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

[Krystine]

Just a general question...why is there so much 'push-back' over the whole "unsavoury character" posts? I don't understand? There is a triple murder to solve...if DG is an 'unsavoury', and AL did business with him back in the day...then why can't that have continued to present day? Business people don't care where their investors/clients money comes from...they just sell their product and services. Ha! I owned a simple beauty salon...do you know how many of those are fronts for drugs/prostitution/money laundering, etc.? It's everywhere....could name you several out here in Edmonton...was that what I did? No. But it's being done...anyone who starts a business has the goal to succeed...a lot don't care how that happens. I didn't care if someone came to my shop and paid for their services with drug money...I didn't do the crime, so what difference does it make to me where they got their money. None. None at all.

Drugs and the criminal activities that accompany the lifestyle are at the centre of most of the threads we see here. We'd be naive to overlook the possibilities, in the same way we have considered a love interest between the accused and KL in passing.
Many of us would be shocked at some of the 'types' of people who are swept into the world of addiction.
I'm sure 'Tink will remember the 60 yr. old Edmonton area realtor who was murdered in his own home by his 22 yr. old prostitute girlfriend in 2006. We had worked with the man for many years, and had no clue about his cocaine addiction. To us he was a widower and a family man... He was a bit of a nerdy guy who would do anything for anyone. He was the first one to suggest the office should be recycling, even took it upon himself... and he made great sushi for every gathering.

 

[Slebby]

But what about that DG was arrested and charged for possession of meth and various other charges in BC that would most likely be in relation to the drug trade? If the LE and prosecution pursued this they may have found more evidence hidden between the lines of his alleged underground life and his ability to commit murder. That is how I see the relation.

I see your point. But I think the basis of looking at the unsavoury characters involved in drugs etc within the oil and gas industry was to pursue other avenues of investigation and not DG. The reason for this is in case LE had rushed to judgment of DG because of the green truck, and that DG was actually one of those poor unfortunate falsely accused.

IMHO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Maybe we need to define what is meant by "every single avenue".
(I doubt KR will go down the road of prostitution, cattle rustling, satanic worshippers, cannibals, ....)

I am sure KR will launch a vigorous defence. I'm sure he has an investigator who will look into other avenues - possible enemies, disgruntled investors, ex-spouses, other crimes in the Parkhill neighbourhood, estate sale related crimes, and so on. These are the kinds of "stones" I believe KR will not leave "unturned". What i don't think the investigator will do is start with a very general theory, such has been discussed here over these many posts, that there is a lot of unsavoury characters in the O and G industry and somehow that could have led to the murders. Remember, that is the "stone" we've been talking about. So based on what has been discussed so far, no, I think KR would find that "unsavoury characters in O and G" a non-starter. Especially if, as y'all are insisting, you aren't connecting any dots to the victims with that line of thinking.

If you recall from these discussions, some of us, including a moderator, felt the discussion of unsavoury characters, drug rings etc. was casting the victims in a negative light. it would be helpful to me if you could illustrate a scenario where the drug activity of an employee or co-worker in a Liknes or O'Brien job or investment could connect to the murders. For example, i don't think it is enough to unearth the fact that "Barry in accounting was arrested in 2010 for having a meth lab in his garage". i believe it would need to lead to "Barry in Accounting was arrested in 2010 for having a meth lab in his garage and therefore he had to kill the Ls because___" Do you see what I'm saying?

When you say you're not talking "general" or "casual", but something big with one of AL's investors, imo, KR would still need to connect the dots to how it pertains to the Ls being murdered. If one of his investors also laundered money through his dry-cleaning business, how does that person's criminality lead to a conclusion that the Ls must die? i don't believe KR can just toss out facts about other folks in the periphery of the L's life and expect that to constitute reasonable doubt.

i hope this helps.

eace:

Obviously we aren't talking about all...just those relative to AL's business dealings.

I'm sure cattle rustling and prostitution are not a concerning this case.

