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

[otto]

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.

The defence has received disclosure related to the arrest. That's a given. There will be more disclosure until the time of trial. As evidence is discovered and analysed, it is disclosed to the defence. That's the law. The defence does not have to disclose anything, and it is in the best interests of the client when nothing is disclosed.

If the case isn't solid, there will be a not guilty verdict.

 

[news.talk]

The defence has received disclosure related to the arrest. That's a given. There will be more disclosure until the time of trial. As evidence is discovered and analysed, it is disclosed to the defence.

Court 101!

 

[Lalalacasbah]

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.

I'm a Mac snob too but my spouse hates Mac and loves his PC, I'm iPhone, he's an Android, we have good debates, the war continues lol

 

[Sillybilly]

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

Yes, and that "GOOD reason" would be from the perspective of either the Crown or the DT .. not to satisfy public curiosity.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I'm a Mac snob too but my spouse hates Mac and loves his PC, I'm iPhone, he's an Android, we have good debates, the war continues lol

Debate is a wonderful thing.


Sent from my Android phone.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

So….off topic, which I tend to do sometimes (sorry)….I was thinking today back to the case and about transportation. This is not 'important' info really just some thoughts that were nagging me and probably have been discussed at some point. These thoughts are JMO and presuming DG is the person who committed the crime:

1. If DG was so smart and the crime so premeditated, why use his own distinctive/recognizable loud truck? Oh yes, because if he rented a vehicle or bought one to use and toss, there would be a paper trail. But, if had MH's (or another persons?) old identity that he hasn't presumably used in years, he could have rented a vehicle/bought a beater with it and that would be that, sink it in the neighborhood swamp, not park it in your own driveway. So either, he didn't have this planned that long, and it was a bit rash, or he didn't care or think his truck would be seen at all.

2. Did he park down the road and walk up to the house? Or park in the driveway? He would've had to park in the drive way to load the truck with victims. If parked down the road, he would've had to have had a change of clothes to not walk down the street with blood on him. I think a fellow WS'er thought maybe he wore disposable coveralls, or if he's a creature of habit - brought a spare change of clothes like he did when busted for the B&E stuff in the 90s. Even if he parked down the road, at some point he had to move the truck to the drive way to load the victims.

3. Why did he (assuming) park in the front and not in the alley? Farther distance to move the victims I get. But if he had a mechanism (ie: wheelbarrow) distance wouldn't matter. However, the side/driveway is actually more private I think in terms of bushes, the hose to spray himself off and no one being next door. Again, how in the world would DG know the next door house was empty?

4. Also, if he did use something such as a wheelbarrow, wouldn't be seen in the back of his pick up in the video photo? Or did he use something from the Liknes garage? Or did he bring a wheelbarrow and leave it at the house? Wheelbarrow is hypothetical here, could've been a wheeled chair from Liknes home also.

One answer to all these questions is - he thought outsmarted LE and wouldn't get caught or noticed. I guess my point being that this doesn't seem that well planned. I think it was premeditated, but perhaps premeditated and planned in a short period of time and rash and rushed. I almost think, he might not have planned his disposal method very thoroughly either, in which I hope the trio will be found soon. JMO.

 

[swedie]

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.

Woah! Way too early for snow. Beautiful Otto and thanks for sharing. Not looking forward to the cold...brrrr.

 

[deugirtni]

