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

[Krystine]

Thanks for posting this. It amazes me how if we look at a webpage months later something else might jump out!

I am always looking for more info on the male partner of CH. Coincidentally, his name appears here. Commercial real estate page with not the best reputaion linked as well. As well a horse betting website comes up again. Another thing is that the last edits were done on June 26th.

http://www.aihitdata.com/company/01309BAE/YELLOW-BIRD-MOVING/history#main

As always, Lois,... incredible sleuthing. I had no idea the web could do that!

 

[PonderingNS]

I closed down all the pages I had open but I will see if I can find it again

Of course when you want to go back and find something it's never there. But it was through one of the domain searches I did. I will keep trying.

 

[Krystine]

Just to show other links to KL via websites:
http://www.webboar.com/whois/beautyinthebottle.org
This one leads to yet another page with three domains on it all under KL's name. The Canmore Daycare where CH works is one of those sites.
http://wa-com.com/industry-leader-online.com
KL's email leads you to so many sites it's hard to follow. I found it disturbing that on more than one the keywords she put in first was 'air gun ' followed by GUNS. This was on a landscaping site, strange keywords to use.
There is also a business connection in white rock.

Ponderings, I'm a little bit out of my league with what you and Lois and Lala are onto.
From what I know about key words, though, by choosing 'air guns' or "GUNS" as keywords, the site will attract users that
are interested in guns, not landscaping? So what would that imply?

 

[PonderingNS]

What was the name of DG's company ? Anyone remember ?

 

[PonderingNS]

Yes, I understand how key words work.
That is what I was saying. That I found it strange that she chose those key words. The two don't go together do they ...

 

[Krystine]

Yes, I understand how key words work.
That is what I was saying. That I found it strange that she chose those key words. The two don't go together do they ...

My point was that I don't. I wasn't explaining it to you, I was asking.

 

[otto]

I'm going to post a bit of a timeline I posted early on in this case ... I know that Sillybilly has a timeline that covers the big picture, but this relates to the victims and the accused.

1948 Alvin born
1960 Graduated High School (18 years old)
1960 Garland born
1961 Kathryn born
1960-198? Alvin is Married, four children (39 years old ... what was he doing for the last 27 years ... working the rigs? ... is that where he got the idea to patent the process?)
1968 Garland little sister is born
1968 Allen Liknes is born
1978 Garland graduates High School
1979 Kathryn graduates High School
1980 Garland expelled from University of Alberta
1981 Kathryn completes printmaking program (can't find link or date anymore)
1982 Garland arrested for meth manufacturing
1986 Allen Liknes graduates High School
1987 Kathryn, daughter born
1991? Alvin marries Kathryn, Nathan's natural grandmother (43 years old, Kathryn is 30)
1992 Alvin and Kathryn, son born
1994 Alvin declares bankruptcy (46 years old)
1994-2014 (numerous penny stock oil companies, an account in Panama, connections with a real estate fraud conviction in the US, a merger between a construction company and an oil company (White-something homes and Blue Sky oil and gas in Nevada, and 3 bankruptcies) (66 years old)
1992-1999 Garland in Vancouver
1999 Garland re-arrested
2000 Garland released from prison (served 6 months of 39 month sentence)
2012 Kathryn declares bankruptcy
2014 Alvin declares bankruptcy
2014 Alvin/Kathryn murdered (66/53 years old)

 

[otto]

In my opinion, Garland appears to come from a successful family. The property is very well looked after, with irrigation system, green house, large country home on a large country property. Irrigation systems are not the norm for a 40 acre property, but given that the family had an irrigation system, I suspect that there was plenty of money both at the time that the property was purchased, and now. The property was probably purchased for about $35k, and today it is worth $3-4 million (perhaps as much as $8m as a bundle). That doesn't happen by accident. That is a result of clever investments. Clever investments in property suggests to me that there were also clever investments in stocks and other investment portfolios.

I've posted my theory of the motive before, and I'm going to post it again. I think that the Garland family was financially comfortable due to hard work, clever investments, and solid financial planning. They moved to the Airdrie property in the early 1970s, at the time when the Calgary oil boom was just taking off. People that made it big in oil bought acreages just outside of the city - just like the Garlands did. I suspect that if any of the children asked for a bit of an advance of inheritance today, it wouldn't be a problem. I have a suspicion that Garland's sister asked for a bit of an advance and that, for whatever reason, this money ended up invested in the joint Liknes/Garland Mexico condo. Perhaps his sister saw this as a solid investment.

