Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #24

[Kamille]

Did I misunderstand or did we not find out that there was blood evidence from all three victims at the house? To me that is a BIG revelation.

Yes it was. 3 bloodletting events and the blood of each victim, likely one for each event, found in the house. Just horrific.

 

[nettie_82]

Oh I know it was not her "fault" that there just wasn't enough evidence in the home to determine what may have happened. Her testimony just seemed so vague. And actually, she was probably very professional and thorough on the stand with regards to what she did say and her opinions on the crime scene, although you certainly wouldn't know that from the tweets.

But I also didn't get the impression that she considered bringing in any outside help with regards to the bones. Again though, the tweets didn't indicate whether she was giving just her opinion or whether she was representing more than one person or a team of people who may have examined those bones.

Did she announce her findings on the manner and cause of death? Sigh...so much missing IMO. Maybe I'll check the online news reports to see if there is any more information.

MOO

I'm confused as well about the representation part. At one point through the tweets it almost appeared as though she was referring to findings the anthropologist made and not her own. Even reading the news articles tonight show a quote from her where she refers to "she". I would think if it was herself making those findings it would be "I"


“She determined the majority of the bone fragments she had examined were animal, but there were fragments within there that she felt could be human.

“There were, I believe, at least one or two fragments she felt could have been from a child under 5"


http://globalnews.ca/news/3218435/d...rial-medical-examiner-testimony/?sf53910823=1

I always thought in trials the person discovering the evidence and making the findings had to testify for themselves. Didn't think you can give third party testimony.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[tracyhmcd]

If Matthew was part of a multiple personality it would not come about by way of stealing an identity. That is what DG did - he stole an identity from a dead kid and used it to pass himself off as someone else because he was on the lam from a criminal conviction related to his meth lab on his parents farm. There's nothing mentally ill about it.

I don't think it was multiple personality but DG seemed very attached to that name/alias, using it the past and still holding on to that name when he could have sought other names.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

There has been a lot of controversy in the Chief Medical Examiner position for too long, so I'm not inclined to put a lot of faith in the current one. After skimming some of her testimony, I'm not exactly impressed. She said that it's quite possible the victims were dead at their home, but it's also possible they weren't. She said the ash in the barrels may be from a child, and may be from an adult. If she hadn't been told that a child and two adults were likely burned in the barrel, would she have been able to say that? No one needs a medical degree to say that there's so much blood at the first crime scene that the victims may have been mortally wounded, and the statement that they may have been alive at the Airdrie acreage seems self-serving, and to appease what police and prosecutors want to hear.

I wasn't surprised that the suspect's lawyer wanted some sort of clear answer as to whether the victims were alive when they left the first crime scene. It's unfortunately that the Chief Medical Examiner could not give a clear answer based on the amount of blood at the crime scene. Surely she would know that after losing X number of litres of blood, life is over, but she couldn't answer that question. Why not?

Because death doesn't always occur as a result of blood loss, because there were no bodies to examine, because DG hasn't given a confession. She can't possibly give a definitive answer.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Slebby]

I don't think it was multiple personality but DG seemed very attached to that name/alias, using it the past and still holding on to that name when he could have sought other names.

Yes, that was not very smart. I don't know if it's because he was "attached" to that identity. Overall it seems he has a pattern of being very smart at times, and at other times, not so smart at all. It wouldn't have been difficult for him to find another identity to steal, IMO, maybe it was just lazy and convenient to go with the same old Matthew persona?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

I'm confused as well about the representation part. At one point through the tweets it almost appeared as though she was referring to findings the anthropologist made and not her own. Even reading the news articles tonight show a quote from her where she refers to "she". I would think if it was herself making those findings it would be "I"


“She determined the majority of the bone fragments she had examined were animal, but there were fragments within there that she felt could be human.

“There were, I believe, at least one or two fragments she felt could have been from a child under 5"


http://globalnews.ca/news/3218435/d...rial-medical-examiner-testimony/?sf53910823=1

I always thought in trials the person discovering the evidence and making the findings had to testify for themselves. Didn't think you can give third party testimony.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree. Third party answers are not good enough. The defence lawyer should be all over this.

