Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 June 2014 - #8

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
It appears as though a lot of people are reading too much into this shirt matter. Would it make any difference if it was a Nike logo or an Under Armour logo? It is claimed that DG had various dealings with the oil and gas industry which is not uncommon in Southern Alberta (or Alberta in general.) T-shirts like this are very easy to come by. I have numerous shirts with various companies logos on them and I've probably thrown hundreds of such shirts away. DG could have obtained the shirt directly from Paramount or from any sort of colleague or associated or neighbour as a give-away.

I can't look at the current land database at the moment but I don't that Paramount operates in Southern Alberta (Airdrie area) any more.

We've had some pretty strange things happen here in our experiences at Websleuths. Sometimes something like a simple logo on a t-shirt could be significant. Sometimes not but one never knows...
 
I've been travelling and so I've just gotten myself caught up. I am so terribly sad for the O'Briens and Likneses. I hope DG has one shred of humanity left in his soul to help LE recover the remains. Sweet little NO deserves that much as he was innocent in this crime against his grandparents. All three deserve justice and a proper burial. No one, especially a 5-year-old, deserves to be snuffed out--period. I am so, so sad. :(
 
Yes, your right, I was thinking of him going trial by judge only and the judge being swayed as the tax judge seemed to be, by his tales of mental breakdowns and the supposed accident etc.
I'm sure they will be doing a very thorough psychological assessment ... I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up at the Lougheed sooner rather than later. LE will surely want to have that info.
 
We've had some pretty strange things happen here in our experiences at Websleuths. Sometimes something like a simple logo on a t-shirt could be significant. Sometimes not but one never knows...
A totally insignificant point but I wonder how he got clothes and personal items. He couldn't go back home .... do the police do that?
 
Has LE specifically said NO is the 2nd degree charge and the 1st are AL and KL? Yes

I remember they said someone had left the home alive and I can't find the link. Someone please provide it if you have it. I saw it as they were saying from day 1 they had to pursue the investigation as if someone may have been taken from the home and kept alive, not that someone was

Bolded added by me. Hope that helps.

From wendiesans transcript of the presser http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?250015-*ARREST*-Canada-Nathan-O-Brien-5-Calgary-30-June-2014-8&p=10750599#post10750599

Reporter: Can you say who the charges relate to, in terms of are the first degree charges in relation to the grandparents and the second degree charges to child? Can you explain how that...

RH: The first degree murder charges will be laid on the Likneses. The second degree on the child.

And I don't want anybody to lose sight of the fact that there were three people that were missing on Day One. We have to assume that there's--whatever that is, whatever the small likelihood is, that someone, somewhere was keeping one of those three people alive. So we will always err to the side of caution, so we meticulously, the officers involved put this file together until yesterday afternoon, in a meeting with the Crown Prosecutor who was assigned to the case, and in reviewing all the evidence in its entirety, the decision was reached that this is now a homicide investigation, and that charges would be appropriate against the accused individual that will be named later.
 
Totally off topic but I just realized I've been a part of this wonderful Websleuths forum for 10 years. :loveyou:
 
Jumping in here out of turn.

I'm not understanding the 2nd degree murder charge for Nathan. It only takes a split second to form a premeditated thought. IMO, DG came across the child and made the decision the child was a witness and had to be killed. Wouldn't that be 1st degree murder?

According to Nancy Grace, it takes a split second to form the intent to commit murder, but in the real world, premeditation means a plan in advance of the murder (eg: bringing a weapon to the scene), and second degree is an on the spot decision. Per Ms Grace, there is no such thing as second degree murder because in her opinion, one second constitutes a plan.
 
I was wondering if anyone remembers similar sketches of suspects in other cases that might match his?? Wow that would take a lot of sleuthing.
Do we have any record of where he has been in the past or did I miss that?
 
Looking at the video when DG was being brought in handcuffs, his ferocious face makes me a bit worried that he could hit the reporter who was so close to him asking where Nathan and his grandparents were. He does looks like capable of such a violent and heinous crime.
 
According to Nancy Grace, it takes a split second to form the intent to commit murder, but in the real world, premeditation means a plan in advance of the murder (eg: bringing a weapon to the scene), and second degree is an on the spot decision. Per Ms Grace, there is no such thing as second degree murder because in her opinion, one second constitutes a plan.
The Canadian justice system is what it is, no matter what Nancy Grace thinks, and people need to look at the case through that lens. I just hope they are found soon for their family's sake. :please:
 
Did you get any new info from it? I didn't. He's very tight lipped.

I thought his responses were more confident, about them being diseased. I did find it just a smidge more informative, hints etc.

MOO
 
Did you get any new info from it? I didn't. He's very tight lipped.

He explains that the arrest is one step in the process, that the prosecution phase is just as intensive as the arrest phase, and that Canadian law prevents any case information from being released prior to trial because Canadian cases are not tried in the media. He stated, without doubt or hesitation, that the three victims were murdered. That suggests to me that there is plenty of evidence in the vehicles, on surveillance video, and in the home to confirm that three bodies were removed from the property. There must be additional evidence from the Airdrie acreage and I would expect the Spyhill Landfill related to the murders. He also explains why the families don't want to believe that their loved ones are deceased. We've seen that in many cases here (one that comes to mind is Lyric Cook and Elizabeth Collins of Evansdale). The families almost need to hold out hope. He explained that murderers are educated about forensics and remove bodies from scenes because they believe it will hide or remove evidence, so investigators rely on other types of evidence to rule that a murder occurred. I found it informative.
 
I think this will be a tough case to prosecute because the defence (in my opinion) will argue mental defect. The crown has to get around that. Garland is clever when it comes to the law (as we've seen in his previous legal problems). I wonder if part of using that defence will require that he reveal the locations of the bodies ... although he could argue that it's a complete blur and he doesn't know what he did. That would be problematic if it can be proven that he returned to the crime scene to clean up.
 
He explains that the arrest is one step in the process, that the prosecution phase is just as intensive as the arrest phase, and that Canadian law prevents any case information from being released prior to trial because Canadian cases are not tried in the media. He stated, without doubt or hesitation, that the three victims were murdered. That suggests to me that there is plenty of evidence in the vehicles, on surveillance video, and in the home to confirm that three bodies were removed from the property. There must be additional evidence from the Airdrie acreage and I would expect the Spyhill Landfill related to the murders. He also explains why the families don't want to believe that their loved ones are deceased. We've seen that in many cases here (one that comes to mind is Lyric Cook and Elizabeth Collins of Evansdale). The families almost need to hold out hope. He explained that murderers are educated about forensics and remove bodies from scenes because they believe it will hide or remove evidence, so investigators rely on other types of evidence to rule that a murder occurred. I found it informative.

Yes, but weren't all of these already obvious to most of us after yesterday's press conference? I was hoping to hear a bit more about the nature of the evidence.‡

P.S. It's hard to imagine how Luke, Nathan's older brother, is coping. A 12 years old may be just old enough to begin understand what murder and revenge means, but too young to comprehend the complexity of this case, and to experience the loss of a little brother in such a way.

‡Disclaim: (1) By that I absolutely didn't mean anything even close to such gruesome imaginations as "vomit, fecal matters" or "skin dragging"--I was bothered by reading those words; and (2) I have never considered it's my "right" to know anything not relevant to me. This disclaim is necessary due to someone's statements in reply to my comment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
2,876
Total visitors
3,048

Forum statistics

Threads
603,203
Messages
18,153,369
Members
231,670
Latest member
xhononibb
Back
Top