Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #15

[Hez]

You say "it's been odd since day one" - what do you mean by odd?

I for one feel glad we have LE with the integrity and correct focus on the pursuit of justice, the rights of the the victims, their families, the accused, his family, and the public. What would you gain by hearing "discovery materials have been handed over to the defence" or that "DG is/is not on suicide watch"?

I don't think it's unusual that "absolutely everything is being kept quiet" but I do think LE is doing an admirable job upholding high standards for discretion. It is important that LE has policies and standards in place not just for this case but for every case. You may believe that info would not hurt the integrity of the case, but you may not know the lengths defence counsel can go to in defending their client, or representing him for any perceived violation of his right to a fair trial.

Is it possible that, despite being Canadian, you're more accustomed to hearing every detail rehashed in the US media? I think in general, Canadian cases do not reveal a lot of details. I for one can wait until LE deems the time appropriate to make these details known to the public. They have an incredible responsibility and I trust them.

IMHO

Excellent post! I am Canadian but I followed the Caylee Anthony case from the start. It was sickening watching her defence team broadcast their lies and spin, trying the case in the media (all while accusing the prosecution of doing the same, which was another lie). All it takes is an unscrupulous defence attorney and Sunshine Laws, and you've got a media circus on your hands. I am thankful that is not the case here. It is quite refreshing for a change. :moo:

 

[Hez]

I don't expect either side to call a press conference either, nor do I expect them to mar the integrity of the case, neither of which were suggested in my comment. Given the high profile nature of this case, and the public's genuine interest and concern (as demonstrated by public outpouring, numerous Trust Fund set up's, etc.) the sharing of general information is not, IMO, too much to ask. General information of other cases is shared with the public, ie: Matthew DeGrood's mental state before the murders of the 5 teens, as well as regular updates on his mental state now, and his whereabouts.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1465574/accused-in-calgarys-worst-mass-murder-expected-to-enter-plea/
http://www.citynews.ca/2014/04/17/c...-health-messages-sent-by-mass-murder-suspect/

Preconceived notions of innocence or guilt? IMO, we're long past that point. Police Chief Rick Hanson has said that there are no other suspects in this case. LE is not looking at any other avenues at this point in time, as far as I am aware. DG has been charged with 3 murders based on circumstantial evidence. It appears to be pretty clear that LE are looking at one person and one person only as being the party responsible...so that has become a moot point. This trial will come down to admissible evidence and guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence collected.

http://www.citynews.ca/2014/04/17/c...l-health-messages-sent-by-mass-murder-suspect

This case has been on everyone's hearts and minds since June 30th, its normal human nature to know a little of what's going on. For most, life is not black-and-white.

There is most likely direct evidence too, but the public isn't privy to that information at this stage in the investigation, as it should be.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

You say "it's been odd since day one" - what do you mean by odd?

I for one feel glad we have LE with the integrity and correct focus on the pursuit of justice, the rights of the the victims, their families, the accused, his family, and the public. What would you gain by hearing "discovery materials have been handed over to the defence" or that "DG is/is not on suicide watch"?

I don't think it's unusual that "absolutely everything is being kept quiet" but I do think LE is doing an admirable job upholding high standards for discretion. It is important that LE has policies and standards in place not just for this case but for every case. You may believe that info would not hurt the integrity of the case, but you may not know the lengths defence counsel can go to in defending their client, or representing him for any perceived violation of his right to a fair trial.

Is it possible that, despite being Canadian, you're more accustomed to hearing every detail rehashed in the US media? I think in general, Canadian cases do not reveal a lot of details. I for one can wait until LE deems the time appropriate to make these details known to the public. They have an incredible responsibility and I trust them.

IMHO

"Odd" meaning there are so many twists and turns in the case. The family relationships, the business, relationships, the petty criminal past of DG, the oddness of his personality, the many closed down businesses by the Liknes brothers, etc. Just a lot of extra stuff going on.

I wouldn't gain anything by hearing that, it's just simple information. As mentioned, in my post to OutofTheDarkness, people have been following this case very closely, they have prayed, donated to Trust Funds, offered all kinds of support, etc., most of us are not black-and-white, there are feelings and emotions involved...what is wrong with keeping people in the loop with information that is harmless to the trial. Perhaps there are some that would consider it useless information, but some may not. I absolutely uphold the correct pursuit of justice...for the victims, the families, the accused, his family and the public.