I don't buy the testimony from the Chief Medical Examiner. I think she is a puppet. Answers of "maybe" are not answers. The true answer is: "I don't know", and if she doesn't know the answers, she doesn't need to testify.

 

[Sprigs]

Do you think, with respect to the evidence, the Crown is sort of leading us through the case as it happened? Without bodies part of their investigation lead them to Mexico and cast wide nets to see if finances were a motivation. I think the ME confirming blood evidence from AL, Kl and NO was important. It means each was injured or incapacitated in someway and violently. And I think when the DNA evidence comes back we may get more details of who's blood was where, which will help to flush out what happened even better. I also think it tied in with earlier testimony regarding the "killing manuals". We know the home went offline after 2 am and until 8 am. We know some of the suggestions in the books on how to disable persons and how to dispose of remains.

Also couldn't her testimony have been a lead in for the introduction of Pamela Mayne Correia - who studied some of the fragments? Reading her bio - "Her research interests are in the area of the analysis of cremated human skeletal material, trauma analysis, bone taphonomy and in human identification problems related to mass disasters and genocide"

I wondered about all the chloroform questions. While it was found at DG's farm was there any evidence of it at the Liknes home?

 

[otto]

Because death doesn't always occur as a result of blood loss, because there were no bodies to examine, because DG hasn't given a confession. She can't possibly give a definitive answer.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

According to google, there are 4-5 litres of blood in an adult body. If 3 of them are spilled in the house - which I would say there were given the drag marks on the side of the house in addition to the blood in the house - then at least one, more likely three, persons were mortally wounded at the Liknes house. It is in the prosecution's interest to have someone testify that the victims were alive and not mortally wounded when they arrived at the acreage so they can paint a gruesome picture of torture and mutilation of living victims.

It's like amateur hour at the prosecutor's office.

 

[Kamille]

I don't think it was multiple personality but DG seemed very attached to that name/alias, using it the past and still holding on to that name when he could have sought other names.

I believe that document found in the rafters was a stock certificate? And he obviously had a bank account in that name in order to have the debit card. When was he first charged with identity theft for using MH's information? Was that evidence flushed out then? Could the reason for keeping the identity be that he had "assets" in that name that were not discovered?

MOO

 

[otto]

For example, spill a litre (or quart) of water on the floor. We know what that looks like. Now let's spill enough water so that it is spread along 8 metres (almost 9 yards) of sidewalk. How many litres of water is needed for this? Now let's be told how much blood was actually in the house. Add it up ... estimate.

Is there no one who was at the crime scene who can speak to this?

Sorry, but I'm frustrated with the Chief Medical Examiner's testimony and view it as simply not competent or relevant.

 

[Kamille]

I'm confused as well about the representation part. At one point through the tweets it almost appeared as though she was referring to findings the anthropologist made and not her own. Even reading the news articles tonight show a quote from her where she refers to "she". I would think if it was herself making those findings it would be "I"


“She determined the majority of the bone fragments she had examined were animal, but there were fragments within there that she felt could be human.

“There were, I believe, at least one or two fragments she felt could have been from a child under 5"


http://globalnews.ca/news/3218435/d...rial-medical-examiner-testimony/?sf53910823=1

I always thought in trials the person discovering the evidence and making the findings had to testify for themselves. Didn't think you can give third party testimony.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The CBC clarified that she was reading information from a report done by a forensic anthropologist. I posted about that in post number 274. Here is the CBC link again...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...knes-nathan-obrien-medical-examiner-1.3961535

 

[PrincessButtercup]

For example, spill a litre (or quart) of water on the floor. We know what that looks like. Now let's spill enough water so that it is spread along 8 metres (almost 9 yards) of sidewalk. How many litres of water is needed for this? Now let's be told how much blood was actually in the house. Add it up ... estimate.

Is there no one who was at the crime scene who can speak to this?

Sorry, but I'm frustrated with the Chief Medical Examiner's testimony and view it as simply not competent or relevant.

