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

[OutOfTheDarkness]

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.

To use your logic then, since DG hasn't been charged with any tax related issues or fraud related issues, LE has then found no evidence of irregular business dealings, and DG's companies are 100% legitimate. There haven't been charges, thus there is no evidence.

No one is saying the motive was illegal drugs.

We cannot say nothing was found because there have not been any charges laid... yet. That was the simple point... it's not that black and white.

 

[Sillybilly]

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.

IF DG is involved in drug related crimes, I don't think it is necessarily anyone's opinion that any such activity would involve the murder victims (certainly not mine) ... just discussion related to how DG may have been conducting his life prior to landing in the hoosecow again.

Hoosecow ... who the heck says that any more? :floorlaugh:

 

[Lalalacasbah]

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).

Yes, seems a bit confusing to me. Argh, again because of key wording used (BBM):

(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.

So does that mean they're only allowed to collect evidence that they think has been obtained, used in or afforded evidence (I think that means enabling) in an offense (crime)? And does that mean just *any* crime, or the particular crime the warrant states it for? That would mean the fake ID would fall under the 'obtained by an offense'… See what I mean? It's all in wording :gaah:

 

[Power of Two]

Hoosecow ... who the heck says that any more? :floorlaugh:[/QUOTE]

And that, my friends, is your 'word of the day'. You might just be dating yourself, sillybilly!

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-hoo1.htm

 

[LoisLane]

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.

Is it possible that separate charges have been laid and the public is not privy to that information? I still think LE would keep that all a little hush-hush until the trial starts so as not to lead into more speculation and confusion from the public.

 

[stan laurel]

Yes, seems a bit confusing to me. Argh, again because of key wording used (BBM):

(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.

So does that mean they're only allowed to collect evidence that they think has been obtained, used in or afforded evidence (I think that means enabling) in an offense (crime)? And does that mean just *any* crime, or the particular crime the warrant states it for? That would mean the fake ID would fall under the 'obtained by an offense'… See what I mean? It's all in wording :gaah:

unless maybe he used the fake id as id when the cops showed up, which would mean that he was committing a crime in the presence of a cop,, sort of like if he spat in a cops face upon their arrival or tried selling them hash as they pulled up. I guess it lies in the act of committing and something just being present, if that makes sense.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Yes, seems a bit confusing to me. Argh, again because of key wording used (BBM):

(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.

So does that mean they're only allowed to collect evidence that they think has been obtained, used in or afforded evidence (I think that means enabling) in an offense (crime)? And does that mean just *any* crime, or the particular crime the warrant states it for? That would mean the fake ID would fall under the 'obtained by an offense'… See what I mean? It's all in wording :gaah:

I think it's safe to assume if LE went into a drug house searching for drugs, and found a body that met with foul play, that it would be allowed to be used as evidence of murder.

If I remember correctly, the charge was for a false bank card "obtained by crime"... so yes.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/latest/story.html?id=10118118

"Parker said the (preliminary) hearing will be six to eight months from now and that it will probably take two weeks."

As I was looking for some information, I stumbled on this, more detailed account. I previously quoted an article that stated the preliminary hearing would take 6 to 8 months... which I thought was awfully long, but took the article at it's word. This one makes more sense.

 

[wendiesan]

Yes, seems a bit confusing to me. Argh, again because of key wording used (BBM):

(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.

So does that mean they're only allowed to collect evidence that they think has been obtained, used in or afforded evidence (I think that means enabling) in an offense (crime)? And does that mean just *any* crime, or the particular crime the warrant states it for? That would mean the fake ID would fall under the 'obtained by an offense'… See what I mean? It's all in wording :gaah:

I don't know if this will add anything to your research or not.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/library/powers-e.htm

POLICE POWERS AND DRUG-RELATED OFFENCES

Prepared For The Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs

Gérald Lafrenière
Law and Government Division

6 March 2001

LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

 

[deugirtni]

I don't want to sign up for an account at tradekey so that I could see for myself what the options are when filling out one of their online forms, but often with those things, there are only a limited number of options to click on, ie the annual revenue may have had its lowest option set at $1,000,000.. just a thought. A factory would simply be the place in which whatever the company manufactures is manufactured, so could certainly be one of the farm's outbuildings (if it has (or did have) any outbuildings), or I suppose even if that part of the business takes part inside the house, for example, say a 'manufacturer of children's wear'.. could have its 'factory' in the basement where the sewing/manufacturnig takes place.