Again, as mentioned, there is far more information about the Matthew DeGrood case being publicized, trivial it may be, but its not a big secret.

http://www.citynews.ca/2014/04/17/c...-health-messages-sent-by-mass-murder-suspect/
http://www.citynews.ca/2014/04/17/c...-health-messages-sent-by-mass-murder-suspect/

No, I'm sorry, it is not possible that despite being Canadian, I am accustomed to hearing every detail rehashed in the US media. I don't watch television. I don't read the paper. I do however get local news updates online everyday.

The only 'real' thing we know about DG is that: it's apparently his green truck and he's on suicide watch and he has a list of petty crimes from the distant past.
We don't know if he's really sick right now, we don't know for sure if that was his green truck for sure, we don't really know anything for sure. Yet, we know for sure he's the one they have all the evidence against and has largely been displayed as 'guilty' before his trial.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

There is most likely direct evidence too, but the public isn't privy to that information at this stage in the investigation, as it should be.

I'm sure there is direct evidence, and I agree, that should be kept private until the trial. That is not what I was speaking to.

 

[Slebby]

@tinkerbel1 - respectfully I don't think it's possible to compare the DeGroot case to this one. They are so very different. As Calgarians, we basically woke up to the news of the murders, that MDG had done it, and that his father, a prominent figure in the Calgary Police Service and his mother were offering condolences and regrets to the families of the victims. There was no question MGD was the killer. I suspect that much of that case is going to come down to how criminally responsible he was when committing those murders.

It is less obvious right now whether DG is the killer or not. I believe it will be proven that he is guilty, but we do not have the information to know for sure. It seems there are no bodies, as far as we know. According the Chief Hansen, the case has been built, brick by brick, so to speak. It sounds like a provable case, but in the interest of justice, I am glad those "bricks" are not being revealed to us just yet. I'd hate to see information out there prematurely, possibly tainting the public perception, or tainting a jury pool, or prejudicing anyone to the point that a good defence lawyer could claim that DG had been tried in the media, or that private information had been publicized, and so on.

Whatever we think of DG, the whole world does not have the right to be privy to his mental health state, including any suicidal thoughts. I do believe he has a right to privacy in that regard.

IMHO

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I don't expect either side to call a press conference either, nor do I expect them to mar the integrity of the case, neither of which were suggested in my comment. Given the high profile nature of this case, and the public's genuine interest and concern (as demonstrated by public outpouring, numerous Trust Fund set up's, etc.) the sharing of general information is not, IMO, too much to ask. General information of other cases is shared with the public, ie: Matthew DeGrood's mental state before the murders of the 5 teens, as well as regular updates on his mental state now, and his whereabouts.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1465574/accused-in-calgarys-worst-mass-murder-expected-to-enter-plea/
http://www.citynews.ca/2014/04/17/c...-health-messages-sent-by-mass-murder-suspect/

Preconceived notions of innocence or guilt? IMO, we're long past that point. Police Chief Rick Hanson has said that there are no other suspects in this case. LE is not looking at any other avenues at this point in time, as far as I am aware. DG has been charged with 3 murders based on circumstantial evidence. It appears to be pretty clear that LE are looking at one person and one person only as being the party responsible...so that has become a moot point. This trial will come down to admissible evidence and guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence collected.

http://www.citynews.ca/2014/04/17/c...l-health-messages-sent-by-mass-murder-suspect

This case has been on everyone's hearts and minds since June 30th, its normal human nature to know a little of what's going on. For most, life is not black-and-white.

In order for you to find out about it, however, someone in MSM would have to take the time to investigate, make calls, confirm that information, and then write the story. "CROWN TURNS OVER EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENCE: SOP AS ALWAYS"... and then chances are no editor is going to put that anywhere in print or a website unless it is the slowest news day ever.

LE confirmed they have no other suspects. Yes. That is in the public interest. It does not speak to the evidence, the guilt or innocence of the suspect, or violate his privacy. It also does not garner the suspect any sympathy from potential jurors if people repeatedly hear he's depressed or suicidal.

There are many different and unpredictable directions things can go in by releasing the wrong information, at the wrong time. Again, someone in LE would then have to write up the story, have it reviewed by Crown, make any revisions necessary and then either find someone in MSM that cares, or use their own internal online notifications to release some information to simply satisfy a curiosity of a selective few. In 2 weeks, it is all moot and what takes place in the courtroom is the relevant information.

To me, it seems like a whole lot of work for nothing, by people who could and should be doing more important things with their time, like making people aware of the wonderful children's hospice in Calgary.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

@tinkerbel1 - respectfully I don't think it's possible to compare the DeGroot case to this one. They are so very different. As Calgarians, we basically woke up to the news of the murders, that MDG had done it, and that his father, a prominent figure in the Calgary Police Service and his mother were offering condolences and regrets to the families of the victims. There was no question MGD was the killer. I suspect that much of that case is going to come down to how criminally responsible he was when committing those murders.

