Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #16

[ABro]

I base my belief in them on public backlash...

Whenever there is a high profile, emotionally charged case, LE *know* they are under a microscope. They have their superiors disecting every move and their evidence and investigative techniques are double, triple checked. While I like to believe that they do this for every case, I am a realist and know that these high profile cases are scrutinized beyond the norm.

Yes, if they got this one wrong, they're certainly going to have some explaining to do.

That said, in high profile cases, there is also pressure for an arrest, which can lead to errors.

 

[news.talk]

Yes, if they got this one wrong, they're certainly going to have some explaining to do.

That said, in high profile cases, there is also pressure for an arrest, which can lead to errors.

I agree and the reporter in me *always* worries about the rush to charge a suspect. However, as an insider to LE in this city, I can honesty and emphatically state they did not rush this case. They investigated MANY theories and suspects and only arrived at this conclusion after the evidence exhausted all other possibilities. They were VERY thorough and are subsequently confidant in their case against the suspect.

 

[Cherchri]

I base my belief in them on public backlash...

Whenever there is a high profile, emotionally charged case, LE *knows* they are under a microscope. They have their superiors disecting every move and their evidence and investigative techniques are double, triple checked. While I like to believe that they do this for every case, I am a realist and know that these high profile cases are scrutinized beyond the norm.

Agreed. In this instance I am not aware of any public backlash whatsoever and trust there hasn't been any? They were extremely careful in their handling of information going public and when they made it public it was done with sensitivity and care.

 

[news.talk]

Agreed. In this instance I am not aware of any public backlash whatsoever and trust there hasn't been any? They were extremely careful in their handling of information going public and when they made it public it was done with sensitivity and care.

The backlash would undoubtedly occur if they rushed this case and the suspect ends up walking.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Agreed. In this instance I am not aware of any public backlash whatsoever and trust there hasn't been any? They were extremely careful in their handling of information going public and when they made it public it was done with sensitivity and care.

Yes. Any hinting that LE hasn't been thorough enough in this forum has been more of a devil's advocate speculation, just to cover all the plausible theories. I haven't seen one serious accusation anywhere.

Personally, I think from a legal perspective, everything is playing out as it should, given the current legal standards in Canada. Whether taxpayers, who are footing the bill for the investigation, tests, courts and staff etc., have a right to more information, and sooner, is another debate for another forum.

 

[ilovepierre]

Today is Nathan's sixth birthday. I can not even begin to imagine how difficult today is for the family. I hope they have had a special day filled with love and feel Nathan's spirit all around them.

:rose:

Happy Birthday Nathan!
I wish you were home to celebrate this special day!

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I completely agree, but it's a bit disconcerting that there isn't 100% confidence in the evidence that it's an airtight case. The need for a "test", "test drive", "test run", or however you want to describe it, hints that he thinks there *is* room for reasonable doubt.

It's funny, the reasonable doubt scenarios the defence might try to use (maybe more in the US though, probably not here or in this case) to open the minds of jury are probably the controversial ones being discussed here - a second accomplice or second unrelated suspect, LE not being thorough and having tunnel vision, a disgruntled business partner of one of AL many flunked businesses or that the couple are relaxing in Mexico.

 

[ABro]

Are you stating as fact the LE has absolutely nothing hinting at other people's involvement, or are you speculating that because we've heard nothing since that statement, that nothing could have possibly come to light or have changed?

I'm not following your original point.

It's my experience that when the police say they're not looking for any more suspects that they're not looking for any more suspects. I take such statements at face value.

Perhaps you can provide an example of a case where murder charge(s) are laid, the police say they're not looking for any more suspects, and then, later, they announce they're laying additional murder/ accessory charges.

I don't know of any cases where that's happened.

I'm sorry you don't follow my original point. Not sure I can help with that other than to suggest you reread the posts. I don't really think there's more I can add.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Hi everyone...newbie here....been following this thread from the beginning. My heart aches for the the victims and their family members....especially JO and RO...as a parent, I just can't fathom what they are going through. I, myself have wondered how DG could have acted on his own in commiting this crime. My ideas are not set in stone that's for sure. There are days I find myself thinking that maybe NO is still out there somewhere....and that he will be found alive....I know, not reality! (please don't beat me for that) For today, I think that DG possibly caused grievous injury to KL ...forced AL to move her to the truck and drive to an unknown location with NO and DG as passengers....at this final location both are murdered and disposed of with KL, who I think would have passed en route. It would certainly have saved DG the task of removing all three from the Parkhill home alone. :blushing:

Welcome and thanks for posting! I think that is extremely possible and would make total sense with this theory also.

That would explain why no screaming/noise heard and that would explain why DG wouldn't have had to lift AL into the truck. That might also explain LE's initial statements to the public (might be in the company of his grandfather, someone in medical distress, hopes we'll find them alive, etc.) I really wonder if they could see everyone in the truck and how on that CCTV footage.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Since I'm younger, faster and far better looking than sillybilly...

Let me be the first to welcome you!

Come out of hiding more! We don't bite... much. [emoji39]

We don't bite but might have off the cuff conversations about gender, cookies, nose picking and of course, Sam Elliott lol!!

 

[stan laurel]

Me too Krystine, in regards to your Tinker comment and her posts! We all might not always agree with each other but I whether I agree or not, I love hearing how others think about things. Sometimes my opinions even change because of hearing why others think the way they do. It makes for an interesting world!

Precisely,, it's the thing's that make us think "Hmmmm?" that draws us here and we learn things too,, it's a good forum. Shame we have to get snarky from time to time but that's part of the complex process of expression too.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

It's my experience that when the police say they're not looking for any more suspects that they're not looking for any more suspects. I take such statements at face value.

