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

[LoisLane]

I am looking for info on the job descriptions of coroners/medical examiners. Specifically, I am looking for the basis for confirming death without a body. I thought I would share these articles. I am still looking for more detail but these are interesting:

Here are articles/story's on Alberta's Chief Medical Examiner. It is not technical, but insightful.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...lbertas-chief-medical-examiner/article595591/

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/05/11/alberta-chief-medical-examiners-intellectual-orgasms

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/12/0...-examiner-anny-sauvageau-under-the-microscope

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...aving_soldiers_body_hanging_military_cop.html

https://oplfrpd5.cmpa-acpm.ca/-/understanding-the-role-of-coroners-and-medical-examiners

 

[Krystine]

http://injusticebusters.org/index.htm/Dix2.htm

This older Edmonton case came to mind but the accused's name escaped me until this morning. It was the first time I had ever heard of the Mr. Big type sting.
By sharing this, I am not in any way saying the CPS or the RCMP are involved in this type of operation in the case of DG.
Like newstalk and many others, I am quite convinced LE have 'got this'...

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I am baffled - Are you suggesting that real life parallels tv shows? That we should know by watching The Shield, for example, that there are dirty cops out there falsifying evidence?? [emoji33]

There was more than likely other human remains present such as tissue or brain matter which is not indicative of a bloody nose. Our ME is not a compete moron.

Good morning, news.talk Absolutely not! My comments are for brainstorming, invoking thought and perhaps encouragement to "think outside the box". They are MOO and are for the purpose of just throwing something else out there. I've never seen The Shield (I really don't watch TV much, and if I do, I usually watch reality shows like 48 hours, dateline, America's most Wanted, Dr. Pohl). I've never thought that LE are dirty cops nor have I indicated that they are falsifying evidence. I am simply being open-minded as to what m/o the investigation could possibly betaking...there are a lot of different ways to catch a mouse. There are no accusations being made, and I don't feel that anything I'm saying is "the way it is"...they are simply non-conforming ideas that even given a slim chance, could possibly be the case. No, I don't think the ME is a moron. I think that there is a possibility that LE and the Crown could be implementing a different technique to the investigation than before. There may or may not be precedent to my thoughts on the situation, I'm simply throwing possibilities out there. IMO, there is a lot of conflicting information in this case, and its leading LE down a very curvy road...perhaps they're trying something new to "test the waters" and follow-up on other leads or possibilities. New ways of doing things are always being created, and law enforcement is not excluded from that advantage.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

http://injusticebusters.org/index.htm/Dix2.htm

This older Edmonton case came to mind but the accused's name escaped me until this morning. It was the first time I had ever heard of the Mr. Big type sting.
By sharing this, I am not in any way saying the CPS or the RCMP are involved in this type of operation in the case of DG.
Like newstalk and many others, I am quite convinced LE have 'got this'...

I do remember that case, it was quite something. Sometimes the most feasible way to catch a criminal if there are loose ends, is to set a trap and have them hopefully walk into it. If they have the evidence, that's great...but IMO, it is possible that they haven't gotten everything they need to sew this shut yet. IMO, they may try whatever they can, to do their very best to solve the crime, and if that includes putting a "sting" into operation, then that's a possibility as well.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Every time I log on and see Nathan's name at the top of the Missing forum, I wonder how his parents and siblings are coping. How do you keep going? How does regular life keep moving without closure?

Keeping them in my thoughts and prayers. :candle:

I hope whoever (assuming it's DG if found guilty) committed this heinous act especially towards that sweet boy gets held responsible, I do have huge faith in CPS and the Crown with their case.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I am looking for info on the job descriptions of coroners/medical examiners. Specifically, I am looking for the basis for confirming death without a body. I thought I would share these articles. I am still looking for more detail but these are interesting:

Here are articles/story's on Alberta's Chief Medical Examiner. It is not technical, but insightful.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...lbertas-chief-medical-examiner/article595591/

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/05/11/alberta-chief-medical-examiners-intellectual-orgasms

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/12/0...-examiner-anny-sauvageau-under-the-microscope

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...aving_soldiers_body_hanging_military_cop.html

https://oplfrpd5.cmpa-acpm.ca/-/understanding-the-role-of-coroners-and-medical-examiners

Great info, now that's quite a job. Thanks for the links!

