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

[Tinkerbel1]

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.

I understand the saying But, it doesn't answer my question. Are LE jobs to "prove their case" or "solve the crime"...I should have worded it differently above. It's been mentioned more than once that a case can be built for something, just as well as a case can be built against something...and very likely there are research documents, etc. to prove both sides...my question is, what is it that LE and the Crown are after as far as a successful prosecution of a case...."proving their case", or "solving the crime"? As I said, they could very well be 2 different things. We've had many people in jail in Canada wrongly accused because a case could be built against them...and obviously proven to 90% probability of guilt...as they ended up incarcerated for years and years. Yes, I know that was before DNA testing...but DNA testing didn't make them innocent, it came out and proved them innocent...they were innocent to start with...they were "proven" guilty in a court of law...successfully convicted...until evidence came along many years later proving their innocence...so tell me, how did they go about proving their guilt when they weren't guilty in the first place? Would you want to be put in jail for 25 years, have your life ruined because LE or the Crown "proved their case", or would you prefer that LE "solved the crime"? Big, big difference.

 

[Cherchri]

"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/

That's precisely what I am saying. If they ever had another POI they would have said so. I was countering the comment my post was attached to.

 

[otto]

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

JMO

The accused reasonably expected that Alvin and Kathryn were at home. They've been married for years, and that's where they live. The accused could not reasonably expect that Nathan was at the house. The accused murdered Nathan to eliminate a witness. Therefore, in the context of the accused planning to deliberately murder Alvin, and eliminate any witnesses, he knew in advance that he would murder both Alvin and Kathryn.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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.

Hmmmm...same kind of gruesome mess I usually make dragging the garbage to the curb because the bag is too heavy to lift...has anyone found out for sure that the substance contained on the drag marks were in fact blood? I don't remember LE confirming that.

 

[otto]

I understand the saying But, it doesn't answer my question. Are LE jobs to "prove their case" or "solve the crime"...I should have worded it differently above. It's been mentioned more than once that a case can be built for something, just as well as a case can be built against something...and very likely there are research documents, etc. to prove both sides...my question is, what is it that LE and the Crown are after as far as a successful prosecution of a case...."proving their case", or "solving the crime"? As I said, they could very well be 2 different things. We've had many people in jail in Canada wrongly accused because a case could be built against them...and obviously proven to 90% probability of guilt...as they ended up incarcerated for years and years. Yes, I know that was before DNA testing...but DNA testing didn't make them innocent, it came out and proved them innocent...they were innocent to start with...they were "proven" guilty in a court of law...successfully convicted...until evidence came along many years later proving their innocence...so tell me, how did they go about proving their guilt when they weren't guilty in the first place? Would you want to be put in jail for 25 years, have your life ruined because LE or the Crown "proved their case", or would you prefer that LE "solved the crime"? Big, big difference.

Police gather evidence. They present the evidence to the crown prosecutor, and consult with the crown prosecutor. The crown prosecutor determines whether there is sufficient evidence to lay charges, and decides which charges are appropriate. Police don't prove anything, they investigate.

 

[otto]

That's precisely what I am saying. If they ever had another POI they would have said so. I was countering the comment my post was attached to.

I realize that ... was just clarifying that the reason we know that there are no other suspects is because the police have made that announcement.

 

[otto]

Hmmmm...same kind of gruesome mess I usually make dragging the garbage to the curb because the bag is too heavy to lift...has anyone found out for sure that the substance contained on the drag marks were in fact blood? I don't remember LE confirming that.

The substance in the drag marks is evidence, and it will not be released until the time of trial. It is important to note, however, that the garbage bins are placed in the alley behind the house, so if a garbage bag was going to be dragged, it would be dragged through the backyard, not to the parking pad.

 

[Sillybilly]

The substance in the drag marks is evidence, and it will not be released until the time of trial. It is important to note, however, that the garbage bins are placed in the alley behind the house, so if a garbage bag was going to be dragged, it would be dragged through the backyard, not to the parking pad.

Actually I was just pondering that very thing. How do we know the drag marks come from the side door to the front and not vice versa? With the mark on the garage door, I'm wondering if someone was bludgeoned(?) there, head hit the door, and they were then dragged back to the side door. Doesn't make as much sense, but could be a possibility.

 

[otto]

Actually I was just pondering that very thing. How do we know the drag marks come from the side door to the front and not vice versa? With the mark on the garage door, I'm wondering if someone was bludgeoned(?) there, head hit the door, and they were then dragged back to the side door. Doesn't make as much sense, but could be a possibility.

If the plan is to murder three people and remove them from the crime scene, the only reason to drag a body back into the house is for dismemberment. Otherwise, having the body on the parking pad makes the job simpler. Given the crime scene numbering, with 14 next to the side door, and 15 at the parking pad, I think that means that in terms of following the evidence, police followed that evidence to the side door, and then to the parking pad .... meaning that the drag marks originate in the house, and lead to the parking pad.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Police gather evidence. They present the evidence to the crown prosecutor, and consult with the crown prosecutor. The crown prosecutor determines whether there is sufficient evidence to lay charges, and decides which charges are appropriate. Police don't prove anything, they investigate.[/QUOTE
I believe that LE's position is to investigate and solve the crime in order for appropriate charges to be laid. Lawyers prove LE's case. I think we're in agreement here. Nice sidestep!
I guess in a perfect world, I would prefer that a crime be solved without any mistake as to guilt of the accused at all. But that's JMO.

