Found Deceased Canada - Nick Lush, 32, Calgary, 29 March 2015 *Arrests*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Oh man, so 'EYE' am Deug! haha
I seriously didn't get that.. <feeling very stupid!!!!>.. I was thinking.. like.. deug howser type of deal.. yes.. EYE am deugirtni the deug!

Aside from that.. isn't that weird.. if JN was sharing custody with the children's father.. would her 'half' of the custody roll over to her parents if she's missing?? Wasn't the court date all about getting shared custody? So if she already had shared custody with KL, then I guess the court was with the other ex? So where is he in this picture now?

should be posted on the Jessica Newman thread but here seems good too; JN's father/stepmother takes care of her children that she had with KL. This was gleaned from her stepmothers FB page.

something in Deug's post made me think of this.
 
OOTD.... I have to agree with you... but.... I find that I am apalled (sp?) when I read newspaper stories about some crime that was committed, and then perhaps also a story about someone being arrested.. in Canada say... where we have 'innocent until proven guilty'... and the public commenting on the newspaper stories.. I seriously find it revolting. It's like most of the people who write in to express their comments are sheep, completely believing whatever is written, and completely making up their minds as to what exactly happened, and they're screaming for the person (perhaps the person charged, or on trial, or whatever) to be executed. It gives me an inkling as to what it must have been like in the 'olden days' when our country had public hangings or however it was done.. I can just visualize all those people screaming for the person to be executed there too.. that is when the person was already ruled to be guilty. But in newspaper stories.. we're counting on so much.. that the reporter heard it right.. that the cop said it right.. that all of them all heard and saw and know the same things, but yet discrepancies.. all over the place.. and the reason we have trials here, is for usually a jury to hear the ENTIRE case, and ALL of the facts.. not just the little few that are reported in a story.. perhaps by a somewhat biased reporter? And so yes.. I suppose when I think about it, I think it is unfair for the dead guy's past criminal record to be published on the day his murder is announced, before his body is even retrieved yet... because of how all of what I see as 'stupid people' will jump up and down and say, 'see, that is why he was murdered, he was a criminal himself'.. and it makes me feel really sad, because... we don't even know yet whether those things had ANY bearing at all on why he was murdered, or what he was currently involved in.
Call me controlling. I too, want to know ALL the details, and decide for myself. I just hate it when I see the boatloads of people jumping at theories as being fact, when they're not fact, and they don't know everything yet, etc.
So... if someone wants to help out this woman and her 3 kids... they might change their minds if they see that the husband/father could have potentially brought this upon himself through his lifestyle choices? I would feel so bad if that was the case also.
Well said... now take it one step further. In order to stop that pitchfork mentality, should one withhold information from them so they wallow in their stupidity, or should everyone be allowed the freedom of thought and speech... and therefore be allowed to offer counterpoint and debate?

Educate, educate, educate... sometimes the only way to change the opinion, is to challenge the opinion. Fear of hearing a negative comment is no reason to censor all comment. Societies based on paranoia and fear are great if you're the one in power.

The public must have a right to know thorough information as quickly as possible, especially in criminal cases. Connections between victim and accused... connections to criminal organizations... criminal histories... connections to those in power... connections to law enforcement...

... without public involvement, input, and oversight, Justice, and now truth, will become "you get what you pay for". Without proper oversight, corruption and unfairness flourishes.
 
Well......... *if* the reporter felt it was *so* important for the people to know about the victim's past convictions right NOW, I would really hope that before revealing this, on the same day that he's reported to be deceased, said reporter would do a little bit more work and also tell us 'when', and perhaps the circumstances, and the people involved and the story. Give us some context, you know? When I was very young and wild, I recall that when police would set their radar on something, like say a certain type of vehicle, and pull it over just because it fit (like say an old vehicle with young people in it), and then search it, they would grasp at straws in getting a charge laid. For example... something that would not normally be considered to be a 'weapon', could very well be deemed by the officer to BE a 'weapon', if the officer so chose to call the item that. And 'assault' isn't always what one would think of as being an assault, if one just simply hears, 'convicted of assault'. It could mean many, many things; whatever it was in the deceased's case was deemed to in fact BE an assault, but us, in just hearing that, may easily assume or envision a completely different story than it actually was. So...... without that context being also given, it feels more like sensationalism that is information that isn't really all that helpful to anyone really.

Well said... now take it one step further. In order to stop that pitchfork mentality, should one withhold information from them so they wallow in their stupidity, or should everyone be allowed the freedom of thought and speech... and therefore be allowed to offer counterpoint and debate?

Educate, educate, educate... sometimes the only way to change the opinion, is to challenge the opinion. Fear of hearing a negative comment is no reason to censor all comment. Societies based on paranoia and fear are great if you're the one in power.

The public must have a right to know thorough information as quickly as possible, especially in criminal cases. Connections between victim and accused... connections to criminal organizations... criminal histories... connections to those in power... connections to law enforcement...

... without public involvement, input, and oversight, Justice, and now truth, will become "you get what you pay for". Without proper oversight, corruption and unfairness flourishes.
 