It is less obvious right now whether DG is the killer or not. I believe it will be proven that he is guilty, but we do not have the information to know for sure. It seems there are no bodies, as far as we know. According the Chief Hansen, the case has been built, brick by brick, so to speak. It sounds like a provable case, but in the interest of justice, I am glad those "bricks" are not being revealed to us just yet. I'd hate to see information out there prematurely, possibly tainting the public perception, or tainting a jury pool, or prejudicing anyone to the point that a good defence lawyer could claim that DG had been tried in the media, or that private information had been publicized, and so on.

Whatever we think of DG, the whole world does not have the right to be privy to his mental health state, including any suicidal thoughts. I do believe he has a right to privacy in that regard.

IMHO

I appreciate your statements about "it being less obvious that DG is the killer or not...." I sometimes feel that the lack of 'general' information presented may in fact make him look more guilty to the public than perhaps should be happening at this point for an unbiased perception of DG by the public, as well as the procuring of an untainted jury. As you have mentioned, this should all be disclosed in the trial as the evidence they have. (For instance, here's a general statement made about DeGroot that I don't think would be damaging to DG's trial if shared: It was mentioned on Global Edmonton the other day..sorry, can't remember which day...that DeGroot's parents are making the trip to and from Edmonton while their son undergoes assessment in the Edmonton Psychiatric Centre...I don't think that hearing that DG is not on suicide watch any longer is invasive...some people care about all people period and may be relieved to know that his mental state has settled out...maybe people would just like to know if his parents are supportive of him or not...general questions that are quite commonplace in situations...I don't believe they'll hurt the trial.)

Anyway, to each his own, IMO. I am interested in facets of this case from an altruistic sense. I am interested in knowing how DG is doing as a human being, despite whatever path he's gone down. I'm interested in knowing if his parents are being supported and if they're doing okay under the circumstances, I'm interested in knowing that his sister is holding her life together in the difficult position she is in and how the kids are doing. I'm also extremely interested in seeing that this be tried fairly and prosecute accordingly.

I have a concern about the receipt of disclosure documents purely out of interests sake, to answer a niggling question I've been having about this case.

And yes, you are right MDG's case is very different, but heartbreaking as well.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

In order for you to find out about it, however, someone in MSM would have to take the time to investigate, make calls, confirm that information, and then write the story. "CROWN TURNS OVER EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENCE: SOP AS ALWAYS"... and then chances are no editor is going to put that anywhere in print or a website unless it is the slowest news day ever.

LE confirmed they have no other suspects. Yes. That is in the public interest. It does not speak to the evidence, the guilt or innocence of the suspect, or violate his privacy. It also does not garner the suspect any sympathy from potential jurors if people repeatedly hear he's depressed or suicidal.

There are many different and unpredictable directions things can go in by releasing the wrong information, at the wrong time. Again, someone in LE would then have to write up the story, have it reviewed by Crown, make any revisions necessary and then either find someone in MSM that cares, or use their own internal online notifications to release some information to simply satisfy a curiosity of a selective few. In 2 weeks, it is all moot and what takes place in the courtroom is the relevant information.

To me, it seems like a whole lot of work for nothing, by people who could and should be doing more important thongs with their time, like making people aware of the wonderful children's hospice in Calgary.

Respectfully, this thread is not about the wonderful children's hospice in Calgary, it is about the Liknes/O'Brien murders. Although I do think the hospice is very important and yes, extremely wonderful.
No offense to news reporters out there, but there are various reports being done on dog shows, the world's largest pumpkin and the world's biggest perogy in Glendon... surely one MSM journalist could be spared to report on a detail of this horrific crime?

Just keeping it in perspective.

 

[news.talk]

In order for you to find out about it, however, someone in MSM would have to take the time to investigate, make calls, confirm that information, and then write the story. "CROWN TURNS OVER EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENCE: SOP AS ALWAYS"... and then chances are no editor is going to put that anywhere in print or a website unless it is the slowest news day ever.

LE confirmed they have no other suspects. Yes. That is in the public interest. It does not speak to the evidence, the guilt or innocence of the suspect, or violate his privacy. It also does not garner the suspect any sympathy from potential jurors if people repeatedly hear he's depressed or suicidal.

