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

[Tinkerbel1]

Ohhhh...I thought there were specific parameters to be chosen for jury duty...correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they only choose those that have not heard of the case?

I'm also now wondering why then do they sometimes move cases to other jurisdiction for the benefit of obtaining an unbiased jury? I am genuinely confused about this.

 

[Sillybilly]

I totally agree with this comment! It's probably better to say that "to the best of AL(jr's) knowledge, they did not interact for 7 years"...because no one but DG and AL can confirm that...and even if DG does say they have been interacting, unless he has evidence to support that, no one will really ever know. DG can say whatever he wants, there's no one to disprove it. That's the thing...there are things in this case that no one will ever know for absolute certain. Speculation and applied circumstantial evidence may show the 'probability' of it ... but probability is still just probability and probability does NOT denote absolute guilt. Unless there is absolute, indisputable evidence that they have not interacted for 7 years, then we can't assume that statement is necessarily true. I doubt that would be allowed in court either.

How would a determination of whether they spoke 7 years ago or 2 weeks ago factor into jury deliberations as it relates to the principle of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"?

WRT "absolute guilt", the qualifying word in criminal trials is the word "reasonable". IOW, what does common sense and logic tell us. It does NOT denote absolute 100% certainty, (but is believed to be approximately 90% in criminal deliberations).

 

[Sillybilly]

Ohhhh...I thought there were specific parameters to be chosen for jury duty...correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they only choose those that have not heard of the case?

That would be ideal, but is not the case. Prospective jurors will be asked if they are aware of the case, and if they answer Yes, they will then be asked if the have formed an opinion with regard to it, and if they answer Yes, they will asked if they believe they are able to set aside any preconceived ideas and consider only the evidence as it is presented to them.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Well then, I guess you will have to question every jury verdict that has ever been been rendered in Canada.

I would probably question the ones that have come out with a guilty verdict where no bodies have been recovered. Obviously, the guilty verdicts deemed as such when there is enough 'solid' evidence to support that verdict would not need to be questioned. It has to be "without a reasonable doubt". We've had a case in Alberta already with the McCanns where the murder charges have been stayed...there has got to be some irrefutable evidence to make this stick. Obviously the Crown thought they could prosecute in the McCann case as well or they wouldn't have moved forward with it. Initially they did. Then it was appealed. It's going to be a tough trial, period.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

That would be ideal, but is not the case. Prospective jurors will be asked if they are aware of the case, and they answer Yes, they will then be asked if the have formed an opinion with regard to it, and if they answer Yes, they will asked if they believe they are able to set aside any preconceived ideas and consider only the evidence as it is presented to them.

I see. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, that's for sure. So, assuming that the jurors are selected and all have answered.."yes, I believe I am able to set aside any preconceived ideas and consider only the evidence as it is presented to me"...and during the process, they can't. What happens then? Do they dismiss that juror? Do they reselect the whole jury? Does it affect the ability to try the case? Very curious.

 

[otto]

Ohhhh...I thought there were specific parameters to be chosen for jury duty...correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they only choose those that have not heard of the case?

I don't think so. It's reasonable to assume the most people read or watch the news. What is important is that the jurors have not formed an opinion of guilt prior to trial.

There are about 1.3 million people in Calgary. Although there would have been awareness of the investigation at the beginning of the investigation - mostly because there was a possibility that someone from the estate sale was responsible for the murders - as the investigation progressed, it became clear that this was an internal family situation. On that basis, I think that most people returned to their busy lives and left it to investigators and prosecutors to do their jobs. I don't see any problem with finding 12-14 jurors out of 1.3 million people that have not formed an opinion about the guilt of the accused.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

I don't think so. It's reasonable to assume the most people read or watch the news. What is important is that the jurors have not formed an opinion of guilt prior to trial.

There are about 1.3 million people in Calgary. Although there would have been awareness of the investigation at the beginning of the investigation - mostly because there was a possibility that someone from the estate sale was responsible for the murders - as the investigation progressed, it became clear that this was an internal family situation. On that basis, I think that most people returned to their busy lives and left it to investigators and prosecutors to do their jobs. I don't see any problem with finding 12-14 jurors out of 1.3 million people that have not formed an opinion about the guilt of the accused.

I completely agree. I have spoken with people at work who know very little about this ... certainly not enough to taint them as jurors.

 

[Sillybilly]

What I do find interesting about these puzzle game posts is that if you scroll down to the puzzle post dated July 16, 2014 there is a comment on that post saying hello and asking KL to call him. A person who has 4 members of the O & L families on their friends list. The comment was posted July 17, 2014 ...days after DG had been charged with her murder. Odd IMO that a person would say hello to a presumed deceased person and ask her to call him.

