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

[Sillybilly]

Was it stated that LE removed 'dangerous and flammable' chemicals, or were they, in wearing those suits, just protecting themselves because they weren't sure what the chemicals were at the time, and what the potential dangers were to themselves?

from:
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/07/1...sing-liknes-family-expands-to-second-landfill

Police continue to search a rural property on the outskirts of Airdrie where a person of interest, Douglas Garland, lives with his parents.

Brookwell said police have found items at the property, including chemicals, and officers are now trying to determine if they are related to the investigation.

“All I can say is they are considered dangerous and flammable in nature,” he said.

“We’re taking precautions at that site for the officers who are out there conducting the search and handling or looking at that chemical.”

<bbm>

 

[otto]

Interesting about the warrant technicalities, makes sense.

Interesting thought ... so if the warrant was issued for searching for bodies, and they stumbled across a meth lab, then police couldn't lay charges for the meth lab because it wasn't included in the warrant? What are the chances that illegal drug activities were included in the warrant based on previous drug activities.

 

[stan laurel]

Interesting thought ... so if the warrant was issued for searching for bodies, and they stumbled across a meth lab, then police couldn't lay charges for the meth lab because it wasn't included in the warrant? What are the chances that illegal drug activities were included in the warrant based on previous drug activities.

I would say unlikely because the grist at that time was finding AL/KL/NO,, the drug bit was to minor an issue really.

 

[deugirtni]

That was kind of like a slap in the face to LE when the bail amount was set at so little, what was it, $750?, considering DG's history of proven flight-risk potential. I'm sure they would have immediately charged him initially, if there was evidence of drug manufacturing, not only because it makes sense, but also to ensure perhaps a higher bail amount, and also to give credence to the notion they were dealing with a real bad guy here and to announce that notion publicly. If they could have, I'm sure they would have ! I'm not sure that police had confirmation from a forensic lab; they stated they had added up a whole bunch of pieces to conclude that he should be charged with the murder of 3 people. Wouldn't 'confirmation from a forensic lab' be considered a smoking gun, which LE said they did not have?

I think the police wanted to keep him in custody to eliminate the possibility that he vanished (like he did after the drug charges in 1992), or committed suicide. As soon as police had confirmation from the forensic lab, he was immediately re-arrested on the murder charges. When the accused was in custody for the identity theft, it seemed obvious to me that the prosecutor was using every delay tactic he could think of to keep the accused locked up. If there was any evidence of drug manufacturing, I would expect those charges to be added to the murder charges.

 

[otto]

Some people are addicted to things that consume time,, Art/painting/sculpting is one, gambling is another, as is World of Warcraft or online games, Websleuths eats a lot of time too and if you think 14 years is some great time span, well, it isn't,, some people spend their lives writing great canons of literature, others spend time finessing an idea be it a math equation or a process, some are happy just being trophy wife dusting the golf clubs, or house husbands building the deck that never gets built.

All the above - for regular working stiffs - take place after or before work,, DG was afforded this by, well obviously his parents, as I'm sure the property was long paid for and there was an extra bedroom and a place at the dinner table. The G's to some extent knew there son had some social issues and seems that they provided him some relief of his social burden. If he is the murderer, it's too bad he squandered that gift or what most people would give an eye tooth to have.

As for phone numbers and workplaces, I've worked numerous places where the call center was not remotely close by, in fact 6 miles away from our office at a lab. And not all factories look like smoke stacks in Gotham, it really comes down to the layout and whether or not it meets the standards of whatever department of government oversees it. As for private business, all that means is that we the public are not privy to it's transactions and book keeping, that's only privy to revenue Canada.

Should we believe that Douglas Garland had an annual income of $1-2.5 million US, and his address after posting bail would be the homeless shelter? I am sure that the P2 Solution Ltd. company description is pure fiction. There is no factory, there is no $2.5 million annual income, there are not six employees. There is a registered company with the phone number, email address, and physical address that matches the owner of the Airdrie acreage. Douglas Garland is the contact person.

