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

[otto]

The Calgary snow; a summer blizzard, is good. It will preserve the remains for a few days longer. There's still a slim hope that something can be learned from the bodies if they are found soon, or if there is continued cold weather.

 

[Cherchri]

The Calgary snow; a summer blizzard, is good. It will preserve the remains for a few days longer. There's still a slim hope that something can be learned from the bodies if they are found soon, or if there is continued cold weather.

Our crab apple tree looks exactly like this. I was admiring it in bright sunshine yesterday

 

[Leeman68]

The Calgary snow; a summer blizzard, is good. It will preserve the remains for a few days longer. There's still a slim hope that something can be learned from the bodies if they are found soon, or if there is continued cold weather.

A summer blizzard ???? It's September.

 

[Sillybilly]

A summer blizzard ???? It's September.

Autumnal equinox isn't until September 22, so it's still supposed to be summer .. even in Calgary :biggrin:

 

[deugirtni]

Nevermind, posted in error.

 

[deugirtni]

Wow, beautiful

The Calgary snow; a summer blizzard, is good. It will preserve the remains for a few days longer. There's still a slim hope that something can be learned from the bodies if they are found soon, or if there is continued cold weather.

 

[otto]

Well, what do you know, they finally posted an article letting us know about the body found at Fish Creek on Labour Day. Okay wait, nevermind! This is a different body! Man, Fish Creek Park must be a popular place! This is weird though because it says her body was found on Labour Day (September 1st), but LE is asking anyone who may have seen her between August 24th and September 7th, to contact them.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/police-id-body-found-in-fish-creek-park-1.432821

The article is also from 2009. When someone is pulled out of the river, and there isn't much follow up, there are two possibilities: accident, and suicide. In many cases, especially suicide, the family does not want the information released.

 

[otto]

Trees are bent over with the tops of 20 foot trees touching the ground from the weight of the snow. 10cm of snow is predicted for Tuesday evening ... another summer storm ... hopefully this will flatten every field surrounding Airdrie, making it easier to locate remains. Hopefully people in the area will check their fields next weekend, when temperatures will be back to 20C.

 

[deugirtni]

I think it is rather unfair to comment so negatively in response to Tinkerbel1's query regarding the delivery of disclosure to the defence. Afterall, the last we heard, the point *was* made over and over that the 'voluminous' disclosure had NOT yet been handed over at the time of DG's last court appearance. I am another who would have liked to have known when this was actually completed, even though it was 'expected' to happen within a couple of days of his last appearance. And I also agree that the way some of the things have been going and reported on and presented in this case have portrayed DG in a 'guilty' light.

Does nobody believe that this statement appears to shed a negative light? This was stated back on August 14th in the Calgary Herald? It makes it sound like there is just SOOO much evidence that LE couldn't POSSIBLY be expected to get it to the accused, as is his right, in time for his court date (BBM):

Crown prosecutor Shane Parker said outside court after Garland’s brief appearance from Calgary Remand Centre that he should have disclosure of the police investigation, which is “voluminous,” turned over to defence by early next week.

At that time, people were picking at the fact that DG was 'anxious' to see the disclosure, some believing that being anxious to see it equated with 'guilt'. The disclosure was expected to be transferred within a week of that August 14th date:

Ross said he and Garland, with whom he spoke to briefly on Thursday, are anxious to receive disclosure of the Crown’s case and review the material.

“Hopefully, we’ll get that next week and we’ll move forward. I’ll review it and then we’ll go through it together.”

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Garland+brief+court+appearance+hunt+trio+continues/10119082/story.html

Back in mid July, they had this to say (BBM), and meanwhile the accused had already been seen worldwide on TV during his 'perp walk', so the public has had that image of him in their minds, along with statements from LE alluding to 'voluminous disclosure', and meanwhile, the accused and his counsel have not yet seen any evidence:

Crown prosecutor Shane Parker said searches for the victims and organizing disclosure will continue, but not much will happen in the court proceedings until it is back on Aug. 14.

"We're waiting for disclosure from the Calgary Police Service. It normally takes about 30 days on a major crime for them to be able to get it together. It's a little more challenging in this case because of the speed of the investigation and really how it's been transitioning through the course of the past two weeks," Parker said outside court.

"It's been co-ordinating both a homicide investigation and missing persons' investigation. Really, we've taken what would normally be a missing person investigation and a very large-scale investigation and tried to condense it down to a two-week period.'

Parker said police feel they can get significant disclosure, but not all of it, out in time for the next court appearance.

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/latest/story.html?id=10035082

Of course, they ended up NOT having that job done by DG's August court date, and so did it even happen yet? I, for two, would also like to know that the accused has been provided with alllllllll of this evidence they have. I don't think that is too much to ask or to report on, or to give the newspaper space up to.. a simple one-liner. While our country is the best in regard to fair trials, it would be nice if our people understood 'innocent until proven guilty'. Seeing as how the uninteresting paper pushing actually means getting the apparent huge amount of evidence in front of the accused and his counsel, I can't understand why people would not be interested to know that it had in fact been delivered, and therefore find it worthy as a one-liner news item. MOO.

 

[deugirtni]

Gotta love the dates. Has anyone else ever noticed while searching for information on the net, we would come upon all kinds of info, but the post/news article would very often not even have a date? I have found recently that that has begun to change and I am finding dates on articles wayyyyy more often than I used to. I guess I should delete that post, I feel really st*pid for not noticing a 5 year old date!!! I keep looking every day, hoping that LE would have the courtesy to report that the incident was nothing to be concerned about, and move along now.. I know many of you disagree, but that is my hope.

The article is also from 2009. When someone is pulled out of the river, and there isn't much follow up, there are two possibilities: accident, and suicide. In many cases, especially suicide, the family does not want the information released.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

[modsnip] I like to think that the people of Canada are a little more refined than what has been suggested here. Not everyone is a hater. There are even those victims that find it in their hearts to forgive their transgressors. I'm quite frankly appalled by some of the remarks made about another human being that has yet to have his day in court. Yet these are the same people that will dig in their wallets to donate to a "good" cause. I would think that its in humanities best interest to give where its hard to give, show kindness and compassion where it's hard to show it. It takes zero courage to be part of a group that judges and condemns en masse and to stand behind so called 'credentials' and 'professionalism' to make vile comments of sheer hatred towards another human being. [modsnip]

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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

I'm sorry, there is NO good reason not to publish non- incriminating, harmless information, IMO. If we can hear how MDG is fairing, there is absolutely no reason that DG and his family should be made a different example of by the media. None. I'm no less interested in one than the other. One is no more worthy of it than the other. Unless there is a publication ban on this information...there's no viable reason the public shouldn't expect it. And there is no good reason for one to be withheld and not the other. If the rules are the rules...then they are the rules for both. Enough said.

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.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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.

I am sorry news.talk, but I do care. And, I am sure there are others that do as well. Please allow me my opinion, as well as others. Thank you.

 

[Slebby]

I think it is rather unfair to comment so negatively in response to Tinkerbel1's query regarding the delivery of disclosure to the defence. Afterall, the last we heard, the point *was* made over and over that the 'voluminous' disclosure had NOT yet been handed over at the time of DG's last court appearance. I am another who would have liked to have known when this was actually completed, even though it was 'expected' to happen within a couple of days of his last appearance. And I also agree that the way some of the things have been going and reported on and presented in this case have portrayed DG in a 'guilty' light.