 

[Tinkerbel1]

But a legal precedent is predicated on a trial that has taken place. It is on record as the first of its kind. In this case someone was asking if you could cite such a precedent. This would call for circumstances to be similar vis-a-vis LE's process in gathering evidence and what was inferred..... That they are withholding information and may in fact be shamming ( I paraphrase from a few speculative posts ).

Good Morning Yes, I understand what "precedent" means. I wonder if you could provide more clarification or something that proves that a precedent ... " the circumstances to be similar vis-à-vis LE's process in gathering evidence" as far as the investigative process is concerned, is in fact a "requirement" as to how the investigation is carried out? I am not referring to the trial...I am referring solely to the "investigation process". Is there a legal requirement that all investigations follow a specific route, or is there room for some leeway in how the investigation is carried out. I'm not sure, but I don't think I'm communicating my questions very well...I am asking the question "specifically" to the m/o of the investigation. And, how are precedents set? I would think that each precedent had a beginning somewhere as in "the first time something like this has ever been done and successfully stood up in court"...to my understanding that is how we get precedents.

 

[otto]

I am looking for info on the job descriptions of coroners/medical examiners. Specifically, I am looking for the basis for confirming death without a body. I thought I would share these articles. I am still looking for more detail but these are interesting:

Here are articles/story's on Alberta's Chief Medical Examiner. It is not technical, but insightful.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...lbertas-chief-medical-examiner/article595591/

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/05/11/alberta-chief-medical-examiners-intellectual-orgasms

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/12/0...-examiner-anny-sauvageau-under-the-microscope

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...aving_soldiers_body_hanging_military_cop.html

https://oplfrpd5.cmpa-acpm.ca/-/understanding-the-role-of-coroners-and-medical-examiners

Quote:

The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) provides responsive front-line death investigation and death certification services.

Vision

We shed light on death by:
◾certifying the cause and manner of death in accordance with the Fatality Inquiries Act
◾assisting and educating Albertans in time of grief
◾maintaining and developing a centre of excellence in forensic pathology and toxicology

Role

When a death occurs suddenly or it cannot be explained, the OCME conducts an investigation, under the authority of the Fatality Inquiries Act.

We hold each of our investigations to determine:
◾who died
◾where they died
◾when they died
◾why they died
◾how they died

http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/fatality/ocme/Pages/default.aspx

Fatality Inquiries Act

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=F09.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=077973999X

 

[otto]

Good morning, news.talk Absolutely not! My comments are for brainstorming, invoking thought and perhaps encouragement to "think outside the box". They are MOO and are for the purpose of just throwing something else out there. I've never seen The Shield (I really don't watch TV much, and if I do, I usually watch reality shows like 48 hours, dateline, America's most Wanted, Dr. Pohl). I've never thought that LE are dirty cops nor have I indicated that they are falsifying evidence. I am simply being open-minded as to what m/o the investigation could possibly betaking...there are a lot of different ways to catch a mouse. There are no accusations being made, and I don't feel that anything I'm saying is "the way it is"...they are simply non-conforming ideas that even given a slim chance, could possibly be the case. No, I don't think the ME is a moron. I think that there is a possibility that LE and the Crown could be implementing a different technique to the investigation than before. There may or may not be precedent to my thoughts on the situation, I'm simply throwing possibilities out there. IMO, there is a lot of conflicting information in this case, and its leading LE down a very curvy road...perhaps they're trying something new to "test the waters" and follow-up on other leads or possibilities. New ways of doing things are always being created, and law enforcement is not excluded from that advantage.

How would you describe this new method of investigating a mass murder?

 

[otto]

I do remember that case, it was quite something. Sometimes the most feasible way to catch a criminal if there are loose ends, is to set a trap and have them hopefully walk into it. If they have the evidence, that's great...but IMO, it is possible that they haven't gotten everything they need to sew this shut yet. IMO, they may try whatever they can, to do their very best to solve the crime, and if that includes putting a "sting" into operation, then that's a possibility as well.

Who would be the target of the sting? The accused is charged and in jail, and police have stated that there are no other suspects.

 

[Sillybilly]

Who would be the target of the sting? The accused is charged and in jail, and police have stated that there are no other suspects.

