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

[Tinkerbel1]

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.

I wonder if those markers were assigned to the Liknes home because LE isn't really sure where they died maybe? So, they situated it at the residence, since it was a known crime scene?

 

[LoisLane]

<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?

For me I am interested in the residential break-in and vehicle thefts (2) that appear to be mapped for a residence that is very close to the Liknes home. I feel like that incident would have involved two people and I wonder if it was related, investigated, and ruled out. It occured the morning of June 29th. I am also interested in the reports that Winter declared bankruptcy and I am curious if that is factual or if it has been reported incorrectly. I also wonder if DG was currently involved in the underground crime world and if so I feel like he made use of various resources. LE had indicated they were investigating other leads and that DG was the only suspect at the time of arrest. I am curious if more info has become available since the charges have been laid that could link to another persons involvement.

 

[Slebby]

Thank you for finally conceding the point.

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

How am I "finally conceding the point"? This is the first I've commented on the subject.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

<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?

The speculation may be present because it's possible that DG may not be the 'only' one who may have some sort of motive or 'beef' with AL as per the information sleuthed regarding business dealings, as well as the removal of the bodies in such a short timeframe. It seems unreasonable to some, for someone of DG's stature to do on his own. Aside from that, there were a few anomalies in 'intended residence location' at the estate sale, and also because so many things lined up eerily perfect for the commission of the murders. There are other things sleuthed that point in another direction as well. Perhaps LE are looking at those things now. IMO, it would be a great disservice to the victims, LE and the families for all avenues not to be looked at. There's certainly no harm in it. No one is upsetting LE or the victim's families, everyone is being respectful and genuinely coming from a place of wanting to see the best possible outcome for this. There's enough "something's" for speculation to be allowed by the Mods. JMO

 

[jillianzzcat]

I agree....KL was a victim at the Parkhill home.....and yes the crime map throws my scenario off for sure. Maybe it was KL and NO in the home
and AL at a different location, as you say...matches the crime map for sure. Apologies...this was in response to Kaley...post #579....

 

[deugirtni]

Hey, are you able to do that also in reverse? ie if you have a numbered company, are you able to find out who owns it?

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?

 

[Slebby]

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?

This case of the McCs' murder was terribly sad.

A distinction I'd like to make - the difference between being guilty (as in, he did it) and guilty (as in, it can be proven in a court of law in a way that will lead to a guilty conviction) This has to be so frustrating for LE, working a case for years, knowing they're on the right track, but also reaching a point where they have to concede it's not provable in court. IOW, "not convict able" does not equal "did not do it".

In the case of TV, it's possible this was one of those cases where LE knew they had the right guy but not to the point where they could convict. If TV truly is the perpetrator, I hope LE will one day get that break that will make their case.

IMO

 

[Hez]

Hey, are you able to do that also in reverse? ie if you have a numbered company, are you able to find out who owns it?

Yes, the Corporate Registry will provide the names of all the directors and voting shareholders of the company, as well as the operating names and and legal entity names of the company.

 

[Slebby]

I have a question about accomplices for any legal experts out there.

Let's say there was more than one perp involved in this case. One gets arrested and charged. While waiting for the slow wheels of justice to roll on, the ongoing investigation points towards an accomplice and the second perp is charged. Does anything actually change WRT to the first alleged perp? Is he not as culpable with an accomplice as without?

The reason I ask is because some of this discussion regarding possible accomplices seems to be making an assumption that if there is an accomplice, this somehow lessens the likelihood that DG will be convicted, or provides some sort of reasonable doubt about his guilt. But wouldn't evidence of an accomplice merely present a clearer picture of the facts of the crime, and wouldn't DG be as likely to be convicted either way?

So my real question is, if the presence of an accomplice came to light, what, if any effect would this have on The outcome for DG?

IMHO

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

How am I "finally conceding the point"? This is the first I've commented on the subject.

Because the side of the discussion you chose to involve yourself in, refused to realize the hypocrisy of their argument, until you yourself demonstrated it.

There is nothing wrong with speculating. If you feel otherwise, then, wow, are you on the wrong site.

 

[Cherchri]

<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?

I had never seriously considered accomplices nor given that possibility much credence. I recently asked who sat in that camp. I guess I can, therefore be blamed for raising the issue recently. I think most people here are well aware of my theory. My theory had one considerable weakness ..... How the three victims were removed from the premises - whether alive or dead at the time of removal. Having been up close and personal to DG last week, I just don't know how he managed physically given that he is not a big strapping lad. I have found nothing conclusive that would give me any reason to support the accomplice issue and am therefore left with a most awful consideration. One that I can't bring myself to type.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

<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?

Ask those who have posted things, only to have them snipped as per the rules. There is valid reason for the speculation, just not enough postable evidence... and how does one find postable evidence? Speak, speculate, and then use that as a direction to look in... free from being flamed as having "tunnel vision" and in an open forum where it's point / counterpoint rather than spin and deflection.

Why bother coming here to shut conversation down?

