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

[Sillybilly]

I'm confused. Do we know that the accused actually did plan the murders?

<rsbm>

Chief Hanson made reference to the murders being premeditated, thus the 1st degree charges against DG.

from:
http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1097044/nathan-obriens-mom-remains-hopeful-her-son-will-come-home/

Police haven&#8217;t identified a motive in the presumed killings but Hanson did indicate Monday that, while police believe the murder of Alvin and Kathryn Liknes was premeditated, Nathan&#8217;s was not.

Sorry, don't have time to find the direct quote, but it's somewhere in the back threads where there was a link to the video where Chief Hanson said so.

 

[Sillybilly]

I completely agree with you. I think its going to be difficult to find an unbiased jury in this Province, unfortunately. I can understand the anger that is inspired in people at this tragedy, however, I agree that he's already being branded as guilty, and even some forms of what should be done to him have been suggested. Every single human being is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect no matter what...and you are right, if he is guilty, he will receive just punishment...if he isn't, his life has pretty much been ruined already, and that is very, very sad. So has that of his sister's, and his brother-in-law's and possibly their children as well. Yikes! Sending love, light and blessings out to everyone involved in this situation, as I said...there are no winners.

This case is really no different than any other major case in Canada. Part of the jury selection process will be to determine whether or not a potential juror believes they are able to set aside any preconceived ideas wrt guilt or innocence. Judge's formal instructions will leave no doubt in the jurors' minds what they are able to consider in their deliberations.

 

[LawyerMum]

Hi all, am new here and have been haunted by this case on a daily basis as am sure many of us here are. There is something akin to group support that sleuthing here gives. My thoughts often turn to the families affected by this dreadful incident.

Hope this is not too O/T as it goes back to some older posts, but it's re the drag marks coming from the side of the house as shown in the previously attached picture, http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000Ji_oQh8gTgY/s/600/480/QMI-CS2014701DM040-original.jpg.

There was so much debate about how someone could have managed to remove bodies, what caused the drag marks etc. etc. A leaky bag? A chair? I just can't help thinking that perhaps a wheelbarrow was used. Has one wheel (hence, one 'drag' mark which looks to be about the right width for a wheel). The mark appears as a wobbly line (caused by heavy weight inside and/or wonky wheel). There is only one 'drag' mark. This indicates only one trip was taken. The reason the wheel mark appears could be because of some liquid escaping.

If this were the case, where did the wheelbarrow end up?

Hope I posted ok!

 

[Cherchri]

If only some Canadians know what happens when you have a severe disability in this country. My hubby had a devastating Brain Stem Stroke/Locked-In-Syndrome 7 years ago and while he was in rehab facility for 2.5 years. , yes, his medical needs were paid for by healthcare. Since coming home, we have used in access of $200,000 of our retirement savings, of which one needs to pay taxes on, to provide the medical care and equipment he requires to survive with absolutely nothing covered by the healthcare system once you go home. We also had to move to a less isolated area, which forced us to sell our house at a reduced price after having double living expenses for 7 years. Enough to consider bankruptcy...Does that make us questionable people...NO, just survivors of a devastating medical trauma!

I hate hearng this! Suffering upon suffering. I do hope things get easier for you.

 

[stan laurel]

This case is really no different than any other major case in Canada. Part of the jury selection process will be to determine whether or not a potential juror believes they are able to set aside any preconceived ideas wrt guilt or innocence. Judge's formal instructions will leave no doubt in the jurors' minds what they are able to consider in their deliberations.

Considering the vast swath of posters theories and sentiments on these many pages, I don't think an unbiased jury will be that hard to find. Will it actually be a juried trial?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Hmmmm....I wonder if Chief Hanson is deeming the murders of KL and AL premeditated based on something other than what DG was thinking...because no one knows what DG was thinking...he hasn't said. It is entirely possible that DG went to the Liknes home (if in fact he did), and something went sideways...it may not have been his intention to murder anyone. It may have happened as a sequence of unfortunate events. I also find it interesting that first degree murder charges can be laid if someone dies while being "forcibly confined". I don't think we know if NO was alive when he was moved from the house or not. If he was alive, and passed while being "forcibly confined", then that should be a first degree murder charge as well, shouldn't it? The other reason for a first degree murder charge would be "intent"....what proof is there that DG "intended" on killing the Liknes'. Again, we're assuming we know what DG was thinking. If there were items missing from the Liknes home such as shower curtain, sheets, blankets...that would indicate that the murderer was not entirely prepared for the event...so perhaps it wasn't premeditated. I think what LE did was lay the harshest charges they could and the trial and presentation of actual evidence may be able to prove 2nd degree murder and not 1st? IDK...just a thought.

