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

[OutOfTheDarkness]

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.

... but the standard test would be IS there a GOOD reason to publish it...

 

[stan laurel]

.......

 

[Krystine]

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.

I think the strength behind WS is in posters like Tinkerbel who make it their business to know the 'case' inside out. This is the first thread I have followed, and some days it felt like I was living and breathing it. So I understand someone who is well acquainted with every fine detail wanting to keep a pulse on whether disclosure has been delivered.
But I frankly don't remember a news article ever having announced that disclosure has been delivered to the defense, in any trial.
Maybe it does just fall under 'housekeeping', so to speak.

 

[stan laurel]

I think the strength behind WS is in posters like Tinkerbel who make it their business to know the 'case' inside out. This is the first thread I have followed, and some days it felt like I was living and breathing it. So I understand someone who is well acquainted with every fine detail wanting to keep a pulse on whether disclosure has been delivered.
But I frankly don't remember a news article ever having announced that disclosure has been delivered to the defense, in any trial.
Maybe it does just fall under 'housekeeping', so to speak.

It's not the first time KR has received disclosure late or incomplete, there's a link out there but I'm not on my computer (I'm on a Mac) so I can't navigate as I normally do.

 

[Krystine]

It's not the first time KR has received disclosure late or incomplete, there's a link out there but I'm not on my computer (I'm on a Mac) so I can't navigate as I normally do.

Lucky you with your Mac. I bought a new laptop for school w/ Windows 8. My son (Mac user) said if he had to deal with my computer he'd jump off a bridge.

 

[stan laurel]

Lucky you with your Mac. I bought a new laptop for school w/ Windows 8. My son (Mac user) said if he had to deal with my computer he'd jump off a bridge.

there's always one mascist in the family.

 

[LoriMcA]

On an earlier thread when the discussion was about recovery of remains...the affect of weather...different conditions etc...I had found a link to a very short 3 minute clip about The University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility aka The Body Farm....

I had seen a documentary years ago ...this link below is not the same doc..this is from National Geographic...but I would have to say IMO...this one is superior & more up-to-date.

It's 45 minutes long....its extremely GRAPHIC...but definitely worth a look...it is fascinating from the scientific point of view. IMO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCyiczAcRBY

 

[Sillybilly]

But I frankly don't remember a news article ever having announced that disclosure has been delivered to the defense, in any trial.
Maybe it does just fall under 'housekeeping', so to speak.

<rsbm>

That's it in a nutshell !! Disclosure is not some newsworthy item that is normally reported on because it is simply part of the usual paper push that takes place in each and every trial.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

... but the standard test would be IS there a GOOD reason to publish it...

IMO, yes. There is. I have made my points clear in earlier posts. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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

You had said that "frankly no one cares about DG's mental health or how his family was doing". I am simply saying that I do care, and that it is my perrogative and my opinion and prefer that you not speak for me while speaking for everyone else.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Thank you Kristine[emoji4] I just asked a question for my own curiosity's sake...I didn't expect it to turn into a full tackle, knockdown issue.

I think the strength behind WS is in posters like Tinkerbel who make it their business to know the 'case' inside out. This is the first thread I have followed, and some days it felt like I was living and breathing it. So I understand someone who is well acquainted with every fine detail wanting to keep a pulse on whether disclosure has been delivered.
But I frankly don't remember a news article ever having announced that disclosure has been delivered to the defense, in any trial.
Maybe it does just fall under 'housekeeping', so to speak.

 

[Cherchri]

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.

I mentioned a while ago an obituary for a young man who passed on August 29th. I spent several hours trying to uncover the cause of his death. Nothing! In his obituary there is mention made that a tree will be planted in Fish Creek Park in his memory. I think he may well be the person pulled from the river. If you look for the obituary you will be able to do some sleuthing and perhaps you will come to the same conclusion I have.

 

[Slebby]

You had said that "frankly no one cares about DG's mental health or how his family was doing". I am simply saying that I do care, and that it is my perrogative and my opinion and prefer that you not speak for me while speaking for everyone else.