She stated in her testimony that there was not enough blood in the house to determine whether they were killed there.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Sprigs]

And didn't she say she was first called to Liknes home July 2nd? Any blood would have been dried by then and I imagine harder to estimate quantity.

 

[Kamille]

She stated in her testimony that there was not enough blood in the house to determine whether they were killed there.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Just jumping off your post...

So her opinion was that no one "bled out" at the house, losing enough blood to absolutely kill them, based on the amount of blood at the scene. But she cannot state for certainty that any of the injuries that caused the bleeding did not cause any or all of them to die in the home. Because she does not know the nature of the injuries. Whether they were external/superficial (broken skin) or internal (brain or organ injury).

Do I have that right? :waitasec:

MOO

 

[Kamille]

Let's hope that the forensic dentist tomorrow can at least determine that the suspected tooth fragments that were found in the burn pile were actually human teeth. We know he cannot extract DNA from them to determine who they belong to. But that should not matter.

Pretty sure, even though AG had a bad toothache, that none of the family were pulling out and discarding their own teeth in the trash to be burned in the burn barrel.

And there is NO reason why there would be human teeth in the burn pile other than the obvious. So perhaps it doesn't matter that they didn't identify the bones.

MOO

 

[otto]

She stated in her testimony that there was not enough blood in the house to determine whether they were killed there.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

How much blood was there between the inside and the outside of the house? 8 metres of bloody drag marks is a lot of blood. She could not say that they were alive or not alive when they left the house. It's an opinion without evidence, and, given the history of problems with medical examiners in Alberta, simply having the role of Chief Medical Examiner is not sufficient to make claims without evidence.

 

[sublimemumma]

Let's hope that the forensic dentist tomorrow can at least determine that the suspected tooth fragments that were found in the burn pile were actually human teeth. We know he cannot extract DNA from them to determine who they belong to. But that should not matter.

Pretty sure, even though AG had a bad toothache, that none of the family were pulling out and discarding their own teeth in the trash to be burned in the burn barrel.

And there is NO reason why there would be human teeth in the burn pile other than the obvious. So perhaps it doesn't matter that they didn't identify the bones.

MOO

Without DNA they should be able to tell if they are a five year olds tooth or adult tooth. Also would a male tooth be bigger than a female? They could probably tell that much you would think.

 

[kams]

Anyone else notice how narrow his feet seem in the video?? He clearly did not need WIDE shoes.

The oversized everything suggests to me some kind of aversion to anything uncomfortable or restrictive (this is a common symptom in those on the autism spectrum or with sensory disorders). Autistic folks can also have difficulty with social interactions (eye contact), are often highly methodical, need to follow order and instructions exactly (book instructions on murder perhaps), and can become obsessed with things. (I'm speaking here from my own personal past experience working with autistic kids.)

I totally agree with this. I am a teacher, and I thought early on that he may be autistic. JMO

 

[Slebby]

Just jumping off your post...

So her opinion was that no one "bled out" at the house, losing enough blood to absolutely kill them, based on the amount of blood at the scene. But she cannot state for certainty that any of the injuries that caused the bleeding did not cause any or all of them to die in the home. Because she does not know the nature of the injuries. Whether they were external/superficial (broken skin) or internal (brain or organ injury).

Do I have that right? :waitasec:

MOO

I think she was saying she can't state conclusively that they bled out in the house.
I suspect that, if she could be candid about her opinion, which she can't, she'd say one way or the other whether she thinks they were dead at the house. I would guess yes, they were dead at the house.

IMO

Edit to add: but I'm prepared to hear why the crown stated in opening that they were killed at the farm. From what I have hear thus far, between likely head injuries and amount of blood, I can't see how the victims made it to the farm alive, MOO.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Slebby]

One thing I've wondered, what if DG had committed the murders and simply left the bodies behind at the L home, would he have been caught? All the police would have had was a sighting of his truck in the area, hardly against the law, maybe not even grounds for granting a search warrant for his home. Would he have been more likely to get away with it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk