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

[stan laurel]

this is an interesting article on joblessness of recent grads in Canada for those to lazy to look (yawns, rolls eyes, folds arms, chews gum loudly, exhales loudly, YREFACGLEL)

http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/generation-jobless

 

[LoisLane]

Found this snippet today on wrongful convictions in Canada and how they might happen, bbm;

The Working Group’s recommendations are aimed primarily at the most serious of offences, particularly homicides. These are the cases where the risk of long-term incarceration, and hence the consequences of a wrongful conviction, are the greatest. However, we recognize that some of our suggestions are applicable to other offences as well, when feasible.

Our report focuses on the issues that have been identified time and time again, both in Canada and elsewhere, as the key factors that contribute to wrongful convictions:
•tunnel vision
•mistaken eyewitness identification and testimony
•false confessions
•in-custody informers
•DNA evidence
•forensic evidence and expert testimony
•education

Our report, however, should not be viewed as a beginning or a starting point, but as another stop along a well-established road. As will be obvious, our recommendations build on the extensive work already being done in several Canadian jurisdictions, especially those that have had a commission of inquiry examine one of their prosecutions, which has resulted in a wrongful conviction. We have reproduced many of the excellent policies that have resulted from this work.

The risk of error always exists in any human endeavor. In the justice system, the consequences of a wrongful conviction can be tragic. The Working Group hopes its recommendations, if implemented, will go a long way towards reducing the risk of future wrongful convictions and ensuring that the innocent are acquitted and the guilty convicted.

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing! I am going to add the links that I think you pulled this from

http://www.aidwyc.org
http://www.innocencelibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Sherrin.pdf

 

[stan laurel]

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing! I am going to add the links that I think you pulled this from

http://www.aidwyc.org
http://www.innocencelibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Sherrin.pdf

Thanks, I neglected to add the link to my post, which I did but will add here too.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/ccr-rc/pmj-pej/p1.html

 

[Tinkerbel1]

In relevance to this case? Are you suggesting the Liknes and O'Brien families obtained a fake death certificate to run obituaries on their murdered family member's???

Nope. Not at all. I don't believe the L's and O's would have had anything to do with it if that were the case. They would be just as much in the dark as everyone else.

I have never had a thought remotely even close to what you've just asked me. Where on earth would you come up with that from? Kindly, please stop twisting things around and making what I say sound like I'm responsible for what you're thinking. If you're thinking it, then perhaps you should just say it. That actually, was an awful thing for you to say.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

SMH is right. I see we're up to the part in the movie where fake death certificates are being used to keep an 'innocent' man in jail. :facepalm:

No, not to keep an innocent man in jail, but to flush out and catch any other involved parties should there be any. Really SMH.

 

[news.talk]

Nope. Not at all. I don't believe the L's and O's would have had anything to do with it if that were the case. They would be just as much in the dark as everyone else.

I have never had a thought remotely even close to what you've just asked me. Where on earth would you come up with that from? Kindly, please stop twisting things around and making what I say sound like I'm responsible for what you're thinking. If you're thinking it, then perhaps you should just say it. That actually, was an awful thing for you to say.

No twisting necessary. I stated that since the family ran an obituary and the Crown filed charges, the legal requirements in declaring the victims deceased, had to have been met.

In order to run an obituary, they are required to produce the death certificate.

The Crown also cannot file homicide charges without an issued death certificate.

Your response.

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

I simply asked if you were implying that the family faked a death certificate.

In relevance to this case? Are you suggesting the Liknes and O'Brien families obtained a fake death certificate to run obituaries on their murdered family member's???

I simply asked for a clarification.

 

[LoisLane]

War, death, violence, aggression, murder,... all so wrong, but sadly ingrained over the centuries.
A beautiful day in Ottawa and a profoundly beautiful ceremony on Parliament Hill today.

Did you attend Krystine? I look forward to watching the coverage tonight.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

No twisting necessary. I stated that since the family ran an obituary and the Crown filed charges, the legal requirements in declaring the victims met had to have been met.

Your response.

I simply asked if you were implying that the family faked a death certificate.

