Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #18

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, why would there be a new mortgage for apparently the 'value' of the property ($705,000) be placed on the property once the new owner took possession, but then half a year later, another $300,000 mortgage be placed on the property? That would mean the property, since May 5, 2014, is mortgaged for over $1 million. ??
 
The new owner of the L home (no matter his particular occupation) put a new mortgage on his property. That new mortgage company put a caveat on title to say that if the new owner went into default on his new mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled to receive any rents being collected. Makes sense to me.
 
deugirtni said:
Also, why would there be a new mortgage for apparently the 'value' of the property ($705,000) be placed on the property once the new owner took possession, but then half a year later, another $300,000 mortgage be placed on the property? That would mean the property, since May 5, 2014, is mortgaged for over $1 million. ??
Click to expand...

Maybe the new owners had plans for the lot and went to the bank with a plan to build a 4 plex, so the bank upped the mortgage amount. It wouldn't have anything to do with the L's. I don't think we need to speculate about any of this beyond the Liknes' ownership.
 
deugirtni said:
Also, why would there be a new mortgage for apparently the 'value' of the property ($705,000) be placed on the property once the new owner took possession, but then half a year later, another $300,000 mortgage be placed on the property? That would mean the property, since May 5, 2014, is mortgaged for over $1 million. ??
Click to expand...

I was thinking it meant the mortgage was paid down?
 
deugirtni said:
The thing that I am not understanding, is why the 2 prior mortgages (which the L's would have had on the property) were not discharged until months after the transfer of ownership and new mortgage were on title. Is that because someone just forgot to put it on title that the mortgages were discharged, or is that because the mortgages were in fact not discharged until later (which would be impossible, wouldn't it, since the home would then be mortgaged for far more than it was worth?)
Click to expand...
<rsbm>

The lawyer for the vendor probably provided an Undertaking (to the lawyer for the purchaser) to have any prior mortgages paid/discharged and did in fact do so ... just very common practice for the formal discharge documents to be registered after the fact (usually delayed because it's done when the financial institution gets around to doing it and finally forwards it to the vendor's lawyer).
 
Slebby said:
Actually, I'd say you just described a lot of incompetence - if they allowed the DNA evidence to become contaminated, or misinterpreted evidence, or miscommunication. Competent cops don't allow those things to happen, IMO.

I think it would be helpful to walk through a scenario involving faked or planted evidence. This is the way my mind works, I can't just say "anything's possible!" without thinking it though. Can we explore the logistics of the hypothetical staged death scene? Because I believe that, when we think it through, it's a very implausible theory, at least based on how I would imagine a staged death scene.

The problem with a theory that involves the staging of evidence to make it only *look* like the Ls and NO are dead, as I see it, is that we would have to assume the evidence staged would be blood. AL and KL withdraw and store their own blood over many weeks or months, until they have a sufficient volume that, when spilled at the crime scene, would cause LE to conclude they had died. I'm sure we've all seen a movie or tv show where someone faked their own death in this way.

Problem: Why would they allow NO to spend the night, on the very night they plan to disappear/stage their murder? How did LE come to the conclusion the NO was dead? Did LE say "well we have lots of blood from 2 out of 3 of them. That's enough for us to conclude NO is dead too"? Did the grandparents wound their grandson and cause him to bleed so profusely that LE would also conclude that he was dead? And then kidnapped their grandson? It doesn't ring true.

Is there another way to stage a death besides through a vast volume of blood evidence?

And then, how did DG come into the equation? What are the chances that he, a relative who also had business dealings with AL, was seen in their neighborhood on the very night they staged their disappearance? It's too coincidental, IMO.

Do you have a plausible staging scenario? Anyone?
Click to expand...

I do! Unfortunately, it's unpostable due to WS rules. There's a hypothetical answer to every question you posed above.
 
Krystine said:
A property can not change hands (title can't be transferred) until all caveats are legally 'removed'. Even an incompetent lawyer would not be able to close a sale with a caveat remaining.
Click to expand...

It sounds as if the new purchaser wanted to make sure the house didn't show as having any equity in it, for the possible use for loans, etc. He's just protecting his interest. Which is strange really, because he owns the house doesn't he?
 
