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

[Tinkerbel1]

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/sith_colloquium_asimow_michael.pdf
Interesting article law/ethics

Thank you, I'm not sure what I was supposed to get from this?
Here is one that seems more straightforward to me. http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=214
I'm not sure what your point is?

 

[otto]

Again... you are taking it far too literally. No bodies have been found. How do they know anyone is deceased then?

Simply because an intact, identifiable large portion of a body has not been discovered, does not mean that DNA from some part has not been found at the home, in the truck, or at the acreage.

No bodies were found in the truck or at the home either. This has to be the worst put together case in history if all they have is a picture of a truck as evidence.

What were the crime scene clean up crew cleaning up then since no bodies were found at the home?

It has been reported that there was a violent incident, also known as a homicide, at the Parkhill home. There was evidence that someone was in medical distress at the home. According to the CPS crime map, there were two homicides at the home. There are drag marks made in a dark liquid that were recently cleaned up spanning 24 feet between the side door and the parking pad. Someone was murdered at the Parkhill home, so the crime scene was cleaned up. There is no evidence of the bodies at the Airdrie acreage.

"Despite a massive search of multiple areas, including the Airdrie-area farm of Garland’s parents, no bodies have been discovered."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/08/1...gary-courtroom-today-on-liknes-obrien-murders

 

[otto]

There have been many victims identified in this tragedy. " no one should be considered to be suffering more than the other?"
IMO the individual impact of the crime to each Mrs. O and Mrs. G are very different.
Are you suggesting that neither is suffering more than the other?

All victims are treated equally by the courts. The same is true of their families. They should be treated equally. The court does not treat the families of victims differently based on their perceived suffering.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

There have been many victims identified in this tragedy. " no one should be considered to be suffering more than the other?"
IMO the individual impact of the crime to each Mrs. O and Mrs. G are very different.
Are you suggesting that neither is suffering more than the other?

Oh my.
Are you suggesting that perhaps Mrs. G. is not suffering as much as Mrs. O? Have they both not lost their children? Perhaps in very different ways, but I don't think anyone could (or should) make a judgement call on who is entitled to suffer more than the other.
They are both mothers, and they are both suffering. How can anyone measure the level of grief, loss and suffering of either one of these ladies?
JMO, but the hope would be that there be enough understanding and compassion going out to both of them regardless of which side of this tragedy they are on.
As for the other family members of all the victims and the suspects, they are all suffering...suffering is suffering...the level is irrelevant, IMO.
Broken hearts, broken dreams, broken hopes, loss of a loved one ...likely common feelings for all of them.

 

[otto]

I don't think there is any law requiring separate viewing rooms, or a law requiring if they do it for one, then they have to do it for all. Rightfully so, it seems to be on a case by case, circumstances dictate the action, basis.

No one is going to begrudge the court staff if they arrange for the parents of a murdered child, in a high profile case with lots of media, and possible animosity between family members, to sit in another room.

Every case has a high profile element. The murder of five students in April 2014 is high profile. This case of Ian Gordon was high profile:

"In February, 1998, Ian Gordon, a then 43-year-old math teacher at Mount Royal College (now university) used a metre-long axe to kill his common-law wife, Lin Kreis, 41, and his daughters from a previous relationship, Kayla Gordon, 14 and Liane Gordon, 9. Gordon first killed Kreis in their Lake Bonavista home before picking Kayla up from school, bringing her to the home and killing her with the same axe. Gordon then picked Liane up from her elementary school, brought her to the home as well and killed her."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/04/1...but-not-first-mass-murder-in-calgarys-history

The interest of the media or the public should not control court procedures. Furthermore, by the time the mass murder goes to trial, following the other mass murder, what will make it high profile? It seems to be an internal family dispute that ended in murder.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

It has been reported that there was a violent incident, also known as a homicide, at the Parkhill home. There was evidence that someone was in medical distress at the home. According to the CPS crime map, there were two homicides at the home. There are drag marks made in a dark liquid that were recently cleaned up spanning 24 feet between the side door and the parking pad. Someone was murdered at the Parkhill home, so the crime scene was cleaned up. There is no evidence of the bodies at the Airdrie acreage.

