Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #13

[Tinkerbel1]

Not right. My original post was in regards to Stan L saying maybe there were footprints at the acreage, which would indicate NO was kidnapped and alive at the acreage, and then subsequently murdered.

If you read the definition of 1st degree murder closely, which I just posted earlier, you'll see that it specifically states that regardless of intent, if a murder committed during a kidnapping, then it is considered 1st degree.

My point, which you missed, was that if they had evidence that he was taken alive and subsequently murdered... based on the actual definition of 1st degree murder which includes more than just intent... THEN it would have most likely resulted in a charge of 1st degree murder.

If there were no evidence he was murdered, then there likely would be no charge at all.

Right?

I believe that NO is presumed dead due to the length of time that had gone by, and that there was evidence his grandparents were murdered. It may be that there is no concrete evidence that NO was murdered, and is being based on purely circumstantial evidence. In this case, how could he have survived on his own for the two weeks if he was alive.

 

[otto]

Is it possible that down the road, if evidence has been collected say on DG`s acreage that NO was there alive, not be considered `forcible confinement`and the charge upgraded to 1st degree? Not sure how this works.

What would be the point of changing the charge from second degree to first degree for Nathan? Nathan was not supposed to be there. There was no planned and deliberate murder of him. He happened to be there and was eliminated most likely because he was a witness. If Nathan had not been there, there would be no plan to murder him. Nancy Grace law is not Canadian law. It does take more than a split second to plan and deliberately murder someone.

Regarding the possibility that the grandparents were murdered and hoisted into the back of a pickup truck, and then Nathan was put in the passenger seat and driven around while the bodies were put in a secluded location, that is a huge grey area that cannot be proven, and which could derail the prosecution's theory. It's better to go with what can be proven: first degree murder at the Parkhill home of the two grandparents. That is sufficient to put the accused in prison for life. Nathan was also murdered, but it was not planned. Without evidence that the child was kidnapped and kept somewhere, there was no kidnapping.

 

[otto]

Yes, I stand corrected. So suppose DG was aware that JO was in the home with her two children and watched her load only one child into the car. Than he would know that one child was left behind. That is if he was watching them leave and was aware of the three in the home (JO, NO, and youngest son). IMO.

I don't think that anyone can say for sure that the accused knew that there was a five year old child in the house. In fact, it's more likely that if he had known that, he would not have committed the murders that night.

 

[otto]

This is true. However, the purpose of tomorrow's court date is for DG to enter a plea to the charges...therefore, it would be implied/understood that should this situation move forward in a timely manner, the Defense would be getting at least some of it by now in order for that plea to possibly be made tomorrow. IMO, this would suggest that DG's lawyer would not in good practise, have DG make a plea at all tomorrow and ask that the case be remanded to a later date, which just pushes the court date further down the road. There's lots and lots of documentation...wondering why at least some of it wouldn't be sent over, as in the case of Matthew De'Grood's charges as mentioned by another poster. They were moved along quite quickly. I'm questioning the benefit of holding disclosure back to the last day?

Nothing is being held back. There is a deadline and the crown will meet that deadline. There is no need to jump the deadline and submit disclosure early, although it is possible that it happened. There are 30 days to prepare the documents. That 30 days has not yet expired, so there's really nothing to be said about it.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

IMO, after reviewing this post as well as others, I'm sensing a reluctance to explore DGs guilt to the extent of persistently questioning all things LE while at the same time, there appears pervasive desire to point guilt at a grandmother who may or may not have suggested a sleepover?

Hi again Winnnancy, just a thought. Perhaps I may ask the same question of you? Am I sensing reluctance to explore other avenues/people's involvement to the extent of persistently pointing the finger at one person when there's enough fertile ground in this case to open up a few other lines of possibility, which may in fact have opened up since DG's arrest and further investigation by LE? In all fairness to the victims (NO, Liknes', O'Briens) and in all fairness to the accused and his family, LE has a responsibility to explore ALL avenues...good or bad, right or wrong to bring this crime to proper and rightful justice. That's due diligence, that's responsibility...and that's integrity.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Nothing is being held back. There is a deadline and the crown will meet that deadline. There is no need to jump the deadline and submit disclosure early, although it is possible that it happened. There are 30 days to prepare the documents. That 30 days has not yet expired, so there's really nothing to be said about it.

Can you clarify the expectation of tomorrow's court appearance by DG? Was it solely set as a marker for the time period for disclosure and as such, just for legal record of it? Or, is DG expected to make a plea tomorrow? I'm not clear on that now.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I don't think that anyone can say for sure that the accused knew that there was a five year old child in the house. In fact, it's more likely that if he had known that, he would not have committed the murders that night.

