Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #19

[Tinkerbel1]

Lord only knows, but we can be quite certain it didn't happen for this case. That discussion was part of the whole "people calling LE incompetent" debate.

What do you mean "was"...this can be used for future reference then...I doubt that conversation won't be resurrected...lol

 

[Tinkerbel1]

We could go another round on the same course, but instead, perhaps try the offensive position to this argument...

What facts and evidence can you provide that they are alive?

1. There are no bodies.
2. There is no smoking gun.
3. There are no bodies.

 

[news.talk]

1. There are no bodies.
2. There is no smoking gun.
3. There are no bodies.

No bodies does not equate to no evidence of remains.

No smoking gun does not mean no evidence.

No bodies is not indicative of proof of life.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I know of a few members of LE that have read these threads. Without divulging their assessments, I can say that for the most part we amuse them.

Oh, I can believe that! The amusing part is the continual bickering and the inability for some to see reason and blurt out things that they've decided are fact. No questions asked, and no authorities stamp of approval to indeed concede that they are facts. I too, find it amusing.

 

[otto]

I'm probably way late to be commenting on this...and this isn't specific to your quote Otto, however, I've heard it brought up several times that DG may be angry over what may 'potentially' be his sister's involvement in the Mexico condo. If, just for conversation's sake, the Garland property was worth $ 6 Million...middle of the road number...how much is the Mexico property worth? How many people were investing in the Mexico property? and, what would his sister's investment be? What? Maybe tops $ 100,000? Do you seriously think, DG, who will likely inherit in the neighborhood of approximately $ 2,000,000, if not more, plus another $ 33,000 (for 1/3 of his sister's early inheritance) is so shallow, vindictive and malicious to murder 2 adults and a child for $ 33,000?? It's her money. He will have his. I find it hard to fathom that this punitive amount out of the whole big picture would amount to more than a pee in a bucket to him. It's more likely he'ld have harder feelings over the patent dispute, if anything, than her investment in a condo, with her own inheritance money. Doesn't make much sense to me. JMO

I see the problem related to the fact that property can't be purchased by a private party like Alvin Liknes. It has to be purchased by a Mexico company with at least two employees. Unless the Garland contributor was also an employee of the company, the money would have no connection to the Garland that invested the money. That is the point, not the amount of money. Once the money was used to purchase the condo, the Garland that put the money towards the condo would have no legal documentation or paperwork to prove ownership. Regardless of whether it was $10k or $100k, I think that Douglas would be very angry if the Liknes couple was in any way dipping into his family finances for their retirement fund ... especially if the money paper trail ended at the Canadian border.

 

[otto]

Tis not a fact yet.

We have a statement from authorities that it is an absolute fact that the victims are deceased.
Is there a more recent statement from authorities that contradicts this fact?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

No bodies does not equate to no evidence of remains.

No smoking gun does not mean no evidence.

No bodies is not indicative of proof of life.

And neither do your arguments, with a reasonable doubt, prove that they are dead. They are, at this point based on heresay, by authoritative agencies, however, we have not seen the evidence of anything mentioned. Until then, they may possibly be just as alive as they are deceased. JMO
Keeping an open mind as well as not presenting myself as an authority of the case without indisputable, admissible proof from a court of law.
A pair of dentures left behind by KL or AL may be evidence...but, doesn't mean they're dead...means possibly someone has no teeth.

 

[otto]

1. There are no bodies.
2. There is no smoking gun.
3. There are no bodies.

The truck led police straight to their suspect. That is the smoking gun.
The Parkhill house was a bloody crime scene with sufficient evidence to confirm that the three victims are deceased.

 

[news.talk]

Any neither do your arguments, with a reasonable doubt, prove that they are dead. They are, at this point based on heresay, by authoritative agencies, however, we have not seen the evidence of anything mentioned. Until then, they may possibly be just as alive as they are deceased. JMO
Keeping an open mind as well as not presenting myself as an authority of the case without indisputable, admissible proof from a court of law.
A pair of dentures left behind by KL or AL may be evidence...but, doesn't mean they're dead...means possibly someone has no teeth.

I have the word of our Chief of Police, who has seen the evidence, the Crown Prosecutor who chose to proceed with homicide charges, the Medical Examiner who clearly issued a death certificate and the family's of the deceased who upon having this inside information, chose to memorialize their loved ones publicly and legally.

On the side of the argument that they are alive... Nada.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

We have a statement from authorities that there it is an absolute fact that the victims are deceased.
Is there a more recent statement from authorities that contradicts this fact?