There are many different and unpredictable directions things can go in by releasing the wrong information, at the wrong time. Again, someone in LE would then have to write up the story, have it reviewed by Crown, make any revisions necessary and then either find someone in MSM that cares, or use their own internal online notifications to release some information to simply satisfy a curiosity of a selective few. In 2 weeks, it is all moot and what takes place in the courtroom is the relevant information.

To me, it seems like a whole lot of work for nothing, by people who could and should be doing more important thongs with their time, like making people aware of the wonderful children's hospice in Calgary.

Exactly - Reporters report NEWS and I am sorry to say, but the pushing paper phase of a case is not news.

 

[news.talk]

I appreciate your statements about "it being less obvious that DG is the killer or not...." I sometimes feel that the lack of 'general' information presented may in fact make him look more guilty to the public than perhaps should be happening at this point for an unbiased perception of DG by the public, as well as the procuring of an untainted jury. As you have mentioned, this should all be disclosed in the trial as the evidence they have. (For instance, here's a general statement made about DeGroot that I don't think would be damaging to DG's trial if shared: It was mentioned on Global Edmonton the other day..sorry, can't remember which day...that DeGroot's parents are making the trip to and from Edmonton while their son undergoes assessment in the Edmonton Psychiatric Centre...I don't think that hearing that DG is not on suicide watch any longer is invasive...some people care about all people period and may be relieved to know that his mental state has settled out...maybe people would just like to know if his parents are supportive of him or not...general questions that are quite commonplace in situations...I don't believe they'll hurt the trial.)

Anyway, to each his own, IMO. I am interested in facets of this case from an altruistic sense. I am interested in knowing how DG is doing as a human being, despite whatever path he's gone down. I'm interested in knowing if his parents are being supported and if they're doing okay under the circumstances, I'm interested in knowing that his sister is holding her life together in the difficult position she is in and how the kids are doing. I'm also extremely interested in seeing that this be tried fairly and prosecute accordingly.

I have a concern about the receipt of disclosure documents purely out of interests sake, to answer a niggling question I've been having about this case.

And yes, you are right MDG's case is very different, but heartbreaking as well.

Families are asked not to discuss anything related to the case with the media. For the most part, the media respects that. Unless there is a major development, it usually is not reported.

There is also the belief that the general public do not want more 'publicity' for a murderer. Many feel that is giving these types of criminals celebrity status.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Families are asked not to discuss anything related to the case with the media. For the most part, the media respects that. Unless there is a major development, it usually is not reported.

There is also the belief that the general public do not want more 'publicity' for a murderer. Many feel that is giving these types of criminals celebrity status.

Oh, I thought that there was no information being disclosed to protect the integrity of the case, the victims, the families, the accused and the accused's family, and as OutofTheDarkness stated earlier..." Many reasons for which I don't have time to go into detail about, but it goes to potential jurors and the preconceived notions of innocence or guilt, evidence admissibility, future lawsuits like the libel suit for the missing RV couple because LE allegedly implied guilt... and so on"

So now it's about not giving a "murderer" celebrity status? He is accused. He has not been proven guilty yet. Let's make up our minds here. Do we want a fair trial, or don't we? I know I would sure like to see that.

 

[Slebby]

Oh, I thought that there was no information being disclosed to protect the integrity of the case, the victims, the families, the accused and the accused's family, and as OutofTheDarkness stated earlier..." Many reasons for which I don't have time to go into detail about, but it goes to potential jurors and the preconceived notions of innocence or guilt, evidence admissibility, future lawsuits like the libel suit for the missing RV couple because LE allegedly implied guilt... and so on"

So now it's about not giving a "murderer" celebrity status? He is accused. He has not been proven guilty yet. Let's make up our minds here. Do we want a fair trial, or don't we? I know I would sure like to see that.

Does there have to be only one reason not to publicize details prematurely??

IMO there are multiple very good reasons not to disclose more info than necessary. Including "all of the above"...IMHO

 

[news.talk]

Oh, I thought that there was no information being disclosed to protect the integrity of the case, the victims, the families, the accused and the accused's family, and as OutofTheDarkness stated earlier..." Many reasons for which I don't have time to go into detail about, but it goes to potential jurors and the preconceived notions of innocence or guilt, evidence admissibility, future lawsuits like the libel suit for the missing RV couple because LE allegedly implied guilt... and so on"

So now it's about not giving a "murderer" celebrity status? He is accused. He has not been proven guilty yet. Let's make up our minds here. Do we want a fair trial, or don't we? I know I would sure like to see that.

You asked why we dont report on his mental status and how his family is doing. Frankly, no one cares. There are many people that feel that talking about mass murderers gives them attention that can insight others seeking such attention, reason to commit similar acts.