 

[Cherchri]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...l-mysteriously-vanished-after-an-estate-sale/

"Cliff Liknes said he decided to pay a visit to his brother&#8217;s home in southwest Calgary on Monday morning after Alvin didn&#8217;t answer his phone"

So there is brother CL...and nephew CL..the boxer/actor. We had discussed this wayyyy back IIRC because we talked of the age difference...so that explains that...there are 2. All these names so similar and being family names shared...makes my head spin!

Actually, I think it's possible that the ownership/beneficiary issues may be at the least touched on in this case, sort of in line with the follow-the-money philosophy.
The site below supports what you said. A Fideicomiso (like a U.S. estate trust) is required for "foreign individuals or firms" to purchase property in certain areas of Mexico. When JO in the press conference said that the Mexican home was a family investment, it could be that the family created a corporation made up of family members in order to purchase the property for the benefit of all family members, reducing the amount each person would contribute to the purchase of the property. It seems as though property would not have to be paid for outright, but could be paid for over time.

My guess is that this is the arrangement referred to by the reporter who said the Mexican property was owned by members of the Garland (PG?) and the Liknes families.



Therefore, it is logical that every Fideicomiso requires the naming of beneficiaries.

Much more information can be found on this site.
http://www.forevermazatlan.com/Bank_Trust/page_2138557.html

On another site I found this information, which I found very interesting in relationship to the possibility of the family forming a corporation either in Canada in order to purchase as a foreign corporation, or incorporating in Mexico as a Mexican corporation. This would also tie in the the pictures someone found on KL's fb of rental signs.



More information on this site.
http://www.banderasnews.com/real-estate/ownership-info.htm

This ownership situation might be something that CPS would have to go to Mexico to investigate in person with the principals involved in the the purchase, ie. in the Fideicomiso, local real estate attorney, and so on.

I'm curious to see if other posters think this is relevant.

That is simply awesome. Thank you so much.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Just wondering what would be the likely cause for 3 bankruptcies in Canada? Credit card debt, personal loans, utilities, law suits and what else? Taxes?

In the US you can't file for back taxes, federal student loans or child support arrears but almost everything else is fair game AFAIK.

When I hear bankruptcy here in the US I always assume it's because of medical bills first but in Canada isn't that a non issue because of socialized healthcare?

Personal bankruptcy can happen from something as simple such as living beyond's one's means. I knew someone who in their early 30's declared bankruptcy after charging up the credit cards over the years to 'live the good life' to go on trips, buy expensive wine, buying a used trailer to park on the lake for weekend leisure, etc. This person was on a modest income, but living like someone making double that. The irksome thing is - after bankruptcy was declared she didn't bat an eye (it gets wiped from your record after so long right?) and took a trip to a different country, and still makes trips and bad money decisions to this day (while getting partially subsidized by the government). No lesson learned. Frankly, I'm waiting to hear if it'll happened a second time! Unfortunately, spending before earning seems to be a North American epidemic these days.

 

[bakerlady]

I don't really believe that AL and DG did not speak for 7 years and then suddenly came face to face randomly on June 29th. Maybe they talked in March or May or June 27th, 2014? Would ALjr know? Maybe not. Maybe they did business with each other and decided to keep it hush hush. But 7 years? Nahhh...

 

[Sillybilly]

Hmmmm....I wonder if Chief Hanson is deeming the murders of KL and AL premeditated based on something other than what DG was thinking...because no one knows what DG was thinking...he hasn't said. It is entirely possible that DG went to the Liknes home (if in fact he did), and something went sideways...it may not have been his intention to murder anyone. It may have happened as a sequence of unfortunate events. I also find it interesting that first degree murder charges can be laid if someone dies while being "forcibly confined". I don't think we know if NO was alive when he was moved from the house or not. If he was alive, and passed while being "forcibly confined", then that should be a first degree murder charge as well, shouldn't it? The other reason for a first degree murder charge would be "intent"....what proof is there that DG "intended" on killing the Liknes'. Again, we're assuming we know what DG was thinking. If there were items missing from the Liknes home such as shower curtain, sheets, blankets...that would indicate that the murderer was not entirely prepared for the event...so perhaps it wasn't premeditated. I think what LE did was lay the harshest charges they could and the trial and presentation of actual evidence may be able to prove 2nd degree murder and not 1st? IDK...just a thought.

