Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #12

[Sillybilly]

Allen last saw Douglas at thanksgiving last Fall, but according to Allen, Alvin hadn't seen Douglas since they did some business together 7 years ago.

video:
http://globalnews.ca/news/1438148/missing-family-search-of-rural-home-enters-fourth-day/

Thanks for that otto .. I had forgotten it was changed.

 

[Hez]

There is nothing to indicate that AL associated with his former son-in-law FC. Family said that AL hadn't seen DG in 4 years. There is nothing to indicate that AL knew any of DG's criminal history. There is nothing to indicate that AL/KL allowed their grandchildren to somehow be affiliated with "iffy" people.

. :yourock: Great post! The victim blaming is getting really old.

 

[otto]

Regarding the links to a condo in Mazatlan, how are we connecting those links to the Liknes couple? If the links are for the condo owned by his twin brother, that could be very different from the condo that Alvin, Kathryn, and the Garlands purchased.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

. :yourock: Great post! The victim blaming is getting really old.

Don't know if it should be necessarily viewed as "victim blaming"...there are 2 sides to everything, and maybe some are just playing "devil's advocate"...that's the point of discussion/debate isn't it? I mean, its likely what's going to go on in court.

 

[otto]

Has anyone figured out which Garland is a joint owner of the condo? I can't quite figure out the Garland contribution if it is the sister of Douglas. That is, if she has been in a long term common law relationship with Allen Liknes, I would assume that their finances are somewhat combined. That is, if they split up, she would still have a claim on the property even if she was not on title. If she is on title, I would assume that she made a major, independent, financial contribution. Does it mean that the sister was a joint owner with, say, Alvin?

If the sister is in the middle of the condo purchase, then maybe there is something more to the fact that the accused eliminated her in-laws. I'm curious about his relationship with his sister, and whether Douglas may have felt that his sister was being taken advantage of. For example, regardless of his sister's choices, perhaps he believed that she was coerced into subsidizing her in-laws lifestyle. If Douglas still had a grudge about the patent, perhaps feeling taken advantage of, and if he perceived that the same thing was happening with his sister, could that have contributed to motive?

 

[otto]

Don't know if it should be necessarily viewed as "victim blaming"...there are 2 sides to everything, and maybe some are just playing "devil's advocate"...that's the point of discussion/debate isn't it? I mean, its likely what's going to go on in court.

We know that the accused came to some decision at some point to plan the murders of Alvin and Kathryn Liknes. If there was no contact between the accused and the victim for seven years, then what happened in the last year that made him really angry? Did the sister ask her parents for money for the condo and was Douglas really angry about that? Did the sister say something to her family about making the joint purchase only to realize afterwards that the Liknes couple planned to live there for the next year? I'm curious about what the accused was thinking and why.

He was obviously very aware of what the Liknes couple was doing ... estate sale, or leaving the country sale. He timed the murders to make it most difficult for police to identify a suspect and at a time when, without blood, it could have been perceived that they simply left by choice. The presence of Nathan at the home, and the "violent incident" (assuming blood), are the two facts that removed the possibility that they left by choice. Did his sister regularly speak with her parents, and did they regularly update the accused on his sister's conversations?

 

[goodasgold]

We know that the accused came to some decision at some point to plan the murders of Alvin and Kathryn Liknes. If there was no contact between the accused and the victim for seven years, then what happened in the last year that made him really angry? Did the sister ask her parents for money for the condo and was Douglas really angry about that? Did the sister say something to her family about making the joint purchase only to realize afterwards that the Liknes couple planned to live there for the next year? I'm curious about what the accused was thinking and why.

He was obviously very aware of what the Liknes couple was doing ... estate sale, or leaving the country sale. He timed the murders to make it most difficult for police to identify a suspect and at a time when, without blood, it could have been perceived that they simply left by choice. The presence of Nathan at the home, and the "violent incident" (assuming blood), are the two facts that removed the possibility that they left by choice. Did his sister regularly speak with her parents, and did they regularly update the accused on his sister's conversations?

See that is the thing. We know the cops have evidence to CHARGE Garland with murder, however, we do not know if Garland is guilty of this crime. If it turns out he is guilty then he will get what is coming for him but if he is innocent he should have the same right as everyone else to be innocent and not guilty in publics eyes. JMO even though it makes no sense when i read it myself. Let me sum it up with the saying innocent until proven guilty.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

See that is the thing. We know the cops have evidence to CHARGE Garland with murder, however, we do not know if Garland is guilty of this crime. If it turns out he is guilty then he will get what is coming for him but if he is innocent he should have the same right as everyone else to be innocent and not guilty in publics eyes. JMO even though it makes no sense when i read it myself. Let me sum it up with the saying innocent until proven guilty.

DG has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law ... what the public believes isn't within his rights to control.