Pickton was in jail when an undercover LE became his cell mate. Pickton confessed to the undercover to killing 49 women on the farm and said he had planned to kill another one to make it an even 50. That information was used as evidence in court and was valuable in securing his conviction.

 

[otto]

Good morning, news.talk Absolutely not! My comments are for brainstorming, invoking thought and perhaps encouragement to "think outside the box". They are MOO and are for the purpose of just throwing something else out there. I've never seen The Shield (I really don't watch TV much, and if I do, I usually watch reality shows like 48 hours, dateline, America's most Wanted, Dr. Pohl). I've never thought that LE are dirty cops nor have I indicated that they are falsifying evidence. I am simply being open-minded as to what m/o the investigation could possibly betaking...there are a lot of different ways to catch a mouse. There are no accusations being made, and I don't feel that anything I'm saying is "the way it is"...they are simply non-conforming ideas that even given a slim chance, could possibly be the case. No, I don't think the ME is a moron. I think that there is a possibility that LE and the Crown could be implementing a different technique to the investigation than before. There may or may not be precedent to my thoughts on the situation, I'm simply throwing possibilities out there. IMO, there is a lot of conflicting information in this case, and its leading LE down a very curvy road...perhaps they're trying something new to "test the waters" and follow-up on other leads or possibilities. New ways of doing things are always being created, and law enforcement is not excluded from that advantage.

Mr Big is an investigative strategy that is used when police are confident in their knowledge of who is responsible for a crime, but they lack that one piece of information that allows them a successful prosecution. A Sting is similar. Both are staged situations meant to draw the suspect in such that he/she provides that missing link. There is a different scenario for each suspect, depending on the weakness of the suspect.

For example, suppose there is a robbery where the murder victim is stabbed multiple time. Investigators locate the knife. They identify the owner of the knife, confirm that the owner was desperate for money, confirm with roommates that the knife owner returned out of sorts late on the night of the murder, discover that the knife owner left town immediately after the murder, and can physically place the knife owner between the murder and his residence immediately after the murder. Suppose that the one piece of evidence they are missing is DNA, and it is not yet legal to compel a suspect to provide DNA. A sting will be set up to obtain DNA from the suspect. The weakness in that particular suspect might be that he is a loner, a loser, unpopular, a drinker, and always hard up for money. The sting might be an attractive woman befriending him, inviting him to a staged party, and being generous with money. A scene will be staged where it is likely that the suspect will provide that DNA, and a warrant will be issued to collect that evidence within the specific timeframe of the sting.

Although each sting, or Mr Big scenario, requires different staged scenes, the concept has been around for a very long time. It is not used after the person of interest has been arrested, charged, and there are no other suspects. A sting, or Mr Big, scenario takes months of preparation and is a last resort, not the first decision.

 

[otto]

Pickton was in jail when an undercover LE became his cell mate. Pickton confessed to the undercover to killing 49 women on the farm and said he had planned to kill another one to make it an even 50. That information was used as evidence in court and was valuable in securing his conviction.

If the accused discusses his case with another inmate, that inmate might make a deal to have his sentence reduced.

 

[Sillybilly]

If the accused discusses his case with another inmate, that inmate might make a deal to have his sentence reduced.

True, but in the Pickton case it wasn't another inmate who stood to gain, it was an undercover cop just doing his job. Just because someone is arrested and in jail charged with murder doesn't mean that LE won't continue to obtain any evidence they can prior to trial.

ETA: I have a strong feeling this strategy would not work with DG ... given his supposed intelligence and having represented himself in a lawsuit, IMO he seems like Wiley Coyote who wouldn't fall for such a tactic. As he's sitting in jail, not sure what elaborate scheme LE could cook up to win him over.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

True, but in the Pickton case it wasn't another inmate who stood to gain, it was an undercover cop just doing his job. Just because someone is arrested and in jail charged with murder doesn't mean that LE won't continue to obtain any evidence they can prior to trial.

Agreed, this case has gripped the country more than most partly because the media coverage and the exposure of the darling, angel-faced Nathan being seen all over, I think that LE feel the pressure from the public to nab who's responsible. I think they'll go to any lengths to get as much evidence as humanly and legally possible to make sure the suspect doesn't walk, especially a suspect like DG who I'm sure they know from his past behavior will play the system as best he can because of his so called 'intellect'.

