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

[Tinkerbel1]

Their tummies told them all the same thing and their tummies were wrong?

?????? are you going somewhere with this???????

 

[Cherchri]

The police also stated that DG was only a POI in the case whenever a reporter would call him a suspect up until the moment they arrested him. So when they were investigating their suspect (because he was suspected for the murders) for those two weeks, even two days before the arrest, they told the public he was only a POI in this case. So why would they say now if there was another suspect until they find the person and arrest them? I do not think the LE would say they are looking for someone else because then if there is someone else they would run. JMO

I doubt they'd have any reason to withhold that they had another POI. They had to have enough evidence to name DG a suspect and charge him. I'm sure they were awaiting results of forensics and the minute they got them the POI was charged as a suspect.

 

[otto]

With all due respect...how do we know for a FACT that there was [B]"a house full and farm full of physical forensic evidence"[/B] We only know what we are being told.

As for logic...trying to make logic out of something illogical is pretty tough to do. And I'm of the opinion that many great detectives also rely hugely on their intuition and "gut feelings" on cases, so I don't see any reason that we can't share some of our "gut feelings" or intuitive insights while discussing this in this Forum.

Reporters may have experience that we don't have on crime scenes but many (not pointing fingers at any one in particular) do not accurately report what is actually going on. I have read several articles in this case on the very same subject and have read differing descriptions of the event...so....I wouldn't necessarily rely on any reporters judgement (no offense newtalk) that wasn't LE or Government appointed. Even then, we've got Crown Forensic Psychiatrists that report untruths and assumptions in court.

Because this case has so many extenuating circumstances on both sides that do cause one to raise their eyebrows and go "hmmm"...I would probably want some cold hard evidence...like bodies, or partial remains at the very least of the deceased...to prove that they are not still alive...because there is good cause to believe, IMO, that a voluntary disappearance here is entirely possible.

BBM
That's correct. The chief of police has stated that the three victims are deceased. This statement is not a result of the chief of police playing head games with the community, the statement is made because it is fact.

 

[LoriMcA]

Just to add a link for a bit of information...It appears different rules for different provinces....re: Government Certificates .... death, marriage, birth.

This is the service Canada site for death certificates:
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/lifeevents/death/deathcertificate.shtml

& specifically for Alberta as an example....who is eligible to apply for the certificate...I'm assuming the rules vary by province as well...
http://www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/1182.cfm

eta: 2nd link

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Police have laid two first degree murder charges and one second degree murder charge (Nathan). The medical examiner had found sufficient evidence to declare all three victims as deceased. All three have been murdered. There is no reason to doubt the chief of police.

The Chief of Police is part of a large team dedicated to solving this crime, as is the ME. There is a really big situation going on here. Whatever is required to solve this case will be done to solve this case. If it includes posturing differently than one would expect (just as undercover officers and CIA and FBI and James Bond do every day), or not releasing details of evidence found in order to protect the case, then that is what they will do to solve the case. Charges can be laid and charges have been dropped. It's paperwork.

 

[Cherchri]

Hmmm...actually no I can't...I'm sure there isn't any public precedent that would be available for me to provide that information to you as that could compromise the integrity of the investigation as well. It could also be contained within the bundle of evidence that is already being kept quiet. It's really just the other side of the same fence.

How do I propose it would be instrumental in helping the investigators solve the case? Pretty much the same way that James Darwin came out of the ocean when they declared him deceased, after his insurance money had been paid out. When the heat is off and the LE appear to be looking in another direction, people that may be involved could get careless and sloppy....that's usually how people are caught!

Not being snarky but I think you misunderstood the question re a precedent:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."[1] Common law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies), and regulatory law (regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies).

 

[otto]

I was looking for, and I'm not sure if it would be public record...but I was looking to see if any death certificates have been issued on the 3 victims...I haven't found anything...if anyone else has could you please share that information? As well, there are only 2 victims reported at the Liknes home...what happened to NO then?

