Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 June 2014 - #6

[Carol]

I do. The green truck that was seen several times near the crime scene on the night of the disappearance was removed from the Airdrie acreage on the evening of July 4. Police went to that property at 6PM specifically to collect that truck. On July 5, the media learned of the activity on the Airdrie acreage and began taking photos and video of the property. The green truck was gone before the media arrived, so green truck cannot be in the footage from July 5 (and later).

I think your deduction here is correct. And the way people are claiming they see a perfect match of the wrong truck should be a good reminder not to jump to conclusions.

 

[daniela40]

Can we talk about why if Garland owned a mercury company he would need to stay at a shelter? Surely he has mula.

Maybe the proceeds of those assets are connected to the new identity theft charges, ie those proceeds are in a bank account of a stolen identity!

Thus, DG probably has no access.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 117120]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/06/30/calgary-police-search-for-missing-boy-and-his-grandparents

“The home was not in the condition that typically it would have been left in,” he said. “And there is some indication in the home that the occupants did not leave under their own volition.”
“Police spokesman Kevin Brookwell said evidence found at the scene suggests the missing people didn’t leave of their own free will.”


In this MSM article these two statement were made by LE. This was the first statement by LE and subsequent statements from LE said paraphrasing here someone was in medical duress.
With the first two statements above, it would lead me to believe that the house appeared ransacked or dishevelled and the second comment above would indicate that personal belongings were left behind as in purse, wallet, and shoes things typically one has with them when they leave the home.
Then of course the LE reference to medical duress is clear there was some evidence of body injury.

 

[violet67]

I would say ... take it with a grain of salt. People reported that the grandparents said that they were moving up North, moving to Edmonton, leaving the country, that they bought a condo in Mexico ... and their son didn't seem to know anything about where they were going except, perhaps, Edmonton. Perhaps they invested in a time share in Mexico, perhaps they intended to stay with Alvin's identical twin in Mazatlan, and perhaps they were telling people that they bought a condo in Mexico because it sounds good.

"The couple had spent the weekend selling what they owned in Calgary, a friend said, and were moving to a condo they had bought in Mexico."

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/latest/story.html?id=9989542

i have only been following this case loosely but seems to me I remember the condo in question was bought by AL's twin brother and that it was available to family members to use. I saw nothing about the L's actually buying a condo.

 

[daniela40]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/06/30/calgary-police-search-for-missing-boy-and-his-grandparents

“The home was not in the condition that typically it would have been left in,” he said. “And there is some indication in the home that the occupants did not leave under their own volition.”
“Police spokesman Kevin Brookwell said evidence found at the scene suggests the missing people didn’t leave of their own free will.”


In this MSM article these two statement were made by LE. This was the first statement by LE and subsequent statements from LE said paraphrasing here someone was in medical duress.
With the first two statements above, it would lead me to believe that the house appeared ransacked or dishevelled and the second comment above would indicate that personal belongings were left behind as in purse, wallet, and shoes things typically one has with them when they leave the home.

I agree 100%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CrazyCanuck]

The person that did this had to expect that his wife was in the home. It's possible that someone went to the house after the garage sale to demand money and it's possible that Alvin thought he could stall. Who knows. If Garland approached Alvin and demanded payment for work on a patent, what could Alvin do? He could take it outside, he could agree to go to a bank machine to withdraw some cash, he could offer to write a cheque. he could refuse. If he did any of those things, that left his wife vulnerable. I suspect that Alvin was somehow incapacitated first. Perhaps things went too far, leaving the perp with little choice but to go back to get Alvin's wife and grandson ... for the sole reason that they could identify him.

That sounds possible. I remember in the Tim Bosma case there was a discussion on here about how lucky his wife was that they didn't come back for her because she had seen the perps and they knew she was home alone that evening and vulnerable.

 

[Carol]

I'm not sure they have a warrant. I think they may very well have permission from the land owner to be on the land to search it, in which case they can be there as long as they need to be.

It gets technical but I think the fact they are searching for missing persons allows for more lenience in searches. There's probably lots of case law where police enter a space and see something incriminating, the objection arises they shouldn't have entered the yard/building/etc, but the police will cite their was an imminent threat.

For example a police officer hears a woman screaming for help behind an apartment door, there is no legal requirement to obtain a warrant and came back the next day.

 

[Jackie87]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/06/30/calgary-police-search-for-missing-boy-and-his-grandparents

“The home was not in the condition that typically it would have been left in,” he said. “And there is some indication in the home that the occupants did not leave under their own volition.”
“Police spokesman Kevin Brookwell said evidence found at the scene suggests the missing people didn’t leave of their own free will.”


In this MSM article these two statement were made by LE. This was the first statement by LE and subsequent statements from LE said paraphrasing here someone was in medical duress.
With the first two statements above, it would lead me to believe that the house appeared ransacked or dishevelled and the second comment above would indicate that personal belongings were left behind as in purse, wallet, and shoes things typically one has with them when they leave the home.

