Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #11

[LoisLane]

Does DG still have the August 6th court date for the false id and credit card charges?

 

[Lalalacasbah]

No kidding...that seems to be the expectation of a lot people. Douglas Garland is innocent until proven guilty and not before. There have been many cases that have been built up against people out of circumstantial evidence and an innocent party tried and convicted, only 25 years later to be released and told ... "Oops...our mistake...sorry dude". Here's some money for your troubles...meanwile he's spent 25 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. I'm sorry, but if LE make a mistake or want to save face by "bringing in a killer"...sometimes "Oops" and "our apologies for causing you infixable damage and we're sorry are just not enough, Sometimes...there isn't anything that could possibly be given or done for someone who has been wrongly convicted. I think we can wiat for the trial to find out what evidence do the LE reqlly have. Something isn't sitting right with me about the whole thing. Something is definitely very strange with the entire incident.\

Something doesn't sit right with me either. I personally don't think DG is innocent IMO, but there definitely is something off about the whole thing. I still wonder if someone else was involved in the planning.

 

[bakerlady]

I am not sure we should close the thread as of yet but I am still confused why this thread is still in the missing category. I have seen several cases on this site get moved from the missing to the located forum soon after LE made the determination that the victims were presumed/declared deceased.

Mods? Just wondering....

 

[Cherchri]

Re: truck circling neighbourhood - maybe DG was waiting for the lights to go out in the Al's home, and also perhaps the neighbours' home in order to avoid being witnessed?

Exactly what I theorized way back when. He waited for them to go to sleep as it is much easier to overwhelm two people (he wasn't expecting to find NO there), when they are vulnerable, supine, asleep.....

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I couldn't agree more. Something very 'off' with this to me also. I think there is way more to this than DG and I'm still wondering if 'someone' close to AL/kl set things up so that DG would appear to be the likely perp, due to his criminal history and previous negative dealings w/ AL. It's possible someone or more than one "used" DG in a very minor role, a role he had no idea would lead to any of this. Was that really DG driving his green F150 around the L home?...or someone else?........or did someone offer him money to be a look-out but having told DG a lie, that they were merely going to confront AL, maybe 'rough him up'..and DG had no idea that murder was the plan? I just don't believe that DG was the mastermind here, I can't help but feel that he was set up as a convenient patsy, IMO.

I agree with you and Tinkerbel1 about something being off, can't put my finger on it what it is. I don't think DG is a patsy IMO, but I think there's a bigger picture we're not seeing. Maybe it's LE being so tight lipped that's creating us and possibly the public to think something's being hidden…And if that is the case that there's a lot more they can't disclose I hope we find out at the next court date to rest our minds about other persons possibly being involved or DG being innocent. The evidence should convince us either way.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

About the truck circling the neighborhood, that initially made me think DG might not have been alone and was waiting for someone to come out of the house (leading to me think there was more than him involved) however, after reading the article I posted yesterday it was the first time I heard the truck being in neighborhood described differently - it says he 'visited' the home and was 'parked', which changes things a little. The article sounds as if DG visited and was parked at the end of June, like he was meeting with AL or something and it happened outside of the sale but I'm still wondering if the article embellished rather than state facts, so who knows. Here is what the article states about the truck:

"Over the last weekend of June, hundreds streamed through the front door of the blue-grey clapboard house at 123 38A Avenue in Calgary – the Liknes home. One of the many vehicles to park near the house, police would later reveal, belonged to Mr. Garland, whose sister, Patti, was in a common-law relationship with Alvin and Kathryn Liknes’s son Allen." (BBM)

"Why he may have visited the Liknes home around the end of June remains a mystery and the subject of theories in Calgary and the town of Airdrie." (BBM)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ry-struggle-with-grim-puzzle/article19682368/

 

[otto]

I am not sure we should close the thread as of yet but I am still confused why this thread is still in the missing category. I have seen several cases on this site get moved from the missing to the located forum soon after LE made the determination that the victims were presumed/declared deceased.