Could just be hoping beyond hope. We have seen articles where some family members indicate they do not accept that the 3 are dead, and will only believe so if/when bodies are found.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

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?

ITA along these lines for sure. I wouldn't be surprised if DG felt he had to 'punish' the Liknes' if he felt they or AL somehow wronged him (by not giving him the intellectual credit/recognition he felt he deserved), his family or someone close to him. I think if DG felt some sort of deception or trickery by the couple (in his head or twisted events to think it happened), would be far more a motive than money or the materialistic nature of money. JMO. Nobody was deserving of what happened to this trio, if DG's warped sense of his own type of justice plays into motive, he had no right to play god and feel he had the right to punish anyone in this world, period. It's so sad.

 

[julydarling]

Oopsy. Posted something about another branch of the family. Not relevant

 

[Sillybilly]

I would probably question the ones that have come out with a guilty verdict where no bodies have been recovered. Obviously, the guilty verdicts deemed as such when there is enough 'solid' evidence to support that verdict would not need to be questioned. It has to be "without a reasonable doubt". We've had a case in Alberta already with the McCanns where the murder charges have been stayed...there has got to be some irrefutable evidence to make this stick. Obviously the Crown thought they could prosecute in the McCann case as well or they wouldn't have moved forward with it. Initially they did. Then it was appealed. It's going to be a tough trial, period.

Very aware of the McCann case and posted a lot in their thread in the earlier days. When the Crown announced the stay of proceedings (it was not an appeal), that decision was apparently based on new information from the RCMP. I think that tells us that the system is working, and charges were not pursued due to lack of evidence or new evidence ... but the stay gives the Crown a year should any new evidence come to light.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Did you follow some of the links???

Did you follow one of the links and read comments where an 'AL' commented about Mexican land scams??? Mods, not sure if this is okay to post, hope it's okay...

 

[Tinkerbel1]

How would a determination of whether they spoke 7 years ago or 2 weeks ago factor into jury deliberations as it relates to the principle of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"?

WRT "absolute guilt", the qualifying word in criminal trials is the word "reasonable". IOW, what does common sense and logic tell us. It does NOT denote absolute 100% certainty, (but is believed to be approximately 90% in criminal deliberations).

I am in no way trying to be sarcastic or caustic here, I am being 100% genuine, but here goes! 90% only? That's a little scary! Huh...so really, there's a 10% potential "manipulation" of common sense factor there? Oh goodness I wouldn't want to be the judge! What a big job that would be! I hope they are paid tons of money because there are some really fine lines to common sense and logic out there...common sense isn't a given. Evidence has to be super-strong to convict, it has to be, circumstantial or otherwise. It may have to be able to be proven "scientifically" in order to predict the trajectory of the action...odd things can happen at the blink of an eye. There are those things we call freak accidents that are almost unbelievable, but nevertheless true...that could be the 10% right there! I'm not saying that's the case here...obviously 3 deaths would not be considered a 'freak accident'. I suppose though, that probably most cases would fall in the "uh, yeah, there's no way they didn't do this" 90%...but the ones with just the circumstantial evidence...that's a little risky IMO.

I don't think it matters at all if they spoke 7 years ago or 2 weeks ago...I didn't bring the subject up. (For me this weighs in with "who bought the toothpaste"? I was merely agreeing to the lack of concrete validity of the statement made by someone who "to the best of his knowledge" made it.

 

[Sillybilly]

Can I just remind everyone that WS rules state we should NOT be using the first and last names of relatives on the board:

from:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...iquette-amp-Information&p=8364858#post8364858

Victim Friendly

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way and ONLY IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE. Additionally, sleuthing family members or others that are not suspect is not allowed. Don't make random accusations or post personal information (even if it is public) like parking tickets, address, or first and last names of all their relatives and their neighbors. Also, never "bash" or attack them, or accuse them of involvement. However that does not mean that family members or others cannot come into discussion as the facts and issues of the case are discussed.

 

[stan laurel]

...................................................

 

[newone]

That's a good point, yes. It might have some relevance after all.

Geez, assuming the Ls had wills in place, I can imagine a nightmarish scenario for lawyers trying to determine who predeceased whom.


If, for instance, AL made KL his heir and beneficiary if he predeceased her, but made one of pr a combination of his own kids heirs and beneficiaries if she predeceased him.


And if, for instance, if KL did the same but named one or both of her kids as heirs and beneficiaries if AL predeceased her. How on earth could they ever determine - without the killer's cooperation - who died last and therefore who the heirs would be?

if married couple are both killed at same time, it is deemed the younger survives ((that's what I was taught)) MOO so the younger inherits and then beneficiaries from the younger benefit

 

[wendiesan]

This is a rough transcript of a Global News show regarding the Airdrie search.
This is not an official transcript, and is not connected with any of the participants.
All errors are my own.

