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

[Lalalacasbah]

Very interesting. I also noticed that one person who complained and warned about G.L. was A.L. I can't see a brother doing that, and previous online comments from A.L. about another "crook" could be the same person, and not who we think it is. OutOfTheDarkness deleted the link that showed these comments, because of TMI. I don't know what TMI stands for, sorry.

Yes, I read what you read. Someone replied to the 'AL' comment and mentioned someone else who's been discussed here at WS before: NC. TMI=Too Much Info. Again, mods I hope I'm following rules with my wording. Let me know if I used TMI in my post please!

 

[LoisLane]

I sure hope investigators are including Panama in the travel plans.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I wondered this too, and had a glimmer of hope, but then I was told everyone grieves differently or may be he's in denial, it just breaks my heart though.

...and sometimes it's just "attention seeking behaviour"...but nevertheless, it's disturbing.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

It was discussed a bit earlier on, Lala.

FWIW, no biggy .. but the Mods don't "sit" on the boards and read each and every post. If you have a question/concern as to whether or not something is appropriate to post, send them a PM.

Thanks sillybilly, after my little one goes to bed and me and my spouse hit our computers I have to catch up on many WS pages (I like to read all posts if I can to), so I always seem to miss the 'live' interactive discussions lol! My posts and input usually come later, I'm usually behind everyone. I guess I'm still learning about appropriate wording we can use and can't before a mod snips. Be patient with me guys

 

[LoisLane]

If AL and KL were caught up in some crazy Ponzi scheme... why the effort to sell the old and used items in the home? It couldn't have fetched more than a few thousand dollars. The cars did not appear to be for sale and from the interview with the neighbour not much had been sold. Seems like a considerable effort for a couple who could potentially be involved in some major fraudulent ventures. Were they involved as investors who lost out or were they involved at a criminal level? Is it possible they escaped the country with a bunch of others to avoid criminal charges? Why would they need Nathan for that?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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!

Wow! A wheelbarrow certainly would've done the transportation trick for 1 person to handle wouldn't it?! Although, anytime I've ever overfilled a wheelbarrow...it usually ends up tipping sideways...probably because I wasn't strong enough to hold it up....interesting thought!

 

[Tinkerbel1]

If AL and KL were caught up in some crazy Ponzi scheme... why the effort to sell the old and used items in the home? It couldn't have fetched more than a few thousand dollars. The cars did not appear to be for sale and from the interview with the neighbour not much had been sold. Seems like a considerable effort for a couple who could potentially be involved in some major fraudulent ventures. Were they involved as investors who lost out or were they involved at a criminal level? Is it possible they escaped the country with a bunch of others to avoid criminal charges? Why would they need Nathan for that?

I have asked myself that why take NO question several times. The only thing I can come up with is that it has been mentioned that KL and NO were 'very close'...perhaps the only way she was willing to go is if NO was with her...there would be no other family around I'm presuming...and from what's been said, she was the hub of the family...so I'm thinking there's no way she could go without someone from the family...JMO

 

[CentralAlberta]

I have asked myself that why take NO question several times. The only thing I can come up with is that it has been mentioned that KL and NO were 'very close'...perhaps the only way she was willing to go is if NO was with her...there would be no other family around I'm presuming...and from what's been said, she was the hub of the family...so I'm thinking there's no way she could go without someone from the family...JMO

As a grandmother, I can say that my grandchildren are the light of my life. Even though they do not live near me I try to see them every couple of weeks. I cannot imagine suddenly disappearing and never being able to see them again. As tempting as it would be to take one with me I could never do that to my daughter and the other 2 grandchildren nor to the child I would be 'stealing' away from his/her parents and siblings.

I don't buy these grandparents chose to simply disappeared into the night with a grandchild. Why take NO and not one of the others. If that were the case it would make more sense to take the younger child. He probably wouldn't have memories of his 'other' family and wouldn't be able to tell an outsider anything.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I completely agree. I have spoken with people at work who know very little about this ... certainly not enough to taint them as jurors.

Well that's encouraging!

 

[Tinkerbel1]

As a grandmother, I can say that my grandchildren are the light of my life. Even though they do not live near me I try to see them every couple of weeks. I cannot imagine suddenly disappearing and never being able to see them again. As tempting as it would be to take one with me I could never do that to my daughter and the other 2 grandchildren nor to the child I would be 'stealing' away from his/her parents and siblings.

