Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #14

[Krystine]

You just sort of contradicted yourself... if there was evidence of destruction, but no large quantities of remains, then why would LE stop looking? "They don't know what they're looking for"... Remember? A liquid dump site fits that description.

Did the perp throw 3 barrels on the truck and dump the contents somewhere? Perhaps... if a truck carrying barrels passed you on the highway, are you calling LE? What if it was under a tarp? Nothing suspicious or difficult there. Who says you need to leave the barrels behind? Wash them out, throw them out... it's completely plausible.

I find it difficult to believe a human body can't burn at the temperature of burning wood... everyone would survive house fires then.

I agree with most of your post, with the exception of your end comment. Even in the extreme heat of the crematorium, it can take up to three hours to turn a human body into ashes.
Victims of house fires succumb to smoke inhalation, IIRC. No telling what condition their bodies are in after that, but I doubt that they are completely turned to ash.

 

[bakerlady]

I agree with most of your post, with the exception of your end comment. Even in the extreme heat of the crematorium, it can take up to three hours to turn a human body into ashes.
Victims of house fires succumb to smoke inhalation, IIRC. No telling what condition their bodies are in after that, but I doubt that they are completely turned to ash.

Bone does not reduce to ash, not even in a crematorium. They have to collect the bones and grind them. When the police chief said 'piece bye piece by piece by piece' I immediately assumed he was talking about bone fragments. I think DG used chemicals and I will eat my shoe if it turns out he didn't.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I agree with most of your post, with the exception of your end comment. Even in the extreme heat of the crematorium, it can take up to three hours to turn a human body into ashes.
Victims of house fires succumb to smoke inhalation, IIRC. No telling what condition their bodies are in after that, but I doubt that they are completely turned to ash.

My point was simply that a body will be reduced in some way in a fire, regardless of the temperature. It was for those who insist on the black and white thinking that "since it couldn't match cremation temperatures, it couldn't have been tried". Just like wet logs, once the moisture is evaporated, that part will burn. I don't think there is anything in human flesh which is resistant to fire.

If there was burning all day as stated in the timeline... it's entirely possible it was tried, and was discovered it's not as efficient as planned.

It will be interesting to see if there were any internet searches on how to destroy a body on any computers LE searched.

 

[Blue Amethyst]

many Ukrainians and dutch who cleared the land out this way (only to then have it taken away by the govt), lived in sod homes thru outrageous winters. a good sod home is mostly underground and soil well prepared doesn't suffer from extraction and contraction. though I'm not on the bunker train, it isn't that far fetched. and there is also this thing called insulation.

Just another example of an underground bunker. I think LE would have found one on the acreage but perhaps it is possible to have one in a wooded area somewhere. Perhaps just big enough to hide bodies that would never be found.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-18-text-message-rescue_x.htm

 

[Cherchri]

Bone does not reduce to ash, not even in a crematorium. They have to collect the bones and grind them. When the police chief said 'piece bye piece by piece by piece' I immediately assumed he was talking about bone fragments. I think DG used chemicals and I will eat my shoe if it turns out he didn't.

And save the matching shoe for me please - just in case. Seriously, I don't think we will be eating them though.

 

[otto]

I thought I read somewhere that it was during one of the arrests that BC LE discovered his identity.

"Authorities found Douglas Garland in 1999, thanks in part to a tipster who contacted police after seeing his picture on an RCMP “most wanted” list online."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...convicted-drug-trafficker-has-ties-to-family/

 

[otto]

You just sort of contradicted yourself... if there was evidence of destruction, but no large quantities of remains, then why would LE stop looking? "They don't know what they're looking for"... Remember? A liquid dump site fits that description.

Did the perp throw 3 barrels on the truck and dump the contents somewhere? Perhaps... if a truck carrying barrels passed you on the highway, are you calling LE? What if it was under a tarp? Nothing suspicious or difficult there. Who says you need to leave the barrels behind? Wash them out, throw them out... it's completely plausible.

I find it difficult to believe a human body can't burn at the temperature of burning wood... everyone would survive house fires then.

What's the scenario? How did Garland destroy all evidence of the missing persons. He put them in his truck, left the first crime scene, and then ...?

What I'm reading is: maybe they were burned on the property (but police said they are not on the property), maybe they were put in a barrel full of lye (how much lye is needed, where did he get it, what happened next) ... there are lots of wild theories, but my question is how does the wild theory fit with the facts such that it presents a viable scenario?