The information about the condo being a joint Liknes/Garland purchase came out a day or two after it was announced that police were investigating something related to the murder in Mexico (which was Aug 5-6, 2014). There was one video release of the information. It was probably a leak that was never meant to go public, but it did.

I can't make any sense of the murders without including both my opinion that the Garlands are prosperous, and that the condo factors into the equation. The only Garland that would have any reason to give money to the Liknes couple for their retirement condo in Mazatlan is the sister of Douglas Garland. I highly doubt that Garland's sister saved enough for an investment in Mexico while raising three growing children. She is common law with Alvin's son. No other Garland would put money towards that retirement condo. The sister has three children. We don't know anything about her, but I'm of the opinion that she could have been encouraged to borrow the money from her parents, or request an inheritance advance. I think that, if that happened, and the money was then put towards a condo rather than for day to day family needs, I think that would be enough for Douglas Garland to be really angry. I think Douglas had a grudge against Alvin from the time when he created the design for a patent for Alvin, where Alvin then paid him a contractor's wage and kept the rights to the patent design (omitting Garland's name as designer). I think this bothered Garland for years. If it is true that Garland's sister obtained money from the family - loan or inheritance advance - and then put it towards a condo in Mexico where her name was not on title (no rights to the property), that would have been enough for Douglas Garland to decide to end Alvin and Kathryn's lives. He would have felt that not only was he cheated, but his sister was cheated, and he probably worried that his sister's inheritance - possibly one third of up to $8 million - would be used not for her children, but perhaps by her husband's extended family.

This all hinges to four premises: that the sister received money from her parents, that it is the sister that represents the Garland interest in the Mexico property, that Garland harboured a deep resentment against the Liknes couple for his belief that they cheated him, and that he was not going to allow the Liknes couple to get their hands on his family money.

 

[otto]

You just typed what I was typing ! Yes it is interesting to note that KH's name, email and phone number were all removed on June 26,2014.
When you google the removed number you will see it connects to a metal smith / forge company. That company also comes up under a different name.

Isn't that interesting. They were murdered at the exact time that they were planning to disappear. If there hadn't been so much blood at the scene, people would have believed that they simply vanished, as is suggested by their financial records.

It's also most likely that the accused knew that they were about to vanish to Mexico, which is why he chose that date ... kind of like his last chance. The estate was well advertised on kijiji classified pages and unprotected social media pages as "Estate Sale", "Leaving the Country Sale". The accused might have had a grudge related to the Mazatlan condo, should have known that that if the couple simply vanished, no one might be the wiser ... yet he chose to murder brutally ... ample blood and evidence at the crime scene to confirm that all three are deceased.

 

[LoisLane]

As always, Lois,... incredible sleuthing. I had no idea the web could do that!

Thanks Krystine but I am at a loss when it comes to the webs of the web. I can remember names and click links..lol. After that I am completely overwhelmed by it all. This is definetly for the more computer literate.

 

[LoisLane]

Of course when you want to go back and find something it's never there. But it was through one of the domain searches I did. I will keep trying.

I will spend some time on this too, if I find anything I will let you know.

 

[LoisLane]

What was the name of DG's company ? Anyone remember ?

I believe he had two. The one I can recall is P2 Solutions Ltd.

 

[otto]

And now we enter into the "circular argument" phase of dishonest debate tactics. This has been covered...

Since there are plausible, yet unlikely, ways the evidence could have led LE in the wrong direction, you cannot definitively say if P, then Q. That is where your accusations of posters calling LE incompetent becomes putting words in people's mouths.

Since Einstein once used the word moot, that also makes the rest of your argument moot. Sure, that sounds silly, but credential dropping to make an argument seems to impress some, so maybe they'll thank one of my posts too.

Let's look at if P, then Q ... in part responding to the quoted post.

1. Are the Liknes couple alive: yes, or no?

If yes, then the determination by the medical examiners office that they are dead is dead wrong. They are alive. The Medical Examiner is wrong.
If no, then we accept the decision of the medical examiner, which is supported by 200 officers, numerous police departments, the crown prosecutor's office, and the Chief of Police.

What's the answer to the fist question?

• If they are alive, then the medical examiner is wrong.
• If P, then Q.