To be honest, I was incredibly shocked that they so very quickly announced, and so definitely announced, "there were no other suspects"...from "we have high hopes to finding them alive" on Friday to BOOM! "We have no other suspects" on Sunday. Wow! That's a pretty fast turnaround. Even if they have collected loads of forensic evidence proving that DG did this...there is NO WAY that they have sifted through everything to the nth degree in order to at the very least disqualify the possibility of an accomplice in a two week period! Its going to take 30 days to get the disclosure documents to the Defence, IMO, it would take them months and months to make absolute certain that DG didn't have someone working with him.

Let's suppose that the three victims were murdered at the Parkhill house. Let's suppose that there was evidence of partial dismemberment of two of the victims. The third victim was small enough to be carried. That leaves little doubt that the two are deceased. Blood from the third victim would confirm that all three are deceased. Let's suppose that this was a very gruesome murder. Let's suppose that it was so gruesome that police concluded there could be other victims of murder where the accused is responsible (ie: evidence of dismemberment might suggest prior experience with murder) ... for example, the partial skeleton that was found about 16km ENE of the Airdrie acreage.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Just to add a link for a bit of information...It appears different rules for different provinces....re: Government Certificates .... death, marriage, birth.

This is the service Canada site for death certificates:
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/lifeevents/death/deathcertificate.shtml

Thank you LoriMcA I was wondering if an actual death record was a matter of public record and available online, like obituaries, marriage licenses, etc are? Very often if you look up someone's name online, there sometimes will be records such as this available to view. Just wondering is all.

 

[otto]

No offense taken. I agree that many reporters have reported inaccurate information. I base my opinion on living with a man that ran a major crimes division and watching him put together cases in front of me for 20 years. They do NOT make up evidence and prosecutors DON'T bring homicide charges unless they have the evidence to support the charges. Their reputation and jobs depend on proving their case.

Their jobs don't exactly depend on successfully prosecuting a case. Even if they lose cases, they still have a job. It's different than in the US, where prosecutors are elected. Canadian prosecutors are hired, not elected.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Let's suppose that the three victims were murdered at the Parkhill house. Let's suppose that there was evidence of partial dismemberment of two of the victims. The third victim was small enough to be carried. That leaves little doubt that the two are deceased. Blood from the third victim would confirm that all three are deceased. Let's suppose that this was a very gruesome murder. Let's suppose that it was so gruesome that police concluded there could be other victims of murder where the accused is responsible (ie: evidence of dismemberment might suggest prior experience with murder) ... for example, the partial skeleton that was found about 16km ENE of the Airdrie acreage.

Well said and thought out...thanks for the info I think. It does sound pretty gruesome. I really hope that's not the case, cause that is sickening and horrible.

 

[studyer]

Even then, we've got Crown Forensic Psychiatrists that report untruths and assumptions in court.

Because this case has so many extenuating circumstances on both sides that do cause one to raise their eyebrows and go "hmmm"...I would probably want some cold hard evidence...like bodies, or partial remains at the very least of the deceased...to prove that they are not still alive...because there is good cause to believe, IMO, that a voluntary disappearance here is entirely possible.

You may personally want a body or partial remains, but the medical specialists who have to make the declarations may have other ways to determine that a death occurred. That's their job. They've done their job here and we're not permitted to know at this time what the evidence was that led them to make that declaration. But just because we don't know it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

Their jobs don't exactly depend on successfully prosecuting a case. Even if they loose cases, they still have a job. It's different than in the US, where prosecutors are elected. Canadian prosecutors are hired, not elected.

I would assume though that it would be important that the case presented reflects "good" arrests. If every case they brought to trial was lost it wouldn't be good ...

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Their jobs don't exactly depend on successfully prosecuting a case. Even if they loose cases, they still have a job. It's different than in the US, where prosecutors are elected. Canadian prosecutors are hired, not elected.

I think perhaps what news.talk was getting at was it was very serious business and that their reputations and perhaps further career opportunities perhaps...may be dependant on proving their case. Maybe? No, they don't lose their jobs for that in Canada.

