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

[otto]

For anyone that missed it:



5Sept 2014
http://epaper.calgaryherald.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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?

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.

Does it not mean that the Crown intends to use the false identity information as part of proof of DG's "intention" (premeditation) to commit the murders? Therefore, if they use the false identity transgression as a means to support DG's "intention/premeditation", then they can't prosecute him for that crime separately. If they prosecute him for it separately, then they would not be able to use it to support any intention of murder in the murder charges. It's one or the other, they can't do both. Just a thought.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Prosecution are going to take all of the information about DG that they can and use it as supporting evidence to tie him to the murders, especially other criminal activity within or around the same timeframe as the murders...it would all just further strengthen the murder case.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

For anyone that missed it:



5Sept 2014
http://epaper.calgaryherald.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

This is a beautiful tribute to Nathan. I find it curious that there wasn't a blurb at the bottom as there are with most obituaries regarding..."in lieu of flowers, donations may be sent to....". Despite the conversations we've had regarding Trust Funds, etc., this is definitely a place that one would expect such a directive. Would have been a great way to set up a 'park bench memorial' or 'missing childrens' fund contribution', etc. Hmmm, just surprised is all.

 

[otto]

Does it not mean that the Crown intends to use the false identity information as part of proof of DG's "intention" (premeditation) to commit the murders? Therefore, if they use the false identity transgression as a means to support DG's "intention/premeditation", then they can't charge him for that crime separately. If they charge him for it separately, then they would not be able to use it to support any intention of murder in the murder charges. It's one or the other, they can't do both. Just a thought.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Prosecution are going to take all of the information about DG that they can and use it as supporting evidence to tie him to the murders, especially other criminal activity within or around the same timeframe as the murders...it would all just further strengthen the murder case.

BBM

Garland has been charged separately for the false identity. The charges have been stayed, meaning there will not be a separate trial for those charges. Instead, given that they were "stayed", the charges can be brought back to life within a specific time period, the evidence can be introduced during the murder trial, or the charges can be "withdrawn". Without the charges, evidence cannot be introduced.

This is entirely different from criminal offences for which there are no charges.

 

[otto]

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.

Does that mean that although someone is not charged with an offence, the prosecution can present evidence of that offence during an unrelated trial? What would be the purpose? Without charges, the court cannot make a finding of guilt. Therefore, any evidence of that offence would be irrelevant to the proceedings, and therefore it would not be admissible in court.

 

[otto]

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.

If the accused is charged with a drug offence at some point in the future, and the charges are not stayed, then there will be a separate trial.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

BBM

Garland has been charged separately for the false identity. The charges have been stayed, meaning there will not be a separate trial for those charges. Instead, given that they were "stayed", the charges can be brought back to life within a specific time period, the evidence can be introduced during the murder trial, or the charges can be "withdrawn". Without the charges, evidence cannot be introduced.

This is entirely different from criminal offences for which there are no charges.

Oh thank you! My mistake! I should have used the word "prosecute" him separately for those charges. I will edit my post. Thanks Otto!

 

[otto]

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.

The laying of charges is a public record, so no, that would not be kept out of the news.

 

[otto]

Oh thank you! My mistake! I should have used the word "prosecute" him separately for those charges. I will edit my post. Thanks Otto!

Stayed charges means that the crown does not intend to proceed with a separate prosecution, but has the option to reverse that decision.

An offence for which there are no charges is entirely different. There can be no prosecution, evidence presented, or trial for an offence for which there are no formal charges. If there is no direct relationship between three murders in Parkhill, and a drug lab at a completely different location, evidence of the drug lab cannot be introduced. The fact that there were chemicals on the Airdrie property may be introduced during trial if there is a direct relationship between the victims and the chemicals.

 

[deugirtni]

I thought perhaps there was a way to donate to the family's choice(s) of charities/initiatives on the condolences website noted on the obituary, so I went there, but it only had this:

List of Charities

This memorial has been associated with charities which the family holds close to heart. If you would like to support one of these causes, please make a donation to any of the following charities.

Some charities have a web site that you can visit by clicking on the charity logo or name. After making a donation, you can return to this page to notify the Family and Friends by clicking 'Submit Donation Notification' and filling out the form.

No charities configured.

and then, on the 'view donations made' page, it has this:

View Donations Made

No donations have been made.

You're right, that would have been a very good opportunity for the parents to let those wanting to make a donation, which exact ones they were suggesting. I wonder why they didn't take advantage of that opportunity, perhaps because there are so many, they did not want to single one out as being more relevant than another?

This is a beautiful tribute to Nathan. I find it curious that there wasn't a blurb at the bottom as there are with most obituaries regarding..."in lieu of flowers, donations may be sent to....". Despite the conversations we've had regarding Trust Funds, etc., this is definitely a place that one would expect such a directive. Would have been a great way to set up a 'park bench memorial' or 'missing childrens' fund contribution', etc. Hmmm, just surprised is all.