 

[Deleted member 117120]

Just voicing my thoughts here but has anyone else thought that the bodies would have been found by now if LE were actively looking?
I know LE said they would continue searching but do we know if they actually are via any current msm reports?

 

[otto]

Some people aren't able to open my attachments so trying again
View attachment 57667
View attachment 57668
View attachment 57669

There are half-sized barrels by the driveway. They are planters. The brown barrel is a standard burning barrel found on all rural properties (for paper waste). I don't see a barrel in the third image.

 

[otto]

But you keep refuting what is scientific fact. This can be done in a bath tub and flushed down the drain. Why do you think it will compromise the septic tank? Did you read this post a couple of pages back? These are facts. I can't make you accept my theory but you surely can't keep disputing facts? Here is my earlier post: For those who have any interest, Alkaline Hydrolysis (dissolving remains in lye) may be the way we are disposed of in future..... http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4828249 "The system works by submerging the body in a solution of water and potassium hydroxide which is pressurised to 10 atmospheres and heated to 180C for between two-and-a-half and three hours.

Body tissue is dissolved and the liquid poured into the municipal water system. Mr Sullivan, a biochemist by training, says tests have proven the effluent is sterile and contains no DNA, and poses no environmental risk.

The bones are then removed from the unit and processed in a "cremulator", the same machine that is used to crush bone fragments following cremation into ash. Metals including mercury and artificial joints and implants are safely recovered." Excerpt from BBC News http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14114555 BBM

Because I can't paste unauthorized pics here, google make incinerator with barrel and check out the images.

BBM

What seems to be overlooked are the specific requirements for maintaining a septic tank and field, which a fact of this case. Lye can be flushed down the drain under normal circumstances. It cannot be done with a septic tank because it destroys the bacteria in the septic tank, which means the tank stops working, backs up and there is clear evidence of what happened. Rural families with septic tanks know that even bleach can interfere with a proper functioning septic tank.

The theory is that lye could have been used in the bathtub, but that requires us to ignore the fact that there is a septic tank. If we don't ignore that fact of the case, we know that the bodies were not destroyed in the bathtub using lye.

If there is no pressurized container on the property, is that something that we should consider?

 

[otto]

And save the matching shoe for me please - just in case. Seriously, I don't think we will be eating them though.

Perhaps he poured a chemical on the bodies after he hid them in a secluded location, but I don't think he made them vanish on the Airdrie acreage.

 

[Cherchri]

Perhaps he poured a chemical on the bodies after he hid them in a secluded location, but I don't think he made them vanish on the Airdrie acreage.

[modsnip] Go back to the 3 pics I posted. White barrels in pic number 1 - perhaps you call them something else. Pic number 2 blue barrels behind the greenhouse. Pic 3 what looks like an old hot water tank - a perfect vessel for the lye treatment. Yes it could be done in a bathtub - not suggesting it was. The point is the liquid left behind can just be flushed away. [modsnip] Take it or leave it and let's wait and see.

 

[Krystine]

But you keep refuting what is scientific fact. This can be done in a bath tub and flushed down the drain. Why do you think it will compromise the septic tank? Did you read this post a couple of pages back? These are facts. I can't make you accept my theory but you surely can't keep disputing facts? Here is my earlier post: For those who have any interest, Alkaline Hydrolysis (dissolving remains in lye) may be the way we are disposed of in future..... http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4828249 "The system works by submerging the body in a solution of water and potassium hydroxide which is pressurised to 10 atmospheres and heated to 180C for between two-and-a-half and three hours.

Body tissue is dissolved and the liquid poured into the municipal water system. Mr Sullivan, a biochemist by training, says tests have proven the effluent is sterile and contains no DNA, and poses no environmental risk.

The bones are then removed from the unit and processed in a "cremulator", the same machine that is used to crush bone fragments following cremation into ash. Metals including mercury and artificial joints and implants are safely recovered." Excerpt from BBC News http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14114555 BBM

Because I can't paste unauthorized pics here, google make incinerator with barrel and check out the images.

Re: compromising the septic system...it's gruesome, but if you ask the rural septic tank people, they will tell you the best thing to keep your septic system cleared is to throw a cat into the septic tank every year...I got that from the guy who claims to be #1 in the Number 2 business.
No, we didn't...but that has stuck in my mind for a lot of years...

