Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #14

[Lalalacasbah]

If the accused is also responsible for Helena, I'm of the opinion that the Liknes/Obrien victims are in a similar area.

Does anyone remember the pattern of serial killers ... do subsequent bodies get closer to home, or farther away from home?

Don't know the answer to your particular question, but just adding a comment. IIRC I've heard (will try to find source) that when a killer knows their victims, were fond of them or had a relationship (even platonic) I think it can be characteristic of them to leave their body 'out' to be found as a subconscious way for them to be discovered since the killer was 'fond' of them in some way. Isn't it common for most serial/repeat killers first kill to be someone they know and they start from there? I'll have to try to find a source, as I can't remember if this is a fact, or if I've watched too many true crime shows!

ETA: The reason I mention this is if DG might've had a friendship of sorts with HM and she might've been his first victim, so a reason why she wasn't hidden that well, just a theory.

 

[otto]

It looks like there are studies that concluded that no conclusions can be drawn regarding the location of serial murder victims and distance from murderer's home. It could be that if the accused did murder Helena, then the three victims are also about 10 miles from his home.

"The current results show that relatively more intelligent serial murderers travel farther from their homes to dispose of their victims’ bodies than those with lower IQ scores. This supports the notion suggested by the findings of Ressler et al. (1986) that intelligence is positively related to home-to-crime distance among serial murderers. Another significant finding from the current study concerned the relationship between spatial decisions and the modes of transportation employed during the commission of murders. As intuitively expected, it appears that serial murderers who use a car leave bodies farther from their home than those who walk and use public transportation. Contrary to previous research that found a positive relationship or no clear linear relationship between offender age and home-to-crime distance (e.g. Baldwin & Bottoms, 1976; Davies & Dale, 1995; Nichols, 1980), older German serial murderers appear to leave bodies closer to their home location than their younger counterparts.
...

For instance, some researchers have proposed that the home-to-crime distance will be larger for each successive victim in a series and claimed that this was due to serial murderers’ attempts to avoid recognition and apprehension (Godwin & Canter, 1997; Rossmo, 2000). In the current study, this proposition was not supported; there was no significant difference in home-to-crime distance between any of the first three victims.

Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling
J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 2: 147–164 (2005)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jip.35
http://www.mun.ca/psychology/brl/publications/Snook11.pdf

 

[Deleted member 117120]

IMO I think the 2 photos are taken from different angles and so the blue article cannot be seen from the second photo.. I was just wondering where the family is congregating in relation to the staining leading to the driveway.. I would think it would be gruesome to be sitting around in an area where your murdered loved ones were dragged to, and I find that curious, ie why not sit on the steps or the grass?

deugurtni, the staining is directly to the left of them if looking at the picture. Very close to them. I don't believe the light blue article is in the second picture and it did not come outside with JO after her walkthrough with LE. Just wondering if it is NO's toy why it would be on the ground? Someone suggested it was the light blue forensic booties but I disagree because those were in a brown paper bag on the front porch by screen door.

 

[otto]

This is the 10 mile radius from the Airdrie acreage. Helena was not in the water, she was near a waterway. Animals would be near the water, so leaving a body near water would be a good way to ensure that animals disturbed the remains. If the accused is responsible for Helena's murder, then the other victims will probably be found in the darker part of the map.

The yellow flag is the Airdrie acreage. The red dot is where Helena's remains were found.

 

[otto]

The victims are deceased. That is a fact. Nathan has not been yanked away from his family, given a new name, and a new family. If a five year old child is put in protective custody, he will still be with his family.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Again i am not saying this is set in stone. WP is just a theory like all the other theories because WE do not know the evidence either way. We just know LE has some. I also have theories with the murder of all three....i can swing both ways here. lol. I do not see how this is any more bizzare then DG cutting the bodies apart and dissolving them in acid and burning them into ash and i do not see people picking that theory apart. There is no evidence of them being dissolved and burned just like no evidence NO is alive. All they are is theories because we know little to nothing on this case. JMO

I hear 'ya ...lol. There's no point in trying to validate your thoughts and ideas, they're valid just because you have them. I'm with you, open to many possibilities in this case. We will just have to wait and see how this turns out. I think a lot of answers will be forthcoming once LE finds those bodies.

 

[Kimster]

Discuss the case and not each other.