And...I simply told you..."nope, not at all" with my back-up thoughts/comments in response to your question, which was actually an attempt at twisting my words around to suit your agenda or whatever it is you have surmised of this case. No offense, but I actually mind when this sort of thing is done...to anyone. It was a simple question, there was no ill-intent or aspersions cast on any surviving relatives of the victims in this case, or any other case and most certainly not by me.

Question for you....why would the L' or O's even do something like that? That, really doesn't make sense to me. Who would they give it to? The ME? LE? Especially in a case like this one...do you think it wouldn't be reported by the funeral home or the paper to LE?

 

[news.talk]

And...I simply told you..."nope, not at all" with my back-up thoughts/comments in response to your question, which was actually an attempt at twisting my words around to suit your agenda or whatever it is you have surmised of this case. No offense, but I actually mind when this sort of thing is done...to anyone. It was a simple question, there was no ill-intent or aspersions cast on any surviving relatives of the victims in this case, or any other case and most certainly not by me.

Question for you....why would the L' or O's even do something like that? That, really doesn't make sense to me. Who would they give it to? The ME? LE? Especially in a case like this one...do you think it wouldn't be reported by the funeral home or the paper to LE?

SMH. I don't understand your question. Why would they do what?

 

[LoisLane]

Thanks for providing those links. The reason I asked for them was because I suspected that what was being referred to, was shortly after the announcement of the death findings.

The first article ran on July 17th and the second one the next day. The funerals were not held until September 4th and 27th. I suspect in that time, LE and other professionals went over the findings with the family members. If it was my loved one, I would have made them go over it and over it and over it, and not until every single doubt in my mind had been erased, would I hold a memorial. It took them over a month, which may have been due to acceptance or perhaps even a delay in the legal certificate being issued. Whatever the reason, they chose to publicly declare their acceptance by running obituaries and holding memorials. I highly doubt they made that decision lightly and did so after exhaustive inquiries with those involved. It would have taken me MUCH longer so that alone tells me that they received definitive proof of death.

My point is, those remarks made by family members were on the heels of the release of the statement declaring deaths. They most likely didn't have all the information, and more so if they were not immediate family.

Yes, the articles were on the heels of the LE statement. I mentioned before that I don't know what kind of repercussions would arise if the family was to make a statement now or August or September. What would happen if even one of them made such a statement now?

I was under the impression that the details would not be available to the family and they would not be aware of the evidence and details until trial. The statements that I linked also came from JL and JO and they are immediate family.

The way I interpret the memorials.... The memorials appear to have been a huge effort for the family and was offered as a form of relief and closure for the many family and friends including the children. I also see it as a way for the L's and O's to gain distance from the support they have received, in order for them to gain some privacy and show the closure so they can move forward and show everyone they are taking healthy steps in that direction. Whether they believe LE has solid evidence or not that may not have bearings on the decision to host the memorials. JMOO

I will also touch on the foundation that NO's parents announced in October. When I watched the couple during the interviews they are clearly suffering and in tremendous pain. I appreciate that a donor would come forward and make such a generous donation. I hope that it was not rushed or pushed on the O'brien's or that they had to make the public announcement and interviews to appease others. JMOO

 

[news.talk]

Yes, the articles were on the heels of the LE statement. I mentioned before that I don't know what kind of repercussions would arise if the family was to make a statement now or August or September. What would happen if even one of them made such a statement now?

I was under the impression that the details would not be available to the family and they would not be aware of the evidence and details until trial.

The way I interpret the memorials.... The memorials appear to have been a huge effort for the family and was offered as a form of relief and closure for the many family and friends including the children. I also see it as a way for the L's and O's to gain distance from the support they have received, in order for them to gain some privacy and show the closure so they can move forward and show everyone they are taking healthy steps in that direction. Whether they believe LE has solid evidence or not that may not have bearings on the decision to host the memorials. JMOO

I will also touch on the foundation that NO's parents announced in October. When I watched the couple during the interviews they are clearly suffering and in tremendous pain. I appreciate that a donor would come forward and make such a generous donation. I hope that it was not rushed or pushed on the O'brien's and they had to make the public announcement and interviews to appease others. JMOO

IIRC, family members are usually provided the necessary information regarding the victims, all guided by Victims Services. They are not given the Crown's case obviously, but in order to memorialize their loved ones, they need the documentation along with the information necessary for closure.