I don't buy these grandparents chose to simply disappeared into the night with a grandchild. Why take NO and not one of the others. If that were the case it would make more sense to take the younger child. He probably wouldn't have memories of his 'other' family and wouldn't be able to tell an outsider anything.

Oh! Good point made by you CentralAlberta! That was the only possible reason my little head could come up with

 

[Chickadea]

http://www.rmoutlook.com/article/20...04208916612922":"og.likes"}&action_ref_map=[]

Found this don't know if posted before. It's the Canmore connection.

 

[deugirtni]

Hi Tinkerbel1 and welcome to WS! I'm kind of newish too! Anyway, I just wanted to ask....... do the courts/LE/whoever it is that would ask for a psychiatric assessment even have the right to ask for that from someone who isn't convicted? As far as I know, the accused and his lawyer do not even have full disclosure yet, and therefore do not even know why he was arrested or what LE has on him to implicate him in these murders... so does our society have the right to demand that someone be sent for psychiatric evaluation before any of this comes out??

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?

 

[deugirtni]

I don't think (MOO) that is is only semantics.. from my memory, Ross said this statement at the time when DG had been incarcerated on the identity and bank card charges, while DG was still a POI.. or at least before he was, or immediately after he was formally charged with the murders.. at the time he said this, he hadn't had a chance yet to be retained by DG on the new charges?

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]

Hi Tinkerbel1 and welcome to WS! I'm kind of newish too! Anyway, I just wanted to ask....... do the courts/LE/whoever it is that would ask for a psychiatric assessment even have the right to ask for that from someone who isn't convicted? As far as I know, the accused and his lawyer do not even have full disclosure yet, and therefore do not even know why he was arrested or what LE has on him to implicate him in these murders... so does our society have the right to demand that someone be sent for psychiatric evaluation before any of this comes out??

I don't know if they "demand" a psychiatric evaluation but I believe they do it definitely in the cases where the courts need to know if the accused is "fit to stand trial" (such as the Greyhound Bus BeHeading case/Matthew DeGrood - 5 Murders at Calgary House Party case). In this case, how does anyone even know if DG is fit to stand trial, as far as I know, he hasn't been sent for that assessment? All that is for I believe is to make sure that the accused understands the charges and the process. I do know that he has had a preliminary assessment as a matter of protocol when he was charged and brought to the Remand Centre. That's where he was deemed "suicidal" and put on suicide watch. As far as the assessments to determine culpability due to mental illness, I believe that would be after the August 14th court date, in this case, or whenever the accused enters a plea? It could be that the defendant's lawyer would request the psychiatric assessment. I'm really not sure...I was just wondering why he wasn't even sent for an assessment to see if he was fit to stand trial? Everything may look okay physically on a person, but maybe its not okay mentally...as far as I've heard, DG isn't speaking to anyone other than answering a couple of questions with one-word answers in his previous court appearances, and saying "I work on a farm sometimes until after 9 pm, will the residence be on the farm?" at his bail hearing...which to me, doesn't sound like someone who understands what he was being told. It just surprises me is all.

I don't know that anyone has the "right" to order a psychiatric assessment unless an application is made to the courts to have someone "certified", but in this case, it would be requested for the accused's best interests...not the Crown's or the Court's. It's somewhat of a right(?) that the defence would ask for, for his client. I'm really not sure what the legalities of the assessments are, I was really just wondering if he had been assessed to see if he was fit to stand trial, as has been with other accused parties in crimes of this magnitude.

 

[wendiesan]

I don't think (MOO) that is is only semantics.. from my memory, Ross said this statement at the time when DG had been incarcerated on the identity and bank card charges, while DG was still a POI.. or at least before he was, or immediately after he was formally charged with the murders.. at the time he said this, he hadn't had a chance yet to be retained by DG on the new charges?

FWIW, here is a slightly more detailed quote which is very similar to one to which you're referring.

His lawyer made it clear he is only representing Garland on the charge of identity theft.

"I can only comment today on what was before the court," said Kim Ross. "I've only been retained on the charges unrelated to any other investigation that's going on right now. I have absolutely no knowledge of anything else other than the charges that are before the court here today."

http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/...ation-into-missing-boy-grandparents-1.1199958

This particular source was published July 9, before DG was charged with murder, although it was clear he was a POI in this case.

The following quote makes it clear that at the time of the interview, DG was only charged with dentity theft and possessing a bank card obtained by crime, and Ross represented him on those charges.

Ross told reporters he has had limited conversations with Garland since he was only retained a couple of days ago.