"Despite a massive search of multiple areas, including the Airdrie-area farm of Garland’s parents, no bodies have been discovered."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/08/1...gary-courtroom-today-on-liknes-obrien-murders

If we adhere to your strict standards of 100% accuracy in MSM, no blood or bodily fluids were reported at the home, therefore, there was none, or even a trace of body fluids.

Please explain how it's remotely feasible to have proof of the death of each individual, and how it is tied to DG enough to lay charges?

The only evidence MSM has reported was the violent incident, and the green truck photo. Are you saying that the only evidence is what MSM reported? I have no clue what could be taking the disclosure so long then.

Thanks for the link, but again, copy pasting something doesn't stand up to deductive logic.

 

[otto]

If we adhere to your strict standards of 100% accuracy in MSM, no blood or bodily fluids were reported at the home, therefore, there was none, or even a trace of body fluids.

Please explain how it's remotely feasible to have proof of the death of each individual, and how it is tied to DG enough to lay charges?

The only evidence MSM has reported was the violent incident, and the green truck photo. Are you saying that the only evidence is what MSM reported? I have no clue what could be taking the disclosure so long then.

Thanks for the link, but again, copy pasting something doesn't stand up to deductive logic.

The police chief did not explain why he knows, without doubt, that all three are deceased.

What needs deductive logic ... or math, or physics, or inductive logic?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

The police chief did not explain why he knows, without doubt, that all three are deceased.

What needs deductive logic ... or math, or physics, or inductive logic?

You have claimed there was no DNA evidence found at the acreage because one or two MSM outlets reported no complete bodies were found. Without deflecting, or dismissing, please explain how that theory stands up to even the most basic logic.

 

[wendiesan]

Yes indeed. I would love to know if there is such a facility. It seems it would be the kindest way of accommodating family members of victims and accused. Just a small private room with a CCTV link to the courtroom. The Calgary building, housing the various courts is hugely impressive and thoughtfully designed. I see there is an Aboriginal room designated so anything is possible.

First a few notes about the circular room--what a valuable piece of work that was.

Native elders and justice officials will hold a traditional blessing ceremony today for a room in the Calgary Courts Centre modelled after an aboriginal peacemaking court. The circular room on the 18th floor of the courthouse isn't specifically designated an aboriginal court, justice officials say. But its design and ventilation system, which allows for smudging ceremonies, reflect native culture and tradition, said Alberta Justice spokeswoman Kim Misik.

"It was designed for use by both aboriginal and non-aboriginal cultures who might prefer to use a circular setting as opposed to a courtroom setting," Misik said.

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=cb92a5e6-19d7-40bb-bc2d-11b60b0689b4

I agree with your take on this. Family members and close friends of someone who has been injured or killed in a crime may be considered direct and indirect victims of that crime, however, they ARE NOT represented in the trial. (https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/progr...ms/Publications/Victims of Crime Protocol.pdf) I would not be surprised if their needs never once crossed the architect's mind and were never requested by Alberta Justice. And families of the accused probably receive even less attention.

Crown counsel is not and can never function as the victim’s lawyer. Although the Crown appears to be representing the interests of the victim, the Crown is the lawyer for the Queen and the government during the trial. In Canadian criminal cases, the harm is perceived to have been committed against the State. This is why cases are referred to as Regina v. Smith (or R. v. Smith), Regina being the Queen in Latin. The Crown is truly representing the society, of which you are a part.

http://crcvc.ca/docs/Navigating-the-Canadian-CJS.pdf

The trial is the state v the alleged perpetrator of the crime, so, IMO, the needs for the perpetrator's security and well-being while in the courthouse would be met. The needs of the judge, the court personnel, the jury, the security officers while in the courthouse would be met. The needs of the Crown Prosecutor and the Defence Attorney while in the courthouse would be met. The vague needs of the public while in the courthouse would probably be met. The direct and indirect victims of the crime, not so much.

