurs at the time of trial (unless it is newly discovered evidence). The Crown has a duty to disclose in a timely fashion to the defence team and would be required to provide expert evidence (the ME's reports/conclusions) to the defence within a reasonable time from when the Crown themselves became privy to it. Failing to do so could possibly result in a mistrial. Provisions are set out in the Criminal Code of Canada, and failure to abide by them can have serious consequences.

This is a good article I have bookmarked from the Criminal Lawyers Association of Canada (but relates specifically to Ontario from the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General; shouldn't vary much from province to province, if at all):

http://www.criminallawyers.ca/members/sharedocs/docs/March2006/PM_2005_No_35.pdf

 

[otto]

I just want to go off on a TV/movie plot line here and ask, does anyone know if LE allowed to legally 'bluff' charges? Meaning, keeping ME's conclusions to themselves regardless of any evidence of death (or non-evidence let's say) to bluff DG with 1st degree charges to get him to talk/turn? I'm thinking doubtful as lawyers wouldn't possibly 'play along' (unless they could until disclosure of evidence in court) and I don't think it would be legal. I'm curious more than anything if this would ever be done to a perp to divulge info about a crime...

Police will bluff when interviewing a person of interest.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Being nit picky Studyer but if this is how OBE promotes one's self as a writer, then not top notch in my book. I have bolder two errors but there are several more. Anyway, I am not being very serious about this just nitpicking because we are debating which reporter is more credible.

Kevin Martin follows legal issues for the Calgary Sun - responsible for the day-to-day coverage of trials at the Calgary Court Centre, focusing primarily on criminal matters, as well as writing a column once ever two weeks on justice issues. Born in Montreal and spending his formative years in Ottawa, he's called Alberta home since 1984 and has been with the Calgary Sun, almost exclusively on the court beat, for more than a quarter century after receiving his journalism training at Algonquin College in Ottawa. His many years haunting Calgary's courtrooms give him a unique perspective on the law.

He's... A contraction of He Has.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/he's

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I don't mean any disrespect to any of the Liknes or O'Brien families...but, this is a big deal and someone is being accused of a pretty big crime here! IMO, I think they staged their own disappearance and DG gave them a ride somewhere for some money. Wow! If I owed that much money to the government and had screwed people over for patents and employment, etc. whilst I was presenting a very savvy business persona to the community...I would high-tail it too! I don't get how KL didn't seem to know what they were actually doing, nor did their son. JO said they purchased property in Mexico, and then said it was "family" property in Mexico. No one seems to really know what they owned, or where they were going...including KL. She gave 3 or 4 different people, different stories at the Estate Sale. I also would like to know how NO ended up staying over at his grandparent's house. Who requested the sleepover? Where was it stated that NO had fallen asleep and was left to stay over at his grandparents'? I really like the question someone asked regarding the 'blood doping'? thing that athletes do. Makes a lot of sense to me. What doesn't make sense is that DG would be waving a red flag at the police with a) his truck on camera several times and b) using a stolen identity credit card that he's already gone to jail for. Sounds to me like he was almost screaming..."pick me"!
I also find it interesting that up until and including the Friday before LE decided that this was now a triple murder, they had high hopes of finding the disappeared persons alive.
DG is released on 750.00 bail; the public has already accused and condemned him....how good do you think LE would look if they didn't grab him? We already know he was a high flight risk, no doubt so did LE, better to accuse someone wrongly and apologise later...than to let him walk and have mud on their faces....the public is expecting results!! I don't think they're going to find any dead bodies, because I don't think there are any dead bodies. DG had 4 days to do something with 3 dead bodies...in an old green half ton...how far do you think he could've taken them without stopping for gas? That would be ridiculous to think that he'ld have them in the back of his truck at a gas station...therefore, if he has in fact murdered them, they would have to be close, which means, if they haven't found the bodies or any evidence of the bodies (which hasn't been confirmed, althought I don't know why LE would keep that a secret...it would be a feather in their cap), it's because there are no bodies!! I believe these people will surface somewhere. Was DG involved in their disappearance? I think so! But all that makes him is an accomplice to.....what? So, should these people turn up somewhere...what happens then?
There's some REALLY big holes here...a whole bunch of them! How long does it take to drive from Airdrie to Vancouver? 11 hours? Great headstart!! Maybe a private yacht off to somewhere tropical? And, what about the family-owned plane? There was a lot of lead-time before the Amber Alert was issued...anyone could've gotten out of the country long before then, depending on what time of night they went missing. If I were a juror...there would have to be 100% unequivocal proof that none of the above occurred? And, how can anyone prove it hasn't without the bodies? I am hoping that this is what has happened...its much better than the alternative.

IMO, their bodies have been placed down a well or simply placed somewhere in a field/side of road.

We know that DG's truck was not likely capable of 4x4ing to the recovery location.

LE feels sure they will recover the families remains, as they stated at the presser.

Despite all the indications of chemicals, machinery, etc., I am following the KISS methodology for 'disposal' here.

The didn't care once he accomplished his planned goal of killing BOTH Liknes'. For revenge, no doubt.

I would not be surprised to learn that the family has been placed in a location between their home in Calgary and Airdrie.

JMO