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

[Lalalacasbah]

Travis Vader was charged with the murder of the McCanns in May of 2012. The McCanns are still missing. Those charges were stayed on March 19 of this year in Edmonton, 3 hours north of Calgary and 3 months before the Liknes/O'Brien disappearance.

Possible inspiration?

Probably, unfortunately OOTD.

And I made the mistake of googling 'reasons to take body from crime scene' and read a disturbing post in some metafilter forum from someone, who I swear did murder someone, weird stuff, wish I didn't read. They wrote to keep deceased in or under your house so you're not caught transporting or seen with it, and described how to rid of fumes and also went on to describe how if you remove your toilet at the base it opens up the largest hole to the sewer system, and lots more crazy stuff that is too disturbing and creepy to post. It was SCARY.

And I wonder if our murderer in this case looked and found the exact same information (like I said, there was more stuff I wouldn't even think of). Gross really.

 

[stan laurel]

I pondered earlier in the thread if the Garland residence might've had a family firearm for the acreage or not.

I think it was LoriMcA (I hope I got the person right!) mentioned growing up on a farm, they had a family gun for the farm. I don't know if it's common for farm/rural land owners to have guns in Alberta? lol, I sound so ignorant as a BC'er and even grew up in Alberta and met a coyote in my youth, geeez….

yes, farm guns are common and I was agreeing with a post but may have not quoted the right one.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

yes, farm guns are common and I was agreeing with a post but may have not quoted the right one.

And my quote was responding to I think LoriMcA's post as IIRC she first brought up the thought of farm firearms, which was a great angle. So many posts, so many responses! Trying to keep track!

 

[deugirtni]

I am thinking... .. why do you suppose DG, with his particular 'chemist' knowledge, and his 'genius', and perhaps also his access to different chemicals, even think about premeditated murder in that manner.. any messy manner.. when.. there are probably quite a few concoctions which could be administered in one way or another, even while the victims were asleep, which could potentially be undetectable. Especially if he was just going to remove the bodies anyway.. why travel with all the gore? Why take that additional risk on top of doing the actual murders? Why take the chance of a roadside check, or DNA contamination in his truck? And what a perfect plan it would have been to just inject the victims with insulin or something (easily available over the counter without a prescription), because without the blood evidence in the house, my guess is that there would be a lot more suspicion about the family just leaving of their own accord for whatever reason(s), and less suspicion about murders having actually taken place. He could have left them all in the house, without any gore, or he could have still taken the bodies, but without the gore.

 

[LoisLane]

I am thinking... .. why do you suppose DG, with his particular 'chemist' knowledge, and his 'genius', and perhaps also his access to different chemicals, even think about premeditated murder in that manner.. any messy manner.. when.. there are probably quite a few concoctions which could be administered in one way or another, even while the victims were asleep, which could potentially be undetectable. Especially if he was just going to remove the bodies anyway.. why travel with all the gore? Why take that additional risk on top of doing the actual murders? Why take the chance of a roadside check, or DNA contamination in his truck? And what a perfect plan it would have been to just inject the victims with insulin or something (easily available over the counter without a prescription), because without the blood evidence in the house, my guess is that there would be a lot more suspicion about the family just leaving of their own accord for whatever reason(s), and less suspicion about murders having actually taken place. He could have left them all in the house, without any gore, or he could have still taken the bodies, but without the gore.

I have thought of an injection and even though there were signs of violence that could be because someone woke while it was being administered. That would be a smart and clean way to do things.