 

[Sillybilly]

Thinking of evidence, I sure hope LE doesn't make the mistake that was made in the Tori Stafford case where LE failed to obtain a separate warrant for the contents of Rafferty's computer, resulting in that evidence not being allowed at trial. While the rest of Canada knew the damaging evidence, the jury didn't get to hear it. Fortunately they made the right call without it, but it was agonizing waiting for the big G word.

 

[Carli]

If the accused discusses his case with another inmate, that inmate might make a deal to have his sentence reduced.

Your "smoking knife" illustration notwitstanding, otto, in both the DNA snatch setup and the friendly cellmate scenarios, I've never been quite sure where the boundary lies between legitimate sting and illegitimate entrapment. Often seems kinda fuzzy, if you ask me. MOO. Again "tunnel vision" is a well understood aspect of criminal investigation, or so I understand (with lots of google search support) so it's actually not true that talking and walking like a duck identifies one as a duck. The quacker could actually be a child's toy; a kid in a Halloween costume; a robot; a remote controlled bomb - or really lots of possibilities. The fierce drive towards arresting somebody is, I think, especially prone to investigative errors, oversights and/or mistakes, accidental or otherwise, when there's a horrible crime that has garnered widespread public attention and therefore LE itself tends to feel itself to be on trial. MOO IMHO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

How would you describe this new method of investigating a mass murder?

IMO it could perhaps fall under the category of a "sting" of sorts.

 

[otto]

Your "smoking knife" illustration notwitstanding, otto, in both the DNA snatch setup and the friendly cellmate scenarios, I've never been quite sure where the boundary lies between legitimate sting and illegitimate entrapment. Often seems kinda fuzzy, if you ask me. MOO. Again "tunnel vision" is a well understood aspect of criminal investigation, or so I understand (with lots of google search support) so it's actually not true that talking and walking like a duck identifies one as a duck. The quacker could actually be a child's toy; a kid in a Halloween costume; a robot; a remote controlled bomb - or really lots of possibilities. The fierce drive towards arresting somebody is, I think, especially prone to investigative errors, oversights and/or mistakes, accidental or otherwise, when there's a horrible crime that has garnered widespread public attention and therefore LE itself tends to feel itself to be on trial. MOO IMHO

I don't think that the police are feeling like they are on trial, or that someone is shooting at their feet regarding solving murders. They follow the evidence. In this case, in the period of two weeks, the evidence led investigators from the crime scene, to the truck, to the truck's owner, to the Airdrie property, to fast tracking forensics, arrest, and the laying of charges. If police made assumptions or jumped the gun, at what step did that happen?

Counter-examples to the belief that police make quick arrests due to "feeling they are on trial" are high profile cases that go cold. The murder of an RCMP officer is high profile.

"On December 13th 1997, 52-year-old Peter Sopow and his 47-year-old girlfriend, Lorraine McNab, were shot to death on her acreage just south of Pincher Creek. The victims were ambushed and shot outside and their bodies were then dragged into a horse trailer on the property. The bodies were found in that locked horse trailer just before noon on December 15th.

Sopow, a 32-year veteran of the RCMP at the time of his death, was the father of two grown children, and a Sergeant with the Fort Macleod detachment.
McNab was a kindergarten teacher at Canyon School in Pincher Creek and was the mother of two teenaged children. She and Sopow were both divorced and had been dating for about six months.

http://www.country95.fm/news.asp?ID=7835

Jane Johnson appears to come from a prominent family, also high profile.

"Jane JOHNSON and her daughter Cathryn were murdered in their home on the evening of September 3rd, 1996. The culprit(s) set fire to the residence in an effort to conceal the crime.

It is believed that this was not a chance or random act perpetrated by someone committing a break-in or an assault as evidence gathered does not support this. Further, it is believed the killer(s) knew the victims and were aware of their day-to-day patterns."

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cc-afn/johnson-jane-cathryn-eng.htm

It seems that if police make an arrest in two weeks, they are jumping the gun, but if the case goes cold, they are incompetent. What is the correct amount of time for an arrest to be made such that the community has confidence in the abilities of investigators and prosecutors?

 

[otto]

IMO it could perhaps fall under the category of a "sting" of sorts.

Every Sting is tailored to the individual.