Agreed. Especially since NO is DG's nephew's cousin. He was family. IMO, that makes it even more likely DG wouldn't have gone there that night.

 

[otto]

IMO most 5 year olds are asleep by 9pm or 10pm, which would have been JO's cue to leave the home. The baby may have been awake depending on the age and routine whether he was feeding, nursing, nap times, teething, etc. or also fast asleep in his car seat. Most families I know who have multiple children have a pretty consistent bedtime routine. Some are in bed as early as 7:30. NO would also have had a full day full of excitement and activity, he may have fallen asleep very easily that night.

The baby was just shy of his second birthday, so he was walking, talking, and would be asleep in the early evening. Nathan was five years old. I see no reason why he should fall asleep at 9PM at someone else's house - a house where 200 strangers had been in the previous three days.

In any case, we don't know when the murders occurred, so the family may have been asleep, or awake, at the time of the murders.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

What would be the point of changing the charge from second degree to first degree for Nathan? Nathan was not supposed to be there. There was no planned and deliberate murder of him. He happened to be there and was eliminated most likely because he was a witness. If Nathan had not been there, there would be no plan to murder him. Nancy Grace law is not Canadian law. It does take more than a split second to plan and deliberately murder someone.

Regarding the possibility that the grandparents were murdered and hoisted into the back of a pickup truck, and then Nathan was put in the passenger seat and driven around while the bodies were put in a secluded location, that is a huge grey area that cannot be proven, and which could derail the prosecution's theory. It's better to go with what can be proven: first degree murder at the Parkhill home of the two grandparents. That is sufficient to put the accused in prison for life. Nathan was also murdered, but it was not planned. Without evidence that the child was kidnapped and kept somewhere, there was no kidnapping.

I don't watch Nancy Grace lol

I think we're starting to split hairs here...if NO did not get murdered at grandparents, and did not go willingly with perpetrator, that IMO then, it is a kidnapping (intended or not). In the case of a kidnapping and/or forcible confinement where the party dies, then it is first degree murder. The purpose of upgrading the charge would be to put more weight on that probation not be granted in 25 years, should that be a possibility. Someone also had posted in Thread #12 that now the law says sentences can now be served consecutively which means he would get more time...although I suppose its a moot point, as DG is not likely to live until 129 years old. It would be a matter of record.

 

[Krystine]

It's very impressive that so many women can hoist 200lbs of dead weight, with 6+ feet of dangling arms and legs, into the back of a pickup truck!

I'm tall, fit and stronger than most wimin'... if I can claim that here. lol. And I couldn't lift 200 lbs. of presumably slippery (sorry) dead weight into the back of a half ton.

 

[otto]

Can you clarify the expectation of tomorrow's court appearance by DG? Was it solely set as a marker for the time period for disclosure and as such, just for legal record of it? Or, is DG expected to make a plea tomorrow? I'm not clear on that now.

I have no idea. There is a hearing. Disclosure related to the arrest is due. The crown or the defence may request a mental health assessment. New dates will be set. Perhaps the accused wants to make a plea deal whereby he will disclose the locations of the remains in exchange for concurrent sentences. Perhaps the accused believes that he has outsmarted everyone and that there is insufficient evidence for a conviction. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[otto]

Agreed. Especially since NO is DG's nephew's cousin. He was family. IMO, that makes it even more likely DG wouldn't have gone there that night.

I don't see the nephew/uncle relationship between Nathan and the accused. The sister of the accused is an aunt to Nathan, but the accused is an uncle only to the children of his siblings.

 

[Krystine]

The house had been gutted from a three day estate sale. More than 200 people had traipsed through the house in the previous three days. The "come on in" estate sale sign was still posted on the front door. The breadwinner had declared bankruptcy and cleaned out his office that week. Their entire lives were in complete upheaval. Setting aside everyone's personal wishes, why would that be a good environment for a five year old child?

... keeping in mind that it's always about the best interest of the child.

Perhaps their lives_had been_ in upheaval for a while, and the couple were excited and happy about a fresh start and a move.
We have no reason to think they were arguing, anxious, or anything but happy.
Are you implying that they should have known they were in danger that night? Aside from victim blaming, I don't see the point of this re-occurring question. If there is a point to be made, I would love to hear it.

 

[otto]

I don't watch Nancy Grace lol

I think we're starting to split hairs here...if NO did not get murdered at grandparents, and did not go willingly with perpetrator, that IMO then, it is a kidnapping (intended or not). In the case of a kidnapping and/or forcible confinement where the party dies, then it is first degree murder. The purpose of upgrading the charge would be to put more weight on that probation not be granted in 25 years, should that be a possibility. Someone also had posted in Thread #12 that now the law says sentences can now be served consecutively which means he would get more time...although I suppose its a moot point, as DG is not likely to live until 129 years old. It would be a matter of record.