“He’s doing fine under the circumstances. Right now, all he’s in for is the identity theft and the credit-card charges and that’s all we’re dealing with right now,” said Ross, who had no comment on where his client would reside or any other details.

Garland, 54, was being held on identity theft charges unrelated to the disappearance of Nathan O’Brien and his grandparents Alvin and Kathy Liknes.

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1093611/calgary-court-grants-douglas-garland-bail/

Ross could not represent DG on other charges, since those charges had not yet been formally made at the time of the interview from which those quotes were taken.

After DG was charged with the three homicides, Ross had clearly agreed to represent him on those charges.

Defence lawyer Kim Ross said outside court he has spoken very little to Garland and was in a waiting mode for a month. His client will remain behind bars until then.

"I'm going to wait until I see disclosure before I make any determination on whether or not we'll seek any kind of release," said Ross.

"I can't answer that right now."

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/latest/story.html?id=10035082

So, my understanding is that Kim Ross represented DG regarding the charges that were stayed by the Crown, and may represent him on those charges in the future should the need arise. Currently, Ross is representing DG on the three homicide charges.

 

[deugirtni]

It *seems* to me (IMO) that most murder trials are by jury... I wonder what the stats are on that and also I wonder what the conviction rate of one versus the other would be?

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?

 

[deugirtni]

I think they would only move to another jurisdiction if it was a small town and it would therefore be unlikely they would find enough unbiased jurors there. But in a major city like Calgary, I don't think that would apply.
Each lawyer gets to ask questions of each potential juror and I believe each side (defence and prosecution) gets to select a certain number out of the total number of jurors. Actually, I think I may be wrong. It is really interesting, I should look it up to be sure. It could be that both sides have to agree on each individual juror, and each side gets to ask each juror its own set of questions to satisfy itself that the juror will be suitable. One could be okay with the defence side, but not with the prosecution, and vice versa, and they have to keep going through the potentials until they get the correct number in total. If not enough are selected out of the original batch of potential jurors, another set will be brought in until it is completed.
I was chosen one time as a juror for a minor criminal case, and the trial was fairly quickly deemed to be a mistrial, so we were all excused from duty. A police officer said something on the stand that was not allowed/admissible. I really feel for the jurors on a large, long, emotional case.

I'm also now wondering why then do they sometimes move cases to other jurisdiction for the benefit of obtaining an unbiased jury? I am genuinely confused about this.

 

[deugirtni]

Great picture.

http://www.rmoutlook.com/article/20...04208916612922":"og.likes"}&action_ref_map=[]

Found this don't know if posted before. It's the Canmore connection.

 

[Sillybilly]

It *seems* to me (IMO) that most murder trials are by jury... I wonder what the stats are on that and also I wonder what the conviction rate of one versus the other would be?

Murder trials are typically a judge and jury trial unless agreed upon by the defence and Crown:

from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/jury-duty-unfair-burden-or-civic-obligation-1.994514

Article 11(f) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees everyone the right to a trial by jury for offences that carry a maximum sentence of imprisonment of five years or more. In criminal law, cases that fall under the indictable offences found under Section 469 of the Criminal Code, such as murder, are automatically tried before a judge and jury in superior court, although they can sometimes be tried by judge-only if both the accused and the Crown prosecutor agree.

Alberta mass murderer Travis Baumgartner has elected to be tried by judge only and the Crown has given consent.

 

[studyer]

I think they would only move to another jurisdiction if it was a small town and it would therefore be unlikely they would find enough unbiased jurors there. But in a major city like Calgary, I don't think that would apply.
Each lawyer gets to ask questions of each potential juror and I believe each side (defence and prosecution) gets to select a certain number out of the total number of jurors. Actually, I think I may be wrong. It is really interesting, I should look it up to be sure. It could be that both sides have to agree on each individual juror, and each side gets to ask each juror its own set of questions to satisfy itself that the juror will be suitable. One could be okay with the defence side, but not with the prosecution, and vice versa, and they have to keep going through the potentials until they get the correct number in total. If not enough are selected out of the original batch of potential jurors, another set will be brought in until it is completed.
I was chosen one time as a juror for a minor criminal case, and the trial was fairly quickly deemed to be a mistrial, so we were all excused from duty. A police officer said something on the stand that was not allowed/admissible. I really feel for the jurors on a large, long, emotional case.

Jury selection relies on the challenges that are available to each of the sides, each of them has a limited number of challenges available. A bit about this process is explained, along with some interesting juror selection techniques, in this article.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/10/14/the_inexact_art_of_jury_selection.html