The P2 Solutions company information is the Airdrie acreage information. I don't believe that there were millions in sales, and there is no factory on the property. It reminds me of Alvin's numerous company profiles.

The P2 company was established in 2000, the Crossfield rental was raided by police in 1992. What kind of factory has no phone, no address, and no email?

http://www.tradekey.com/company/P2-Solutions-Ltd-8382577.html

 

[Sillybilly]

Hoosecow ... who the heck says that any more? :floorlaugh:

And that, my friends, is your 'word of the day'. You might just be dating yourself, sillybilly!
http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-hoo1.htm

I have to ... nobody else will

 

[newone]

Hoosecow ... who the heck says that any more? :floorlaugh:

And that, my friends, is your 'word of the day'. You might just be dating yourself, sillybilly!

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-hoo1.htm[/QUOTE]

Colonel Potter of M.A.S.H. said it frequently too......

 

[Sillybilly]

.. And does that mean just *any* crime, or the particular crime the warrant states it for?

It means any crime "against this or any other Act of Parliament" .. "this" (being under the Criminal Code of Canada) or any other Act (so not just that crime which is specified in the warrant).

 

[deugirtni]

I disagree with your statement about home computers and internet just starting to be used in residential settings in 1998. I was on the internet and had a home computer way back in very early 90s. I was introduced to AOL where there were millions of other home users also with desktops and internet. And to be arrested for being in possession of and stealing a tractor trailer doesn't mean that it was done for resale revenue. I don't think we know what that story was about, would certainly love to know.

I agree, he does have bad luck in regards to him getting tipped off to LE, very suspicious.
We also have to be careful about believing every word that a reporter writes in a newspaper article, no personal offence to any on WS who may be or have been a newspaper reporter.

Sorry, I have to counter your comment about the amphetamines. I believe an article I read described it as a 'sophisticated' drug set up (link: http://o.canada.com/news/national/b...w-and-mental-health-concerns-documents-reveal) so I myself am doubtful this was for self-medicating his ADHD.

And then he was charged with FDA - 39(1) Traffic in a controlled drug Commit GARLAND, DOUGLAS Robert in BC in the 90s...

I guess I also thought he might have connections because he was also busted with a stolen semi in BC and how in the world do you re-sell that in pre-internet days (although this was in 1998 just went the desktop computers and the internet were *just* starting to be used in homes by home users). My thoughts were he must've known someone he could sell to. While in jail before he fled, he might've learned some stuff and met some people, again purely JMO.

 

[deugirtni]

Does it make sense that if LE found evidence of drug manufacturing/possession/trafficking while searching the Airdrie property, they would not have added those charges... why would those charges have a bearing on the murder charges.. secondly, what if the man happens to NOT be guilty of the murders? Then he should just get off completely with the drug charges because they were never laid? That doesn't make sense to me, but that is MOO. They can't choose at a later date to charge him with drug charges after an investigation in the past, when LE would have been aware of it, had it been true. That would mean, IMHO, that LE can come and search your home, find incriminating evidence of something, not charge you with anything, and then a year later, change their mind and charge you? How well would that go over in the courts?

The charges were stayed because the identity theft evidence will be presented at the murder trial, not because there was no evidence of identity theft. There is no point in charging and staying the charges if there was evidence of anything illegal like drug manufacturing expected to be presented at trial as well.

I am researching "Merger Doctrine" right now...

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Does it make sense that if LE found evidence of drug manufacturing/possession/trafficking while searching the Airdrie property, they would not have added those charges... why would those charges have a bearing on the murder charges.. secondly, what if the man happens to NOT be guilty of the murders? Then he should just get off completely with the drug charges because they were never laid? That doesn't make sense to me, but that is MOO. They can't choose at a later date to charge him with drug charges after an investigation in the past, when LE would have been aware of it, had it been true. That would mean, IMHO, that LE can come and search your home, find incriminating evidence of something, not charge you with anything, and then a year later, change their mind and charge you? How well would that go over in the courts?

You are missing the point. Simply because there are no other charges currently, does not mean they are not coming at some point, or that LE didn't find any other evidence of any other crimes.

What if drug charges are suddenly added on the 17th? Whoops... Okay maybe they did find something? What if they don't have enough evidence to warrant charges, but the evidence will be used for questioning at trial? The identity theft charges were stayed because that evidence will also be produced at that trial. What if they choose not to pursue those charges in the meantime?