Thanks[emoji4]

Oh! Well if said money laundering laundromat person was an investor of AL's, then I would expect some questions be asked of him.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Maybe we need to define what is meant by "every single avenue".
(I doubt KR will go down the road of prostitution, cattle rustling, satanic worshippers, cannibals, ....)

I am sure KR will launch a vigorous defence. I'm sure he has an investigator who will look into other avenues - possible enemies, disgruntled investors, ex-spouses, other crimes in the Parkhill neighbourhood, estate sale related crimes, and so on. These are the kinds of "stones" I believe KR will not leave "unturned". What i don't think the investigator will do is start with a very general theory, such has been discussed here over these many posts, that there is a lot of unsavoury characters in the O and G industry and somehow that could have led to the murders. Remember, that is the "stone" we've been talking about. So based on what has been discussed so far, no, I think KR would find that "unsavoury characters in O and G" a non-starter. Especially if, as y'all are insisting, you aren't connecting any dots to the victims with that line of thinking.

If you recall from these discussions, some of us, including a moderator, felt the discussion of unsavoury characters, drug rings etc. was casting the victims in a negative light. it would be helpful to me if you could illustrate a scenario where the drug activity of an employee or co-worker in a Liknes or O'Brien job or investment could connect to the murders. For example, i don't think it is enough to unearth the fact that "Barry in accounting was arrested in 2010 for having a meth lab in his garage". i believe it would need to lead to "Barry in Accounting was arrested in 2010 for having a meth lab in his garage and therefore he had to kill the Ls because___" Do you see what I'm saying?

When you say you're not talking "general" or "casual", but something big with one of AL's investors, imo, KR would still need to connect the dots to how it pertains to the Ls being murdered. If one of his investors also laundered money through his dry-cleaning business, how does that person's criminality lead to a conclusion that the Ls must die? i don't believe KR can just toss out facts about other folks in the periphery of the L's life and expect that to constitute reasonable doubt.

i hope this helps.

eace:

Yes, thank you, I see what you're saying. Obviously (even to me) It would be a foregone conclusion that Barry in Accounting was not an issue unless he wound up on the investors or client list...then I definitely would be checking.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Yes, exactly! But that involves beginning with the specific, not the general. Beginning with a specific case like "Barry in Accounting was angry at AL because he fired him for cooking meth in the staff lounge", versus "some people involved in the O and G industry have been known to be involved in drugs, money laundering etc. and maybe someone somewhere in the O and G world is the perp". Make sense?

imho

I am sorry, I am not sure where you are getting the idea we would begin with the general....I would begin with the investor lists for all past businesses and a client list. Barry in Accounting is irrelevant unless he shows up on one of these lists.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

<rsbm>

Now where'd our spaceship emoticon disappear to? It was here for a reason :alien: :beamup:

[emoji3]

I think it was discussed as a Calgary Corporate Challenge event shirt. Some ideas I recall include:
- DG may have been issued the clothing during processing at police headquarters (although I did see a man in a disposable white jumpsuit more recently, after the arrest of DG and the perp walk fiasco)
-DG could have also been buying second-hand clothing
- DG could have been a participant in CCC
- DG could have been employed with Paramount Resources
- DG could have won it at a golf tourney (that would be an odd giveaway, a shirt from a past event)

Having worked in the t-shirt industry for corporate marketing apparel as a wholesaler and as a client and have seen orders for CCC I can comment that while extra tees would be ordered for such an event, the numbers would be representative to the number of people participating. Of course extras tees can be on hand but they aren't typically a marketing item you just hand out to spectators, especially one catered to a specific event. If it was only the logo of Paramount without reference to CCC it may not be so unusual. If the shirt had always belonged to DG and he willinginly wore it I would be very interested what his appeal to the shirt and company is.

But what about that DG was arrested and charged for possession of meth and various other charges in BC that would most likely be in relation to the drug trade? If the LE and prosecution pursued this they may have found more evidence hidden between the lines of his alleged underground life and his ability to commit murder. That is how I see the relation.