 

[bcgirl]

If only some Canadians know what happens when you have a severe disability in this country. My hubby had a devastating Brain Stem Stroke/Locked-In-Syndrome 7 years ago and while he was in rehab facility for 2.5 years. , yes, his medical needs were paid for by healthcare. Since coming home, we have used in access of $200,000 of our retirement savings, of which one needs to pay taxes on, to provide the medical care and equipment he requires to survive with absolutely nothing covered by the healthcare system once you go home. We also had to move to a less isolated area, which forced us to sell our house at a reduced price after having double living expenses for 7 years. Enough to consider bankruptcy...Does that make us questionable people...NO, just survivors of a devastating medical trauma!

Just wondering what would be the likely cause for 3 bankruptcies in Canada? Credit card debt, personal loans, utilities, law suits and what else? Taxes?

In the US you can't file for back taxes, federal student loans or child support arrears but almost everything else is fair game AFAIK.

When I hear bankruptcy here in the US I always assume it's because of medical bills first but in Canada isn't that a non issue because of socialized healthcare?

 

[PrincessButtercup]

If only some Canadians know what happens when you have a severe disability in this country. My hubby had a devastating Brain Stem Stroke/Locked-In-Syndrome 7 years ago and while he was in rehab facility for 2.5 years. , yes, his medical needs were paid for by healthcare. Since coming home, we have used in access of $200,000 of our retirement savings, of which one needs to pay taxes on, to provide the medical care and equipment he requires to survive with absolutely nothing covered by the healthcare system once you go home. We also had to move to a less isolated area, which forced us to sell our house at a reduced price after having double living expenses for 7 years. Enough to consider bankruptcy...Does that make us questionable people...NO, just survivors of a devastating medical trauma!

I'm so sorry for this situation but I'm really glad you posted. I know a few of really good people who've had to file for bankruptcy. I hope things get better for you and your husband.

 

[otto]

See that is the thing. We know the cops have evidence to CHARGE Garland with murder, however, we do not know if Garland is guilty of this crime. If it turns out he is guilty then he will get what is coming for him but if he is innocent he should have the same right as everyone else to be innocent and not guilty in publics eyes. JMO even though it makes no sense when i read it myself. Let me sum it up with the saying innocent until proven guilty.

He is presumed innocent, which is why police have nothing more to say about the investigation. Prior to his arrest, police released information only so they could gather information from the public. Perhaps in the context of trying to understand motive, I should state: assuming that police have arrested the correct person, as that is what I'm assuming.

 

[ElleElle]

Don't know if it should be necessarily viewed as "victim blaming"...there are 2 sides to everything, and maybe some are just playing "devil's advocate"...that's the point of discussion/debate isn't it? I mean, its likely what's going to go on in court.

I always am the "Devil's advocate". Until we have more information, it is hard to assume what the cops know and do not know.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

A little more about the extended family in this article from the Consort area paper http://ecareview.com/veteran-area-relatives-share-pain-of-missing-child-grandparents/

 

[PrincessButtercup]

If you scroll down the page to AL's mother's obit it will help make sense of the names of L's siblings http://www.consortenterprise.com/Obituaries/Obituaries-2001.html.

 

[Blue Amethyst]

I think if the Liknes family went to Mexico it would be for six months and then back to Alberta for six months or they would lose their Alberta Health Care coverage. I am not sure of the rules on income taxes or pensions.

http://www.health.alberta.ca/AHCIP/registration-requirements.html

 

[wendiesan]

Just a quick drive-by look in; I've got pages and pages to catch up on, but this one I can speak to.

It seems to be a common thing to rent out vacation condos when the owners aren't using them. I have a relative who bought a place elsewhere in MX a couple of years ago after years of renting various condos there. When they're not in residence they do rent it out; their condo property manager actually looks after the details for them, as he does for other owners in that building who also rent out. High season rentals can go a long way to paying the mortgage there.

(On a side note, and more for interest's sake than for any real relevance in this case, in certain areas of MX, and Mazatlan would be one, foreigners are not allowed to own property outright. They can only hold it through a bank trust. Also when "purchasing" property there you have to immediately provide the name(s) of your beneficiary (-ies) in the case of your death. If you don't put that on the paperwork immediately at the sale, the property would revert to the Mexican government upon your death. At least that's what my relative told me they were told.)

Actually, I think it's possible that the ownership/beneficiary issues may be at the least touched on in this case, sort of in line with the follow-the-money philosophy.
The site below supports what you said. A Fideicomiso (like a U.S. estate trust) is required for "foreign individuals or firms" to purchase property in certain areas of Mexico. When JO in the press conference said that the Mexican home was a family investment, it could be that the family created a corporation made up of family members in order to purchase the property for the benefit of all family members, reducing the amount each person would contribute to the purchase of the property. It seems as though property would not have to be paid for outright, but could be paid for over time.

My guess is that this is the arrangement referred to by the reporter who said the Mexican property was owned by members of the Garland (PG?) and the Liknes families.

A Fideicomiso is generally established for an initial 50 year period and can automatically be renewed indefinitely.