LE can say whatever they want as an excuse for why teh allow an accused to be videoed and harrassed while walking a distance to the facility. That women news reporter that was shown with her microphone and repeatedly asking DG what he did with the bodies.. disgusting, in my humble opinion. It is things like that which make me stick up for the 'bad guy'. And yes, simply being accused is in itself an indication of apparent guilt, but we must remember that especially in circumstantial cases, there HAVE been false arrests in the past which have ended up costing years of innocent peoples' lives and millions of dollars to our country's taxpayers, perhaps years later when the truth is revealed. Wasn't it a set of white knuckles that had an impact on Morin's guilt? People take things in weird ways sometimes, if they are presented in weird ways. Believe me when I say, I am not a softhearted person when it comes to expecting murderers to be punished for their crmes in this country. It's just that I would like to know they are guilty first, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that, thus far. That's great that they want to keep the evidence under wraps, but with that, I, for one, would like to see DG treated with the respect an innocent person deserves, at least until we hear some kind of damning evidence.
And.... nobody said that DG's counsel was any good. I guess you get whoever you're stuck with, for the most part, when you dont' have the money to pay your own legal costs, which most murderers don't seem to have. If *EYE* were the accused in this case (because I happened to have a green truck and went out a few times in a certain period of time) and my lawyer stated that he was waiting for disclosure before deciding if he would send me for a psych exam, and before deciding whether or not to ask for bail, I'd be hitting the roof, quite frankly. So to date, I'm not being very impessed with DG's lawyer's abilities. I'd be wanting a stink made every single day until I did get disclosure, if I were the accused. And if a point is made earlier, and repeatedly, that disclosure was NOT yet delivered to the accused, then in my humble opinion, it should be followed up when it IS finally delivered.
All MOO, and not to be argumentative, but to each his own opinion.

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

 

[news.talk]

LE can say whatever they want as an excuse for why teh allow an accused to be videoed and harrassed while walking a distance to the facility. That women news reporter that was shown with her microphone and repeatedly asking DG what he did with the bodies.. disgusting, in my humble opinion. It is things like that which make me stick up for the 'bad guy'. And yes, simply being accused is in itself an indication of apparent guilt, but we must remember that especially in circumstantial cases, there HAVE been false arrests in the past which have ended up costing years of innocent peoples' lives and millions of dollars to our country's taxpayers, perhaps years later when the truth is revealed. Wasn't it a set of white knuckles that had an impact on Morin's guilt? People take things in weird ways sometimes, if they are presented in weird ways. Believe me when I say, I am not a softhearted person when it comes to expecting murderers to be punished for their crmes in this country. It's just that I would like to know they are guilty first, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that, thus far. That's great that they want to keep the evidence under wraps, but with that, I, for one, would like to see DG treated with the respect an innocent person deserves, at least until we hear some kind of damning evidence.
And.... nobody said that DG's counsel was any good. I guess you get whoever you're stuck with, for the most part, when you dont' have the money to pay your own legal costs, which most murderers don't seem to have. If *EYE* were the accused in this case (because I happened to have a green truck and went out a few times in a certain period of time) and my lawyer stated that he was waiting for disclosure before deciding if he would send me for a psych exam, and before deciding whether or not to ask for bail, I'd be hitting the roof, quite frankly. So to date, I'm not being very impessed with DG's lawyer's abilities. I'd be wanting a stink made every single day until I did get disclosure, if I were the accused. And if a point is made earlier, and repeatedly, that disclosure was NOT yet delivered to the accused, then in my humble opinion, it should be followed up when it IS finally delivered.
All MOO, and not to be argumentative, but to each his own opinion.

The problem is, we have no way of knowing what if anything DG has said to KR or instructed him to do or not do. From previous cases I have seen him defend, he has always struck me as a very thorough and careful lawyer. He is not big on grandstanding and seems more than capable of handling the media and his clients. He uses the media when it serves his clients best interest but has never struck me as the showman that many Defence Lawyers can be.

My take on his handling off this case, is he is getting all his ducks in a row, which may be difficult if he has an uncooperative client. I have a feeling DG is not the easiest client to represent.

Trying cases without bodies have HUGE components to prepare. I suspect we may hear something at the next appearance as to the direction he is taking the case.

JMO.

 

[deugirtni]

I'm sure it does fall under 'too boring and normal to report on' in most cases, but in this case where MSM has made a point of previously stating that it was NOT yet delivered, wouldn't it be nice to follow that up when it DID finally get delivered? In probably MOST cases, it is also not reported that the accused HASN'T yet received it. This case is different.