Perhaps you can provide an example of a case where murder charge(s) are laid, the police say they're not looking for any more suspects, and then, later, they announce they're laying additional murder/ accessory charges.

I don't know of any cases where that's happened.

I'm sorry you don't follow my original point. Not sure I can help with that other than to suggest you reread the posts. I don't really think there's more I can add.

Without wasting my time to look, Travis Vader immediately comes to mind.

I meant the point about calling "tunnel vision" while using "tunnel vision".

"Whoops!" is all it takes... everyone is pretty laid back here.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Precisely,, it's the thing's that make us think "Hmmmm?" that draws us here and we learn things too,, it's a good forum. Shame we have to get snarky from time to time but that's part of the complex process of expression too.

Who are you accusing of getting snarky? That had better not be me, because I'll take back all the nice things I said about Sam Elliott... curse him and his ageless manliness.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Precisely,, it's the thing's that make us think "Hmmmm?" that draws us here and we learn things too,, it's a good forum. Shame we have to get snarky from time to time but that's part of the complex process of expression too.

I think the key to keep snarkiness at bay is for each of us to remain detached from the outcome of the conversation and to approach it as a 'discussion' rather than a high court interrogation. That way we can all communicate in a 'safe' environment and feel that its an open and acceptable place to do so. I like to think we're all on the same team, for a special cause and that this is a big room where anyone can say anything and be respected and accepted for their input. Not all come from 'knowledgeable' backgrounds of news reporting, LE. Legal, etc but we can still all pool our resources and benefit from the fresh, if somewhat uneducated perspectives of other...and yes, an environment that is also creative which allows the use of intuition which are key areas for some people. There isn't one person here who can't learn something from someone else. There's no need for anyone to shove their ideas and beliefs down anyone else's throats. State your opinion, ask your questions and detach from the outcome.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

During the prelim, the defence also has the benefit of finding out how the Crown will interpret the evidence and present it, and can further build their defence and possibly see any weaknesses in the Crown's case; they will have the opportunity to bring in their own forensic experts to offset those of the prosecution.

A guilty plea can be entered at any time, although best done prior to actual trial in order to gain favour with the Court.

Generally, a court-ordered psyche assessment would only be done if the defence suggests the accused is NCR. IF the defence (which doesn't require a court order to do so) has a psyche assessment done and wishes to present it on behalf of the accused, the Crown is within their right to ask for a court-ordered assessment.

CCC, Part XX.1, MENTAL DISORDER, Section 672.1 onward:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-360.html#docCont

I have a question about the preliminary hearing. It's basically to test the strength of the charges...do they conduct it the same way as the Trial. Are all witnesses called to the preliminary hearing as they would be in the Trial? Or, are just a few called?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Who are you accusing of getting snarky? That had better not be me, because I'll take back all the nice things I said about Sam Elliott... curse him and his ageless manliness.

...and post pictures of the leopard print G-string, as well as the relationship Stan has with his nose...and those ginger snaps and liver

I put my hand up! I'm snarky! Sure can be if someone crosses the big ole line of treating people with dignity and respect. Yup! Boom! Instant amygdala hijack!

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Who are you accusing of getting snarky? That had better not be me, because I'll take back all the nice things I said about Sam Elliott... curse him and his ageless manliness.

Ummm, yeah OutoftheDarkness, I'm afraid it probably is you...Sam Elliott can say whatever he wants!

 

[LoisLane]

Is it safe to come out yet? Just kidding!

I have created an account with Industry Canada, paid my $8 bucks to search for any companies who have recently declared bankruptcy under the name Winter Petroleum and nothing came up. What could it mean?

a. I don't know what I am doing.
b. They have not yet finalized bankruptcy
c. They have not declared bankruptcy
d. They use a different name

Any thoughts?

 

[Krystine]

I think the key to keep snarkiness at bay is for each of us to remain detached from the outcome of the conversation and to approach it as a 'discussion' rather than a high court interrogation. That way we can all communicate in a 'safe' environment and feel that its an open and acceptable place to do so. I like to think we're all on the same team, for a special cause and that this is a big room where anyone can say anything and be respected and accepted for their input. Not all come from 'knowledgeable' backgrounds of news reporting, LE. Legal, etc but we can still all pool our resources and benefit from the fresh, if somewhat uneducated perspectives of other...and yes, an environment that is also creative which allows the use of intuition which are key areas for some people. There isn't one person here who can't learn something from someone else. There's no need for anyone to shove their ideas and beliefs down anyone else's throats. State your opinion, ask your questions and detach from the outcome.

I agree completely, well said.
I admit to having a snarky streak, but have to say, this site is a lot more fun when you aren't having a coronary whenever someone posts something contrary to what you think. I spent a little time on a dating site forum, ... try that if you want to see snarky. MOG!
Like Tinkerbel, I think this (and all of life) is better when we collaborate instead of try to take control.
It's a bit like community theatre, where a bunch of amateurs from many walks of life bring whatever they've got to put together a performance. Most of what I have seen from little theatre has been pretty darn good.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

That's the thing. We haven't been presented anything on a platter. All we know is that this guy has been accused.

We have no idea how strong the case against him is or isn't.

I don't have a blind faith in police and prosecutors. Far from it. But I'm not automatically suspicious of them either.

I really don't think I've seen indication in the past 6 threads I've been on that anyone is suspicious of police. No one is saying anything derogatory about the police at all. Not sure where that impression has come from.