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

[ABro]

Charges against Vader were stayed not withdrawn, so he's not totally off the hook. AFAIK, there has never been any indication that LE has other suspects. IMO, not really a "Whoops" as much as they couldn't meet the threshold and are hoping the next year will provide what they need to do so. Another case without bodies being recovered.

Yes and in cases like this -- where they don't have enough evidence or the wrong person -- an announcement is made.

Police don't just say they're not looking for other suspects and then secretly start looking for other murder suspects, as it was suggested they could be doing in this case.

 

[ABro]

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.

When you suggest police have the wrong man, the implication is they're complete screw- ups.

There's really no way for DG to be innocent and the police to be competent.

As I said, I'm all for criticizing the police when there's reason to do so, but I see no evidence, let alone suggestion, they've messed up here. ( although who knows what I'll think after seeing the evidence?)

The idea that DG is the wrong man -- and therefore the police blew it -- seems to stem from people feeling he didn't do it, not any actual evidence.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

This is the numbered company for Winter Pet from an Alberta Govt Petroleum Regulator database,, two hours of sleuthing, bedtime now;

1324661 ALBERTA INC.

and it is considered active as of this month and year, hmmm?

Oh...interesting!! Hmmmm

 

[Krystine]

This is the numbered company for Winter Pet from an Alberta Govt Petroleum Regulator database,, two hours of sleuthing, bedtime now;

1324661 ALBERTA INC.

and it is considered active as of this month and year, hmmm?

How in the world did you find that? I decided it would be impossible.
I believe the lawyer who draws it all up and administers it can renew it automatically, but who would have paid the annual fee?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

When you suggest police have the wrong man, the implication is they're complete screw- ups.

There's really no way for DG to be innocent and the police to be competent.

As I said, I'm all for criticizing the police when there's reason to do so, but I see no evidence, let alone suggestion, they've messed up here. ( although who knows what I'll think after seeing the evidence?)

The idea that DG is the wrong man -- and therefore the police blew it -- seems to stem from people feeling he didn't do it, not any actual evidence.

Well, I certainly hope they have the right man...as mentioned, it has happened before. The further remark made here, that the "police blew it" is not from me, as I certainly have never said that, nor do I believe that. The extended version (therefore the police blew it) is supposition and assumption and has been assigned to me by someone else. That is erroneous, and are not my words...not before and not now. I believe police are doing the best they can with what they have.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

How in the world did you find that? I decided it would be impossible.
I believe the lawyer who draws it all up and administers it can renew it automatically, but who would have paid the annual fee?

Maybe it didn't run out from last year or is this a recent renewal?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Yes and in cases like this -- where they don't have enough evidence or the wrong person -- an announcement is made.

Police don't just say they're not looking for other suspects and then secretly start looking for other murder suspects, as it was suggested they could be doing in this case.

So you're saying because they made a statement a while ago, they now refuse to look at any other possible suspects?

If the evidence suddenly hinted there may be others involved, I highly doubt they'd call a press conference to announce it.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

When you suggest police have the wrong man, the implication is they're complete screw- ups.

There's really no way for DG to be innocent and the police to be competent.

As I said, I'm all for criticizing the police when there's reason to do so, but I see no evidence, let alone suggestion, they've messed up here. ( although who knows what I'll think after seeing the evidence?)

The idea that DG is the wrong man -- and therefore the police blew it -- seems to stem from people feeling he didn't do it, not any actual evidence.

Well, if we use that logic, you can't say LE is doing a great job without publicly convicting DG before he has had his day in court. Which is it?

 

[ABro]

Well, if we use that logic, you can't say LE is doing a great job without publicly convicting DG before he has had his day in court. Which is it?

I haven't said they're doing a great job.

I have no idea what kind of job they did. I won't know until I see the evidence.

It's clear they worked very hard in unpleasant conditions. And hats off to them for that. That's all.

None of us know the quality of their investigative work.

 

[ABro]

So you're saying because they made a statement a while ago, they now refuse to look at any other possible suspects?

If the evidence suddenly hinted there may be others involved, I highly doubt they'd call a press conference to announce it.

It's not that they "refuse". They simply aren't looking at other suspects because they don't have any.

This is what they have clearly stated.

 

[Slebby]

Well, if we use that logic, you can't say LE is doing a great job without publicly convicting DG before he has had his day in court. Which is it?

I disagree. You can say LE is doing a good job (which I believe) and still have an open mind about DG until he has his day in court (which I do)
IMO

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I disagree. You can say LE is doing a good job (which I believe) and still have an open mind about DG until he has his day in court (which I do)
IMO

Thank you for finally conceding the point.

It's just like saying there could possibly be another suspect, without calling LE inept.