Once again............(can't say)........(don't want to start another circus..I mean circular conversation about something debated a hundred and one times)...(they will be deceased when evidence is presented without reasonable doubt, that they indeed are deceased.) Right now, its all assumption...even if LE has stated such...unless there is a body, or body part that absolutely, positively identifies the particular person as deceased. And a tooth doesn't count, nor does a fingernail. JMO

 

[news.talk]

Once again............(can't say)........(don't want to start another circus..I mean circular conversation about something debated a hundred and one times)...(they will be deceased when evidence is presented without reasonable doubt, that they indeed are deceased.) Right now, its all assumption...even if LE has stated such...unless there is a body, or body part that absolutely, positively identifies the particular person as deceased. And a tooth doesn't count, nor does a fingernail. JMO

I HIGHLY doubt that the Medical Examiner and Chief of Police would base a finding of death on a mere fingernail. LOL. SMH.

Once The family can cling to hope, and Calgary’s Chief of Police certainly doesn’t blame them.

But as one of the few people who’s actually viewed the forensic evidence tying accused triple killer Douglas Garland to the disappearance of three Calgarians, Chief Rick Hanson says he has absolutely no doubt.

“They are dead,” he says, matter-of-factly.

Calgary’s top cop gives absolutely no wiggle room for “maybe” or “what if” in the murder of five-year-old Nathan O’Brien and his grandparents, Alvin and Kathryn Liknes.

It’s impossible to argue with someone who has all the facts: Hanson already knows what is soon to be presented before a judge and lawyers in court, and he has a one-word answer for those asking if the trio is certainly, without-any-doubt dead.

“Yes.”

It gives the chief no satisfaction to be so sure, other than to know that with certainty comes a likelihood of conviction when accused killer Douglas Garland goes to trial.

“This is not a decision we come by easily, but when all the evidence points to one thing, we would be remiss if we weren’t totally honest, as painful as we know that is for the family, and for the community,” says the chief.

“The facts point to only one outcome.”

They CANNOT speak to what those 'facts' are, without compromising the rights of the accused and in the interest of justice. As a society, we pay these people to make these determinations for us, and Rick Hanson has served exceptionally and honorably in his service.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I have the word of our Chief of Police, who has seen the evidence, the Crown Prosecutor who chose to proceed with homicide charges, the Medical Examiner who clearly issued a death certificate and the family's of the deceased who upon having this inside information, chose to memorialize their loved ones publicly and legally.

On the side of the argument that they are alive... Nada.

Right. All looking in the same direction. As my grandma always said, "if you're looking for trouble...you're going to find it", meaning you're going to find evidence of whatever it is you're looking for....no one appears to be looking in any direction other than one. (I'm hoping that LE would be looking in the other direction...I'm fairly certain KR will be).

Time or discovery will tell the story. Its not going to be solved on this site...we got nothing, really. Just some words, from some authorities, for now.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I HIGHLY doubt that the Medical Examiner and Chief of Police would base a finding of death on a mere fingernail. LOL. SMH.

Oh? What does SMH mean please?

 

[news.talk]

Right. All looking in the same direction. As my grandma always said, "if you're looking for trouble...you're going to find it", meaning you're going to find evidence of whatever it is you're looking for....no one appears to be looking in any direction other than one. (I'm hoping that LE would be looking in the other direction...I'm fairly certain KR will be).

Time or discovery will tell the story. Its not going to be solved on this site...we got nothing, really. Just some words, from some authorities, for now.

It is their JOB to make these determinations and provide us with their findings. While we may not have all the information right at the this second, they have spent an exhaustive amount of man-hours and resources in that pursuit. If you can provide any evidence that *these* individuals are undeserving of our trust and payment for their service, kindly provide.

ETA: If the family's of these victim's have conceded that their loved ones are deceased, the least we can do is support them.

 

[news.talk]

Oh? What does SMH mean please?

http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I HIGHLY doubt that the Medical Examiner and Chief of Police would base a finding of death on a mere fingernail. LOL. SMH.



They CANNOT speak to what those 'facts' are, without compromising the rights of the accused and in the interest of justice. As a society, we pay these people to make these determinations for us, and Rick Hanson has served exceptionally and honorably in his service.

Would that be compromising the "rights" of the accused, or would it give the "accused" grounds for a lawsuit? And, how do we know that the "accused" isn't helping LE in some way. Do you have information that this is not the case? I'm speaking in the "what if", and I'm sorry, but past history of a lot of things indicate that speaking about the "what if's" would definitely be of benefit in some cases. You're speaking facts...are there any facts showing that DG is not helping LE in any way? Do you have any facts as to how LE is strategizing this investigation? Has Rick Hanson, Calgary Chief of Police held a meeting with you, or send you any documentation that supports his statements? We trust his judgement, his opinion, etc...but truth be told, you, along with others, have absolutely no facts, as those facts have not been made public, nor have they been proven in a court of law. That will happen at the preliminary hearing. The Chief of Police has a good reputation, and a reputation of being a man of truth and integrity, however, he too has a boss. No one has any idea as to the investigative strategy of this case. The only 'facts' you have is that the Chief of Police has announced something, that is yet to be provided. It may in fact go along way to supporting the theory that these people are in fact deceased, however, there is no stamp of approval on it yet.