• If they are deceased, then the medical examiner is right.
• If P, then Q.

In what scenario is "Liknes couple dead, then police are incompetent"? That doesn't fit.

• If the police department is incompetent regardless of whether the Liknes couple is dead or alive, then the issue is police incompetence ... and there is no evidence of that.
• If P, then Q.

All 200 officers, numerous police departments, and the Chief of Police have all conducted themselves admirably. The senior prosecutor has overseen the investigation from beginning to end.

The only question is whether the couple is alive or dead, and whether we have faith in the Medical Examiner.
What do we know about him?

2. If there was a question 2, it would be: on what grounds should police be considered incompetent?

 

[LoisLane]

In my opinion, Garland appears to come from a successful family. The property is very well looked after, with irrigation system, green house, large country home on a large country property. Irrigation systems are not the norm for a 40 acre property, but given that the family had an irrigation system, I suspect that there was plenty of money both at the time that the property was purchased, and now. The property was probably purchased for about $35k, and today it is worth $3-4 million (perhaps as much as $8m as a bundle). That doesn't happen by accident. That is a result of clever investments. Clever investments in property suggests to me that there were also clever investments in stocks and other investment portfolios.

I've posted my theory of the motive before, and I'm going to post it again. I think that the Garland family was financially comfortable due to hard work, clever investments, and solid financial planning. They moved to the Airdrie property in the early 1970s, at the time when the Calgary oil boom was just taking off. People that made it big in oil bought acreages just outside of the city - just like the Garlands did. I suspect that if any of the children asked for a bit of an advance of inheritance today, it wouldn't be a problem. I have a suspicion that Garland's sister asked for a bit of an advance and that, for whatever reason, this money ended up invested in the joint Liknes/Garland Mexico condo. Perhaps his sister saw this as a solid investment.

The information about the condo being a joint Liknes/Garland purchase came out a day or two after it was announced that police were investigating something related to the murder in Mexico (which was Aug 5-6, 2014). There was one video release of the information. It was probably a leak that was never meant to go public, but it did.

I can't make any sense of the murders without including both my opinion that the Garlands are prosperous, and that the condo factors into the equation. The only Garland that would have any reason to give money to the Liknes couple for their retirement condo in Mazatlan is the sister of Douglas Garland. I highly doubt that Garland's sister saved enough for an investment in Mexico while raising three growing children. She is common law with Alvin's son. No other Garland would put money towards that retirement condo. The sister has three children. We don't know anything about her, but I'm of the opinion that she could have been encouraged to borrow the money from her parents, or request an inheritance advance. I think that, if that happened, and the money was then put towards a condo rather than for day to day family needs, I think that would be enough for Douglas Garland to be really angry. I think Douglas had a grudge against Alvin from the time when he created the design for a patent for Alvin, where Alvin then paid him a contractor's wage and kept the rights to the patent design (omitting Garland's name as designer). I think this bothered Garland for years. If it is true that Garland's sister obtained money from the family - loan or inheritance advance - and then put it towards a condo in Mexico where her name was not on title (no rights to the property), that would have been enough for Douglas Garland to decide to end Alvin and Kathryn's lives. He would have felt that not only was he cheated, but his sister was cheated, and he probably worried that his sister's inheritance - possibly one third of up to $8 million - would be used not for her children, but perhaps by her husband's extended family.

This all hinges to four premises: that the sister received money from her parents, that it is the sister that represents the Garland interest in the Mexico property, that Garland harboured a deep resentment against the Liknes couple for his belief that they cheated him, and that he was not going to allow the Liknes couple to get their hands on his family money.

I am curious about the Garland estate and how the assets are connected to the children. What are you basing the property's value on? I was thinking it was at most $4 Million. I wonder if they had or have land in other parts of the area.

It confuses me that DG would be so peeved at AL over the possible property purchase in Mexico. Why wouldn't he be more confrontational with AL jr. about this? What if the L's had rented the time back from AL jr. and PG for the extended stay in Mexico? I was talking with a friend the other day, her father is a Pastor and owns land in Mexico that they built a church that the church leases. He can't will it to them. If he dies the property goes to the government. He is trying to sort out a way to put it in the name of the church or one of his children's so that it is not taken away when he dies. I hope I explained that right. I don't know how it applies to condo's but if it is the same wouldn't it be a smart move to purchase with another party to keep the property longer? What if AL jr. had financed their share of the condo and PG did not obtain a loan or gift from her parents?