One only has to watch the program once to know that, in her world, one second is long enough to form the intent to commit murder ... therefore all murder is first degree murder. Many people accept her definition of first degree murder, but her version is not the same as the legal definition.

I've never heard of a sentence in Canada that exceeded a normal lifetime.

There are two first degree murder charges. It's quite likely that the charges for Alvin Liknes' murder will be a straight forward argument. The first degree murder charges for Kathryn Liknes may not be straight forward. It may be argued that she was murdered as a witness, which could result in a second degree conviction. If there is no evidence of a kidnapping, there can be no charges for kidnapping. The child was not an intended victim, therefore it makes sense for second degree charges. Prosecutors work with the evidence. I suspect that if the dispute between the accused and the victims relates to the purchase of the retirement condo, then first degree charges will be easier to argue for both of the grandparents, as they would have collectively had involvement in the financial arrangements for the purchase.

Prosecutors have to bring charges based on evidence, not on "what if" possibilities. There might be a "what if" the child was forced to drive around disposing of the remains of his grandparents prior to being murdered, but without evidence, that's not a good theory to argue.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I don't see the nephew/uncle relationship between Nathan and the accused. The sister of the accused is an aunt to Nathan, but the accused is an uncle only to the children of his siblings.

The father of PG's children is a Liknes (as has been stated in prior threads), JO is step-sister to AL (son), that makes DG, PG & AL's children his nieces and nephews, and through marriage, makes DG an uncle to NO doesn't it...an Uncle-in-Law I guess? Extended family of sorts?

 

[otto]

Perhaps their lives_had been_ in upheaval for a while, and the couple were excited and happy about a fresh start and a move.
We have no reason to think they were arguing, anxious, or anything but happy.
Are you implying that they should have known they were in danger that night? Aside from victim blaming, I don't see the point of this re-occurring question. If there is a point to be made, I would love to hear it.

There's no reason to think that there was any conflict ... don't think anyone has suggested that.

I'm not implying anything. I'm questioning whether it is in the best interests of the child to be left in a home where 200 strangers had been in the previous three days, where nothing had been cleaned up - not even the "come on in" sign, where everything was for sale due to moving out of the country, and where the family breadwinner had declared bankruptcy that week. That is an awful lot of turmoil and upheaval in the house. I have no idea what decisions were made, or why they were made. I think it is truly tragic that Nathan was caught in a dispute between extended family members such that it cost him his life.

 

[garbagetweet]

I have no idea. There is a hearing. Disclosure related to the arrest is due. The crown or the defence may request a mental health assessment. New dates will be set. Perhaps the accused wants to make a plea deal whereby he will disclose the locations of the remains in exchange for concurrent sentences. Perhaps the accused believes that he has outsmarted everyone and that there is insufficient evidence for a conviction. We'll have to wait and see.

I may be incorrect but the accused would have undergone an initial mental health assessment during these first 30 days to determine whether or not he is "fit to stand trial." A subsequent mental health assessment may be requested tomorrow to determine if the accused can be found criminally responsible.

 

[winnnancy]

Hi again Winnnancy, just a thought. Perhaps I may ask the same question of you? Am I sensing reluctance to explore other avenues/people's involvement to the extent of persistently pointing the finger at one person when there's enough fertile ground in this case to open up a few other lines of possibility, which may in fact have opened up since DG's arrest and further investigation by LE? In all fairness to the victims (NO, Liknes', O'Briens) and in all fairness to the accused and his family, LE has a responsibility to explore ALL avenues...good or bad, right or wrong to bring this crime to proper and rightful justice. That's due diligence, that's responsibility...and that's integrity.

I'm confident that LE would not have laid charges without a great deal of evidence.
The bar in this case would be vastly higher than in the case there had been bodies.
In terms of other " fertile ground", had the evidentiary trail led to the, there would likely be different charges laid or none rather a continuation of investigation in a different direction.

 

[otto]

The father of PG's children is a Liknes (as has been stated in prior threads), JO is step-sister to AL (son), that makes DG, PG & AL's children his nieces and nephews, and through marriage, makes DG an uncle to NO doesn't it...an Uncle-in-Law I guess? Extended family of sorts?

By definition, an uncle is the brother of one's father or mother, or the husband of one's aunt. The accused is the brother of Nathan's aunt, so not an uncle. The accused probably had no relationship with the children of the half sister of his sister's common law husband.

 

[otto]

I may be incorrect but the accused would have undergone an initial mental health assessment during these first 30 days to determine whether or not he is "fit to stand trial." A subsequent mental health assessment may be requested tomorrow to determine if the accused can be found criminally responsible.

I don't see the accused cooperating with a voluntary mental health assessment. I suspect that it will have to be court ordered.