It seems to me that it would be a simple thing to have such rooms attached to courtrooms of various sizes during the initial design process. Churches, for example, have mothers' rooms where mothers can take their babies and feed them, or let their toddlers chatter, while they can see what is happening through the window while hearing the audio feed from the service. The congregation is able to focus on the message of the sermon without the distraction of little ones being little ones. How hard would it be to have a room with CCTV feed in a place accessible to the courtroom in which the trial is taking place?

Victims needs are rarely considered even when it comes to attendance at the trial. There may not even be available seating for victims during the trial--little wonder that victims often feel marginalized by the trial process.

Victims usually sit on the right hand side of the courtroom, behind the Crown. Be aware that the courthouse is a public place and seats are not specifically reserved for the victims. You may try speaking to the Crown or police to see if they can reserve some seats for you.

http://crcvc.ca/docs/Navigating-the-Canadian-CJS.pdf
A victims' room would solve that problem. As well, there is the potentially dangerous fact that victims could be confronted by the alleged perpetrator's family.

You are likely to see the accused’s family members in the courtroom and throughout the courthouse, including the washrooms. If you do not wish to interact with them or speak to them, you are by no means required to do so. You should tell the Crown if members of accused’s family seek you out or harass you.

http://crcvc.ca/docs/Navigating-the-Canadian-CJS.pdf

A victims' room with adjoining washroom, would solve that problem as well.

The rules of courtroom etiquette are very severe. The families are not supposed to speak or show emotion. Ridiculously inhumane in cases of severe injury. Cruel beyond words when the charge is murder. The victims' room would allow those who chose to use it to cry, to talk, to support each other, while not disturbing the calm objectivity of a courtroom.

The pretty teenage girl leans forward, rests her head against her grandmother's broad back, then wraps her arms around the woman and receives a comforting there-there pat in return. A few minutes later, another lovely girl, sitting alongside, suddenly sobs and bolts from the courtroom. The first rushes to follow. They can be heard in the anteroom ? one crying, the other softly hushing. They are the daughters of murdered mothers.

http://www.unsolvedcanada.ca/index.php?topic=22.85;wap2

But yesterday afternoon, a spontaneous, cathartic and unorthodox burst of applause filled the auxiliary courtroom as the prosecution rested its case in the 10-month serial murder trial of Robert "Willie" Pickton. For many of the anguished families of the murdered women, the final finger-pointing at the pig farmer they hold responsible was too emotional to allow mere courtroom etiquette to silence them.

They are the walking wounded, hushed for too long by police who ignored them and herded by a justice system that moves at a snail's pace. They have sat anxiously through a strong, lengthy defence summation where the case against Pickton seemed to be unravelling. And then, finally, it was the Crown's turn.

"Everybody was clapping when he was finished," smiled Rick Frey, a photo of his slain daughter Marnie pinned to his lapel. "Nobody told us not to, so we did."

http://www.unsolvedcanada.ca/index.php?topic=22.85;wap2

Harper claims to be working on a Victims' Rights' bill. Maybe he should underscore his concern for direct and indirect victims of crimes by making a victims' room mandatory in every courthouse in this country.

 

[wendiesan]

I'm just guessing but I would think that in the case of a sexual assault( especially in the case of a child) allowances might be made. I don't know how a young victim would provide testimony, I believe there are alternatives. The courtroom may not be the best place for their family and so on ...