 

[LoriMcA]

deugurtni, the staining is directly to the left of them if looking at the picture. Very close to them. I don't believe the light blue article is in the second picture and it did not come outside with JO after her walkthrough with LE. Just wondering if it is NO's toy why it would be on the ground? Someone suggested it was the light blue forensic booties but I disagree because those were in a brown paper bag on the front porch by screen door.

^^BBM

There was a picture which has been linked here on an earlier thread showing JO taking off her booties and placing them on the steps/in the brown bag....but her brother was coming out directly after her....I didn't see him take them off *he was wearing them in one picture as he came out the front door* They quite possibly could be his booties ...they look like that same light blue as JO's & the later 'group' picture where the family is sitting ...he doesn't have them on

 

[Lalalacasbah]

It looks like there are studies that concluded that no conclusions can be drawn regarding the location of serial murder victims and distance from murderer's home. It could be that if the accused did murder Helena, then the three victims are also about 10 miles from his home.

"The current results show that relatively more intelligent serial murderers travel farther from their homes to dispose of their victims’ bodies than those with lower IQ scores. This supports the notion suggested by the findings of Ressler et al. (1986) that intelligence is positively related to home-to-crime distance among serial murderers. Another significant finding from the current study concerned the relationship between spatial decisions and the modes of transportation employed during the commission of murders. As intuitively expected, it appears that serial murderers who use a car leave bodies farther from their home than those who walk and use public transportation. Contrary to previous research that found a positive relationship or no clear linear relationship between offender age and home-to-crime distance (e.g. Baldwin & Bottoms, 1976; Davies & Dale, 1995; Nichols, 1980), older German serial murderers appear to leave bodies closer to their home location than their younger counterparts.
...

For instance, some researchers have proposed that the home-to-crime distance will be larger for each successive victim in a series and claimed that this was due to serial murderers’ attempts to avoid recognition and apprehension (Godwin & Canter, 1997; Rossmo, 2000). In the current study, this proposition was not supported; there was no significant difference in home-to-crime distance between any of the first three victims.

Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling
J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 2: 147–164 (2005)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jip.35
http://www.mun.ca/psychology/brl/publications/Snook11.pdf

Very good and definitely interesting info otto! Thanks for the post.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

According to 'goodasgold`s Post #6..." In the W.P.P. LE can fake an amber alert or even death....."

Here is some additional information regarding Canada's F.W.P.P.

Q: Is relocation with a name change the only option available to witnesses requiring protection?

A: No. The FWPP is not an "all or nothing" program. The emergency provisions under Section 6(2) of the WPPA provide Witness Protection Coordinators the flexibility to provide a range of protective measures. When deemed appropriate, the use of immediate, short-term measures allow investigators and coordinators to respond quickly to potential threats. Emergency protective measures have been used in many cases where a witness either refuses protective measures or is deemed unsuitable for the FWPP.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/fwpp-pfpt/qa-qr-eng.htm

As far as DG suing is concerned, can he do that when he's in jail for 2 counts of 1st degree murder? I have no idea? IMO, if I were the one signing on the dotted line to put such measure in place to convict a suspect for a crime like this, I, nor I doubt my superiors would have a big problem with that. JMO

IMO, LE should be able to hide someone (modified WPP) and charge the suspect with their fake murder (perhaps the 3rd one wasn't actually a murder, but was presented as having died due to neglect, etc) in order to solve the known murders. Perhaps the suspect gets scared about being accused of the 3rd and confesses to the first 2? The suspect wouldn't be 'convicted' of the faked murder, so why can't LE use this tactic to get the suspect to say that 'he had nothing to do with the murder of the child", in order to get a confession out of him for the 2 adults. There are various questioning techniques in interrogations; why not different techniques to catch a killer? Charges can be dropped.

I would think if the crown knowingly pursued false charges in front of a judge, and followed through with hiding evidence from the defence that a victim is alive, that there would be serious consequences like disbarment, perjury charges, and a whole host of other things... the case would be thrown out, and would cast LE in a very bad light for the other 2 charges.