Does nobody believe that this statement appears to shed a negative light? This was stated back on August 14th in the Calgary Herald? It makes it sound like there is just SOOO much evidence that LE couldn't POSSIBLY be expected to get it to the accused, as is his right, in time for his court date (BBM):

At that time, people were picking at the fact that DG was 'anxious' to see the disclosure, some believing that being anxious to see it equated with 'guilt'. The disclosure was expected to be transferred within a week of that August 14th date:


http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Garland+brief+court+appearance+hunt+trio+continues/10119082/story.html

Back in mid July, they had this to say (BBM), and meanwhile the accused had already been seen worldwide on TV during his 'perp walk', so the public has had that image of him in their minds, along with statements from LE alluding to 'voluminous disclosure', and meanwhile, the accused and his counsel have not yet seen any evidence:

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/latest/story.html?id=10035082

Of course, they ended up NOT having that job done by DG's August court date, and so did it even happen yet? I, for two, would also like to know that the accused has been provided with alllllllll of this evidence they have. I don't think that is too much to ask or to report on, or to give the newspaper space up to.. a simple one-liner. While our country is the best in regard to fair trials, it would be nice if our people understood 'innocent until proven guilty'. Seeing as how the uninteresting paper pushing actually means getting the apparent huge amount of evidence in front of the accused and his counsel, I can't understand why people would not be interested to know that it had in fact been delivered, and therefore find it worthy as a one-liner news item. MOO.

Thank you for this comment. Some of this comes down to opinion, which is why I always add "IMHO" to my posts, lol :innocent:

I had a different take on some of what you quoted. In referring to "voluminous" discovery material, I didn't take that to mean "so much evidence you might as well conclude the guy is guilty". Instead, I took it within the totality of the information that has been reported. Im thinking specifically of Chief Hansen's description of building the case "piece by piece". It sounds like a very circumstantial case, which, imo, means there would have to be a lot of "pieces" which would mean "voluminous pieces". If the victims had been shot, and the gun was found on the accused, that would not yield voluminous evidence to hand over. But in a case such as this that may have been built on a lot of lab work - that will create a ton of paperwork, voluminous evidence. So again, for me, that does not equate with making it look obvious that DG is guilty. On the other hand, if LE had said the case was "a slam dunk" or "an open and shut case", that, imo would be the kind of statement that would unfairly imply guilt.

I think that, no matter how tight-lipped LE is about the evidence, the public cannot help but assign a certain belief in the guilt of the accused, because he has, after all, been charged with murder. People do not get arrested and charged without *something* pointing to them as the perpetrator. I can keep an open mind until we see the evidence, I can adopt a "wait and see" attitude until the evidence comes out. But I also know that there is *some* probability that DG did it, and that, when it comes before the court, it may very well be proven by the evidence.

Re the "Perp Walk" - if we call it a "Perp Walk", it certainly casts the motives of LE in a bad light, versus "the transfer of the accused to an arrest processing unit", which it was. Chief Hansen addressed the matter.
http://www.newstalk770.com/2014/07/23/35834/
"Hanson says TV crews will stake out what he calls the “archaeic” arrest processing unit, which doesn’t have a gate or a guard.
And that won’t change until they get a new facility or until the courts deem that privacy needs to be taken into consideration to the point faces need to be covered.
Hanson also says people have taken particular aim at police, but TV cameras also capture suspects walking into court and yet there doesn’t seem to be an issue."

As someone else mentioned yesterday, if there has been any failure to provide disclosure in a timely manner, DG's lawyer can share that information publicly. The fact that there has been no report of KR petitioning the court over a failure to provide discovery in a timely manner indicates to me that he hasn't had any issue with the timing of the disclosure.

imho

 

[Slebby]

I'm sorry, there is NO good reason not to publish non- incriminating, harmless information, IMO. If we can hear how MDG is fairing, there is absolutely no reason that DG and his family should be made a different example of by the media. None. I'm no less interested in one than the other. One is no more worthy of it than the other. Unless there is a publication ban on this information...there's no viable reason the public shouldn't expect it. And there is no good reason for one to be withheld and not the other. If the rules are the rules...then they are the rules for both. Enough said.

I will say again, the two cases are very different. As such, their defence strategies will be different. Im not sure if LE has been quoted commenting on MDG's health and well-being. What I have seen reported are comments by his defence lawyer regarding his health and well-being. So again, if KR wants to report on his client DG's mental health or well-being, he can. Why hasn't he? I suspect he would if he believed it would benefit his client.