I have relatives that have had to work with victim's families under these circumstances, and it was definitely a juggling act to balance the integrity of the case with the family's need for information.

As far as ramifications stemming from any public statement - MSM coverage on homicides in general are chalked full of anti-LE sentiment from families that disagree with findings or how cases are handled. It's par for the course. If the family members from this case were to strongly believe that the victims are still alive, they are free to state as such in the media. I doubt their refusal to trust the findings would have any bearing on the case before the court, as it is expected and most understandable for them to be in denial. Unless of course they had concrete evidence to be entered and examined by the Defense, their feelings are just that - feelings.

I do agree with your statement that the memorials were held for the benefit of the surviving family. The same holds true for ANY funeral - They are for the living, not the dead.

 

[otto]

Oh Lord, look what I've created... for those that think all that was to argue they were alive... no. That was arguing for the right to question, and to not have words put in anyone's mouths.

If we had to decide one way or the other, all the "evidence" and "facts" the public has points to the victims being dead. The movie script scenarios of someone surviving are probably wishful thinking, and are highly unlikely.

DG has a right to his day in court, which may include a defence against the proof of death itself. We don't know. From evidence handling, a la OJ, to DNA analysis, to planted and staged... if the evidence is overwhelming, then they'll go in a different direction.

I think that Canadian judges are not nearly as relaxed as US judges when it comes to presenting legal arguments, so I don't think there's any reason to worry about creative, unsubstantiated claims on behalf of the defence lawyer. That is, I don't think defence counsel can ask the judge, or judge and jury, to suspend reality and common sense while imagining an alternate scenario that has no basis in reality; no supporting facts. The evidence will be presented and the defence will have an opportunity to refute that evidence. If there is enough evidence for the medical examiner to determine that the victims were murdered at the crime scene, and if there are additional surveillance photos of the truck - except with three bodies and bedding in the bed of the truck, it will be very difficult to argue that the victims are not deceased. Any evidence that places the suspect at the residence, which most likely exists, will seal the deal. Suggestions of "tampering" will require proof before being accepted.

 

[otto]

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.

If any police officers are reading forums, I suspect that they would be doing it on their own time. There has been an arrest and police have collected evidence, so now it's for them to analyse that information and hopefully arrive at some conclusion about where to search for the remains.

I'm curious ... in those discussions with police officers about this triple murder, how confident are they in the arrest and upcoming trial?

 

[otto]

this is an interesting article on joblessness of recent grads in Canada for those to lazy to look (yawns, rolls eyes, folds arms, chews gum loudly, exhales loudly, YREFACGLEL)

http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/generation-jobless

There are many reasons that recent grads have difficulty finding work. One reason is a sense of entitlement that is common in that generation. When they step into a job, they sometimes think that their presence is sufficient to guarantee job security, just like they assumed that attending class should guarantee a grade of A. The previous generation's attitude of "how can I help" has been replaced with this generation's attitude of "not in my job description".

 

[otto]

No, not to keep an innocent man in jail, but to flush out and catch any other involved parties should there be any. Really SMH.

Police have said that the accused acted alone and that they are not looking for any other suspects, so they are not looking for any other suspects.

 

[otto]

Yes, the articles were on the heels of the LE statement. I mentioned before that I don't know what kind of repercussions would arise if the family was to make a statement now or August or September. What would happen if even one of them made such a statement now?

I was under the impression that the details would not be available to the family and they would not be aware of the evidence and details until trial. The statements that I linked also came from JL and JO and they are immediate family.

The way I interpret the memorials.... The memorials appear to have been a huge effort for the family and was offered as a form of relief and closure for the many family and friends including the children. I also see it as a way for the L's and O's to gain distance from the support they have received, in order for them to gain some privacy and show the closure so they can move forward and show everyone they are taking healthy steps in that direction. Whether they believe LE has solid evidence or not that may not have bearings on the decision to host the memorials. JMOO

I will also touch on the foundation that NO's parents announced in October. When I watched the couple during the interviews they are clearly suffering and in tremendous pain. I appreciate that a donor would come forward and make such a generous donation. I hope that it was not rushed or pushed on the O'brien's or that they had to make the public announcement and interviews to appease others. JMOO

You're right. The family does not know what evidence police have, and neither police nor prosecution will discuss the case with the extended family of the victims prior to trial other than to obtain information.