If I were the defence, I would then present to the court that since LE hid one victim, then what's to say they are not hiding the other 2? That would be all the reasonable doubt I would need to win, and every future case with missing bodies would never be successfully prosecuted. The O'Brien Defence would then be the precedent used in every case... LE uses the WPP to falsely charge people with their disappearance. It would be the biggest, most incredulous lapse in judgement... laws would be enacted for LE to never do that again, and anyone involved would lose their jobs, and probably end up in court, both criminal, and civil.

 

[Deleted member 117120]

^^BBM

There was a picture which has been linked here on an earlier thread showing JO taking off her booties and placing them on the steps/in the brown bag....but her brother was coming out directly after her....I didn't see him take them off *he was wearing them in one picture as he came out the front door* They quite possibly could be his booties ...they look like that same light blue as JO's & the later 'group' picture where the family is sitting ...he doesn't have them on

[/QUOTE]There was a picture which has been linked here on an earlier thread showing JO taking off her booties and placing them on the steps/in the brown bag....but her brother was coming out directly after her....I didn't see him take them off *he was wearing them in one picture as he came out the front door* They quite possibly could be his booties ...they look like that same light blue as JO's & the later 'group' picture where the family is sitting ...he doesn't have them on [/QUOTE]

Lori, I know the pics you are thinking of:
Below pics I can see that JL has the blue booties on standing behind JO. JO removes the blue booties. You can see the box of sterile purple gloves and the brown bag likely with the clean forensic booties on the front porch to be taken as you enter the home.

However below earlier:

In pictures below the light blue with a red trim object is no longer there and JO did not come out of the house with it. Was it something given to LE in the home? An object belonging to NO?

IMO, the sequence of events of these pictures. JO, RO, AL and JL as well as NL and one other female leaning at back of truck not in pics. They were waiting for LE to arrive. Appears JO and JL went into the home with LE. Does not appear at that time RO, AL and NL entered the home with LE. This item on the ground does not look in the enlarged view to be a bootie and would have no reason to be a bootie because they were on the front porch on entry and exit of home. It looks to me like a childs toy stuffie. It could be NO's clothing but not the dark blue clothing item JO was holding at the police conference.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/what-we-know-so-far-in-the-calgary-missing-person-case/article19554739/
http://qmiphotos.photoshelter.com/image/I0000ahxePztDuXg
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2014/07/07/21791771.html

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Again i am not saying this is set in stone. WP is just a theory like all the other theories because WE do not know the evidence either way. We just know LE has some. I also have theories with the murder of all three....i can swing both ways here. lol. I do not see how this is any more bizzare then DG cutting the bodies apart and dissolving them in acid and burning them into ash and i do not see people picking that theory apart. There is no evidence of them being dissolved and burned just like no evidence NO is alive. All they are is theories because we know little to nothing on this case. JMO

I have personally vultured those theories as well... no one gets a free pass here... lol... we've had the discussion about not taking the debate, questioning, and dissecting personally. Even if we are no longer coming up with new, factual material, I, for one, like that everyone presents their cases either pro or con, backed up by links, quotes and the reasoning to go with it. I think it's a great education for everyone involved in lively debate, internet sleuthing, logic, and reason.

If there were another case like this, I have every confidence that the group of regulars here that like the searching, would pick every bit of information off the internet, and share it for those who enjoy the deductive reasoning. Early on, this was the place to get the real story... everyone has only enhanced their skills, and educated themselves on LE and court protocols in the meantime... I think this sort of forum could be a powerful tool if planned and utilized correctly.

 

[Deleted member 117120]

For those WS who were wondering about the crime scene and location of family members to the scene is clear through these pics how close they were.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/police-once-again-search-home-of-missing-calgary-grandparents-1.1911064
http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Fortney+Neighbour+shocked+disappearances+five+year+grandparents+quiet+safe+street/10001950/story.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/01/amber-alert-issued-for-calgary-couple-and-their-grandson-5-who-all-mysteriously-vanished-after-an-estate-sale/

 

[Coldpizza]

We need links for pictures that are gleaned from MSM per copyright laws. TIA

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I think it is common for LE to ask for help from land owners to have a look around their properties, and in their wells, etc., since there are likely many properties with wells in the general area? I know in the Victoria Stafford case, they were asking the same thing. They aren't asking for people to look in the waterways because the people don't own the waterways, ie they aren't asking people to look outside of their properties on others' properties, or on public lands and waterways. It only makes sense that the bodies could be in the water somewhere, and I'm sure anyone finding bodies or parts of bodies would be sure to report such a finding to LE without LE having to ask. With bodies in water, unless they are somehow very well weighed down, there is always the likelihood of them showing up at some point somewhere.