Drugs and the criminal activities that accompany the lifestyle are at the centre of most of the threads we see here. We'd be naive to overlook the possibilities, in the same way we have considered a love interest between the accused and KL in passing.
Many of us would be shocked at some of the 'types' of people who are swept into the world of addiction.
I'm sure 'Tink will remember the 60 yr. old Edmonton area realtor who was murdered in his own home by his 22 yr. old prostitute girlfriend in 2006. We had worked with the man for many years, and had no clue about his cocaine addiction. To us he was a widower and a family man... He was a bit of a nerdy guy who would do anything for anyone. He was the first one to suggest the office should be recycling, even took it upon himself... and he made great sushi for every gathering.

Oh my. .yes!!! I sure do remember that! The poor man [emoji20]

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Yes, exactly! This is the kind of example where you can connect the dots - there is a motive.

What has not been made clear to me is how the "proximity to unsavoury characters" leads to "the Ls must die", what is the motive?

imho

Here we go again. You ask for someone to connection the dots for you, yet if they do, you flame them for victim bashing. You can't have it both ways. If you want everyone to refrain from connecting those dots, then please refrain from asking the poor people on here to do it.

 

[Blue Amethyst]

Just curious Otto, if you think AL may have solicited investments from everyone he knew, do you think he may have solicited investments from his daughter EL and maybe FC as well?

When I brought up that DG may have invested in Winter Petroleum it could have been solicited. It also could have been buying basic shares in the company but I don't know if they sold shares. Also some junior oil and has companies sell Flow Through Shares and the buyer uses it for a tax write off. It is easy to buy $100,000 or more in FT Shares and lose a big portion of it.

 

[ABro]

Here we go again. You ask for someone to connection the dots for you, yet if they do, you flame them for victim bashing. You can't have it both ways. If you want everyone to refrain from connecting those dots, then please refrain from asking the poor people on here to do it.

I think part of the problem is that the same posters (often in the same posts) make sly asides about the Liknes family and then suggest that a green truck has led to the wrongful arrest and prosecution of DG. So you have a call to be wary of/critique/investigate the victims juxtaposed with a reminder that DG deserves compassion and respect and that everyone's being a big meanie to him. There's a certain cognitive dissonance there.

Personally, I think the cops would be remiss if they didn't investigate the Liknes family finances, which do seem problematic. And I have no reason to believe the police aren't doing this. How, for example, did KL go from a recent bankruptcy to her daughter saying that KL and AL would fly them down to Mexico? Seems a little strange, doesn't it? Perhaps that's why CPS was in Mexico.

Likewise, the police would be remiss if they didn't ensure they had the right green truck. Again, I have no reason to believe they haven't done this. If they didn't, boy did they screw up in a very big case with lots of people watching.

Like the rest of you, I have no idea how solid the case against DG is. But if the evidence isn't especially strong, his lawyer will probably ask for bail. And if the police did arrest the wrong guy and stopped looking for other suspects, someone will be in very deep doodoo.

 

[winnnancy]

I think part of the problem is that the same posters (often in the same posts) make sly asides about the Liknes family and then suggest that a green truck has led to the wrongful arrest and prosecution of DG. So you have a call to be wary of/critique/investigate the victims juxtaposed with a reminder that DG deserves compassion and respect and that everyone's being a big meanie to him. There's a certain cognitive dissonance there.

Personally, I think the cops would be remiss if they didn't investigate the Liknes family finances, which do seem problematic. And I have no reason to believe the police aren't doing this. How, for example, did KL go from a recent bankruptcy to her daughter saying that KL and AL would fly them down to Mexico? Seems a little strange, doesn't it? Perhaps that's why CPS was in Mexico.

Likewise, the police would be remiss if they didn't ensure they had the right green truck. Again, I have no reason to believe they haven't done this. If they didn't, boy did they screw up in a very big case with lots of people watching.

Like the rest of you, I have no idea how solid the case against DG is. But if the evidence isn't especially strong, his lawyer will probably ask for bail. And if the police did arrest the wrong guy and stopped looking for other suspects, someone will be in very deep doodoo.

Very succinctly framed. Thank you.