 

[otto]

IIRC, family members are usually provided the necessary information regarding the victims, all guided by Victims Services. They are not given the Crown's case obviously, but in order to memorialize their loved ones, they need the documentation along with the information necessary for closure.

I have relatives that have had to work with victim's families under these circumstances, and it was definitely a juggling act to balance the integrity of the case with the family's need for information.

As far as ramifications stemming from any public statement - MSM coverage on homicides in general are chalked full of anti-LE sentiment from families that disagree with findings or how cases are handled. It's par for the course. If the family members from this case were to strongly believe that the victims are still alive, they are free to state as such in the media. I doubt their refusal to trust the findings would have any bearing on the case before the court, as it is expected and most understandable for them to be in denial. Unless of course they had concrete evidence to be entered and examined by the Defense, their feelings are just that - feelings.

I do agree with your statement that the memorials were held for the benefit of the surviving family. The same holds true for ANY funeral - They are for the living, not the dead.

Victim's Services knows nothing about the case. They only know about helping people recover from traumatic loss of loved ones.
Chief Hanson acknowledged that some family members might want to carry hope, even after they've been told that the victims are deceased, and that this reaction is normal.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I think that Canadian judges are not nearly as relaxed as US judges when it comes to presenting legal arguments, so I don't think there's any reason to worry about creative, unsubstantiated claims on behalf of the defence lawyer. That is, I don't think defence counsel can ask the judge, or judge and jury, to suspend reality and common sense while imagining an alternate scenario that has no basis in reality; no supporting facts. The evidence will be presented and the defence will have an opportunity to refute that evidence. If there is enough evidence for the medical examiner to determine that the victims were murdered at the crime scene, and if there are additional surveillance photos of the truck - except with three bodies and bedding in the bed of the truck, it will be very difficult to argue that the victims are not deceased. Any evidence that places the suspect at the residence, which most likely exists, will seal the deal. Suggestions of "tampering" will require proof before being accepted.

Yes. Again. If the evidence is overwhelming, they'll go in a different direction. Since we don't know the facts in this case, particularly what facts led LE to believe the victims are deceased, then it's fair to wonder what forms of defence arguments may come, if at all.

It's also fair to wonder, if the proof of death is overwhelming, or a 60/40, 70/30 balance of probabilities. Rather than just say I'm sure LE has it 100% right, which I might add would most likely eliminate you from the jury pool, I personally would like to hear the real facts myself before I make a final decision.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

There are many reasons that recent grads have difficulty finding work. One reason is a sense of entitlement that is common in that generation. When they step into a job, they sometimes think that their presence is sufficient to guarantee job security, just like they assumed that attending class should guarantee a grade of A. The previous generation's attitude of "how can I help" has been replaced with this generation's attitude of "not in my job description".

Don't even go there. The sense of entitlement is firmly on the side of the previous generation. They feel entitled to cheap labour, not having to pay for benefits, not having to contribute to pensions, and if the generation coming up doesn't like it... too bad... they'll import cheap foreign workers forced to work for a single employer for at least 2 years without the ability to go elsewhere if the employer is disgusting. Canadians sit and collect EI, so those who don't speak up when their entitlement to dignity is trampled, can send their money out of the country to family back home.

 

[otto]

Yes. Again. If the evidence is overwhelming, they'll go in a different direction. Since we don't know the facts in this case, particularly what facts led LE to believe the victims are deceased, then it's fair to wonder what forms of defence arguments may come, if at all.

It's also fair to wonder, if the proof of death is overwhelming, or a 60/40, 70/30 balance of probabilities.Rather than just say I'm sure LE has it 100% right, which I might add would most likely eliminate you from the jury pool, I personally would like to hear the real facts myself before I make a final decision.

In Canada, the defence cannot concoct a story. In the US, the defence does sometimes concoct a story and no one seems to mind (see: Casey Anthony). I think it's fair to say that evidence that the victims are deceased is 100% confirmed. If there was even 1% doubt, police could not make an announcement that the victims are in fact deceased.

Everyone that has commented on this case on this forum should be disqualified from sitting on the jury for this trial.