 

[Sillybilly]

Interesting thought ... so if the warrant was issued for searching for bodies, and they stumbled across a meth lab, then police couldn't lay charges for the meth lab because it wasn't included in the warrant. What are the chances that illegal drug activities were included in the warrant based on previous drug activities.

I doubt the ITO could include something from the distant past, but I'm pretty sure they can confiscate other items under what is known as the plain view doctrine when something illegal is observed.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Interesting thought ... so if the warrant was issued for searching for bodies, and they stumbled across a meth lab, then police couldn't lay charges for the meth lab because it wasn't included in the warrant? What are the chances that illegal drug activities were included in the warrant based on previous drug activities.

Makes one wonder, wouldn't we love to get our hands on the warrant(s)! lol

I wish I knew law more, I find it such a fascinating subject that's mostly based on words and context. I could be wrong, but I believe when requesting a warrant from a judge or whoever (I don't even know) you need some evidence pertaining to that particular warrant to get it granted. So technically, if LE had no grounds nor anything to present in relation to drugs, no warrant would be administered for that. So even though prior history or a cop has a hunch there's a lab there, they'd need some type of evidence to point to this other than a hunch or prior history.

Anyone, correct me if I'm wrong here as I might have my facts completely wrong.

 

[Sillybilly]

Section 489(2) of the Criminal Code:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-259.html#docCont

(2) Every peace officer, and every public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, who is lawfully present in a place pursuant to a warrant or otherwise in the execution of duties may, without a warrant, seize any thing that the officer believes on reasonable grounds


(a) has been obtained by the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament;


(b) has been used in the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament; or


(c) will afford evidence in respect of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament.

 

[otto]

Section 489(2) of the Criminal Code:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-259.html#docCont

Thank you. So indeed, if police stumbled across an illegal drug lab while searching for missing persons, separate charges would be laid, and a separate trial, unrelated to the missing persons, would be held.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I really don't understand. Garland is charged with murder. He is also charged with identity theft. The identity theft charges were stayed because they apparently are related to the murder. That means that they may be renewed during the murder trial. They may also be withdrawn.

Any illegal activities at a different location that relate to the accused will result in separate charges and a separate trial. We know this because the murders are not related to illegal drugs. The victims have no connection to illegal drugs. The victims have no physical connection to the Airdrie property. For example, police suspect that the accused is responsible for the murder of Helena (body found 10 miles from Airdrie acreage). The prosecutor cannot bring charges for this murder in the middle of the Parkhill murder trial and introduce evidence related to that murder at the Parkhill murder trial. They're totally unrelated in the same way that illegal drug activity is totally unrelated to the Parkhill murders.

It is a fact that we don't know that the victims were ever at the Airdrie property. It's quite possible that they were disposed of in the middle of the night in a secluded location ... similar to what was done with Helena's body. Regardless, criminal trials are not an open forum where the prosecutor can suddenly throw all sorts of accusations at the accused. The prosecutor's role is merely to present a linear sequential explanation of the evidence such that it leaves no doubt that the accused is indeed guilty. If the murders were unrelated to illegal drugs, then illegal drugs cannot be mentioned during trial.

If there were illegal drug activities on the property, Garland would have been charged with drugs in addition to identity theft. He was not charged with illegal drug activity, so there was no evidence of it at the time that police arrived at the property.

The bolded part is my point. How do we know this? Nothing has been mentioned about motive.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Not the best source but some info, I'll try to find another regarding warrants for those interested:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadi...nt_Searches#Procedure_for_Obtaining_a_Warrant

ETA - sillybilly beat me to it, his looks better too

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Section 489(2) of the Criminal Code:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-259.html#docCont

Wonderful, thanks for the link!

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Thank you. So indeed, if police stumbled across an illegal drug lab while searching for missing persons, separate charges would be laid, and a separate trial, unrelated to the missing persons, would be held.