In order for the Crown to proceed with 1st degree charges, there will be some type of evidence to support premeditation, whether direct evidence (i.e. possibly computer records, journals) or circumstantial (i.e. driving several times around the neighbourhood during the critical timeframe, purchasing a weapon used in the crime). Direct evidence is of course preferable, but heavy circumstantial can be just as damaging.

As for why there are only 2nd degree charges in NO's case, this has also been discussed at length in earlier threads. WE don't know if NO was alive when removed from the home, but we can be pretty sure LE and the Crown know. If there is no obvious premeditation (i.e. his presence was not planned on, the perp snapped momentarily) or proof of forcible confinement (i.e. removed from the home), then the Crown can only go with whatever they are able to prove through available evidence and have it hold up in court.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

This case is really no different than any other major case in Canada. Part of the jury selection process will be to determine whether or not a potential juror believes they are able to set aside any preconceived ideas wrt guilt or innocence. Judge's formal instructions will leave no doubt in the jurors' minds what they are able to consider in their deliberations.

This may be true, but IMO, unless you are an automaton, any information anyone may have heard on this case is going to tug at heart strings, especially because of young NO...how likely is it to find that many jurors that can push those emotions aside, when it can't even be done in this Forum and we don't even have the evidence? The public outcry against DG has already painted him as a murderer...that`s going to be awful hard to put aside as well. I suppose though, there are those out there that are not ruled by their emotions and definitely deal with logistics and facts only so it probably is possible to find a jury. I wonder how whoever chooses the jury through the jury selection process knows for surethat the selected juror is indeed totally neutral? I am giving DG the benefit of the doubt because it is one of the rights we have as a Canadian citizen "innocent until proven guilty", that is afforded to all and must be upheld if we are to remain a 'civilized' society, but even that right doesn't guarantee neutrality. No matter what is presented, anybody and everybody is going to have a personal reaction and judge the situation according to their own sets of beliefs and values. How can you not be affected by the death of an innocent child, who was perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time. So where will they find these jurors? I would say that most human beings would find it very, very difficult to sit on that jury and could probably be excused as being biased. It's going to be really hard to find the right people I think.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

In order for the Crown to proceed with 1st degree charges, there will be some type of evidence to support premeditation, whether direct evidence (i.e. possibly computer records, journals) or circumstantial (i.e. driving several times around the neighbourhood during the critical timeframe, purchasing a weapon used in the crime). Direct evidence is of course preferable, but heavy circumstantial can be just as damaging.

As for why there are only 2nd degree charges in NO's case, this has also been discussed at length in earlier threads. WE don't know if NO was alive when removed from the home, but we can be pretty sure LE and the Crown know. If there is no obvious premeditation (i.e. his presence was not planned on, the perp snapped momentarily) or proof of forcible confinement (i.e. removed from the home), then the Crown can only go with whatever they are able to prove through available evidence and have it hold up in court.

Thank you for this Sillybilly...I sure hope you're right

 

[Sillybilly]

This may be true, but IMO, unless you are an automaton, any information anyone may have heard on this case is going to tug at heart strings, especially because of young NO...how likely is it to find that many jurors that can push those emotions aside, when it can't even be done in this Forum and we don't even have the evidence? The public outcry against DG has already painted him as a murderer...that`s going to be awful hard to put aside as well. I suppose though, there are those out there that are not ruled by their emotions and definitely deal with logistics and facts only so it probably is possible to find a jury. I wonder how whoever chooses the jury through the jury selection process knows for surethat the selected juror is indeed totally neutral? I am giving DG the benefit of the doubt because it is one of the rights we have as a Canadian citizen "innocent until proven guilty", that is afforded to all and must be upheld if we are to remain a 'civilized' society, but even that right doesn't guarantee neutrality. No matter what is presented, anybody and everybody is going to have a personal reaction and judge the situation according to their own sets of beliefs and values. How can you not be affected by the death of an innocent child, who was perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time. So where will they find these jurors? I would say that most human beings would find it very, very difficult to sit on that jury and could probably be excused as being biased. It's going to be really hard to find the right people I think.

Well then, I guess you will have to question every jury verdict that has ever been been rendered in Canada.

 

[bullish]

Actually, I think it's possible that the ownership/beneficiary issues may be at the least touched on in this case, sort of in line with the follow-the-money philosophy.
The site below supports what you said. A Fideicomiso (like a U.S. estate trust) is required for "foreign individuals or firms" to purchase property in certain areas of Mexico. When JO in the press conference said that the Mexican home was a family investment, it could be that the family created a corporation made up of family members in order to purchase the property for the benefit of all family members, reducing the amount each person would contribute to the purchase of the property. It seems as though property would not have to be paid for outright, but could be paid for over time.