We paid Alison Redford to run the province as well.
She is still being investigated.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/

Thanks for the reference link, but SMH is not on the list.

 

[Power of Two]

How hard is it to get a fake Death Certificate? If one can obtain fake credit cards, drivers licenses, passports and birth certificates...I don't think it would be difficult to present a Death Certificate to a funeral home. JMO

As I used to know it, there is a big difference between a Certificate of Death and a Death Certificate. An attending physician is usually the person who completes and signs the Certificate of Death, which states the deceased person's name, age, gender, etc., and details leading up to and the time and cause of actual death. These are a lengthy single sheet (without a duplicate copy) and accompany the body to the funeral home. These sheets are numbered/coded. Photocopies are made for the records of whomever completed it. A Death Certificate is issued from the Funeral Home and there can be multiple identical numbered copies (for a cost) in order to settle the deceased person's affairs. Every bank or office seems to request an original in the settling of an Estate. If you do not have multiple copies of a Death Certificate, a Notary Public will make a notarized copy an original one. Not sure how easy or difficult it would be to fake either one.

 

[news.talk]

Would that be compromising the "rights" of he accused, or would it give the "accused" grounds for a lawsuit? And, how do we know that the "accused" isn't helping LE in some way. Do you have information that this is not the case? I'm speaking in the "what if", and I'm sorry, but past history of a lot of things indicate that speaking about the "what if's" would definitely be of benefit in some cases. You're speaking facts...are there any facts showing that DG is not helping LE in any way? Do you have any facts as to how LE is strategizing this investigation? Has Rick Hanson, Calgary Chief of Police hold a meeting with you, or send you any documentation that supports his statements? We trust his judgement, his opinion, etc...but truth be told, you, along with others, have absolutely no facts, as those facts have not been made public, nor have they been proven in a court of law. That will happen at the preliminary hearing. The Chief of Police has a good reputation, and a reputation of being a man of truth and integrity, however, he too has a boss. No one has any idea as to the investigative strategy of this case. The only 'facts' you have is that the Chief of Police has announced something, that is yet to be proven. It goes along way to supporting the theory that these people are in fact deceased, however, there is no stamp of approval on it yet.

We paid Alison Redford to run the province as well.
She is still being investigated.

I wouldn't put Rick Hanson in the same league as Redford. He has an unblemished record and I have no reason to doubt his professionalism. As for what information I have obtained privately, all I can say is that only goes to support his findings.

If you look at this from the family's perspective, I for one would be hard to convince to publicly declare my young child dead when no body has been provided for burial. Since they made that arduous decision having inside information from said authorities, I have to believe that they didn't make that decision lightly, but did so after much deliberation. The fact that they have chosen to accept that their loved ones are in fact deceased, removes ANY doubt from little 'ol me.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I see the problem related to the fact that property can't be purchased by a private party like Alvin Liknes. It has to be purchased by a Mexico company with at least two employees. Unless the Garland contributor was also an employee of the company, the money would have no connection to the Garland that invested the money. That is the point, not the amount of money. Once the money was used to purchase the condo, the Garland that put the money towards the condo would have no legal documentation or paperwork to prove ownership. Regardless of whether it was $10k or $100k, I think that Douglas would be very angry if the Liknes couple was in any way dipping into his family finances for their retirement fund ... especially if the money paper trail ended at the Canadian border.

The L's were not 'dipping into his family finances for their retirement fund' if the retirees gave their daughter an early inheritance. DG does not have Power of Attorney over his parents, so where they want to distribute their money is up to them, and I'm sure they would have made it clear to DG should he have kicked up a fuss. Still does not present a good enough motive for murder. It was simply none of his business, I doubt, as I said earlier, he could care less what his sister got and where she put it. However, obviously you feel that this would have created great enough animosity, anger and resentment to murder, and that is definitely a possibility, but I highly doubt it, there's other ways he could have foiled that plan, like burn the condo down, etc. He is not stupid as has been stated by different authorities several times, and he was in to petty crime, not big violent stuff and still...for such a small amount of money...it still doesn't make any sense. As a matter of fact, if this was the reason, than he would definitely have a NCR chance because then he definitely was not in his right mind. Good argument for the defense. JMO