Mods? Just wondering....

Three people are still missing, so wouldn't it make sense that the thread is in the missing category?

 

[otto]

About the truck circling the neighborhood, that initially made me think DG might not have been alone and was waiting for someone to come out of the house (leading to me think there was more than him involved) however, after reading the article I posted yesterday it was the first time I heard the truck being in neighborhood described differently - it says he 'visited' the home and was 'parked', which changes things a little. The article sounds as if DG visited and was parked at the end of June, like he was meeting with AL or something and it happened outside of the sale but I'm still wondering if the article embellished rather than state facts, so who knows. Here is what the article states about the truck:

"Over the last weekend of June, hundreds streamed through the front door of the blue-grey clapboard house at 123 38A Avenue in Calgary – the Liknes home. One of the many vehicles to park near the house, police would later reveal, belonged to Mr. Garland, whose sister, Patti, was in a common-law relationship with Alvin and Kathryn Liknes’s son Allen." (BBM)

"Why he may have visited the Liknes home around the end of June remains a mystery and the subject of theories in Calgary and the town of Airdrie." (BBM)

I think that there were a few mistakes in that article.

 

[Sillybilly]

I respectfully think it's time to close these threads until the August 14 court date. There are too many unknowns and obviously LE cannot tell us more or they would have. There has been some amazing sleuthing. Now however I feel we are grasping at straws. IMOO

WADR kaley, as frustrating as it can be at times, there are other cases where it has taken a long time for sleuthers to come up with new information that may be relevant (i.e. had the Bosma thread from May 2013 been closed when we were speculating/theorizing about his involvement in Laura Babcock's disappearance and his father's "suicide", would we now be discussing the 1st degree murder charges against Millard for both those individuals?) FWIW, LE does read these boards, and if it takes 40 pages to come up with 1 smidgeon of information that may prove valuable in their investigation or another avenue that they hadn't considered, it's worth it.

Another example ... Wondergirl queried about other online nicks for DG. Just because we haven't found any yet doesn't mean we won't. Lots of sleuthing takes place behind the scenes. We can't find something we don't look for.

 

[news.talk]

The next hearing is on August 14, 2014.

DG is in court this Wednesday on the identity theft charges.

 

[Krystine]

If police looked to intuition, wisdom, and life experience, rather than evidence, we'd all be in trouble. I think intuition and experience was what led to the miscarriage of justice for Guy Paul Morin in the 1984 rape and murder of 9 year old Christine Jessop. Fortunately, with the innovations in DNA analysis, those miscarriages of justice appear to be a thing of the past.

???
I'm referring to this website and the perception some users have that because their posts might be more- prolific-, that they have the patent on being right. "Right fighting" and trying to overwhelm others' opinions is not cool, IMOO.

 

[Sillybilly]

One of the many vehicles to park near the house, police would later reveal, belonged to Mr. Garland, whose sister, Patti, was in a common-law relationship with Alvin and Kathryn Liknes’s son Allen." (BBM)

<rsbm>

That's just plain crappy journalistic interpretation ... at no time did LE reveal that the vehicle was parked near the house.

 

[Sillybilly]

TOS regarding "Dealing with your fellow posters"

Any time a group of people get together there are bound to be disagreements. This forum is no exception. We are in no position to tell you what to think of ideas you see expressed here, but in our Terms of Service we do lay out the rules about how you can post here.

If you find that there is a fellow poster whose thoughts you find you are unable to even read without losing your composure, your "Ignore List" is your friend. When you put a poster on this list, the following will happen:

&#8226;You will not see their posts;
&#8226;They will not be able to send you PMs;
&#8226;They will not be able to send you email vial the Board links;
&#8226;They will not be able to leave you visitor messages ....

full version:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?91915-Dealing-with-your-fellow-posters

TOS (The Rules):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?159-The-Rules

 

[bakerlady]

Three people are still missing, so wouldn't it make sense that the thread is in the missing category?

No, not if they have been declared deceased. If you look in the located forum there are several cases with no body. Obviously it's not a big deal just wondering why this case is different from the others in that respect.