My guess is that this is the arrangement referred to by the reporter who said the Mexican property was owned by members of the Garland (PG?) and the Liknes families.



Therefore, it is logical that every Fideicomiso requires the naming of beneficiaries.

Much more information can be found on this site.
http://www.forevermazatlan.com/Bank_Trust/page_2138557.html

On another site I found this information, which I found very interesting in relationship to the possibility of the family forming a corporation either in Canada in order to purchase as a foreign corporation, or incorporating in Mexico as a Mexican corporation. This would also tie in the the pictures someone found on KL's fb of rental signs.



More information on this site.
http://www.banderasnews.com/real-estate/ownership-info.htm

This ownership situation might be something that CPS would have to go to Mexico to investigate in person with the principals involved in the the purchase, ie. in the Fideicomiso, local real estate attorney, and so on.

I'm curious to see if other posters think this is relevant.

That's a good point, yes. It might have some relevance after all.

Geez, assuming the Ls had wills in place, I can imagine a nightmarish scenario for lawyers trying to determine who predeceased whom.


If, for instance, AL made KL his heir and beneficiary if he predeceased her, but made one of pr a combination of his own kids heirs and beneficiaries if she predeceased him.


And if, for instance, if KL did the same but named one or both of her kids as heirs and beneficiaries if AL predeceased her. How on earth could they ever determine - without the killer's cooperation - who died last and therefore who the heirs would be?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I don't really believe that AL and DG did not speak for 7 years and then suddenly came face to face randomly on June 29th. Maybe they talked in March or May or June 27th, 2014? Would ALjr know? Maybe not. Maybe they did business with each other and decided to keep it hush hush. But 7 years? Nahhh...

I totally agree with this comment! It's probably better to say that "to the best of AL(jr's) knowledge, they did not interact for 7 years"...because no one but DG and AL can confirm that...and even if DG does say they have been interacting, unless he has evidence to support that, no one will really ever know. DG can say whatever he wants, there's no one to disprove it. That's the thing...there are things in this case that no one will ever know for absolute certain. Speculation and applied circumstantial evidence may show the 'probability' of it ... but probability is still just probability and probability does NOT denote absolute guilt. Unless there is absolute, indisputable evidence that they have not interacted for 7 years, then we can't assume that statement is necessarily true. I doubt that would be allowed in court either.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

That's a good point, yes. It might have some relevance after all.

Geez, assuming the Ls had wills in place, I can imagine a nightmarish scenario for lawyers trying to determine who predeceased whom.


If, for instance, AL made KL his heir and beneficiary if he predeceased her, but made one of pr a combination of his own kids heirs and beneficiaries if she predeceased him.


And if, for instance, if KL did the same but named one or both of her kids as heirs and beneficiaries if AL predeceased her. How on earth could they ever determine - without the killer's cooperation - who died last and therefore who the heirs would be?

I will try and find a link for this but I know that when a married couple die at the same time the older one is determined to have died first.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

That's a good point, yes. It might have some relevance after all.

Geez, assuming the Ls had wills in place, I can imagine a nightmarish scenario for lawyers trying to determine who predeceased whom.


If, for instance, AL made KL his heir and beneficiary if he predeceased her, but made one of pr a combination of his own kids heirs and beneficiaries if she predeceased him.


And if, for instance, if KL did the same but named one or both of her kids as heirs and beneficiaries if AL predeceased her. How on earth could they ever determine - without the killer's cooperation - who died last and therefore who the heirs would be?

Is time of death able to be determined by the ME from the blood in the Liknes house if in fact that's where it happened? I'm wondering if there's some sort of forensic testing that could determine that...I suppose not, it would probably determine only who started bleeding first. There's a lot of things in this case that are going to be grey areas.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

Aha! Here it is http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/wills/Pages/default.aspx. To save from reading the whole document it is in the bullet points highlighting the changes in the Act. So it is a little different now under the changes.

"If two or more people die at or around the same time, the property is distributed as if each person died before the other. Previously, if two or more people died at about the same time, for property distribution purposes, the youngest was deemed to have survived."

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I will try and find a link for this but I know that when a married couple die at the same time the older one is determined to have died first.

That is very interesting!

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Well then, I guess you will have to question every jury verdict that has ever been been rendered in Canada.

Ohhhh...I thought there were specific parameters to be chosen for jury duty...correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they only choose those that have not heard of the case?