 

[Krystine]

[modsnip] Go back to the 3 pics I posted. White barrels in pic number 1 - perhaps you call them something else. Pic number 2 blue barrels behind the greenhouse. Pic 3 what looks like an old hot water tank - a perfect vessel for the lye treatment. Yes it could be done in a bathtub - not suggesting it was. The point is the liquid left behind can just be flushed away. [modsnip] Take it or leave it and let's wait and see.

Do we need to choose a side right now??
I don't see Cherchri insisting her theory is the correct one...she is very clearly suggesting this could have been the disposal method. Until the truth comes out, can't we entertain others' careful research and well thought out opinions?

 

[Krystine]

BBM

What seems to be overlooked are the specific requirements for maintaining a septic tank and field, which a fact of this case. Lye can be flushed down the drain under normal circumstances. It cannot be done with a septic tank because it destroys the bacteria in the septic tank, which means the tank stops working, backs up and there is clear evidence of what happened. Rural families with septic tanks know that even bleach can interfere with a proper functioning septic tank.

The theory is that lye could have been used in the bathtub, but that requires us to ignore the fact that there is a septic tank. If we don't ignore that fact of the case, we know that the bodies were not destroyed in the bathtub using lye.

If there is no pressurized container on the property, is that something that we should consider?

We have no way of knowing if a one time exposure to lye and chemicals would compromise a rural septic system. But for all we know, the septic might have backed up, which could explain DG's elderly parents having vacated the house for so long.
Maybe the evidence is of that nature. Maybe one explanation for the hazmat suits??
I think it's a viable theory, ...whether you want to believe a 'science guy' could calculate that, and maybe throw something alive in there to maintain the balance...or whether someone in the adrenaline rush of having murdered 3 people would even be considering possible septic problems.

 

[Cherchri]

:cheers:

Do we need to choose a side right now??
I don't see Cherchri insisting her theory is the correct one...she is very clearly suggesting this could have been the disposal method. Until the truth comes out, can't we entertain others' careful research and well thought out opinions?

:cheers: thank you so much. I am of the firm belief that healthy debate is a really positive process. Real genius lies in gaining perspective. I am open to debate and to gaining perspective. If I find a theory asinine, I scroll on by . I kind of appreciate the same courtesy being extended to me. I can hardly wait to find out what DG did and how he did it. In the interim, I stand by my theory and I will try to just "zip it".

 

[Cherchri]

Re: compromising the septic system...it's gruesome, but if you ask the rural septic tank people, they will tell you the best thing to keep your septic system cleared is to throw a cat into the septic tank every year...I got that from the guy who claims to be #1 in the Number 2 business.
No, we didn't...but that has stuck in my mind for a lot of years...

Eeeuw! What an awful thought.

 

[Krystine]

Eeeuw! What an awful thought.

I know... after that guy made the statement, I didn't even let him in our house!... it's a reminder that there are many kinds of 'murder'. I have come to the conclusion there is evil in a lot of people.

 

[LoisLane]

Bone does not reduce to ash, not even in a crematorium. They have to collect the bones and grind them. When the police chief said 'piece bye piece by piece by piece' I immediately assumed he was talking about bone fragments. I think DG used chemicals and I will eat my shoe if it turns out he didn't.

I have a really hard time believing the police chief would use his comments 'piece by piece by piece' to hint towards body parts. I doubt he was so tricky with his words, he may as well just said, 'We have blood and DNA results that confirm the deaths of three victims', but he hasn't said this either.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I see quite the opposite. No social media accounts, but enough online presence to indicate he's computer aware and at least somewhat literate. No indication of a social life, lived with his parents a large part of his adult life... it doesn't scream attention seeker to me. I see more "leave me alone"... which better fits with a presumed motive of having being wronged.

I couldn't agree with you more! :cheers: The neighbors didn't even know anything about him! It's also been mentioned that when he drove into town, he looked straight ahead. He doesn't seem to invite any social contact at all. We have no other indicators for DG's personality other than his previous petty crime history and "nonverbal communication" cues. The man really hasn't said anything much. Reading his body language and posture, etc...there is nothing at all IMO that signifies someone that has an attention seeking type of personality or grandiose thinking. Look at all of the pictures of him, he instinctively give me the feeling of taking up a very small footprint, that is also shown in the care he took of the acreage...no messes strewn about, everything neat, and tidy and all in it's place. The condition of his truck and lack of adornment on it. The simple way he dresses (photos/perp walk), his quiet demeanor on CCTV in court...nothing "large" about his guy at all.
http://humanresources.about.com/od/interpersonalcommunicatio1/a/nonverbal_com.htm