 

[LoisLane]

I'm going to post a bit of a timeline I posted early on in this case ... I know that Sillybilly has a timeline that covers the big picture, but this relates to the victims and the accused.

1948 Alvin born
1960 Graduated High School (18 years old)
1960 Garland born
1961 Kathryn born
1960-198? Alvin is Married, four children (39 years old ... what was he doing for the last 27 years ... working the rigs? ... is that where he got the idea to patent the process?)
1968 Garland little sister is born
1968 Allen Liknes is born
1978 Garland graduates High School
1979 Kathryn graduates High School
1980 Garland expelled from University of Alberta
1981 Kathryn completes printmaking program (can't find link or date anymore)
1982 Garland arrested for meth manufacturing
1986 Allen Liknes graduates High School
1987 Kathryn, daughter born
1991? Alvin marries Kathryn, Nathan's natural grandmother (43 years old, Kathryn is 30)
1992 Alvin and Kathryn, son born
1994 Alvin declares bankruptcy (46 years old)
1994-2014 (numerous penny stock oil companies, an account in Panama, connections with a real estate fraud conviction in the US, a merger between a construction company and an oil company (White-something homes and Blue Sky oil and gas in Nevada, and 3 bankruptcies) (66 years old)
1992-1999 Garland in Vancouver
1999 Garland re-arrested
2000 Garland released from prison (served 6 months of 39 month sentence)
2012 Kathryn declares bankruptcy
2014 Alvin declares bankruptcy
2014 Alvin/Kathryn murdered (66/53 years old)

I think JO is in her mid 30's and was born in the late 70's. I saw her age published somewhere.

 

[otto]

I am curious about the Garland estate and how the assets are connected to the children. What are you basing the property's value on? I was thinking it was at most $4 Million. I wonder if they had or have land in other parts of the area.

It confuses me that DG would be so peeved at AL over the possible property purchase in Mexico. Why wouldn't [Garland] be more confrontational with AL jr. about this? What if the L's had rented the time back from AL jr. and PG for the extended stay in Mexico? I was talking with a friend the other day, her father is a Pastor and owns land in Mexico that they built a church that the church leases. He can't will it to them. If he dies the property goes to the government. He is trying to sort out a way to put it in the name of the church or one of his children's so that it is not taken away when he dies. I hope I explained that right. I don't know how it applies to condo's but if it is the same wouldn't it be a smart move to purchase with another party to keep the property longer? What if AL jr. had financed their share of the condo and PG did not obtain a loan or gift from her parents?

The Garland property that was searched as part of the investigation is owned by the parents of the accused. Normally, depending on what is done with the estate property (eg: sell or change title), everything is divided equally. I'm basing Airdrie acreage value on current acreage sales for city lot development, as well as for 4 acre parcel development. Depending on the intended land use, the property value fluctuates between $4-8 million ... higher density, higher value; closer to Airdrie, higher value; annexed by Airdrie, very high value ... up to $8 million.

BBM. Douglas strikes me as the sullen, sneaky type rather than the head on approach of talking his grudge over with Alvin and Kathryn Liknes. If Allen knew about the grudge, then Alvin knew about the grudge ... that is, I think that Douglas Garland told Alvin Liknes that he was unhappy, and either Liknes or Garland told Allen that Douglas Garland was upset about the patent design name omission. I don't think that Douglas Garland had any reason to be confrontational with Alvin's son regarding the patent design recognition grudge (although maybe that conversation was at Thanksgiving Dinner 7 years ago). I do think that Douglas Garland confronted Alvin about the patent design recognition omission.

It's possible that Douglas Garland held a grudge from the time of the patent design payment problem. If he thought that his family money, intended for his sisters and their children, would be used for the Mazatlan retirement of the Liknes couple, then he could have been really angry to learn that not only was the money used by his sister to purchase an interest in the Mexico property, but the title was in the name of a company owned by Alvin and his twin brother Allen ... because two foreigners in a company can purchase property in Mexico. One person cannot purchase property in Mexico. The minute the money was in the names of the twins, if that happened, it was lost to the Garlands. Would it surprise anyone to learn that the Liknes couple had taken money from unsuspecting investors ... and then declared bankruptcy? The property purchase clearly happened prior to the bankruptcy declaration ... was money used to invest in a bankrupt company? What happened financially ... and what about the monkey business with the caveat on the property. Caveats usually relate to height restrictions and only effect the company insofar as restricting the building opens for the next owner. Why was the property mortgaged for more than the actual value. That usually requires some sort of monkey business with banks.