FWIW

Children often find it very difficult to testify in open courtrooms; it is easy to imagine how a child would be very nervous and intimidated in a courtroom atmosphere. The kind of subjects surrounding sexual crimes are often embarrassing for children to talk about in private, let alone to disclose to a courtroom full of strangers. Children may also be afraid of retaliation from the accused since threats against the child are often a part of their attempts to keep the abuse a secret. A support person or relative can be permitted to sit near the child while they are testifying, sometimes children are permitted to bring in a toy or blanket, and props such as dolls and drawings can be used to assist the child. Depending on when the crime occurred in the child`s developmental process, they may not have had the capacity to understand what was taking place. Children sometimes have trouble with specifics – such as dates – and this can lead to problems in the laying of charges and conviction. The Crown prosecutor can help by asking the child if the abuse happened around Christmas time, or close to some other significant event in the child’s life; however, this may be construed as leading the child witness.

Children under eighteen years of age can be permitted to testify behind a screen or through a video display setup outside the courtroom. The judge must first be convinced such an arrangement would be necessary to obtain a full account of the child’s evidence. The accused and their lawyer must be permitted to hear the evidence and make answer to it. Screens are used much more frequently than are closed circuit televisions, but some people feel that televisions are better because the jury would infer that the child is afraid of the courtroom and not necessarily the accused. The legalities of the use of screens and videos has been questioned but, as one court put it, "the right to face one’s accusers is not in this day and age to be taken in the literal sense…(it is) simply the right of an accused person to hear the case against him and to make answer and defence to it…". The reality is that screens and closed circuit televisions are used in few cases. One reason for this is that few courtrooms have access to screens or televisions.

For cases where the accused has chosen to represent themselves, a judge is permitted to appoint a counsel for the sole purpose of cross-examining the child victim since it could be very traumatic or intimidating for the child to be confronted by the accused. Young victims can also be videotaped in advance of the trial and the tape played at the trial. However, the child will still have to take the stand to "adopt the contents of the videotape," or to testify that what is contained on the tape is the truth. The child may have to be cross-examined also since the defence must be able to answer the charges. The rules governing the use of these types of tapes are very strict to ensure they have not been edited in any way. For example, a clock must be visible to the camera at all times to prove that the tape was not stopped or paused for any reason. Tapes must be made as soon as possible after the abuse has been reported.

http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/rev2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=331&Itemid=21

 

[Tinkerbel1]

If we adhere to your strict standards of 100% accuracy in MSM, no blood or bodily fluids were reported at the home, therefore, there was none, or even a trace of body fluids.

Please explain how it's remotely feasible to have proof of the death of each individual, and how it is tied to DG enough to lay charges?

The only evidence MSM has reported was the violent incident, and the green truck photo. Are you saying that the only evidence is what MSM reported? I have no clue what could be taking the disclosure so long then.

Thanks for the link, but again, copy pasting something doesn't stand up to deductive logic.

In all due respect, and not to cause controversy here or suggest that LE is not conducting the investigation properly but....suppose these are the translations of the "evidence"....just for interests sake and to back up the bus a bit as to the evidence that we assume LE is speaking of.

OutofTheDarkness is correct. The only evidence that MSM has reported is: the video of the green truck, the violent incident at the Liknes home and that "someone was in medical distress".

The determination that KL and AL were murdered came from the deductive supposition that whoever left the home in medical distress was likely deceased after the 2 week period (this is from my understanding, again, please correct me if I'm wrong). NO was possibly declared as deceased through deductive supposition as well due to the length of time that had passed since the disappearance. There are no reports made public, or to the defence by LE of what exactly the forensic evidence they have collected is. IMO, any deduction (logical or otherwise), is assumption at this point. 'Medical distress' of one of the parties could simply be assumed by insulin for a diabetic being left behind or heart medication or any other medication obviously being left behind therefore not available to the victim as required, resulting in probable death, perhaps someone was on dialysis and obviously didn't have what they needed at the time of disappearance. 'Violent incident' could mean broken glass, broken furniture, a fist through a wall, dishevelment and upheaval in the home. I am not saying that there wasn't blood, or tissue or anything of the like collected as evidence, it very well and likely has been...but for the purpose of determining the 'actual' evidence that LE has anything we assume they have is still at this point, assumption. They have not released any of that information yet. As far as taking so long for the disclosure? I know of someone recently charged with DUI (in Edmonton)...he had a court date set for December...no disclosure was available to his lawyer, case put forward to February...court case in February arrived...no disclosure at that time yet either....the disclosure was not available to the accused's lawyer until April...some 4.5 months later. I believe the evidence was the blood alcohol level report. It wasn't a triple homicide. Again, it's paperwork...and in this case a lot of it. I can't believe there wasn't at least something sent over to the defense, but the fact of the matter is, there wasn't.

