Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #13

[Tinkerbel1]

One thing that bugs me about KR's statement about a plea - that he is waiting for disclosure to determine whether or not to pursue a psychiatric assessment. If there was even an inkling that a client might not be fit to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental defect, why would he need to wait for disclosure? Something seems off.

Although DG received an assessment as to his mental condition when originally being admitted to the Remand, there has been an obvious decline in his status. It is my understanding that DG would be attended by a Physician, and since he is on suicide watch, he would be undergoing some sort of mental assessment and treatment to get his mind balanced in order to remove him off suicide watch. There may not be a decision as to whether or not to pursue a "not criminally responsible" plea yet, if he has not had a definitive diagnosis from Psychiatrists yet. We don't know if he has or hasn't as there hasn't been any information given about this. Therefore, KR may not know what mental state DG is in and possibly could have been at the time of the murders. His mental state now may preclude a full assessment in or determine if there was a pre-existing undiagnosed mental illness at the time of the murders.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

If there was truly confirmation that the results of forensic evidence shows that absolutely no trace of the victims was found at the acreage, then all MSM outlets would be running that as a separate and major development story. LE would be up in arms to discover and seal the leak, then making a public statement to address the leaked information. Defence Council would possibly make a statement in favour of his client and there would be a lot of talk about how the release of evidence results compromise the Crown's case.... etc...

IOW - it would be a MAJOR story and not one sentence in the middle of a recap story.

Conversely, if there was truly confirmation that the results of the forensic evidence from the acreage was positive, then it would be a MAJOR story and not just swept under the rug. LE had no problem confirming the forensic evidence at the first crime scene, there should be no problem or reason that the affirmation of forensic evidence from the second 'crime scene' should be withheld. JMO

I would say you are absolutely correct new.talk. If the information that MSM presented in that article, wasn't correct, then LE would be up in arms trying to squelch the rumor that there was no trace of the victims on the acreage, at the very least by having that particular news unit make a public retraction and correction of the statement. JMO

I wonder if one can check with the reporter as to the validity of the information and where it was received from?

 

[winnnancy]

Although DG received an assessment as to his mental condition when originally being admitted to the Remand, there has been an obvious decline in his status. It is my understanding that DG would be attended by a Physician, and since he is on suicide watch, he would be undergoing some sort of mental assessment and treatment to get his mind balanced in order to remove him off suicide watch. There may not be a decision as to whether or not to pursue a "not criminally responsible" plea yet, if he has not had a definitive diagnosis from Psychiatrists yet. We don't know if he has or hasn't as there hasn't been any information given about this. Therefore, KR may not know what mental state DG is in and possibly could have been at the time of the murders. His mental state now may preclude a full assessment in or determine if there was a pre-existing undiagnosed mental illness at the time of the murders.

How do we know his mental status has deteriorated since arriving at the remand?
He was on suicide watch from the beginning. We don't know if he has spoken a single word since his arrest. A reliable suicide assessment is done by interview. IMO, they have in custody, an individual charged with a horrendous crime who is uncommunicative and, they are UNABLE to with any certainty deem him NOT AT RISK. They are likely not taking the chance. Over treating him by having him on suicide watch will not cause him harm whereas under treating him very well may.

 

[winnnancy]

Although DG received an assessment as to his mental condition when originally being admitted to the Remand, there has been an obvious decline in his status. It is my understanding that DG would be attended by a Physician, and since he is on suicide watch, he would be undergoing some sort of mental assessment and treatment to get his mind balanced in order to remove him off suicide watch. There may not be a decision as to whether or not to pursue a "not criminally responsible" plea yet, if he has not had a definitive diagnosis from Psychiatrists yet. We don't know if he has or hasn't as there hasn't been any information given about this. Therefore, KR may not know what mental state DG is in and possibly could have been at the time of the murders. His mental state now may preclude a full assessment in or determine if there was a pre-existing undiagnosed mental illness at the time of the murders.

How do we know his mental status has deteriorated since arriving at the remand?
He was on suicide watch from the beginning. We don't know if he has spoken a single word since his arrest. A reliable suicide assessment is done by interview. IMO, they have in custody, an individual charged with a horrendous crime who is uncommunicative and, they are UNABLE to with any certainty deem him NOT AT RISK. They are likely not taking the chance. Over treating him by having him on suicide watch will not cause him harm whereas under treating him very well may.

 

[winnnancy]

If they are unable to interview him, they can't accurately diagnose him with a mental illness.
They can't treat him for something they don't know exists.

Does anyone know why I get timed out and can't post without signing back in or refreshing and losing my post?

 

[news.talk]

Conversely, if there was truly confirmation that the results of the forensic evidence from the acreage was positive, then it would be a MAJOR story and not just swept under the rug. LE had no problem confirming the forensic evidence at the first crime scene, there should be no problem or reason that the affirmation of forensic evidence from the second 'crime scene' should be withheld. JMO

I would say you are absolutely correct new.talk. If the information that MSM presented in that article, wasn't correct, then LE would be up in arms trying to squelch the rumor that there was no trace of the victims on the acreage, at the very least by having that particular news unit make a public retraction and correction of the statement. JMO

I wonder if one can check with the reporter as to the validity of the information and where it was received from?