Regardless of whether the condo in Mazatlan was a good purchase, if the money came from the sister of the accused (which is the only thing that makes sense), then her money vanished from the paper trail the minute Alvin and Kathryn put it into a Mexico condo in some company name owned by twins Allen and Alvin Liknes. That could be a problem when there is a prior history of financial losses between Douglas Garland and Alvin Liknes.

If Allen Liknes worked hard to save money above and beyond the needs of his family, while riding the backroads on his motorcycle, and he invested thousands of dollars in a condo for his father and his father's wife, then that's great. It's just that he doesn't strike me as the type to have looked after all family needs and have that extra to give to his parents. Somehow, per the news, the Garland name included on the title of the property suggests to me that the sister's money was used.

It's also highly unlikely that the Liknes couple could purchase the property without a company of at least two. With a company, established by Allen Liknes, who has been in Mazatlan for some time, Alvin as the employee, it would be no problem to buy a condo ... but the Garland name would be lost either in the paperwork, or perhaps the bankruptcy.

That is, if we eliminate the use of money from Garland's sister, and the absence of security in that investment, then the entire theory falls apart. That's why one of the premises for the theory is that the Garland family is prosperous, the children could borrow money, that money was tied to the condo, and there was no paper trail for the sister/family (in the event of the sister's untimely death) to recoup the investment on paper.

 

[otto]

I think JO is in her mid 30's and was born in the late 70's. I saw her age published somewhere.

Kathryn was born in 1961. She finished high school in about 1979-80. At some point (at the time that Jen was born) she completed a diploma in print making at SAIT (she later morphed this into website design). After completing the program, 1981-82, perhaps 1983-84, Kathryn worked near Alvin. She met her friend from Canmore at the time that she was learning print making, and Jen was born, no earlier than 1982. Kathryn and Alvin started a family with their son, who was quoted in the media as having recently completed an engineering degree.

If their son recently completed something at the university, that puts him at about 22-23 years old. If he was born early in the marriage, when Jen was about 5-6 years old, if he is 22, then she is 27, then Kathryn would have been 25-26 when she met Alvin ... according to the numbers I can figure out ... but perhaps there's an error somewhere. If so, where would it be?

Is it that Jen was five or six when Kathryn married Alvin, and their son is younger by 10 years? The only way that works is if Kathryn and Alvin's son is about 27 years old ... which means that he had no reason to live at home. Wasn't there lots of talk about the son still living at home and dragging garbage bins around the front yard in the middle of the night, or coming home from a camping trip in the middle of the long weekend? Is the idea that the man is nearly 30 and he's still hauling his camping trip to his parent's house?

We can't keep moving the goal posts each time something is presented as a viable explanation. Is the son so young (22 years of age) that he would be storing camping equipment at home (his parent's house) in the middle of a long weekend? Is he 22 years old, or is he 27 years old, and storing camping equipment at his parent's house ... 27 suggests that he's far more troublesome than a late bloomer. And Jen is 32 or 33, or is she 27, born in 1987?

 

[YYC Lady]

JO is 34, her age was listed in the recent article about the foundation in Nathan's name. It said something to the effect that AL has been in her life since she was 6, and the only father she has ever known.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/1...ggles-and-honouring-their-lost-childs-legacy/

ETA: I think the youngest L child is only in his early 20's. at least that's what's been reported, although I can't find a link at the moment

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Ponderings, I'm a little bit out of my league with what you and Lois and Lala are onto.
From what I know about key words, though, by choosing 'air guns' or "GUNS" as keywords, the site will attract users that
are interested in guns, not landscaping? So what would that imply?

I don't know if it implies anything, but it's a bit odd.

I do know some people use any and every tag word/keywords though just to get any kind of traffic to their site. I don't know about you guys, but do you ever find when you google something with keywords a lot of crap does come up that has nothing to do with what you're searching for? Sometimes people 'tag' anything just to get 'seen' on the net.

It's hard to say if this was a strategic move for KL or not, guns and landscaping don't really mix!

 

[Lalalacasbah]

What was the name of DG's company ? Anyone remember ?

Not sure anyone answered, but it was P2 Solutions and I think Ranchland Equipment.