Further to this, even if there was copious amounts of blood, tissue, etc collected, there would also have to be something that definitely placed DG in that home at that time period, IMO it would have to be pretty damning evidence as well (such as DNA, some sort of identification or something else that is inarguably his). And even if all of this is present, I would like to point out that the evidence collected is not necessarily admissible to court, even if it is irrefutable.

Case in point...Robert Pickton. LE had bodies, they had forensic evidence, they had a confession and still he was given liberties by the court in order to preserve his character. I have included a link that references the evidence, which was beyond a shadow of a doubt, definite proof of Robert Pickton's guilt of these murders, that was deemed "inadmissible" to court for the trial so that the jurors' perception of the accused was not tainted. I personally can't believe that the evidence listed was not used in at least one of the trials of Robert Pickton, but such is the law.


http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Pi...+evidence+jury+never+heard/3360225/story.html

 

[Cherchri]

:

First a few notes about the circular room--what a valuable p[SUB][/SUB]iece of work that was.

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=cb92a5e6-19d7-40bb-bc2d-11b60b0689b4

I agree with your take on this. Family members and close friends of someone who has been injured or killed in a crime may be considered direct and indirect victims of that crime, however, they ARE NOT represented in the trial. (https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/progr...ms/Publications/Victims of Crime Protocol.pdf) I would not be surprised if their needs never once crossed the architect's mind and were never requested by Alberta Justice. And families of the accused probably receive even less attention.


http://crcvc.ca/docs/Navigating-the-Canadian-CJS.pdf

The trial is the state v the alleged perpetrator of the crime, so, IMO, the needs for the perpetrator's security and well-being while in the courthouse would be met. The needs of the judge, the court personnel, the jury, the security officers while in the courthouse would be met. The needs of the Crown Prosecutor and the Defence Attorney while in the courthouse would be met. The vague needs of the public while in the courthouse would probably be met. The direct and indirect victims of the crime, not so much.

It seems to me that it would be a simple thing to have such rooms attached to courtrooms of various sizes during the initial design process. Churches, for example, have mothers' rooms where mothers can take their babies and feed them, or let their toddlers chatter, while they can see what is happening through the window while hearing the audio feed from the service. The congregation is able to focus on the message of the sermon without the distraction of little ones being little ones. How hard would it be to have a room with CCTV feed in a place accessible to the courtroom in which the trial is taking place?

Victims needs are rarely considered even when it comes to attendance at the trial. There may not even be available seating for victims during the trial--little wonder that victims often feel marginalized by the trial process.


http://crcvc.ca/docs/Navigating-the-Canadian-CJS.pdf
A victims' room would solve that problem. As well, there is the potentially dangerous fact that victims could be confronted by the alleged perpetrator's family.


http://crcvc.ca/docs/Navigating-the-Canadian-CJS.pdf

A victims' room with adjoining washroom, would solve that problem as well.