 

[bakerlady]

WADR kaley, as frustrating as it can be at times, there are other cases where it has taken a long time for sleuthers to come up with new information that may be relevant (i.e. had the Bosma thread from May 2013 been closed when we were speculating/theorizing about his involvement in Laura Babcock's disappearance and his father's "suicide", would we now be discussing the 1st degree murder charges against Millard for both those individuals?) FWIW, LE does read these boards, and if it takes 40 pages to come up with 1 smidgeon of information that may prove valuable in their investigation or another avenue that they hadn't considered, it's worth it.

Another example ... Wondergirl queried about other online nicks for DG. Just because we haven't found any yet doesn't mean we won't. Lots of sleuthing takes place behind the scenes. We can't find something we don't look for.

BBM. I completely agree. It takes a village, two heads are better than one, or something like that.

 

[news.talk]

In my opinion....

I think it's easy to take the situations we see on tv or in the movies, along with the more sensational crimes and conspiracies that hit the news, and speculate that these things happen all the time. I believe, in reality, crimes are pretty simple most of the time. It's possible that, with all the speculating we have done here, we might be surprised to learn the facts one day, that DG just went to the L's that night because he heard they were having an estate sale, and thought he could somehow get his hands on that cash, and the situation escalated to violence and murder. Who knows?

I am a very practical, critical thinker. While some folks are comfortable positing theories based on intuition or a feeling, I like to look at the facts as we know them and base my "sleuthing" on those facts. I also think we can become frustrated at the seeming lack of progress in a case, that *something* useful must be done, and so we try to do some sleuthing of our own. I think we all just have a different threshold for theories that seem to be based on a lot of reaching, assumptions not grounded in fact, or feeling. I would fall into the category of having a low threshold for that, but others may feel it is productive. I am a questioner, so I will always want to ask "why?" Like why do you think there are other perpetrators, or that DG is a "patsy" (as someone suggested) or why do you think that wedding band found in the river could be AL's, and so on. I'm using these as examples.

But whether your theories are grounded in facts, or based on feeling, intuition, or simple "what if" thinking, I believe anything said is fair game for others with a questioning mind to say "but why do you think that?" Maybe others will see the train of thought, maybe not. I don't think anyone questions others' theories intending to offend, I know I don't. I just like to ask questions when a theory is proposed - why do you think it's a biker gang, why do think DG was still manufacturing drugs, why do you think NO is still alive, etc.

I apologize in advance if anyone feels ever offended when I ask questions. I always try to be diplomatic and keep the peace so the discussions can be fruitful and friendly. Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.

IMHO

I agree... I made a career based on facts. During that career, whenever LE arrested someone very early in an investigation... When the Crown laid homicide charges so quickly, it has meant that they have obtained irrefutable evidence that they have the right suspect. Without bodies, the bar has been set much higher for quality and quantity of evidence. In a high profile crime much as this, they wouldn't risk their entire case UNLESS they were certain the evidence could support it.

 

[ABro]

<rsbm>

That's just plain crappy journalistic interpretation ... at no time did LE reveal that the vehicle was parked near the house.

Not necessarily. A police source might have provided the reporter that info.

 

[otto]

No, not if they have been declared deceased. If you look in the located forum there are several cases with no body. Obviously it's not a big deal just wondering why this case is different from the others in that respect.

Canadians are special?

In the Panama case, where two 20/21 year old girls are missing, the discovery of a bone belonging to each means that they have been located. Could that be the difference? In this case, nothing has been found. Do you recall offhand a case that has been moved to the "located" discussion even though nothing of that missing person has been found?

 

[Sillybilly]

Not necessarily. A police source might have provided the reporter that info.

Usually that would be qualified by "a source close to the investigation"?

 

[otto]

Usually that would be qualified by "a source close to the investigation"?

If an officer was speaking to the media "off the record", I'm pretty sure that there would be an internal investigation. That kind of sloppiness could compromise all investigations.