 

[Cherchri]

The standard put forward by someone, I can't remember who, was that fact, backed up by link, was the only allowable source of discussion. "Common sense" is nothing more than speculation based on probabilities and likelihood.

Thank you for finally admitting that speculation is allowed, and required.

Indeed! Hallelujah. To add to what you say, If we apply the same logic as applied in the post you are responding to...... LE admitted removing dangerous and flammable chemicals from the property. They have said no more about the chemicals. The truck and the chemicals were seized as evidence. We are left to speculate as to the importance of those pieces of evidence and as you rightly pointed out - that's what we do here - we speculate and theorise. I clipped my own wings a couple of days ago because I seriously find it impossible to deal with tunnel vision. I am ready to take flight again and air my theories.

 

[Cherchri]

Is this applicable?
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/22/crime-pays-for-alberta-gangs

:goodpost::websleuther: Touché

 

[Cherchri]

That has not been my experience, but if this is happening to you frequently, then perhaps there is some sort of connection...

The connection might be what was termed "fixed opinion"? I call it tunnel vision personally.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Cherchri, are you still planning on attending tomorrow? I hope we get to hear some tidbits of new info, although I think it'll be quite procedural. Looking forward to hearing your take on it all if you go!

 

[Cherchri]

Cherchri, are you still planning on attending tomorrow? I hope we get to hear some tidbits of new info, although I think it'll be quite procedural. Looking forward to hearing your take on it all if you go!

I am attending and will give an update when I get back home. So glad you mentioned tomorrow. I was thinking it was Thurs.... Lost track of the date! My I would have been ticked off to have missed it. I have been working too hard and have my head in the clouds. I agree it will not be informative. The only incredibly exciting thing that could occur is the very remote possibility of a guilty plea.

 

[news.talk]

I am attending and will give an update when I get back home. So glad you mentioned tomorrow. I was thinking it was Thurs.... Lost track of the date! My I would have been ticked off to have missed it. I have been working too hard and have my head in the clouds. I agree it will not be informative. The only incredibly exciting thing that could occur is the very remote possibility of a guilty plea.

I suspect it may just be the Defence asking for more time with discovery. There *may* be the possibility that a psychiatric assessment is requested.

 

[Cherchri]

I suspect it may just be the Defence asking for more time with discovery. There *may* be the possibility that a psychiatric assessment is requested.

Oh I hope not ( on both more time and an assessment ) but it's definitely possible.

 

[otto]

With all due respect, I don't think KR will be "looking down every single avenue" because he'd get nowhere fast with that strategy. He will look down every avenue that has the chance of casting reasonable doubt on the prosecution case. Key word "reasonable". It's one thing to ponder different possibilities on Websleuths. It's completely different in court. KR can't throw any old alternative theory about organized crime, drug rings, money laundering etc. without some sort of factual basis or connection to the victims. What is the link? Why bring it up? A judge would shut him down in no time if he presented a case that shows how *some* people in *some* industries including oil and gas *sometimes* get involved in drugs (money laundering etc.) and the Ls and OBs *may* have known or worked or unknowingly invested in the same businesses as those folks. IMO.

LE follow the evidence and the facts. So, IMO, some stones do remain unturned, at least until something points LE in a particular direction.

IMO

I completely agree. The defence lawyer has a couple of hundred clients, and his only job is to present a defence for his client based on the information provided by: his client, the prosecution, and the law. It is not his job to investigate, imagine, or postulate. Someone like Jose Baez would be out of a job in Canada because Canadian lawyers have to know the law and they are confined by facts.

 

[otto]

<rsbm>

Actually the defence doesn't have to prove what they say (only the prosecution has the burden of proof). They can throw out all sorts of theories, and if one of those theories creates reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, the DT is doing their job.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. Will the defence lawyer investigate and look for plausible alternate theories?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Cherchri, are you still planning on attending tomorrow? I hope we get to hear some tidbits of new info, although I think it'll be quite procedural. Looking forward to hearing your take on it all if you go!

Sam's picture didn't help. I'm still a no.