Tinkerbel1 said:
It sounds as if the new purchaser wanted to make sure the house didn't show as having any equity in it, for the possible use for loans, etc. He's just protecting his interest. Which is strange really, because he owns the house doesn't he?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which post you are referring to, Tink'. The one by deugertni, about mortgages totalling a million dollars on a property that sold for $750,000? I don't see how that would protect the new owner's interest...he has maxed out property as far as borrowing on it.
 
Tinkerbel1 said:
I do! Unfortunately, it's unpostable due to WS rules. There's a hypothetical answer to every question you posed above.
Click to expand...
The problem is, no matter which way the argument is sliced, it goes back to the fact that the Medical Examiner has declared he victims deceased and the Chief of Police has stated that he emphatically agrees.

If someone can point to a parallel case where a death was faked and deceived top officials, then perhaps the argument has merit.
 
I know we have gone over the topic of disposal many times, but given that we don't have much to sleuth at this point, perhaps it is a worthy pursuit.

The CPS Have stated they are not actively looking for remains. Why?
 
Krystine said:
I'm not sure which post you are referring to, Tink'. The one by deugertni, about mortgages totalling a million dollars on a property that sold for $750,000? I don't see how that would protect the new owner's interest...he has maxed out property as far as borrowing on it.
Click to expand...

It's possible the outstanding principal on the $705,000 mortgage was paid out with a combination of cash (other investments matured, used the piggy bank, etc) + $300,000 from the subsequent mortgage (perhaps a better interest rate with another lender). As I mentioned upthread, it's possible (IMO, likely) that the Discharge on the $705,000 mortgage simply isn't showing up on title yet because it hasn't been registered.
 
news.talk said:
The problem is, no matter which way the argument is sliced, it goes back to the fact that the Medical Examiner has declared he victims deceased and the Chief of Police has stated that he emphatically agrees.

If someone can point to a parallel case where a death was faked and deceived top officials, then perhaps the argument has merit.
Click to expand...

nifty article,, pseudocide it's called, learned me a new word today.

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=d9d5cca2-f463-430c-8b91-b9d5a439c4fd
 
In my view, the problem is that I see no report of the ME declaring any such thing. In my opinion, a lot of surmising is being incorrectly reported as fact. I know we have had this discussion before, but I still haven't seen where the ME made this declaration.

news.talk said:
The problem is, no matter which way the argument is sliced, it goes back to the fact that the Medical Examiner has declared he victims deceased and the Chief of Police has stated that he emphatically agrees.

If someone can point to a parallel case where a death was faked and deceived top officials, then perhaps the argument has merit.
Click to expand...
 
news.talk said:
The problem is, no matter which way the argument is sliced, it goes back to the fact that the Medical Examiner has declared he victims deceased and the Chief of Police has stated that he emphatically agrees.

If someone can point to a parallel case where a death was faked and deceived top officials, then perhaps the argument has merit.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the minimum requirements are for a Medical Examiner to confirm someone deceased without a corpse.
 
news.talk said:
I know we have gone over the topic of disposal many times, but given that we don't have much to sleuth at this point, perhaps it is a worthy pursuit.

The CPS Have stated they are not actively looking for remains. Why?
Click to expand...

Maybe they are following other leads.
 
Krystine said:
I'm not an expert on this, but it almost seems like a conflict of interest and a breach for a lawyer to act on his own behalf to place a caveat. Without seeing the purchase agreement, it's hard to say...maybe there was an advance of funds to the seller, prior to closing? Buyer and seller can agree to anything, and the dates for advance of funds and closing dates can also be whatever is agreed upon.
That would fit in with the initial story that the L's were renting back the property.
Click to expand...
The owner/lawyer probably had a colleague do this and didn't do it himself maybe?
 
sillybilly said:
It's possible the outstanding principal on the $705,000 mortgage was paid out with a combination of cash (other investments matured, used the piggy bank, etc) + $300,000 from the subsequent mortgage (perhaps a better interest rate with another lender). As I mentioned upthread, it's possible (IMO, likely) that the Discharge on the $705,000 mortgage simply isn't showing up on title yet because it hasn't been registered.
Click to expand...
No..I must have 'misquoted' the post above...my comment was in reference to a list just mentioning the caveat being placed in the property by the new owner. Sorry about that...head not in right place right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 165 more.
Total: 395 (members: 166, guests: 229)

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
229
Total visitors
395
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,790
Messages
18,245,857
Members
234,453
Latest member
LaRae83854
Back
Top