If the place was ransacked, it would give me the impression that the perp may have been looking for something, perhaps something that had value to them (like a document), OR they were trying to cover up the fact that they were known to the L's and wanted it to look like a botched burglary. I wonder if the L's had a safety deposit or storage located somewhere. If the perp was looking for something specific, something that was not in the home, maybe that's why they all went in the vehicle, after some violence to show them how serious they were about obtaining said document/item. That's just a theory. It would make sense if all three left quietly, not disturbing the neighbours, no one noticing anything outwardly unusual until JO arrived the next morning.

 

[KMouse]

I'm not sure they have a warrant. I think they may very well have permission from the land owner to be on the land to search it, in which case they can be there as long as they need to be.

They would be crazy not to be searching without a warrant. They need to protect the investigation.

 

[otto]

I think your deduction here is correct. And the way people are claiming they see a perfect match of the wrong truck should be a good reminder not to jump to conclusions.

I don't think he had money. I think someone told him how to make it appear as though he had a successful company with an online presence.

 

[otto]

i have only been following this case loosely but seems to me I remember the condo in question was bought by AL's twin brother and that it was available to family members to use. I saw nothing about the L's actually buying a condo.

I posted the link to the quote from the family friend.
The bottom line is that Alvin and Kathryn told a family friend that they bought a condo in Mexico.

 

[KMouse]

re: fake ID

Sooooo....I wonder what kind of purchases the fake name was used for if any?
Wonder if "farm chemicals" were purchased and there is a big meth or ecstasy chemical operation involved. Not necessarily cooking on the farm but the procurement, storage and movement of the ingredients.

 

[Krystine]

The sketches look like 2 totally different people

Perhaps DG asked for or it was suggested by his defence that he dye his hair to alter his appearance, for his own safety in case he was released on bail today.
They do look like two different people.

 

[Carol]

They would be crazy not to be searching without a warrant. They need to protect the investigation.

I believe they are searching some places with warrants, some without. It would be difficult to get a warrant for a lot of neighboring properties, but easy for a concerned neighbor to agree to a voluntary consent.

 

[otto]

Perhaps DG asked for or it was suggested by his defence that he dye his hair to alter his appearance, for his own safety in case he was released on bail today.
They do look like two different people.

Maybe he wasn't allowed to have a razor in jail.

 

[KMouse]

I believe they are searching some places with warrants, some without. It would be difficult to get a warrant for a lot of neighboring properties, but easy for a concerned neighbor to agree to a voluntary consent.

ITA. Neighboring properties=no warrant but DG's farm = warrant. Regardless if his parents are the property owners and he just lives there. It is still his home.

 

[KMouse]

I doubt the Calgary Remand Centre sells Just for Men in the canteen.

 

[Carol]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/06/30/calgary-police-search-for-missing-boy-and-his-grandparents

“The home was not in the condition that typically it would have been left in,” he said. “And there is some indication in the home that the occupants did not leave under their own volition.”
“Police spokesman Kevin Brookwell said evidence found at the scene suggests the missing people didn’t leave of their own free will.”


In this MSM article these two statement were made by LE. This was the first statement by LE and subsequent statements from LE said paraphrasing here someone was in medical duress.
With the first two statements above, it would lead me to believe that the house appeared ransacked or dishevelled and the second comment above would indicate that personal belongings were left behind as in purse, wallet, and shoes things typically one has with them when they leave the home.
Then of course the LE reference to medical duress is clear there was some evidence of body injury.

I half agree with this. Reading backwards into this, a ransacked house would not be described as "home was not in the condition that typically would have been left in". That's simply not how a ransacked house is ever described.

On the other hand, a house with the lights blazing at 10 am the next morning, last night's dinner dishes out, etc, that is the type of "not typical" condition that could be rationalized backwards against the statement. I do agree that items left behind like purse, wallet, phone, keys, medicine could indicate someone not leaving "of their own volition".

The phrasing is fairly mild and non-committal, which also excludes some possibilities. For example, if you had a smashed up interior, clawing marks and blood streaks all the way to the door, you wouldn't phrase in such an uncertain way about the occupants maybe not leaving on their own volition.

 

[ABro]

I posted the link to the quote from the family friend.
The bottom line is that Alvin and Kathryn told a family friend that they bought a condo in Mexico.

Not really. The bottom line is that 's what the friend remembers. People muddle up the details all the time.

 

[Sillybilly]

ITA. Neighboring properties=no warrant but DG's farm = warrant. Regardless if his parents are the property owners and he just lives there. It is still his home.

They might have gone into the farm initially without a warrant under what's called exigent circumstances (i.e. not enough time to get a warrant if belief that timing related to the safety and lives of the victims were at stake).