The difference is that a suspect has been charged and once that happens, police can no longer comment on the evidence.


“But we live in a world, in a justice system, where once we lay a charge we no longer comment on what evidence we’re prepared to move forward [with],” he said.

“The reality is the evidence we have will be presented by the Crown in a court of law.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/1452488/4...ry-family-disappearance-turned-homicide-case/

LE was able to comment on the first crime scene because a suspect had not been charged, but given that the suspect was already charged when I would assume, most of the evidence came back from the acreage, they could no longer release any information as to the results of said evidence.... Yet another reason that the statement you are clinging too is most likely inaccurate.

 

[goodasgold]

Agreed. I was simply making the point (or trying to ) that evidence was collected from the acreage and that it was indeed a crime scene - not just because it had yellow tape across the driveway. The whole "no trace" thing rankles me a little. I suspect the writer should have said no bodies have been found. Sadly, we likely won't know the details for a couple of years unless DG pleads guilty on Sept 17.

We do not know what evidence the LE is going by. We only seen one picture of the truck, who knows what the other pictures of the truck look like and what was in it at the time. Maybe they seen body parts, or bodies, or something to show that they were deceased when DG left the house. Or maybe they seen one of them alive leaving the house hence the 2 homicides on the crime map. There may have been cameras elsewhere that got the truck as well.

I guess what i am saying is some of LE's evidence may not just be forensics.

 

[Deleted member 117120]

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/sith_colloquium_asimow_michael.pdf
Interesting article law/ethics

If we adhere to your strict standards of 100% accuracy in MSM, no blood or bodily fluids were reported at the home, therefore, there was none, or even a trace of body fluids.

Please explain how it's remotely feasible to have proof of the death of each individual, and how it is tied to DG enough to lay charges?

The only evidence MSM has reported was the violent incident, and the green truck photo. Are you saying that the only evidence is what MSM reported? I have no clue what could be taking the disclosure so long then.

Thanks for the link, but again, copy pasting something doesn't stand up to deductive logic.

Did the neighbor and good friend of RO and JO not let it slip in an interview with msm when discussing the go to me fund that JO encountered alot of blood when she entered the home? I think that was the first time it was confirmed that there was blood at the Parkhill location.

 

[Blue Amethyst]

If they are unable to interview him, they can't accurately diagnose him with a mental illness.
They can't treat him for something they don't know exists.

Does anyone know why I get timed out and can't post without signing back in or refreshing and losing my post?

Are you checking the Remember Me box just underneath where you sign in? This happened to me too. Now sometimes I check it and forget to log out even though I am not reading the site and it looks as if I am still active on the site.

 

[bullish]

Did the neighbor and good friend of RO and JO not let it slip in an interview with msm when discussing the go to me fund that JO encountered alot of blood when she entered the home? I think that was the first time it was confirmed that there was blood at the Parkhill location.

You're right, ldbd.

Greg Head, their neighbour, said: "Jen goes to pick up Nathan and there’s lots of blood and no one there."

http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2014/07/24/gp-company-aiding-police-in-murder-investigation

 

[wendiesan]

If they are unable to interview him, they can't accurately diagnose him with a mental illness.
They can't treat him for something they don't know exists.

Does anyone know why I get timed out and can't post without signing back in or refreshing and losing my post?

When you log in, there's a box to click on so the system will remember you and you won't lose your post.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

The difference is that a suspect has been charged and once that happens, police can no longer comment on the evidence.


“But we live in a world, in a justice system, where once we lay a charge we no longer comment on what evidence we’re prepared to move forward [with],” he said.

“The reality is the evidence we have will be presented by the Crown in a court of law.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/1452488/4...ry-family-disappearance-turned-homicide-case/

LE was able to comment on the first crime scene because a suspect had not been charged, but given that the suspect was already charged when I would assume, most of the evidence came back from the acreage, they could no longer release any information as to the results of said evidence.... Yet another reason that the statement you are clinging too is most likely inaccurate.

Can I just take a minute to point out how well that was put together, how well the points were made on both sides, and how interesting an education we are all receiving in LE, investigations, court procedure and life in general with discussions like this...

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

We do not know what evidence the LE is going by. We only seen one picture of the truck, who knows what the other pictures of the truck look like and what was in it at the time. Maybe they seen body parts, or bodies, or something to show that they were deceased when DG left the house. Or maybe they seen one of them alive leaving the house hence the 2 homicides on the crime map. There may have been cameras elsewhere that got the truck as well.

I guess what i am saying is some of LE's evidence may not just be forensics.