Regarding LE having the public look (or not look) for bodies, I would think that would be very closely tied in with potential issues regarding contamination of evidence, and they already had swarms of police looking in the areas which they thought most likely. With public looking, wouldnt' they then have to worry about the possibility of not only contaminated evidence, but also planted evidence? ie the 'real perp' takes part in the search, and plants something to take them off of his own track? Imho, it would be too easy for defence to make claims of contamined evidence and have that evidence be dismissed and LE is going to risk none of that if they can at all help it.

Has anyone heard of a (public) search for bodies? I have heard of community searches for 'missing' people, people not yet confirmed dead.. but I do not recall hearing ever of a search for 'dead bodies or body parts'? Also, if the public were to search and then to find something, the details (and their various morphs and embellishments) would be broadcast widespread, and LE would not be able to control what information was released?

All MOO.

Good points... but I have to come back to the one piece of info that is detailed enough, and out of left field enough, to be considered a quote that LE might wish they could take back. If it were a concern over contamination, I don't think anyone would begrudge LE for telling searchers that they may contaminate the scene, please don't search. The quote we got was:

"Kevin Brookwell with Calgary police says he understands that people want to help, but questioned the usefulness of the search.

"These folks — God bless them — they've got hearts of gold, and they're giving of their time to come out and search but it's a bit of a blind search. They don't know what they're looking for," he said."

People are searching for bodies. How could they not know what they are looking for... unless... they are no longer recognizable. It's an odd quote, and the runup to the quip was a heartfelt, human being, not a carefully crafted LE release... to me it reads like an ooops moment after the emotional reaching out to connect with people on the runup.

They don't know what they are looking for, and LE can't release what they should be looking for... all we get is "anything unusual".

As to the contamination, I don't think it would matter if it was planted... they are prepared to follow through with the charges without any further evidence. If a body or part turned up, no matter how, it would be concrete proof of death. Compelling no matter how it is found.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/calgary/story/1.2708571

 

[Deleted member 117120]

We need links for pictures that are gleaned from MSM per copyright laws. TIA

Sorry, will add ...

 

[otto]

Regarding the witness protection program discussion, I believe that information that has been posted here may have resulted in confusion and misunderstanding. Specifically, a link to a proposed amendment to the program has been presented as though it was a passed law. Bill C 206 was never anything more than a private member's proposal. Private member's bill C 206 relates to a proposal in 1994 to amend some aspects of the witness protection program.

"The Witness Protection Program Act(1) was passed by Parliament in 1996. Although it was a government bill,(2) the initiative for the project began with a Private Member’s bill introduced by Mr. Tom Wappel in February 1994 as Bill C-206. That bill garnered all-party support, passed second reading in the House of Commons, and was referred for committee study. Meanwhile, when the government introduced a very similar bill of its own, Mr. Wappel withdrew his own bill. It is noteworthy that in the considerable amount of time allotted to debate on both bills, the entire focus of concern was on the protection of witnesses and sources."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliam...ies/bills_ls.asp?lang=F&ls=C494&Parl=36&Ses=1

The link that has been posted relates to Bill C 206: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2328439&Language=E&Mode=1&File=37

Specifically, this is not law, it comes from an abandoned proposal: "... (d) whether providing relocation and protection will interfere with the relationship between a child who will be relocated, and a parent who will not be relocated; and ...."

Fact: "Bill C-206 received strong support in the House of Commons. Although the government supported the bill’s objectives, it nevertheless believed that more comprehensive studies were needed to assess the cost and effectiveness of the proposed modifications. In 1995, Mr. Wappel did not proceed with the bill when the Solicitor General of Canada tabled similar legislation in the House of Commons. This was Bill C-78, the Witness Protection Program Act, which was adopted by Parliament in 1996, coming into force on 20 June of that year."

Bill C-78 was passed and it covers the witness protection program.