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.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I'm sure it does fall under 'too boring and normal to report on' in most cases, but in this case where MSM has made a point of previously stating that it was NOT yet delivered, wouldn't it be nice to follow that up when it DID finally get delivered? In probably MOST cases, it is also not reported that the accused HASN'T yet received it. This case is different.

Please just assume the first round of the evidence has been disclosed. If it hasn't, you'll know on the 17th.

If someone on this forum were curious about your business dealings, medical history, family, mental health issues or criminal history, would you feel at all compelled to spell it out here, for all to see? Would the fact that it would be "nice for us to know", somehow persuade you to bare your entire personal history on the internet, or in MSM?

If you can put yourself into the hearts and minds of those with their lives and freedoms on the line in all this, then perhaps you can understand why no information is forthcoming.

It is also plausible that any and all questions are receiving "no comment".

I don't have the time to lookup chapter and verse about disclosure. Those not familiar with the process can, and should do it for their own personal knowledge. It is a requirement. It's not an option. Arguments can be made as to what is relevant, but the Perry Mason moment of pulling out something the defence was not aware of simply isn't going to happen.

 

[2Hope4]

Sooooo I'm minding my business, catching up on this case....when what to my horror did I see????? That 4 letter word starting with a S and ending with W....with the missing letters being NO!!!!! :hills:

Too early for such nonsense.... much too early in the year!!!!

I want this family found as we all do. I was hoping a hiker or hunter would discover something...but if that S stuff is falling, well, it'll be Spring before anything can be found, and that saddens me deeply. I don't know that their remains would even hold any clues at this point, other than LOCATION! Location of remains is often a huge clue to who committed the crime. Perps sometimes go to places that are familiar to them. Others just dump on the side of a highway.

I think if I was a family member, even with knowing all the facts LE knew, or even after the trial, without a body, I don't know if could accept it or not. I know LE can't make evidence appear, so it's not their fault the bodies haven't been found, but it's got to be awful. To me it's even adds to the level of evil of a murderer to continue to withhold that information! Especially if there's been a trial and they are guilty, and they know they are, then for gosh sakes, just let the surviving family have that piece of peace. I think of Alexis Murphy, and her parents don't have her body, but her murderer is behind bars. Oh he says he didn't do anything, but for a plea, he would tell where the body was. So sad.

 

[otto]

Woah! Way too early for snow. Beautiful Otto and thanks for sharing. Not looking forward to the cold...brrrr.

People in Calgary will be in awe when they look out the windows this morning. Power outage overnight,20-30 foot long branches all over the ground from the weight of the snow ... it's a Winter Wonderland today.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

The problem is, we have no way of knowing what if anything DG has said to KR or instructed him to do or not do. From previous cases I have seen him defend, he has always struck me as a very thorough and careful lawyer. He is not big on grandstanding and seems more than capable of handling the media and his clients. He uses the media when it serves his clients best interest but has never struck me as the showman that many Defence Lawyers can be.

My take on his handling off this case, is he is getting all his ducks in a row, which may be difficult if he has an uncooperative client. I have a feeling DG is not the easiest client to represent.

Trying cases without bodies have HUGE components to prepare. I suspect we may hear something at the next appearance as to the direction he is taking the case.

JMO.

What would be the benefit to DG if he was uncooperative with his lawyer. At this point, his lawyer is his only hope. He has been shown to be polite and copperative on CCTV in the courtroom, there's no reason to think he would be any different with his counsel.

 

[otto]

So….off topic, which I tend to do sometimes (sorry)….I was thinking today back to the case and about transportation. This is not 'important' info really just some thoughts that were nagging me and probably have been discussed at some point. These thoughts are JMO and presuming DG is the person who committed the crime:

1. If DG was so smart and the crime so premeditated, why use his own distinctive/recognizable loud truck? Oh yes, because if he rented a vehicle or bought one to use and toss, there would be a paper trail. But, if had MH's (or another persons?) old identity that he hasn't presumably used in years, he could have rented a vehicle/bought a beater with it and that would be that, sink it in the neighborhood swamp, not park it in your own driveway. So either, he didn't have this planned that long, and it was a bit rash, or he didn't care or think his truck would be seen at all.

2. Did he park down the road and walk up to the house? Or park in the driveway? He would've had to park in the drive way to load the truck with victims. If parked down the road, he would've had to have had a change of clothes to not walk down the street with blood on him. I think a fellow WS'er thought maybe he wore disposable coveralls, or if he's a creature of habit - brought a spare change of clothes like he did when busted for the B&E stuff in the 90s. Even if he parked down the road, at some point he had to move the truck to the drive way to load the victims.

3. Why did he (assuming) park in the front and not in the alley? Farther distance to move the victims I get. But if he had a mechanism (ie: wheelbarrow) distance wouldn't matter. However, the side/driveway is actually more private I think in terms of bushes, the hose to spray himself off and no one being next door. Again, how in the world would DG know the next door house was empty?

4. Also, if he did use something such as a wheelbarrow, wouldn't be seen in the back of his pick up in the video photo? Or did he use something from the Liknes garage? Or did he bring a wheelbarrow and leave it at the house? Wheelbarrow is hypothetical here, could've been a wheeled chair from Liknes home also.

One answer to all these questions is - he thought outsmarted LE and wouldn't get caught or noticed. I guess my point being that this doesn't seem that well planned. I think it was premeditated, but perhaps premeditated and planned in a short period of time and rash and rushed. I almost think, he might not have planned his disposal method very thoroughly either, in which I hope the trio will be found soon. JMO.

I don't think the accused expected that there would be surveillance cameras on the construction site at the end of the street. That couldn't have been anticipated. I haven't read that his truck was loud. It was described as old, but in excellent condition, or well maintained ... something like that. He didn't rent a vehicle to avoid the papertrail ... especially since he needed a truck, not a car. Additionally, there could be blood in the vehicle ... leading straight to him. It seems lower risk to use his own truck.

I think he pulled up in the driveway, which is why the stain on the sidewalk leads from the side door to the parking pad, and then stops.

If he had something for carrying the bodies, there wouldn't be a trail of recently cleaned up dark fluid on the sidewalk. If he used something like a wheelbarrow, it would have been seen in the photos.

The one thing that led police to the accused is the truck. If the multimillion dollar house at the end of the street had not been under construction, if the crew didn't install cameras, it's possible that police would not have photos, and then it could have been the perfect murder ... especially given the forensic soup caused by the estate sale.

 

[otto]

LE can say whatever they want as an excuse for why teh allow an accused to be videoed and harrassed while walking a distance to the facility. That women news reporter that was shown with her microphone and repeatedly asking DG what he did with the bodies.. disgusting, in my humble opinion. It is things like that which make me stick up for the 'bad guy'. And yes, simply being accused is in itself an indication of apparent guilt, but we must remember that especially in circumstantial cases, there HAVE been false arrests in the past which have ended up costing years of innocent peoples' lives and millions of dollars to our country's taxpayers, perhaps years later when the truth is revealed. Wasn't it a set of white knuckles that had an impact on Morin's guilt? People take things in weird ways sometimes, if they are presented in weird ways. Believe me when I say, I am not a softhearted person when it comes to expecting murderers to be punished for their crmes in this country. It's just that I would like to know they are guilty first, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that, thus far. That's great that they want to keep the evidence under wraps, but with that, I, for one, would like to see DG treated with the respect an innocent person deserves, at least until we hear some kind of damning evidence.
And.... nobody said that DG's counsel was any good. I guess you get whoever you're stuck with, for the most part, when you dont' have the money to pay your own legal costs, which most murderers don't seem to have. If *EYE* were the accused in this case (because I happened to have a green truck and went out a few times in a certain period of time) and my lawyer stated that he was waiting for disclosure before deciding if he would send me for a psych exam, and before deciding whether or not to ask for bail, I'd be hitting the roof, quite frankly. So to date, I'm not being very impessed with DG's lawyer's abilities. I'd be wanting a stink made every single day until I did get disclosure, if I were the accused. And if a point is made earlier, and repeatedly, that disclosure was NOT yet delivered to the accused, then in my humble opinion, it should be followed up when it IS finally delivered.
All MOO, and not to be argumentative, but to each his own opinion.

Protests about how the media interacted with the accused have fuelled the police departments requests for a new building, which will include better privacy and security. The current building is 50 years old, and was not built with today's media/technology in mind.

 

[otto]

What would be the benefit to DG if he was uncooperative with his lawyer. At this point, his lawyer is his only hope. He has been shown to be polite and copperative on CCTV in the courtroom, there's no reason to think he would be any different with his counsel.

The accused hired a lawyer. He pays that lawyer to do what he wants. If the lawyer doesn't do what he wants, that lawyer will be fired.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

The accused hired a lawyer. He pays that lawyer to do what he wants. If the lawyer doesn't do what he wants, that lawyer will be fired.

Yes, I understand this. The question was in response to a quote about DG perhaps being uncooperative with his lawyer. Not his lawyer being uncooperative with him. My comment was ...

"What would be the benefit to DG if he was uncooperative with his lawyer. At this point, his lawyer is his only hope. He has shown to be polite and cooperative on CCTV in the courtroom, there's no reason to think he would be any different with his counsel."

 

[otto]

Sooooo I'm minding my business, catching up on this case....when what to my horror did I see????? That 4 letter word starting with a S and ending with W....with the missing letters being NO!!!!! :hills:

Too early for such nonsense.... much too early in the year!!!!

I want this family found as we all do. I was hoping a hiker or hunter would discover something...but if that S stuff is falling, well, it'll be Spring before anything can be found, and that saddens me deeply. I don't know that their remains would even hold any clues at this point, other than LOCATION! Location of remains is often a huge clue to who committed the crime. Perps sometimes go to places that are familiar to them. Others just dump on the side of a highway.

I think if I was a family member, even with knowing all the facts LE knew, or even after the trial, without a body, I don't know if could accept it or not. I know LE can't make evidence appear, so it's not their fault the bodies haven't been found, but it's got to be awful. To me it's even adds to the level of evil of a murderer to continue to withhold that information! Especially if there's been a trial and they are guilty, and they know they are, then for gosh sakes, just let the surviving family have that piece of peace. I think of Alexis Murphy, and her parents don't have her body, but her murderer is behind bars. Oh he says he didn't do anything, but for a plea, he would tell where the body was. So sad.

It is a summer blizzard, so it will melt ... but it will also damage trees, crops, and other plants. That's good, in a sense, as it could expose remains when the snow melts - which will probably happen through the day. By the weekend, it will be shorts and t-shirt weather again. Between the hail storms and snow in the Airdrie area, all plant life should be flat on the ground. Someone walking in the right area should easily see bodies - especially since decomposition will not be complete for another week or two (depending on temps in the next week). With all the broken branches, acreage owners will be walking their properties to pick up the broken branches and inspect trees for damage.

 

[Slebby]

What would be the benefit to DG if he was uncooperative with his lawyer. At this point, his lawyer is his only hope. He has been shown to be polite and copperative on CCTV in the courtroom, there's no reason to think he would be any different with his counsel.

I'm married to a lawyer whose law office I've worked in enough to be aware of details of many different cases. It would make sense to you and me that anyone in legal trouble would know their lawyer is their ally and as such, cooperate fully. But in reality - I have seen people make really bad decisions that just compound their problems and cause a lot of aggravation and extra work for their lawyer.
Examples -
Withholding information about fraudulent acts, failing to disclose assets, failing to produce records, failing to appear in court, lying about embarrassing details, lying about previous convictions or legal sanctions. Flat out lying - "no I didn't do it"
I can only guess about reasons not to cooperate. Some things are difficult to admit out loud. Shame, embarrassment, pride, being distrustful by nature, a total lack of remorse.

I'm not speaking directly to the case of DG, I have no idea if he is or is not cooperative, but we can't assume clients always cooperate with counsel.

IMHO