It's not that black and white as to what evidence was found or not found.

 

[deugirtni]

I am confused about how the fake ID/impersonation are related to the murders.. if LE/prosecution can merge the fake ID charge in with the murder charge, as they have done, and you found that information about 'merger doctrine', doesn't it specify that to be 'merged', it must be from one single act? So how would the fake ID have been related to murdering 3 people?.. or am I just misunderstanding what it is saying? Or is the fake ID NOT being merged, and rather, it is just being postponed (ie the reason why it was 'stayed') as a separate charge, although Le has already stated that it would be visited during the murder trial? :scared:
PS the little icon guy, says 'scared', but, I chose it because to me it looks like his head is spinning, and that's how I feel sometimes

Merger doctrine

In criminal law, if a defendant commits a single act that simultaneously fulfills the definition of two separate offenses, merger will occur. This means that the lesser of the two offences will drop out, and the defendant will only be charged with the greater offense. This prevents double jeopardy problems from arising.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/merger_doctrine

I think it's safe to assume if LE went into a drug house searching for drugs, and found a body that met with foul play, that it would be allowed to be used as evidence of murder.

If I remember correctly, the charge was for a false bank card "obtained by crime"... so yes.

 

[deugirtni]

Thank you for posting; I remember that other report to which you are referring which stated the preliminary hearing was expected to take 6-8 months, and I'm so glad you found *this* article which likely states more accurate details. I couldnt' understand why our government would pay for a hearing that would take 6-8 months just to see whether the case was worthy of an actual trial. This example is but one instance of errors in news reports, and that we cant' believe everything we read, since news reporters make errors too.

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/latest/story.html?id=10118118

"Parker said the (preliminary) hearing will be six to eight months from now and that it will probably take two weeks."

As I was looking for some information, I stumbled on this, more detailed account. I previously quoted an article that stated the preliminary hearing would take 6 to 8 months... which I thought was awfully long, but took the article at it's word. This one makes more sense.

 

[deugirtni]

I can understand that if LE, during their search in relation to this case, found evidence of other illegal activity which was directly related to this case, may not add specific charges, as per the 'merger doctrine', which makes complete sense.. but.. if they found evidence of something completely unrelated, like another meth lab, then I can't see them withholding charges, since those charges are completely separate. And I can't see, in my humble opinion, how a person could be charged months later for something LE found clear evidence of months previously... however, I can understand if, during LE's search of the Airdrie property months ago, they found, say, barrels of unknown chemicals, which, after further, perhaps lengthy examination, were later found to be chemicals potentially related to the actual crime, LE did not lay any charges, since those would be all as part of the murder trial. So what am I missing?

You are missing the point. Simply because there are no other charges currently, does not mean they are not coming at some point, or that LE didn't find any other evidence of any other crimes.

What if drug charges are suddenly added on the 17th? Whoops... Okay maybe they did find something? What if they don't have enough evidence to warrant charges, but the evidence will be used for questioning at trial? The identity theft charges were stayed because that evidence will also be produced at that trial. What if they choose not to pursue those charges in the meantime?

It's not that black and white as to what evidence was found or not found.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I am confused about how the fake ID/impersonation are related to the murders.. if LE/prosecution can merge the fake ID charge in with the murder charge, as they have done, and you found that information about 'merger doctrine', doesn't it specify that to be 'merged', it must be from one single act? So how would the fake ID have been related to murdering 3 people?.. or am I just misunderstanding what it is saying? Or is the fake ID NOT being merged, and rather, it is just being postponed (ie the reason why it was 'stayed') as a separate charge, although Le has already stated that it would be visited during the murder trial? :scared:
PS the little icon guy, says 'scared', but, I chose it because to me it looks like his head is spinning, and that's how I feel sometimes


http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/merger_doctrine

That's probably my fault for sticking to one part of the logic without taking the time to go into the tedious detail.

I wanted to make absolutely sure lesser crimes committed in the act of a larger crime weren't somehow dismissed or lumped into the larger crime before getting into harsher detail. Thus some of the ambiguity.

Merger Doctrine is more to say lesser crimes of the same type don't overlap... like being charged with murder doesn't also come with assault charges or attempted murder charges.

The point was, if hypothetically there was drug evidence, and they intend to present that in relation to the murders, then they won't bother with separate proceedings like the identity theft. The lack of charges currently, doesn't mean nothing was found.