Unless, like the identity theft, that evidence is expected to be presented at the murder trial. "No need for separate proceedings".

 

[LoisLane]

Just did another search of BC court records for MH and the following comes up in civil records:

https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/searchPartyResult.do?serviceId=23001784

Haven't had time to thoroughly search on RN, the party named in the first case. but this comes up in a search on HU, the party named in the second case:

http://hk.linkedin.com/pub/hartmut-unger/11/74/b59?trk=pub-pbmap

A google of that persons email addy leads to:

https://agro.basf.ca/Weedmanagement/?gclid=CLmo_MqO38ACFUKCMgodUyQAhA

These show MH as the claimant and for small claims. One is for $600 the other for $800.

 

[otto]

The bolded part is my point. How do we know this? Nothing has been mentioned about motive.

I don't mention motive either. The only information that has been released about motive is that there may be a bad business deal between the accused and the victims.

Has there been any information to suggest that the victims were involved in illegal drug activities with, or without, the accused? Is there any reason to believe that Kathryn and Alvin Liknes were drugheads? I don't think so. Until such time that police make a connection between the victims and illegal drugs, we should assume that the murders are not related to illegal drugs.

 

[stan laurel]

Should we believe that Douglas Garland had an annual income of $1-2.5 million US, and his address after posting bail would be the homeless shelter? I am sure that the P2 Solution Ltd. company description is pure fiction. There is no factory, there is no $2.5 million annual income, there are not six employees. There is a registered company with the phone number, email address, and physical address that matches the owner of the Airdrie acreage. Douglas Garland is the contact person.

Yeah so what? it's a private company, there are thousands in Calgary alone and only revcan is privy to the books. As for the homeless shelter, well, he didn't stay at one, he stayed at a motel which being its location for hot-shotters for pipeline or O&G workers probably rang in at $120 per night. It may be fiction or not, I guess we will find out along the way.

 

[Sillybilly]

Thank you. So indeed, if police stumbled across an illegal drug lab while searching for missing persons, separate charges would be laid, and a separate trial, unrelated to the missing persons, would be held.

You would think so, but there's a possibility it may not be in the best interests of justice to do so at the time(i.e. possible ongoing investigation related to others involved).

 

[otto]

Unless, like the identity theft, that evidence is expected to be presented at the murder trial. "No need for separate proceedings".

There is a need for separate charges and a separate trial. The identity theft resulted in charges. The charges were stayed, meaning they can be renewed at a later time. In this case, they will be renewed during the murder trial. There will not be a separate trial for the identify theft charges. There are no illegal drug charges, so evidence related to illegal drugs cannot be introduced during any trial.

 

[otto]

Yeah so what? it's a private company, there are thousands in Calgary alone and only revcan is privy to the books. As for the homeless shelter, well, he didn't stay at one, he stayed at a motel which being its location for hot-shotters for pipeline or O&G workers probably rang in at $120 per night. It may be fiction or not, I guess we will find out along the way.

I don't think we'll hear anything about a company that Garland set up in 2000 because there does not appear to be any relationship between that company and three murders in Parkhill.

 

[LoisLane]

The charges were stayed, meaning they will be renewed at a later date. In this case, they will be renewed during the murder trial. The prosecution cannot introduce evidence about illegal drug activity at an Airdrie property during a murder trial because there is no connection between the two. Furthermore, unless they bring charges, they cannot introduce evidence.

I don't understand why anyone wants to believe that there was illegal drug activity on the Airdrie property when there is absolutely nothing on which to base this idea.

I don't think anyone has stated that there was (current) illegal drug activity ON the Airdrie property. I think we are discussing the possibility that DG may have business dealings that may coincide with illegal drug activity and that may be part of his financial income. I don't think anyone has said he was cooking meth at his residence. But I feel a little lost now, it is hard for me to keep up sometimes.