Whether anyone cares or not, IMO, the onus is on the defence counsel, the accused, and possibly on the family of the accused to determine what if any information is disclosed about the mental health and well-being of the accused and also any information about how the family of the accused is fairing. That is what we have seen In the case of MDG. LE is not making loose pronouncements about his mental health, evidence, etc. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe any information in MDG's case wrt his mental state has come not from LE but from his own counsel or from his family, or has been revealed publicly within the context of a hearing in court.

Do you think it's possible DG's counsel or his family or DG himself actually don't want anyone reporting on his mental health, his well-being, their well-being, or for that matter, even the status of all the discovery material in his case?

I have expressed my admiration for LE and the prosecution in the Liknes-O'Brien case. I'm also very impressed with KR for the dignified, restrained approach to his client's case. There has been no grandstanding, no pronouncements that he's "looking forward to the opportunity to see his client exonerated" etc. This is only my own personal read on KR, but I think he's holding back until all info is in place and he can launch the best legal strategy for his client. The fewer facts the public knows, the more options for legal strategy remain open for him to consider.

Now consider it from the perspective of the prosecution. What do they gain versus what do they lose in revealing details of DG's mental state? Let's say, for example, that he is suicidal, or schizophrenic, or diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder. If the crown reveals this information, does this violate his right to privacy? What is DG's recourse if this is the case? Or, could revealing details of any mental illness set the stage for a defence strategy that posits that DG is not criminally responsible?

All this is IMHO.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

[emoji55]

 

[otto]

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.

Why not ask the defence lawyer Kim Ross to have a press conference to inform that public about the progress of the case and the mental status of his client. I suspect that if he agrees, his client will immediately fire him.

The crown obviously can't make statement about a man that is presumed innocent. That's not their job, and obviously it would compromise his rights.

If not the man's lawyer, and not the prosecution, who should make a public statement about the accused?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Why not ask the defence lawyer Kim Ross to have a press conference to inform that public about the progress of the case and the mental status of his client. I suspect that if he agrees, his client will immediately fire him.

The crown obviously can't make statement about a man that is presumed innocent. That's not their job, and obviously it would compromise his rights.

If not the man's lawyer, and not the prosecution, who should make a public statement about the accused?

Actually, I was thinking that perhaps I should just ask DG...is he taking any calls do you think? It would probably be much easier that way.

 

[otto]

It's not the first time KR has received disclosure late or incomplete, there's a link out there but I'm not on my computer (I'm on a Mac) so I can't navigate as I normally do.

It's not a serious issue. The defence will receive full disclosure. If there is so much evidence that it cannot be compiled in the 30 allotted days, the prosecution will do their best to get it to the defence as soon as possible. The defence will accordingly request whatever time is necessary to review that information. It's quite possible that at the next scheduled hearing, the defence will simply request a new date because more time is needed to review the disclosure documents.

 

[otto]

Actually, I was thinking that perhaps I should just ask DG...is he taking any calls do you think? It would probably be much easier that way.

He might be happy to have a visitor.

 

[stan laurel]

It's not a serious issue. The defence will receive full disclosure. If there is so much evidence that it cannot be compiled in the 30 allotted days, the prosecution will do their best to get it to the defence as soon as possible. The defence will accordingly request whatever time is necessary to review that information. It's quite possible that at the next scheduled hearing, the defence will simply request a new date because more time is needed to review the disclosure documents.

imo it is a serious issue as it could raise doubts as to whether le has a solid case. the layout of the house was unimportant to me but this did not mean that i felt that it was not pertinent info to another. so i chose not to comment on it.

these tete au tetes as to what is or isn't important realy takes away from the continuity of fine discourse. much like how grammar nazi's ruin good conversation.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

imo it is a serious issue as it could raise doubts as to whether le has a solid case. the layout of the house was unimportant to me but this did not mean that i felt that it was not pertinent info to another. so i chose not to comment on it.

these tete au tetes as to what is or isn't important realy takes away from the continuity of fine discourse. much like how grammar nazi's ruin good conversation.

When reading posts, if everyone's default position was "they are not trying to offend me", then one's mind might be open to the different ambiguities and meaning permutations of the post itself.

Otto saying "it's not a serious issue" wasn't meant to dismiss anyone... I read it as "the date of the disclosure at this early stage isn't a serious issue to the defence team"... speaking from their perspective, not Otto's own. If you read the quote responded to, and take the default position, it reads more like I'm sure it was intended.