Therefore, it is logical that every Fideicomiso requires the naming of beneficiaries.

Much more information can be found on this site.
http://www.forevermazatlan.com/Bank_Trust/page_2138557.html

On another site I found this information, which I found very interesting in relationship to the possibility of the family forming a corporation either in Canada in order to purchase as a foreign corporation, or incorporating in Mexico as a Mexican corporation. This would also tie in the the pictures someone found on KL's fb of rental signs.

First of all, as long as there are two or more parties to the corporation, a Mexican corporation can be wholly owned by foreigners - a Mexican citizen no longer need be part of a Mexican corporation to be valid. Secondly, a mexican corporation can own property outright, eliminating the need for a fideicomiso trust and their respective fees. This means that you, as sole owners of the corporation, own the property essentially in "fee simple," similar to the U.S.

Finally, by establishing the property in a corporation, you can then legally rent out the property, thereby generating attractive income if you are in a prime vacation destination such as Puerto Vallarta. Mexican corporations are set-up similarly to those in the U.S., with by-laws, articles of incorporation and the issuance of stock. You should discuss the pros and cons of forming a Mexican corporation with an attorney in Mexico who is familiar with the process.

More information on this site.
http://www.banderasnews.com/real-estate/ownership-info.htm

This ownership situation might be something that CPS would have to go to Mexico to investigate in person with the principals involved in the the purchase, ie. in the Fideicomiso, local real estate attorney, and so on.

I'm curious to see if other posters think this is relevant.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

I noticed on FB that it was JO's birthday yesterday :-( I think my heart bleeds more for her every day.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

We know that the accused came to some decision at some point to plan the murders of Alvin and Kathryn Liknes. If there was no contact between the accused and the victim for seven years, then what happened in the last year that made him really angry? Did the sister ask her parents for money for the condo and was Douglas really angry about that? Did the sister say something to her family about making the joint purchase only to realize afterwards that the Liknes couple planned to live there for the next year? I'm curious about what the accused was thinking and why.

He was obviously very aware of what the Liknes couple was doing ... estate sale, or leaving the country sale. He timed the murders to make it most difficult for police to identify a suspect and at a time when, without blood, it could have been perceived that they simply left by choice. The presence of Nathan at the home, and the "violent incident" (assuming blood), are the two facts that removed the possibility that they left by choice. Did his sister regularly speak with her parents, and did they regularly update the accused on his sister's conversations?

I'm confused. Do we know that the accused actually did plan the murders? We're also assuming here that the term of 7 years that DG and AL did not see each other is a fact. Even if DG was aware of any financial gift/arrangement between his sister and his parents, I'm wondering if he would be angry about that? It's been discussed several times in this Forum that DG's parents have probably been footing the bill for a lot of his expenses, etc., so maybe it wouldn't have bothered him that his sister got money as well?

I agree, he must've been aware of what the Liknes' were doing...estate sale, etc....his truck was seen on CCTV several times on June 30th. He was 'touring' the neighborhood for a reason, but that's not a smoking gun either and relatively obvious. The presence of the blood is interesting for sure and likely damning but who's was it? KL & AL's? NO's? KL/AL and NO's...we don't know because LE is not saying. With all due respect, there are possible ways that blood can become present in any given location. The thing that is unsettling to me is that if DG was such a genius and so intelligent, why has he left such a messy trail behind himself? That brings me to the question was this in fact premeditated or something that just went horribly South? I suppose it is possible that there could be a substance abuse problem and he wasn't in his right mind when he went to the Liknes'. If DG is guilty of this tragedy, then it may not have been as 'masterminded' and 'intricate' as we may think? IDK

 

[Sillybilly]

Hmmm... I will try a public obituary post and see what happens...

It is my understanding that you can link to an article of interest (providing a little synopsis of what you want to bring to our attention), but not bring full family names or full names of innocents onto the board. I think a Mod will clarify this for us.

I am confused as to what you think is "getting interesting" in the obituary you posted ??

 

[Tinkerbel1]

See that is the thing. We know the cops have evidence to CHARGE Garland with murder, however, we do not know if Garland is guilty of this crime. If it turns out he is guilty then he will get what is coming for him but if he is innocent he should have the same right as everyone else to be innocent and not guilty in publics eyes. JMO even though it makes no sense when i read it myself. Let me sum it up with the saying innocent until proven guilty.

I completely agree with you. I think its going to be difficult to find an unbiased jury in this Province, unfortunately. I can understand the anger that is inspired in people at this tragedy, however, I agree that he's already being branded as guilty, and even some forms of what should be done to him have been suggested. Every single human being is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect no matter what...and you are right, if he is guilty, he will receive just punishment...if he isn't, his life has pretty much been ruined already, and that is very, very sad. So has that of his sister's, and his brother-in-law's and possibly their children as well. Yikes! Sending love, light and blessings out to everyone involved in this situation, as I said...there are no winners.