Missing family: Search of rural home enters fourth day
Amber Alert: Police continue search near Airdrie
July 8, 2014

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

News Hour Calgary

News Anchor: Scott Fee = SF Reporter: Reid Feist = RF

SF: A rural area, outside of Airdrie, continues to be the focus of a police investigation into the disappearance of five year old Nathan O'Brien and his grandparents. The three vanished from the Calgary home of Alvin and Kathy Liknes on June 29th. Reid Feist joins us now from the search area with the latest. Good afternoon, Reid.

RF: Yes. Good afternoon, Scott. We begin with some developments in this case. Calgary Police and the R.C.M.P. will be holding a news conference at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. As we zoom in here and show you R.C.M.P. and Calgary Police searching this area here. So, we don't expect a lot of details. Police have warned us there are not many new details, but they will update us. Again, at 2:00 p.m. we will have all the details on our website--globalnews.ca/calgary.

But first, let me update you what has been happening here. This is a treed area about two kilometres northeast of the acreage. This morning, about thirty officers set out on foot, and they have been going shoulder to shoulder quite deep into this wooded area and farmland as well. It appears they are taking a break now for lunch, and, whether they have found anything or not, we haven't really seen them take anything out. Although, they are marking items as they become of interest in this field.

Now, apart from that, there are little to no other updates, so 2:00 p.m. may provide more.

We do have a little bit more information about Douglas Garland, a person of interest in this case. We spoke to Allen Liknes who is the son of the missing Alvin Liknes. He is married to Garland's sister. And so, he told us today on the phone that he was surprised, and the family was, to see Douglas Garland's green pickup (or what appeared to be his pickup) in the pictures last Friday.

He doesn't believe Douglas Garland and his father, Alvin Liknes, have spoken in about seven years. Douglas worked for Alvin. But, apparently, when that business faltered, the working relationship ended. It didn't end on a bad note, though, apparently. Allen last saw Douglas Garland at Thanksgiving* at his in-laws last fall. But he noted that, he said Douglas was a bit of a loner and he didn't speak to him that much.

So, a little bit more in terms of the connection which is a pretty obvious part of this investigation here. Again, at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon, we expect some more details as the police and R.C.M.P. will update us for the first time since Saturday. But, they are warning us that there likely will not be huge developments in this case. As the search here at this part of northern H, Airdrie rather, continues this noon hour.

Again, we'll have all those details on our website this afternoon, Scott, at globalnews.ca/calgary. Back to you.

SF: Appreciate the update. Thanks, Reid.

RF: You're welcome.

SF: And we'll continue to talk more about this developing story as Douglas Garland has a bail hearing on Wednesday.

Yesterday, he appeared in court on another matter. He made a brief appearance via CCTV from the Remand Centre**, accused for the second time of stealing the identity of a fourteen year old boy who died in a car crash back in 1980. Garland does not have a lawyer and remains in custody.

Rod O'Brien, Nathan's father, was at court for the appearance, but did not speak to the media.

* Thanksgiving fell on Monday, October 14th, 2013 in Canada

** refers to the Calgary Remand Centre

 

[Lalalacasbah]

What I do find interesting about these puzzle game posts is that if you scroll down to the puzzle post dated July 16, 2014 there is a comment on that post saying hello and asking KL to call him. A person who has 4 members of the O & L families on their friends list including KL, JO, and RO. The comment was posted July 17, 2014 ...days after DG had been charged with her murder. Odd IMO that a person would say hello to a presumed deceased person and ask her to call him.

I wondered this too, and had a glimmer of hope, but then I was told everyone grieves differently or may be he's in denial, it just breaks my heart though.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Very aware of the McCann case and posted a lot in their thread in the earlier days. When the Crown announced the stay of proceedings (it was not an appeal), that decision was apparently based on new information from the RCMP. I think that tell us that the system is working, and charges were not pursued due to lack of evidence or new evidence ... but the stay gives the Crown a year should any new evidence come to light.

Pardon my mistake, the stay also gives the accused a "get out of jail free card", if the Crown cannot come up with any new evidence? So, then...what happened to the McCanns? And does this person just get to go after the one (1) year period? That could literally be "getting away with murder". That's not cool. That doesn't tell us the system is working...that tells me that the system has got a gigantic loophole in it if the perp is smart enough and careful enough. Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Sillybilly]

Did you follow one of the links and read comments where an 'AL' commented about Mexican land scams??? Mods, not sure if this is okay to post, hope it's okay...

It was discussed a bit earlier on, Lala.

FWIW, no biggy .. but the Mods don't "sit" on the boards and read each and every post. If you have a question/concern as to whether or not something is appropriate to post, send them a PM.