 

[bullish]

With all due respect...how do we know for a FACT that there was [B]"a house full and farm full of physical forensic evidence"[/B] We only know what we are being told.

As for logic...trying to make logic out of something illogical is pretty tough to do. And I'm of the opinion that many great detectives also rely hugely on their intuition and "gut feelings" on cases, so I don't see any reason that we can't share some of our "gut feelings" or intuitive insights while discussing this in this Forum.

Reporters may have experience that we don't have on crime scenes but many (not pointing fingers at any one in particular) do not accurately report what is actually going on. I have read several articles in this case on the very same subject and have read differing descriptions of the event...so....I wouldn't necessarily rely on any reporters judgement (no offense newtalk) that wasn't LE or Government appointed. Even then, we've got Crown Forensic Psychiatrists that report untruths and assumptions in court.

Because this case has so many extenuating circumstances on both sides that do cause one to raise their eyebrows and go "hmmm"...I would probably want some cold hard evidence...like bodies, or partial remains at the very least of the deceased...to prove that they are not still alive...because there is good cause to believe, IMO, that a voluntary disappearance here is entirely possible.

Yes, I believe that many detectives do develop good intuition, and that may help them somewhat. But court cases are tried on facts.

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this fruitless discussion. We each have our own thoughts about the case and there's no reason we have to agree with each other.

[modsnip]

 

[otto]

Thank you for that information. It must have been very interesting too have had that opportunity as you were growing up. I know that it took its toll on the person you speak of but its a darn admirable and honorable career.

I'm confused again....are their reputations and jobs dependant on proving their case or solving the crime? That could very well be 2 different things.

I believe the saying is: "you're only as good as your last case". If it is an unsuccessful prosecution, that may influence reputation, but only until the next case. Prosecutors are hired and keep their jobs even if they have an unsuccessful prosecution.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

You may personally want a body or partial remains, but the medical specialists who have to make the declarations may have other ways to determine that a death occurred. That's their job. They've done their job here and we're not permitted to know at this time what the evidence was that led them to make that declaration. But just because we don't know it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That may very well be true. All I'm saying is that if I was a lawyer on the Defense...or even a juror...I would want some pretty hard evidence (and not just persuasive evidence) that these people are in fact deceased. There's too much controversy/questionable business activity/things that don't add up here to make it a cut and dry case with just logic and speculations...there must be something to determine that yes...this is a large amount of fluid, tissue or component of this person, to safely assume that they are deceased. And, no...it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and I don't believe I said it didn't...I said I would want some cold hard evidence of it. If they have it, that's great!!

 

[otto]

I doubt they'd have any reason to withhold that they had another POI. They had to have enough evidence to name DG a suspect and charge him. I'm sure they were awaiting results of forensics and the minute they got them the POI was charged as a suspect.

"Police are not looking for any other suspects. The police chief would not speculate on motive, saying the matter was to go before the courts."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...-obrien-amber-alert-and-missing-grandparents/

 

[otto]

Well said and thought out...thanks for the info I think. It does sound pretty gruesome. I really hope that's not the case, cause that is sickening and horrible.

It might indeed be very gruesome, but gruesome would explain the drag marks spanning 24 feet from the side door to the parking pad at the front of the house. Either someone was still alive and was bleeding while being dragged (unlikely), or there were body parts being dragged.

 

[Wondergirl]

It's pretty hard for me to get my head around a motive for KATHRYN for 1st degree murder in this case.

JMO

 

[otto]

I would assume though that it would be important that the case presented reflects "good" arrests. If every case they brought to trial was lost it wouldn't be good ...

A senior criminal prosecutor would review the case and, based on knowledge and experience, would know when there was sufficient evidence to bring charges. The senior prosecutor would work with a junior prosecutor, and eventually the junior prosecutor would be in a position to know when there was sufficient evidence to bring charges. There has to be a logical, linear sequential line of reasoning the connects the evidence with the accused. In situations where the prosecutor is not entirely successful, it is usually that the conviction is for second degree murder rather than first degree murder.