No one has claimed that LE has definitely found forensic evidence of the victims at the acreage. This was all in response to someone saying that they had definitely not found any. The only argument offered up as proof was debatable wording used solely by a journalist, who doesn't seem to have any inside information. Journalists are human too and work for a living. It could very likely have been a case of not having proper time to choose the wording as anally as we would like, simply to meet a deadline.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

How do we know his mental status has deteriorated since arriving at the remand?
He was on suicide watch from the beginning. We don't know if he has spoken a single word since his arrest. A reliable suicide assessment is done by interview. IMO, they have in custody, an individual charged with a horrendous crime who is uncommunicative and, they are UNABLE to with any certainty deem him NOT AT RISK. They are likely not taking the chance. Over treating him by having him on suicide watch will not cause him harm whereas under treating him very well may.

Because, he wasn't put on suicide watch until a day or two after getting there, and...he wasn't on suicide watch the first time he was being held. He hasn't spoken to LE, and it doesn't sound like he's spoken much to his lawyer, but IMO, KR could just be saying that to avoid a thousand questions. I don't think LE did it as a precaution, there's obviously a reason for it. Even if he didn't say something, doesn't mean LE didn't catch him trying to do something to himself. I don't think they put him on suicide watch from deductive reasoning...there was some logic behind it. JMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

No one has claimed that LE has definitely found forensic evidence of the victims at the acreage. This was all in response to someone saying that they had definitely not found any. The only argument offered up as proof was debatable wording used solely by a journalist, who doesn't seem to have any inside information. Journalists are human too and work for a living. It could very likely have been a case of not having proper time to choose the wording as anally as we would like, simply to meet a deadline.

No, I don't think so. IMO, no one would go out on a limb and say something as strong as that. That wasn't a mistake, that was definitely put in there from an understanding from somewhere. If it was a human error, another human would've caught it and I'm sure there would be a correction by now. That's a pretty bold statement to make in the press. JMO (What is an editor for?)

 

[news.talk]

No, I don't think so. IMO, no one would go out on a limb and say something as strong as that. That wasn't a mistake, that was definitely put in there from an understanding from somewhere. If it was a human error, another human would've caught it and I'm sure there would be a correction by now. That's a pretty bold statement to make in the press. JMO (What is an editor for?)

I think it has been proven throughout the numerous threads, that reporters have got wording wrong. Retractions and corrections *rarely* get made and when they do, it is because they have usually been asked by legal to do so. FWIW, Broadcast Journalists don't have 'editors'.

ETA: To reiterate what I and others have stated upthread, had there been actual evidence released to the media after the arrest, there would have been a larger story and an uproar from the Crown.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Evidence has been removed from the acreage and from the home at the centre of the search, however, Brookwell would not say what kind of evidence was retrieved. It has been sent to the crime lab in Edmonton for expedited processing.

“As with all major crime investigations, it is a delicate balance to provide the public with as much information as possible, without jeopardizing the investigation itself or any future court case,” said Brookwell.
http://www.airdriecityview.com/arti...ntinue-until-no-stone-is-left-unturned-police

No one has claimed that LE has definitely found forensic evidence of the victims at the acreage. This was all in response to someone saying that they had definitely not found any. The only argument offered up as proof was debatable wording used solely by a journalist, who doesn't seem to have any inside information. Journalists are human too and work for a living. It could very likely have been a case of not having proper time to choose the wording as anally as we would like, simply to meet a deadline.

Oh, I thought that's what Cherchri said in the above quote. "Evidence has been removed from the acreage and has been sent to the crime lab in Edmonton for expedited processing" Normal forensic test results come back in approx. 4-6 weeks, expedited is what? 1-2? As noted before, the articles are approximately 5 weeks apart, there has been no indication that any confirmed forensic evidence was found at the acreage, so IMO, there wasn't any, just as the article states.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I think it has been proven throughout the numerous threads, that reporters have got wording wrong. Retractions and corrections *rarely* get made and when they do, it is because they have usually been asked by legal to do so. FWIW, Broadcast Journalists don't have 'editors'.

Sorry, I didn't know this was from a broadcast journalist as it was written in an article. So, no one edits these articles either? Well, that's good to know...what about information presented on the news? Should we believe that or not? No wonder I don't read the paper or the news anymore...clearly, it sounds like there's a lot of irresponsible reporting going on out there then. IMO
If a statement like this (which is pretty serious information) has not been asked by Legal to be either retracted or corrected, then is it not safe to assume that the statement can stand as valid information?

Has anyone asked the person that wrote that where they got the information? Has anyone asked the LE spokesperson if that information is true? Has anyone actually found out that it is NOT true?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

If they are unable to interview him, they can't accurately diagnose him with a mental illness.
They can't treat him for something they don't know exists.

Does anyone know why I get timed out and can't post without signing back in or refreshing and losing my post?

Has there been any confirmation that DG has not cooperated with mental health staff at the Remand? I haven't heard that. We really don't even know how much he's spoken to LE by now. We don't know how much he has spoken or not spoken to anyone for that matter. Maybe he's not speaking because he is in a catatonic state. Just an observation.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Did the neighbor and good friend of RO and JO not let it slip in an interview with msm when discussing the go to me fund that JO encountered alot of blood when she entered the home? I think that was the first time it was confirmed that there was blood at the Parkhill location.

Are you sure this might not also be a case of "irresponsible reporting"? Human error made by the journalist? Have the police confirmed there was blood there, I honestly can't remember.