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2008/parl/XC76-392-1-1-01E.pdf

This is Bill C-78. It is clear that references to children relate to non-custodial parent financial responsibilities.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2328387&File=25&Mode=1&Language=E

 

[LoriMcA]

Lori, I know the pics you are thinking of:
Below pics I can see that JL has the blue booties on standing behind JO. JO removes the blue booties. You can see the box of sterile purple gloves and the brown bag likely with the clean forensic booties on the front porch to be taken as you enter the home.

However below earlier:

In pictures below the light blue with a red trim object is no longer there and JO did not come out of the house with it. Was it something given to LE in the home? An object belonging to NO?

IMO, the sequence of events of these pictures. JO, RO, AL and JL as well as NL and one other female leaning at back of truck not in pics. They were waiting for LE to arrive. Appears JO and JL went into the home with LE. Does not appear at that time RO, AL and NL entered the home with LE. This item on the ground does not look in the enlarged view to be a bootie and would have no reason to be a bootie because they were on the front porch on entry and exit of home. It looks to me like a childs toy stuffie. It could be NO's clothing but not the dark blue clothing item JO was holding at the police conference.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-calgary-missing-person-case/article19554739/
http://qmiphotos.photoshelter.com/image/I0000ahxePztDuXg
https://www.google.ca/search?q=likn...helter.com%2Fimage%2FI0000ahxePztDuXg;280;480

I guess it all depends on sequence...I was looking at it as JO & JL coming out of the house and the rest of the pictures followed after that. I don't think the group pictures were before LE got there as the paper bag and black container *cylindrical?* were already on the front porch in the group shots...so I assumed LE were already there. JMOO

 

[Deleted member 117120]

I guess it all depends on sequence...I was looking at it as JO & JL coming out of the house and the rest of the pictures followed after that. I don't think the group pictures were before LE got there as the paper bag and black container *cylindrical?* were already on the front porch in the group shots...so I assumed LE were already there. JMOO

Agreed Lori, I should have worded it to say the family were waiting to enter the home with LE who were obvious on scene already. I was wondering what the blue and red item was on the ground. Cant imagine little N toy on the ground or a piece of clothing but I believe that is what that is. Because this was the following day IIRC that the family was reported missing, I think because there were possibly no items of NO in the home the LE wanted something for scent and tracking purposes if they were to go door to door et al.

 

[news.talk]

Regarding the witness protection program discussion, I believe that information that has been posted here may have resulted in confusion and misunderstanding. Specifically, a link to a proposed amendment to the program has been presented as though it was a passed law. Bill C 206 was never anything more than a private member's proposal. Private member's bill C 206 relates to a proposal in 1994 to amend some aspects of the witness protection program.

"The Witness Protection Program Act(1) was passed by Parliament in 1996. Although it was a government bill,(2) the initiative for the project began with a Private Member’s bill introduced by Mr. Tom Wappel in February 1994 as Bill C-206. That bill garnered all-party support, passed second reading in the House of Commons, and was referred for committee study. Meanwhile, when the government introduced a very similar bill of its own, Mr. Wappel withdrew his own bill. It is noteworthy that in the considerable amount of time allotted to debate on both bills, the entire focus of concern was on the protection of witnesses and sources."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliam...ies/bills_ls.asp?lang=F&ls=C494&Parl=36&Ses=1

The link that has been posted relates to Bill C 206: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2328439&Language=E&Mode=1&File=37

Specifically, this is not law, it comes from an abandoned proposal: "... (d) whether providing relocation and protection will interfere with the relationship between a child who will be relocated, and a parent who will not be relocated; and ...."

Fact: "Bill C-206 received strong support in the House of Commons. Although the government supported the bill’s objectives, it nevertheless believed that more comprehensive studies were needed to assess the cost and effectiveness of the proposed modifications. In 1995, Mr. Wappel did not proceed with the bill when the Solicitor General of Canada tabled similar legislation in the House of Commons. This was Bill C-78, the Witness Protection Program Act, which was adopted by Parliament in 1996, coming into force on 20 June of that year."

Bill C-78 was passed and it covers the witness protection program.

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2008/parl/XC76-392-1-1-01E.pdf

This is Bill C-78. It is clear that references to children relate to non-custodial parent financial responsibilities.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2328387&File=25&Mode=1&Language=E

Thank you for the clarification. Bills and initiatives can be difficult to decipher, especially when there is competing legislation.

In layman's terms, currently all minors involved with the WPP, remain in their custodial parents care.