IMHO

 

[news.talk]

I am sorry news.talk, but I do care. And, I am sure there are others that do as well. Please allow me my opinion, as well as others. Thank you.

Huh? No one is preventing anyone from sharing opinions. You asked why it is not being covered and I gave you *my* opinion.

 

[stan laurel]

Trees are bent over with the tops of 20 foot trees touching the ground from the weight of the snow. 10cm of snow is predicted for Tuesday evening ... another summer storm ... hopefully this will flatten every field surrounding Airdrie, making it easier to locate remains. Hopefully people in the area will check their fields next weekend, when temperatures will be back to 20C.

whoever holds grain futures are going to make a lot of dough.

 

[Hez]

Huh? No one is preventing anyone from sharing opinions. You asked why it is not being covered and I gave you *my* opinion.

As did I.

 

[Hez]

[modsnip] I like to think that the people of Canada are a little more refined than what has been suggested here. Not everyone is a hater. There are even those victims that find it in their hearts to forgive their transgressors. I'm quite frankly appalled by some of the remarks made about another human being that has yet to have his day in court. Yet these are the same people that will dig in their wallets to donate to a "good" cause. I would think that its in humanities best interest to give where its hard to give, show kindness and compassion where it's hard to show it. It takes zero courage to be part of a group that judges and condemns en masse and to stand behind so called 'credentials' and 'professionalism' to make vile comments of sheer hatred towards another human being. [modsnip]

Perhaps you need to take a step back because, in my opinion, you are taking what is being posted here too personally. I'm not going to feel bad about myself because I don't have sympathy for someone charged with first and second degree murder. My sympathy is reserved for the victims and that doesn't make me a 'hater'.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I think it is rather unfair to comment so negatively in response to Tinkerbel1's query regarding the delivery of disclosure to the defence. Afterall, the last we heard, the point *was* made over and over that the 'voluminous' disclosure had NOT yet been handed over at the time of DG's last court appearance. I am another who would have liked to have known when this was actually completed, even though it was 'expected' to happen within a couple of days of his last appearance. And I also agree that the way some of the things have been going and reported on and presented in this case have portrayed DG in a 'guilty' light.

Does nobody believe that this statement appears to shed a negative light? This was stated back on August 14th in the Calgary Herald? It makes it sound like there is just SOOO much evidence that LE couldn't POSSIBLY be expected to get it to the accused, as is his right, in time for his court date (BBM):

At that time, people were picking at the fact that DG was 'anxious' to see the disclosure, some believing that being anxious to see it equated with 'guilt'. The disclosure was expected to be transferred within a week of that August 14th date:


http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Garland+brief+court+appearance+hunt+trio+continues/10119082/story.html

Back in mid July, they had this to say (BBM), and meanwhile the accused had already been seen worldwide on TV during his 'perp walk', so the public has had that image of him in their minds, along with statements from LE alluding to 'voluminous disclosure', and meanwhile, the accused and his counsel have not yet seen any evidence:

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/latest/story.html?id=10035082

Of course, they ended up NOT having that job done by DG's August court date, and so did it even happen yet? I, for two, would also like to know that the accused has been provided with alllllllll of this evidence they have. I don't think that is too much to ask or to report on, or to give the newspaper space up to.. a simple one-liner. While our country is the best in regard to fair trials, it would be nice if our people understood 'innocent until proven guilty'. Seeing as how the uninteresting paper pushing actually means getting the apparent huge amount of evidence in front of the accused and his counsel, I can't understand why people would not be interested to know that it had in fact been delivered, and therefore find it worthy as a one-liner news item. MOO.

Again... no one is being negative, they are just stating the cold hard facts that a trial simply cannot proceed until the defence has been provided the evidence LE has collected. It's court 101. It's standard operating procedure. It's what must happen with every criminal trial regardless of how large or petty. MSM rarely, if ever, reports on whether evidence has been delivered, because we know it has to happen, simple as that. We'll know for sure on the 17th, so why fret? Google and try to find some articles that report "Evidence Delivered"... it's just basically moot. That's as politely as I can put it.