The rules of courtroom etiquette are very severe. The families are not supposed to speak or show emotion. Ridiculously inhumane in cases of severe injury. Cruel beyond words when the charge is murder. The victims' room would allow those who chose to use it to cry, to talk, to support each other, while not disturbing the calm objectivity of a courtroom.


http://www.unsolvedcanada.ca/index.php?topic=22.85;wap2


http://www.unsolvedcanada.ca/index.php?topic=22.85;wap2

Harper claims to be working on a Victims' Rights' bill. Maybe he should underscore his concern for direct and indirect victims of crimes by making a victims' room mandatory in every courthouse in this country.

Thank you so much for the trouble you have gone to in putting this post together. What a fantastic effort.
:goodpost::goodpost::goodpost:

 

[Tinkerbel1]

You have claimed there was no DNA evidence found at the acreage because one or two MSM outlets reported no complete bodies were found. Without deflecting, or dismissing, please explain how that theory stands up to even the most basic logic.

MSM reported "no trace" of the victims' at the acreage. The deductive supposition of this would be "no bodies/no dna/no footprints/no clothing"...nothing at all relating to the victims that indicates they ever were, or are now present at the acreage, in any way shape or form. IMO

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

MSM reported "no trace" of the victims' at the acreage. The deduction of this would be "no bodies/no dna/no footprints/no clothing"...nothing at all relating to the victims that indicates they ever were, or are now present at the acreage, in any way shape or form. IMO

lol... we've had the "No Trace: Journalistic Laziness or Amazing Inside Information" debate just recently... that circle starts back a thread or two for those who would like to rehash.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

lol... we've had the "No Trace: Journalistic Laziness or Amazing Inside Information" debate just recently... that circle starts back a thread or two for those who would like to rehash.

Alright, thank you

 

[news.talk]

lol... we've had the "No Trace: Journalistic Laziness or Amazing Inside Information" debate just recently... that circle starts back a thread or two for those who would like to rehash.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of hauling out my soap-box.

If there was truly "no trace" of the victims at the acreage, then why does LE claim to have two crime scenes?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Thank you for saving me the trouble of hauling out my soap-box.

If there was truly "no trace" of the victims at the acreage, then why does LE claim to have two crime scenes?

Because everywhere LE puts up yellow tape is a "crime scene"? Was that reported by MSM? Perhaps it's "Journalistic Laziness"? They probably should have said "potential crime scene", maybe? JMO

 

[Cherchri]

Because everywhere LE puts up yellow tape is a "crime scene"? Was that reported by MSM? Perhaps it's "Journalistic ...Laziness"? They probably should have said "potential crime scene", maybe? JMO

Evidence has been removed from the acreage and from the home at the centre of the search, however, Brookwell would not say what kind of evidence was retrieved. It has been sent to the crime lab in Edmonton for expedited processing.

“As with all major crime investigations, it is a delicate balance to provide the public with as much information as possible, without jeopardizing the investigation itself or any future court case,” said Brookwell.
http://www.airdriecityview.com/arti...ntinue-until-no-stone-is-left-unturned-police

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Evidence has been removed from the acreage and from the home at the centre of the search, however, Brookwell would not say what kind of evidence was retrieved. It has been sent to the crime lab in Edmonton for expedited processing.

“As with all major crime investigations, it is a delicate balance to provide the public with as much information as possible, without jeopardizing the investigation itself or any future court case,” said Brookwell.
http://www.airdriecityview.com/arti...ntinue-until-no-stone-is-left-unturned-police

The article you refer to is dated July 11, 2014. The report made by MSM regarding "no trace of the victims" was made August 14, 2014. The 'evidence' they had collected may or may not be related to this crime, perhaps it's been determine that it doesn't relate to the case? JMO...its a possibility...the reports were almost 5 weeks apart.

 

[news.talk]

The article you refer to is dated July 11, 2014. The report made by MSM regarding "no trace of the victims" was made August 14, 2014. The 'evidence' they had collected may or may not be related to this crime, perhaps it's been determine that it doesn't relate to the case? JMO...its a possibility...the reports were almost 5 weeks apart.

Since absolutely ZERO results from the evidence gathered have been reported, what difference does the time span make?