 

[Hez]

And if you could please explain the purpose of this forum, that would be helpful too. If one cannot speculate without being labeled as having tunnel vision, and if one cannot question LE without being labeled as a name caller, and if one cannot come up with alternate scenarios and pursue those for possible information without being told that we don't know that for sure so we can't say that... then... what's the point in being here?

Is this really necessary?

 

[ABro]

Please provide the link for the statement, including the date...

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/08/05/calgary-cops-in-mexico-for-missing-family-case

Calgary police have sent detectives to Mexico in relation to the investigation surrounding a missing family presumed murdered.
Police won’t release any details of the trip other than to say there are no additional suspects or persons of interest in the case.

You cannot say that in the months since that statement, that absolutely nothing has come to light with absolute black and white certainty. To dismiss it outright, and to keep insisting it's impossible is, by your own definition, tunnel vision.

Once again, I have every reason to believe police went down the multiple suspect path at the beginning. They ruled it out based on the evidence. I have no reason to believe they made a mistake. I'm not sure how you construe that as me having a tunnel vision or saying it's "impossible". In theory, it's possible ISIS did it.

The opposite of tunnel vision is not insisting forever that everything is a possibility. It's exploring the possibilities and coming to a conclusion based on the evidence.

Now, I think I will bow out before giving everyone else blurry vision when they hit these posts.

 

[ABro]

Is this really necessary?

No. I'm going to give it a pass

 

[deugirtni]

But didn't it take them almost 2 years to announce they did not have enough evidence?

I don't think that it was just suddenly on that day that they discovered they didn't have enough evidence, but rather, a compilation of information which came to light over time, don't you think?

In this case, if during the ongoing investigation, LE discovers information which could lead them to consider that more than one perpetrator may have been involved, I'm pretty sure they will follow up on that, and without advising the public. Just as they are not now keeping the public apprised of their findings or leanings or investigation areas, they also would not advise us if a second perp came to light.

As OOTD said, things can come up, and that wouldn't mean that LE was dishonest or incompetent. Does anyone suppose that this Travis fellow was arrested initially without LE believing they had enough evidence to convict? Something during the time in between his arrest and his staying of charges obviously came up, and the same could happen in this case or any case.

Why do some WSers seem to imagine that it is an afront to LE to consider different possibilities than the very little that we have been informed of?

Yes and in cases like this -- where they don't have enough evidence or the wrong person -- an announcement is made.

Police don't just say they're not looking for other suspects and then secretly start looking for other murder suspects, as it was suggested they could be doing in this case.

 

[Sillybilly]

Why do some WSers seem to imagine that it is an afront to LE to consider different possibilities than the very little that we have been informed of?

<rsbm>

Because we've been told by Mods in various threads on numerous occasions (paraphrased) that we can speculate within reason, but that speculation must be based on something as opposed to pulling possibilities out of thin air.

So, what specific piece of information leads to the speculation that others are involved when LE has specifically stated otherwise?

 

[LoisLane]

Here is an article about an accused killer who will apply for subsidy. On a side note I assume this person is in the same facility as DG.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/09/18/rare-application-by-accused-killer-to-get-subsidized-lawyer

 

[kaley]

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! I myself have thought this very scenario but I keep going back to the crime map and the fact that it still shows that two murders were committed at the Likness home.There may be evidence that DG murdered KL and NO at the home. Then DG may have taken AL as a passenger after and killed him at a different location? I really do think that KL was the victim LE referred to as being in medical distress.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/08/05/calgary-cops-in-mexico-for-missing-family-case





Once again, I have every reason to believe police went down the multiple suspect path at the beginning. They ruled it out based on the evidence. I have no reason to believe they made a mistake. I'm not sure how you construe that as me having a tunnel vision or saying it's "impossible". In theory, it's possible ISIS did it.

The opposite of tunnel vision is not insisting forever that everything is a possibility. It's exploring the possibilities and coming to a conclusion based on the evidence.

Now, I think I will bow out before giving everyone else blurry vision when they hit these posts.

The opposite of tunnel vision is called being 'open minded' and maybe even slim-to-none chance "hopeful". It's my opinion that pretty much everything that makes sense in some way, shape or form can definitely be explored as a possibility. We cannot come to a conclusion yet as we don't know what all the evidence is. That will be presented in the preliminary hearing and I'm not even sure we get to find out at that point. Until we find out what all the evidence is, then exploring all possible 'motives' and 'possible what-the-heck happened?' is totally an option, IMO. I don't think LE have stopped exploring the options yet, even with knowing what the evidence is. That's why sometimes on TV you hear..."up next...breaking news in the case of..." then poof! All of a sudden there's a twist to everything. It has happened in the past.

P.S. Who is ISIS?