As far as details of the case, that is to protect the integrity of the case and rights of the accused, as has been stated multiple times.

 

[ABro]

Also, the Defense is free to talk to the press at any time. Kim Ross can complain about lack of disclosure or the treatment his client is receiving to his heart's content -- if that's what he wants to do. Nothing stops him. He can even waive the publication ban if he wants.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Oh, I thought that there was no information being disclosed to protect the integrity of the case, the victims, the families, the accused and the accused's family, and as OutofTheDarkness stated earlier..." Many reasons for which I don't have time to go into detail about, but it goes to potential jurors and the preconceived notions of innocence or guilt, evidence admissibility, future lawsuits like the libel suit for the missing RV couple because LE allegedly implied guilt... and so on"

So now it's about not giving a "murderer" celebrity status? He is accused. He has not been proven guilty yet. Let's make up our minds here. Do we want a fair trial, or don't we? I know I would sure like to see that.

That's the "and so on" part.

I covered the legalities, and news.talk covered the media angles... with the number of people, time, effort and decisions involved, it should be very apparent why no one risks releasing information, and not many people are asking for more information at this point.

I can also speak on the family angle, where you don't necessarily want your, or your loved one's personal medical information spread through MSM.

With no compelling reason to release anything, then why do it? All risk, no gain for all sides.

 

[Krystine]

What does that mean? Is there a connection between the friend of Kathryn and that link?

It means that there are many other very worthy causes people can contribute to.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Respectfully, this thread is not about the wonderful children's hospice in Calgary, it is about the Liknes/O'Brien murders. Although I do think the hospice is very important and yes, extremely wonderful.
No offense to news reporters out there, but there are various reports being done on dog shows, the world's largest pumpkin and the world's biggest perogy in Glendon... surely one MSM journalist could be spared to report on a detail of this horrific crime?

Just keeping it in perspective.

Just for the record, that's what I was doing... putting things in perspective. Right now, at the hospice, some wonderful caring parents are watching their child die, through no fault of their own, and just as out of blue and as senseless as any murder.

I should mention I have no affiliation to the hospice whatsoever... my sympathies and care for others simply extends beyond the headlines and attention seekers.

Someone didn't want to open the funding "can of worms" again, and I was simply agreeing... in my usual ham handed manner.

 

[otto]

So tell me, how can knowing if the disclosure documents being sent or received affect the integrity of the case? Its simple info. No one is asking to disclose anything publicly of those documents, just whether they've been received. Sorry, I don't really think anything is "safe to assume" with this case. Its been odd since day one.
As well, how does knowing if DG remains on suicide watch affect the integrity of the case? Or where LE are searching for that matter...they've always told us before? IMO, none of these questions affect the integrity of the case...LE has disclosed absolutely nothing...they have their guy...so surely info re: paperwork definitely being sent isn't going to tip off anyone to anything...nor is disclosure that perhaps forensic evidence was found in the green truck going to tip anyone off to anything. As I said, they have their guy. A little unusual that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING is being kept quiet...from who? It should only further prove their case...they have nothing to lose...sounds pretty airtight. Doesn't it?

The defence lawyer is welcome to hold a press conference and announce that he has received documents justifying the charges, that his client is or is not suicidal, what evidence has been received ... no one is stopping the defence lawyer from doing that ... except his client. In fact, if the defence lawyer did that, he'd be out of a job before he stepped down. The prosecution has no right to reveal personal information about the accused. He's presumed innocent, so no one but the accused has the right to know about the case against him.

Is there any information that the public needs to know at this time?

 

[news.talk]

The defence lawyer is welcome to hold a press conference and announce that he has received documents justifying the charges, that his client is or is not suicidal, what evidence has been received ... no one is stopping the defence lawyer from doing that ... except his client. In fact, if the defence lawyer did that, he'd be out of a job before he stepped down. The prosecution has no right to reveal personal information about the accused. He's presumed innocent, so no one but the accused has the right to know about the case against him.

Is there any information that the public needs to know at this time?

Nope and no one's asking. The general consensus from the public is that they don't *want* to know how the suspect is doing. We do not generally report on things that the public has no interest in.

 

[otto]

Families are asked not to discuss anything related to the case with the media. For the most part, the media respects that. Unless there is a major development, it usually is not reported.

There is also the belief that the general public do not want more 'publicity' for a murderer. Many feel that is giving these types of criminals celebrity status.

There are also some rather strict rules governing what the media can publish between the time of arrest and the time of trial.