Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #23

[Hatfield]

Someone else will have to tweet after the break...please!

Thanks to all who do the tweets. I am really bad at it or would offer to do it. I cant keep up and am lousy at it. LOL

 

[Olivia&Eve]

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I still can't wrap my mind around what diaper and bondage fetish has to do with this. The judge explicitly implied that DGs character cannot be put on trial or attacked, which is all highlighting his perversions does. So unless there is further evidence coming that ties in these diapers--I just don't see how it's relevant.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

 

[olivebpa1]

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 34 seconds ago
"Force Applied To The Head and Their Relationship To Risk of Brain Injury" PDF found on hard drive. #Garland #yyc

My theory on this is he wanted to make sure he didn't cause brain damage when he hit them in the head while they were sleeping. He wanted them to be aware enough at the farm to know what he was doing to them. Plus hitting hard enough to cause brain damage can cause instant death. He wanted to take them alive.

 

[gunner.]

My theory on this is he wanted to make sure he didn't cause brain damage when he hit them in the head while they were sleeping. He wanted them to be aware enough at the farm to know what he was doing to them. Plus hitting hard enough to cause brain damage can cause instant death. He wanted to take them alive.

I agree 100%.

 

[casesensitive]

snipped
I think at the end of this DG is going to get Dangerous Offender Status.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He will be 82 years old if he receives a 25 year maximum sentence. IMO he will still be dangerous until the day he dies!

 

[gunner.]

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I still can't wrap my mind around what diaper and bondage fetish has to do with this. The judge explicitly implied that DGs character cannot be put on trial or attacked, which is all highlighting his perversions does. So unless there is further evidence coming that ties in these diapers--I just don't see how it's relevant.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

Diapers - my feeling is that the aerial photo shows them wearing diapers. (The wording was something like 'not wearing pants or shirts'. It specifically did not say either naked or underwear.)

Restraint fetish - I believe they are laying the foundation that this is a person who would find pleasure in using restraints, was familiar with how to use them and owned them. I am not sure if his fetish actually was the motive for incorporating the restraints, or if they were simply a familiar part of his life that he could use to restrain and torture. There is no proof (yet) that they were or were not used but to not mention the possibility would be a mistake by the Crown, IMO.

 

[dogmatica]

I believe the diapers will be of relevance to the case. Otherwise they wouldn't be asking about it. They wouldn't (and couldn't) bring up something like that purely as a character assassination. It must be relevant to what he did to them.

 

[Hatfield]

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I still can't wrap my mind around what diaper and bondage fetish has to do with this. The judge explicitly implied that DGs character cannot be put on trial or attacked, which is all highlighting his perversions does. So unless there is further evidence coming that ties in these diapers--I just don't see how it's relevant.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

It does seem to be a fine line whether that was just a fetish of his or whether he did anything to the Likness with the diapers. One of the reviews of one of the books mentioned about how when a body dies that human waiste comes out and so its possible he used it for that reason too.

Its up to the defense to use objections where they think testimony is not relevant. I am surprised they have not objected to more. They are awfully quiet on the objection front.

 

[Olivia&Eve]

It does seem to be a fine line whether that was just a fetish of his or whether he did anything to the Likness with the diapers. One of the reviews of one of the books mentioned about how when a body dies that human waiste comes out and so its possible he used it for that reason too.

Its up to the defense to use objections where they think testimony is not relevant. I am surprised they have not objected to more. They are awfully quiet on the objection front.

If there is more evidence to come that ties in the diapers, the defense would know its coming, right? Could that be a reason for the lack of objections over irrelevance?

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Hatfield]

If there is more evidence to come that ties in the diapers, the defense would know its coming, right? Could that be a reason for the lack of objections over irrelevance?

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

Yes, I totally agree. That could explain why they had no objections about it.

 

[calgarymom]

I also joined WS to follow this particular case. I have a daughter the same age as little Nathan and I cannot stop thinking about this family. Thank you to everyone who posts and follows the trial from the courthouse. This is an invaluable resource to those of us who are invested in this case.
Some of my thoughts about DG: I believe the reason he returned to the farm was to retrieve the hard drive he hid. Obviously it contains tons of incriminating evidence. It baffles me why he kept that instead of destroying it.
I am hopeful the diaper/restraint fetish has nothing to do with the murders and is just something he does or fantasizes about.
The more I think about him, the more I think he has schizophrenia, hence the weekly psychiatrist appointments. The social withdrawal, personality disorder, alternate realities, perhaps delusions and paranoia could explain some of his behaviours, obsessions, grudges that led him to do this.
I will never understand why DG, when realizing NO was at the house, he couldn't just lock him in the bathroom, tell him to hide, or drop him off somewhere safe. That is what bothers me most about this case.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

My goodness. They would not have been safe even if they had moved.

A range of emotions with this trial.
First anger then disgust then horror then anger again.

Rinse and repeat.

You're right, I think he needed to act right away though because he would run more of a risk of being recognized in Evansburg with his sister and her family living in the tiny town.


Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Tealgrove]

I also joined WS to follow this particular case. I have a daughter the same age as little Nathan and I cannot stop thinking about this family. Thank you to everyone who posts and follows the trial from the courthouse. This is an invaluable resource to those of us who are invested in this case.
Some of my thoughts about DG: I believe the reason he returned to the farm was to retrieve the hard drive he hid. Obviously it contains tons of incriminating evidence. It baffles me why he kept that instead of destroying it.
I am hopeful the diaper/restraint fetish has nothing to do with the murders and is just something he does or fantasizes about.
The more I think about him, the more I think he has schizophrenia, hence the weekly psychiatrist appointments. The social withdrawal, personality disorder, alternate realities, perhaps delusions and paranoia could explain some of his behaviours, obsessions, grudges that led him to do this.
I will never understand why DG, when realizing NO was at the house, he couldn't just lock him in the bathroom, tell him to hide, or drop him off somewhere safe. That is what bothers me most about this case.

BBM

I agree. I don't know how many times I've wished Nathan had hid. Just go hide. DG had to take him. NO could identify him and DG was determined that there be no evidence left behind. He planned on removing all evidence. Nathan had no chance. It sickens me. This guy is such a moster. MOO

 

[KMouse]

It does seem to be a fine line whether that was just a fetish of his or whether he did anything to the Likness with the diapers. One of the reviews of one of the books mentioned about how when a body dies that human waiste comes out and so its possible he used it for that reason too.

Its up to the defense to use objections where they think testimony is not relevant. I am surprised they have not objected to more. They are awfully quiet on the objection front.

Brain injury can cause people to lose control of their bodily functions.

 

[Bravo]

:welcome2:

 

[JadeSLeuth]

I'm still catching up....stupid work getting in the way! I can't help with MSM or the Canadian Legal system but if there are any HR/Payroll or Funeral/Embalming questions I could become verified but I'm not sure how much that would be needed :thinking:

Stick around - there are so many cases on here that could probably use your expertise

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Back! Are we on lunch?

 

[Tealgrove]

Back! Are we on lunch?

Yes. Just about over though. Should be back up at 2:00 pm

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Me too. I'm so innocent.

Welcome Halldor!
Sadly you aren't so innocent any more....

:wagon:

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Someone else will have to tweet after the break...please!

Thanks Nettie_82!

:toast: