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

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Can you expand on the obvious reasons? Is it because they have a body? If the bodies of Kathy, Alvin, and Nathan were or are recovered will that be released to the public as promptly as this was released?

Chances are, they don't know the cause of death.

In order to discus the reasons behind why they think the victims are deceased, they then would have to present their case.

If they find enough remains to determine a cause of death, they may or may not release the details depending on the goals of the investigation. If, hypothetically, LE had any inkling that there may be someone else involved, they may keep the cause of death to themselves for future investigative/interview/evidentiary purposes.

 

[LoisLane]

I have a question for the news reporter experts. In your experience and knowledge has LE or affiliates ever released statements to reporters that were voluntarily inaccurate? Would this tactic be done in a way that the reporter is aware of the false information, or not aware, and has it ever been rectified later on, or ignored?

 

[LoisLane]

Chances are, they don't know the cause of death.

In order to discus the reasons behind why they think the victims are deceased, they then would have to present their case.

If they find enough remains to determine a cause of death, they may or may not release the details depending on the goals of the investigation. If, hypothetically, LE had any inkling that there may be someone else involved, they may keep the cause of death to themselves for future investigative/interview/evidentiary purposes.

Okay thanks. In regards to the Kruse investigation LE has stated they are looking into if someone else was involved, yet they released the cause of death.

 

[LoisLane]

In the case of the woman murdered in the truck (Kathy Reid), her murderer called 911 and was on the scene. So that would be one of the reasons IMO. Having a body means the ME can almost always establish cause of death. So that would be another reason IMO. Having no bodies means no-one is able to establish how the victims died unless the perp confesses. In the case of DG, he has not confessed nor has he revealed what he did with his victims. Anything LE and the ME have been able to garner ito evidence, is therefore going to be presented as evidence at his trial. Sharing information on evidence is like showing your hand in a game of poker IMO.

It just seems really fast how the cause of death was released as well as the victims' name. I am guessing the release of the name is allowed once next of kin or family is notified. With Kruse LE has stated they are looking into if other people are involved with the death so maybe in this particular case it is a better hand? (I have no Poker lingo)

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Agreed, however, there wasn't one piece of paper or one data file handed over by the August 14th date. Nada. Despite the Prosecution's statement of intent in doing so. If there's so much info, what took so long? People are waiting for it, the balance of at least one life is hanging on it...its important information. 30 days to get the ball rolling is pretty SOP...still, it wasn't initiated. Kind of odd IMO

Disclosure is not just handing over the pictures and documents. I can only speak to civil matters, but even in that process, every document has to be labeled, titled, and itemized for the other side. I can only imagine every picture LE took, with every little yellow number, that has to correspond to a sample, that has to correspond to a lab result, that has to show the location, time, date it was taken... and on and on... and that's just the pictures...from the house... from the acreage... from any vehicles...

Use your imagination for any bank records, phone records, video, witness statements... and on and on again...

"Voluminous" is just that. A hell of a lot.

Crown also said they expect a 6 to 8 month preliminary hearing, which means there will be a wait for court time before the 6 to 8 months even start. Given that multiple murder suspects don't usually get bail, everyone involved knows the suspect isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.

Thus, a week or two late, after the ESTIMATED date, with the initial disclosure is, again, basically a moot point.

 

[Slebby]

Agreed, however, there wasn't one piece of paper or one data file handed over by the August 14th date. Nada. Despite the Prosecution's statement of intent in doing so. If there's so much info, what took so long? People are waiting for it, the balance of at least one life is hanging on it...its important information. 30 days to get the ball rolling is pretty SOP...still, it wasn't initiated. Kind of odd IMO

I asked my friendly neighborhood-lawyer-who-I-happen-to-be-married-to.....

Answer: the "30 days" is not set in stone. The judge can decide that, due to the complexity of the case, more time would be needed. If the deadline was one year, that would be another story. For 30 days? Not in the least bit unusual.

As for the question of why "not one" bit of disclosure has been handed over (which we actually don't know for sure) - the crown is in the process of making their case. Handing over parts of their evidence can prejudice their case in ways that could impede the ongoing investigation, and on that basis, a judge would therefore agree to extending the timeline for handing over evidence to the defence. The defence is also unlikely to make a fuss because such delays in complex cases is really not unusual.

Personal story - we have friends with a child who was charged with a very serious crime last year, about December. They still do not know the details of the evidence. And they have an extremely good defence lawyer, one we know well.

Does this help?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

It just seems really fast how the cause of death was released as well as the victims' name. I am guessing the release of the name is allowed once next of kin or family is notified. With Kruse LE has stated they are looking into if other people are involved with the death so maybe in this particular case it is a better hand? (I have no Poker lingo)

Different case, different circumstance, different people, different investigation, different evidence, different level of complexity, different preparation for court... and more...

... leads to a different handling of information... and more.

 

[otto]

Can you expand on the obvious reasons? Is it because they have a body? If the bodies of Kathy, Alvin, and Nathan were or are recovered will that be released to the public as promptly as this was released?

Isn't the obvious reason for not releasing the cause of death a direct result of not having bodies, and therefore being unable to factually state cause of death?

 

[otto]

Good point! I was just thinking of a few similarities and differences. With DG he was wearing the t-shirt and jeans (Paramount Resources t-shirt), Kruse is wearing the white disposable jump suit. The video of Kruse shows him entering the door and we see the back of him. DG was exiting the door and did the walk, we had a front view of him. We also have a shot of Kruse facing a wall which looks like an interior shot. Both are reported from Global. I wonder about the clothing, is that optional or were the clothes DG was wearing in fact his? Maybe the dissection of DG's wardrobe raised concern and now they wear jumpsuits. Maybe the clothes of Kruse were taken in as evidence. Why wouldn't DG's clothes be taken in as evidence? Some suggested the clothing DG was wearing was supplied to him by authorities. That darn t-shirt!

http://globalnews.ca/video/1452425/douglas-garland-walked-into-calgary-arrest-processing-unit/

Who is Kruse?

 

[otto]

Chances are, they don't know the cause of death.

In order to discus the reasons behind why they think the victims are deceased, they then would have to present their case.

If they find enough remains to determine a cause of death, they may or may not release the details depending on the goals of the investigation. If, hypothetically, LE had any inkling that there may be someone else involved, they may keep the cause of death to themselves for future investigative/interview/evidentiary purposes.

Just to add to that ... if police locate bodies, remains, or partial remains, that information is released to the public ... especially since the public has been asked to search their properties.

 

[LoisLane]

Who is Kruse?

Here is a previous post where I introduced Kruse.

Here is one of Calgary's recent homicides (Sept. 3). Facts that stand out to me are the Ford truck, body in the passenger seat of the truck, a charge of first degree murder, perp walk, court date Sept. 18, victims' name is Kathy Lynn Reid (37 years old) the man charged is James Edward Kruse (36 years old, he has cooperated with police). The cause of death was also released (Sept. 4) and stated as Reid died of asphyxiation from strangulation. Kruse has history of violence including choking w/intent. Original reports had suggested a suspicious death in a vehicle located at 84st 17ave. SE., the cause of death was originally speculated as a drug overdose which was suggested by Kruse.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1540867/bo...heast-calgary/

ETA - I have posted this to show the amount of information that has been released to the public, specifically cause of death.

 

[LoisLane]

Isn't the obvious reason for not releasing the cause of death a direct result of not having bodies, and therefore being unable to factually state cause of death?

I wonder if the evidence collected can narrow down a cause of death. If Prosecutors and LE can't determine or present the cause of death how easy will it be to prove they are dead when they have no bodies?

 

[otto]

I have a question for the news reporter experts. In your experience and knowledge has LE or affiliates ever released statements to reporters that were voluntarily inaccurate? Would this tactic be done in a way that the reporter is aware of the false information, or not aware, and has it ever been rectified later on, or ignored?

Something that may be of interest to people with specific areas of expertise, Websleuths has a verification process where people that are, for example, lawyers can provide their credentials to Kimster and become verified. The upside of this is that we all know that anyone can get on the internet and claim to be a rocket scientist, but here, that can actually be taken seriously after credentials are verified.

I believe that prosecutors have been known to ask the media to run a story about a case with specific information about an investigation. I don't believe that the media is told if some of the information is meant to bait rather than inform.

 

[otto]

I wonder if the evidence collected can narrow down a cause of death. If Prosecutors and LE can't determine or present the cause of death how easy will it be to prove they are dead when they have no bodies?

I suppose so. Regarding the Parkhill crime scene ... If a gun was used, there will be shells or bullet holes. If a knife was used, there might be knife pattern marks somewhere at the scene. If an axe was used, there will be clear evidence in surrounding items. Blood spatter will also tell a story. What I'm saying is that with, or without, bodies, the scene will tell a story.

 

[LoisLane]

Something that may be of interest to people with specific areas of expertise, Websleuths has a verification process where people that are, for example, lawyers can provide their credentials to Kimster and become verified. That upside of this is that we all know that anyone can get on the internet and claim to be a rocket scientist, but here, that can actually be taken seriously after credentials are verified.

I believe that prosecutors have been known to ask the media to run a story about a case with specific information about an investigation. I don't believe that the media is told if some of the information is meant to bait rather than inform.

Thanks Otto. So who on this thread has been verified? Is it published? It would be helpful if someone is verified that they have credentials linked to the Registered User name.

 

[otto]

Thanks Otto. So who on this thread has been verified? Is it published? It would be helpful if someone is verified that they have credentials linked to the Registered User name.

There's a thread somewhere ... I'll see if I can find it. Some (not all) people that have been verified have that profession listed under their user name, so instead of "registered user", it says, for example, lawyer.

Try this: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?191641-Professional-Posters-amp-Verified-Insiders

This is the verification process: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...n-Process-for-Professional-or-Insider-Posters

 

[Tinkerbel1]

What others and myself have tried to explain, it is not *odd* at all. Spend a little time in criminal court and you will see that the wheels of justice in Canada tend to move slowly.

Regardless, the Crown Prosecutor himself made the statement. Surely he has a good working knowledge of how the wheels of justice turn, wouldn't you think? IMO, he wouldn't have made the statement haphazardly...lawyers typically err on the side of caution, and, as we have already seen in this case, not disclosing information willy nilly. IMO, I trust he knew what he was talking about.

 

[Cherchri]

It just seems really fast how the cause of death was released as well as the victims' name. I am guessing the release of the name is allowed once next of kin or family is notified. With Kruse LE has stated they are looking into if other people are involved with the death so maybe in this particular case it is a better hand? (I have no Poker lingo)

Ha ha I don't play poker myself but I do know it is never wise to show your hand in ANY card game if you want to win.

 

[otto]

Regardless, the Crown Prosecutor himself made the statement. Surely he has a good working knowledge of how the wheels of justice turn, wouldn't you think? IMO, he wouldn't have made the statement haphazardly...lawyers typically err on the side of caution, and, as we have already seen in this case, not disclosing information willy nilly. IMO, I trust he knew what he was talking about.

Didn't the prosecutor say that the defence would receive discovery the Tuesday after the last hearing? There's no reason to doubt him. Additionally, that is not the end of the disclosure, that's the beginning. Disclosure continues until the time of trial.

 

[Cherchri]

I have a question for the news reporter experts. In your experience and knowledge has LE or affiliates ever released statements to reporters that were voluntarily inaccurate? Would this tactic be done in a way that the reporter is aware of the false information, or not aware, and has it ever been rectified later on, or ignored?

Not in my experience ever.