 

[news.talk]

Ask those who have posted things, only to have them snipped as per the rules. There is valid reason for the speculation, just not enough postable evidence... and how does one find postable evidence? Speak, speculate, and then use that as a direction to look in... free from being flamed as having "tunnel vision" and in an open forum where it's point / counterpoint rather than spin and deflection.

Why bother coming here to shut conversation down?

You got snipped? THAT explains the missing 6"!

 

[Slebby]

One question I do have....I don't know if it's been addressed...
I'm not familiar with 'settings' on a CCTV...do they constantly record?
Do they record say every 5 minutes *example* and then update?
Just curious...a constant record of course would be ideal...
If it's set to take a pic every few minutes and then refresh....well...movements in that 4min 59 sec lapse ...could be missed completely...JMOO

You ask a good question about the CCTV. I too have been pondering the CCTV details in this case. One thing I am wondering, there has to be a ton of footage that LE went through. They only released that one photo of the truck (or did we determine it was 2 photos? I forget now) Imo, that photo was chosen for the sole purpose of enlisting the help of the public in the identification of the truck. But I wouldn't be surprised if LE actually had way more footage that reveals more information - maybe something in the bed of the truck, or a clear shot through the windshield, revealing whether there was one or more people riding in the truck. Maybe there were multiple passes through the neighborhood over a period of hours, or days.

So your questions are good ones, what potentially may have been revealed by the CCTV that we are not yet aware of?

IMO

 

[news.talk]

I had never seriously considered accomplices nor given that possibility much credence. I recently asked who sat in that camp. I guess I can, therefore be blamed for raising the issue recently. I think most people here are well aware of my theory. My theory had one considerable weakness ..... How the three victims were removed from the premises - whether alive or dead at the time of removal. Having been up close and personal to DG last week, I just don't know how he managed physically given that he is not a big strapping lad. I have found nothing conclusive that would give me any reason to support the accomplice issue and am therefore left with a most awful consideration. One that I can't bring myself to type.

If it is the same as my gruesome theory, I'll say it - dismemberment.

It doesn't have to be total seperation, just enough to place manageable sized pieces into garbage bags or wrapped in bed linen, like the bedding they pulled from the dump.

It would certainly help hide the fact of carrying full bodies, loading and transporting in an open truck bed. Would also make it easier to start the process of chemical disolvement.

 

[Slebby]

Because the side of the discussion you chose to involve yourself in, refused to realize the hypocrisy of their argument, until you yourself demonstrated it.

There is nothing wrong with speculating. If you feel otherwise, then, wow, are you on the wrong site.

Respectfully, I hadn't even commented on the topic to that point, so, no, I hadn't chosen any "side" to involve myself in. IMO, it IS possible to make one comment on one post without being on a "side".

I choose my words carefully when I post, I say IMO and IMHO a lot, and "I think" or "I believe" and I try to avoid absolutes. We are encouraged to be polite and open to one another's comments, I try to do that.

I'm not on a "side".

Peace.

 

[news.talk]

Respectfully, I hadn't even commented on the topic to that point, so, no, I hadn't chosen any "side" to involve myself in. IMO, it IS possible to make one comment on one post without being on a "side".

I choose my words carefully when I post, I say IMO and IMHO a lot, and "I think" or "I believe" and I try to avoid absolutes. We are encouraged to be polite and open to one another's comments, I try to do that.

I'm not on a "side".

Peace.

He's just snarky caused I discovery his um... shortcomings.

[emoji39]

 

[LoisLane]

I have a question about accomplices for any legal experts out there.

Let's say there was more than one perp involved in this case. One gets arrested and charged. While waiting for the slow wheels of justice to roll on, the ongoing investigation points towards an accomplice and the second perp is charged. Does anything actually change WRT to the first alleged perp? Is he not as culpable with an accomplice as without?

The reason I ask is because some of this discussion regarding possible accomplices seems to be making an assumption that if there is an accomplice, this somehow lessens the likelihood that DG will be convicted, or provides some sort of reasonable doubt about his guilt. But wouldn't evidence of an accomplice merely present a clearer picture of the facts of the crime, and wouldn't DG be as likely to be convicted either way?

So my real question is, if the presence of an accomplice came to light, what, if any effect would this have on The outcome for DG?

IMHO

The way I see it, is if an accomplice is associated that person would answer to appropriate charges. The intent of first-degree murder should still apply and be applicable towards DG in relation to the current evidence LE has. The benefit of having another person involved could help with the recovery of the victims as I would imagine there would be opportunity for new information and another trail to follow. If that makes sense.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Respectfully, I hadn't even commented on the topic to that point, so, no, I hadn't chosen any "side" to involve myself in. IMO, it IS possible to make one comment on one post without being on a "side".

I choose my words carefully when I post, I say IMO and IMHO a lot, and "I think" or "I believe" and I try to avoid absolutes. We are encouraged to be polite and open to one another's comments, I try to do that.

I'm not on a "side".

Peace.

Oh... my apologies then... my "Reply With Quote" button must not be working properly.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

He's just snarky caused I discovery his um... shortcomings.

[emoji39]

You just keep baiting me in hopes that I provide a link to prove you wrong... I'm on to you.