Well......... *if* the reporter felt it was *so* important for the people to know about the victim's past convictions right NOW, I would really hope that before revealing this, on the same day that he's reported to be deceased, said reporter would do a little bit more work and also tell us 'when', and perhaps the circumstances, and the people involved and the story. Give us some context, you know? When I was very young and wild, I recall that when police would set their radar on something, like say a certain type of vehicle, and pull it over just because it fit (like say an old vehicle with young people in it), and then search it, they would grasp at straws in getting a charge laid. For example... something that would not normally be considered to be a 'weapon', could very well be deemed by the officer to BE a 'weapon', if the officer so chose to call the item that. And 'assault' isn't always what one would think of as being an assault, if one just simply hears, 'convicted of assault'. It could mean many, many things; whatever it was in the deceased's case was deemed to in fact BE an assault, but us, in just hearing that, may easily assume or envision a completely different story than it actually was. So...... without that context being also given, it feels more like sensationalism that is information that isn't really all that helpful to anyone really.
There is too much of a knee jerk reaction to shut down any negative speak when there is a victim involved, regardless of the circumstances.

The article in question puts it in full context. The article first quotes the officer in saying there is evidence of premeditation, therefore the charges are first degree murder. When someone with a criminal background, dies in a criminal manner, then the criminal background, without judgment, is relevant to the article. This is fact based reporting... not the advertising and magazine type article for Grief Addicts to relish in.
 
So when they got their suspect, why not just say, 'there was a LOT of blood found in the home'?

When they arrested DG they declared them deceased. It took a few days between the finding of the crime scene to the arrest of DG and in that time frame they stated there was enough blood that they believed someone was seriously injured. When asked about who's blood etc. LE stated they were waiting on forensics to come back.
 
So when they got their suspect, why not just say, 'there was a LOT of blood found in the home'?
Just my opinion...

I think the way the RCMP does things are different than the way CPS operates. I have lived in other major cities and dealt with many different LE agencies. They all follow different protocol and proceedures. In my experience, the CPS are very guarded about the release of information. They have had to change protocols due to information getting leaked that ended up affecting trial strategy and outcomes.
 
When they arrested DG they declared them deceased. It took a few days between the finding of the crime scene to the arrest of DG and in that time frame they stated there was enough blood that they believed someone was seriously injured. When asked about who's blood etc. LE stated they were waiting on forensics to come back.

I believe the only comment LE made about blood was in relation to the 'bad-blood" between Alvin Liknes and Douglas Garland. If you have a link showing the comments about there being enough blood that someone was seriously injured I would love to read it.
 
Well said... now take it one step further. In order to stop that pitchfork mentality, should one withhold information from them so they wallow in their stupidity, or should everyone be allowed the freedom of thought and speech... and therefore be allowed to offer counterpoint and debate?

Educate, educate, educate... sometimes the only way to change the opinion, is to challenge the opinion. Fear of hearing a negative comment is no reason to censor all comment. Societies based on paranoia and fear are great if you're the one in power.

The public must have a right to know thorough information as quickly as possible, especially in criminal cases. Connections between victim and accused... connections to criminal organizations... criminal histories... connections to those in power... connections to law enforcement...

... without public involvement, input, and oversight, Justice, and now truth, will become "you get what you pay for". Without proper oversight, corruption and unfairness flourishes.
Pumpkin, I am not disagreeing with your statements OR the philosophy behind them. I am approaching the release of information from purely an industry POV. I don't disagree with releasing any and all information - Hec, I have released similar information myself. My critique was based on the context, form and poorly formatted writing. Information *must* be supported by a source or put into context for it to be considered news.

ETA: It could have been easily rectified by saying, "Police have not released any information suggesting the motive for the homicide. Court records show that the victim and one of the suspects both have a criminal history for drug possession, but it is unclear if drugs were a factor."
 
Pumpkin, I am not disagreeing with your statements OR the philosophy behind them. I am approaching the release of information from purely an industry POV. I don't disagree with releasing any and all information - Hec, I have released similar information myself. My critique was based on the context, form and poorly formatted writing. Information *must* be supported by a source or put into context for it to be considered news.
I will get little resistance in suggesting the industry POV needs an overhaul.

It is in decline not only because of technology.
 
I will get little resistance in suggesting the industry POV needs an overhaul.

It is in decline not only because of technology.
Don't get me started! The criteria to become a reporter has significantly declined. Gone are the days when one needed a bachelor's degree and then selected into one of 15 spots in only two accredited technical schools in the country.

It has become less about investigative journalism, and more about who looks good on camera. The average age is 25 and the majority of them have no life experience, no countless years working up from one small town outlet to another, and NO writing skills. Look at how many times we have had to correct their information, navigate through poorly formed paragraph structure and spelling errors. It makes me sad.
 
The fundraising account is sitting at almost $8,000 right now.
 
Another (much less successful) account was set up 3 days ago as well. It seems as though CB may have a second/older FB account and that KG's account may have an older account as well? not sure though.
 
I believe the only comment LE made about blood was in relation to the 'bad-blood" between Alvin Liknes and Douglas Garland. If you have a link showing the comments about there being enough blood that someone was seriously injured I would love to read it.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/police-confirm-violent-crime-occurred-in-home-of-missing-trio-1.1898699

In the video the LE states that there was a violent incident and they were waiting on forensic evidence to determine who the victim is/are.
 
I wonder if the wife received any as requested? Were there parameters set as to how the info would need to be given, and what results it may have to yield before payout, and how much payout depending on which info?

Technically, there was a cash reward offered for information.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
51
Guests online
3,541
Total visitors
3,592

Forum statistics

Threads
603,145
Messages
18,152,902
Members
231,661
Latest member
raindrop413
Back
Top