 

[otto]

I thought perhaps there was a way to donate to the family's choice(s) of charities/initiatives on the condolences website noted on the obituary, so I went there, but it only had this:

and then, on the 'view donations made' page, it has this:

You're right, that would have been a very good opportunity for the parents to let those wanting to make a donation, which exact ones they were suggesting. I wonder why they didn't take advantage of that opportunity, perhaps because there are so many, they did not want to single one out as being more relevant than another?

It's no secret that the family would like donations made in the form of a cheque payable directly to them.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Does that mean that although someone is not charged with an offence, the prosecution can present evidence of that offence during an unrelated trial? What would be the purpose? Without charges, the court cannot make a finding of guilt. Therefore, any evidence of that offence would be irrelevant to the proceedings, and therefore it would not be admissible in court.

Motive.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I thought perhaps there was a way to donate to the family's choice(s) of charities/initiatives on the condolences website noted on the obituary, so I went there, but it only had this:



and then, on the 'view donations made' page, it has this:



You're right, that would have been a very good opportunity for the parents to let those wanting to make a donation, which exact ones they were suggesting. I wonder why they didn't take advantage of that opportunity, perhaps because there are so many, they did not want to single one out as being more relevant than another?

Perhaps the parents have nothing to do with all the fundraisers directly, and don't want to promote any of them. I think they did the right thing letting a tribute to their son be just that...

 

[otto]

Motive.

In what way are illegal drug activities related to the murder? How are Alvin, Kathryn, and Nathan connected with illegal drugs?

Whatever motive there is for the murder will be related to the relationship between the accused and the victims ... so unless there's a drug connection, drugs cannot be mentioned during trial.

 

[otto]

Perhaps the parents have nothing to do with all the fundraisers directly, and don't want to promote any of them. I think they did the right thing letting a tribute to their son be just that...

Fundraising, specifying cheques made directly to the family, is mentioned in the article about the memorial:

"O’Brien was remembered as an active boy who loved life, enjoying every day to the fullest. His parents Jen and Rod O’Brien bravely gave an emotional tribute to their young son, and several songs were performed in the boy’s honour.

A separate memorial for the Liknes’ will be held in the coming weeks.

Funds are still being collected to help support family members, and e-mail money transfers can be sent to [email protected]."

http://globalnews.ca/news/1544568/grieving-family-says-final-farewell-to-superhero-nathan-obrien/

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

In what way are illegal drug activities related to the murder? How are Alvin, Kathryn, and Nathan connected with illegal drugs?

Again... the original discussion was whether drugs could have been found or not.

Your position was because there were no charges, nothing was found. I disagreed. No charges doesn't absolutely mean nothing was found.

There are many different ways drugs could tie in, if you wanted to speculate. Obviously all 3 victims weren't the intended target. If any of the bad business dealings or bankruptcies were not legitimate, then it's not a stretch for drug profits to potentially be included in the mix. We don't know enough to even go down that route... just like we don't know enough to say absolutely that nothing of that nature was found.

There is a reason this happened, and we don't have enough information to discount virtually any theory at this point.

 

[LoisLane]

The laying of charges is a public record, so no, that would not be kept out of the news.

Good point! Where are the current charges listed for DG besides the newspapers? I will see if I can find out.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

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

I'm guessing here and being hypothetical, but I'm thinking if DG used fake ID (maybe MHs) even to purchase anything to do with the murder it can be considered connected.

Maybe if he had to show a DL for something (to use a landfill?) or if he had a credit card in the name of MH and purchased something used in the murder (even something as simple as purchasing garbage bags that LE have tied to the crime, etc.) maybe these types of things classify as being connected evidence.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

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.

No problem, I was being ballpark and going by my own frame of reference and probably shouldn't have! I took classes at college in 1998 and remember computers being pretty hokey back then at the school and went and bought my first desktop to use at home for school.

So I first started noticing people just starting use the internet around then. And yes, wow, I remember the AOL days lol! The net has changed so much!

 

[otto]

Again... the original discussion was whether drugs could have been found or not.

Your position was because there were no charges, nothing was found. I disagreed. No charges doesn't absolutely mean nothing was found.

There are many different ways drugs could tie in, if you wanted to speculate. Obviously all 3 victims weren't the intended target. If any of the bad business dealings or bankruptcies were not legitimate, then it's not a stretch for drug profits to potentially be included in the mix. We don't know enough to even go down that route... just like we don't know enough to say absolutely that nothing of that nature was found.

There is a reason this happened, and we don't have enough information to discount virtually any theory at this point.

BBM

I think we should tread very carefully with implying that the victims were in any way associated with illegal drugs. If there is evidence, please post a link. Without that, I think it's off the table in terms of a discussion topic.