 

[news.talk]

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.

There jobs are it risk if they have missed evidence, failed to question witnesses, arrest the wrong person... just to name a few. Their job is to gather evidence, charge the right person and be able to have it hold up on the stand. I have seen many blunders lead to suspensions and tarnished jackets. I may have not been clear as to what I was saying.

 

[news.talk]

I understand the saying But, it doesn't answer my question. Are LE jobs to "prove their case" or "solve the crime"...I should have worded it differently above. It's been mentioned more than once that a case can be built for something, just as well as a case can be built against something...and very likely there are research documents, etc. to prove both sides...my question is, what is it that LE and the Crown are after as far as a successful prosecution of a case...."proving their case", or "solving the crime"? As I said, they could very well be 2 different things. We've had many people in jail in Canada wrongly accused because a case could be built against them...and obviously proven to 90% probability of guilt...as they ended up incarcerated for years and years. Yes, I know that was before DNA testing...but DNA testing didn't make them innocent, it came out and proved them innocent...they were innocent to start with...they were "proven" guilty in a court of law...successfully convicted...until evidence came along many years later proving their innocence...so tell me, how did they go about proving their guilt when they weren't guilty in the first place? Would you want to be put in jail for 25 years, have your life ruined because LE or the Crown "proved their case", or would you prefer that LE "solved the crime"? Big, big difference.

I may have worded my thoughts poorly but in answer to your question, it is the same thing - They have to solve the crime and have their evidence stand up in court.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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).

Hey thanks! You are right...I thought something was off there. There doesn't have to be a precedent for the way a crime is investigated, as long is the investigation itself is not criminal, the means justify the ends. Investigative work is not only methodical (which suggests a process and not a precedent), it is also intuitive and requires creativity and imagination as well...I don't know what the precedent is for that.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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!

No sir! And why is a precedent required? They're conducting an investigation. That usually denotes methodology, process, creativity and gut instincts, not precedent. Each investigation is unique. Actually, if you look at the way undercover LE work, they are setting this precedent everytime...doesn't matter how big or how small the investigation is they're working on...they are continuously not presenting the truth in order to catch the criminal.

 

[otto]

There jobs are it risk if they have missed evidence, failed to question witnesses, arrest the wrong person... just to name a few. Their job is to gather evidence, charge the right person and be able to have it hold up on the stand. I have seen many blunders lead to suspensions and tarnished jackets. I may have not been clear as to what I was saying.

Are senior crown prosecutors suspended for failing to achieve a conviction?

 

[PrincessButtercup]

Are senior crown prosecutors suspended for failing to achieve a conviction?

I have no actual knowledge base here but I think it would depend on many, many factors. I think they are expected to have a reasonable expectation of conviction based on the evidence but there are certainly factors beyond their control.

 

[news.talk]

Are senior crown prosecutors suspended for failing to achieve a conviction?

Lol... of course not. As I mentioned, I did not word my thoughts correctly. I lumped in Prosecutors in my posts but since you mentioned it - Failing to secure a conviction based on sloppy work can certainly put their jobs at risk.

 

[otto]

Hey thanks! You are right...I thought something was off there. There doesn't have to be a precedent for the way a crime is investigated, as long is the investigation itself is not criminal, the means justify the ends. Investigative work is not only methodical (which suggests a process and not a precedent), it is also intuitive and requires creativity and imagination as well...I don't know what the precedent is for that.

I don't think so. Guy Paul Morin was convicted on the basis of intuition, creativity and imagination. That case is the case that is held up across the country to remind investigators and prosecutors that intuition, creativity, and imagination is directly related to "tunnel vision", which is a huge mistake in criminal investigations. Police rely on facts, evidence, experience, knowledge, and consultation with the crown prosecutor's office.

 

[otto]

I have no actual knowledge base here but I think it would depend on many, many factors. I think they are expected to have a reasonable expectation of conviction based on the evidence but there are certainly factors beyond their control.

I really don't think that prosecutors are suspended if they are unsuccessful in prosecuting a case. There are always unforeseen factors that can result in a second, rather than first, degree murder conviction. There are a couple of criminal defence lawyers that pull rabbits out of hats.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I don't think so. Guy Paul Morin was convicted on the basis of intuition, creativity and imagination. That case is the case that is held up across the country to remind investigators and prosecutors that intuition, creativity, and imagination is directly related to "tunnel vision", which is a huge mistake in criminal investigations. Police rely on facts, evidence, experience, knowledge, and consultation with the crown prosecutor's office.

Ah! Very interesting! I did however include process and methodology as part of the investigative process...that would denote fact-finding, maybe I should have made myself more clear.

The original discussion that precluded my comment was actually...did I have any precedent that has been set wherein the LE and Crown purposely mislead the public in their investigation as a method to solving a crime. I was simply pointing out that precedent was not required as part of the investigative process and that any means as long as it wasn't criminal could be used to justify the end, IMO. I wasn't pretending to know what the entire investigative process was nor was I suggesting that I knew of any cases where certain investigative methods were used. It is very interesting information though, thanks!