 

[kittymeow]

In this case, there seems to have been many instances of about-faces, for lack of a better word right now. If anyone needs me to provide a link for any of these, let me know and I'll try to dig up, although I do find it very time consuming to search for things on here:
-LE said DG was not their only POI; then LE said DG was the sole POI
-LE said there was no reason to believe the 3 people were dead; then LE said all 3 people were murdered
-there was mass confusion and multiple statements made about where the Ls were moving to, even amongst immediate family members who should have known exactly what the plans were, since the Ls were selling off virtually everything they owned on that weekend; as I understand it from what I have read, everything was up for grabs
-ALJr was quoted as saying AL hadn't seen DG for 7 years since a business relationship ended, but that it had NOT ended on a bad note; then it was reported that DG and AL's working relationship had ended on a sour note, there was bad blood, etc.
-PG was reported as the common law wife of AL, the wife of AL, and the past tense of both of those
-it was reported that ALJr himself had not seen DG for 4 years, and it was also reported that ALJr had not seen DG since thanksgiving 2013, less than one year ago

[modsnip] The prosecution has stated themselves that the investigation will continue ongoing until the trial. And so if something comes to light during those years while we wait for trial, they are hopefully going to follow up on it and not just discard it because it doesn't jive with what they have already stated publicly. Things can change and they just might, and things aren't always black and white.

I believe that someone asked awhile back why I believed there was more than one perp; frankly, I have not divulged my own personal theory, mostly because I feel stifled. [modsnip] Personally I don't think there were 2 perps, and I also don't have DG as my #1 suspect either; I don't think anyone 'dissolved' the bodies and I don't think anyone cut up bodies at the L's home; but to each his own theory(ies), at least until we know the facts, which we absolutely don't know right now.

As much as I would like to put every ounce of faith in LE and just blindly accept that they have their one and only man, I'm having a difficult time with that in this case and it isn't making sense for me. So there have been times when LE, in this province or another province, have seemed to have tunnel vision, and times when innocents have been accused and spent time in prison, and I'm sorry if some are really tired of hearing about those rare cases, but they *have* been known to happen. And even if there is a case where an accused is arrested and spends time in jail awaiting trial only to be released due to insufficient evidence, the accused forever lives with the stigma and also the public believing that insufficient evidence for conviction isn't the same as not guilty. I'm not anti-police, I'm a law abiding citizen, and 99% of the time I agree with whatever LE is saying in any given case, but this time I just don't. And I apologize if that 'feeling' offends anyone, it is not meant to. I realize I'm in the very small minority here, so does that mean my thoughts are not welcome and I should leave? I can't help thinking about how it only takes one small clue to potentially break a case wide open. And sometimes a little clue can be sparked by opening our minds and ears to everyone's thoughts and not just those with whom we happen to agree.

All of the discrepancies can easily be chalked up to hearsay. Reporters were scrambling at that time, they were going off multiple sources who only have their own perspective/knowledge to share, and those statements can really snowball. I had made one comment here about what I heard from the Garland's neighbour in early July and I very clearly said that it should be taken with a grain of salt, and I later saw it printed in a news article as if it were fact, when I clearly stated it likely wasn't. So I've seen firsthand how those "facts" can get messed up. Also if one family member said that Alvin last saw Douglas in September 2013, and another family member says it's been 4 years, etc etc, well they are probably just going off what they know firsthand. Maybe the person who said it's been 4 years simply wasn't aware about the Thanksgiving gathering. Same with the comments about Alvin and Douglas' working relationship. Maybe one family member simply wasn't involved with their business issues and just assumed from the outside that things ended quietly and everything was fine, while another family may have been closer to the situation and known more info about what went on. Basically, I don't think the confusion and discrepancies suggest anything suspicious.

Also the conflicting LE comments are clearly because they were trying to be as ambiguous as possible to protect the investigation at that time. They have said as much. This continues now as there was clearly enough compelling evidence to charge this man with three counts of murder. The simple fact is we don't know what they know and I think the fact that they aren't sharing it shows their conviction and competency more so than the opposite. We all know how hard it is to charge murder without bodies so it's easy for me to trust and believe that the evidence must be clear cut and compelling in order for the case to be presented and accepted. That's not easy to do if you are rushed and not doing things right. Maybe the fact that LE moved so quickly after Douglas is because well, that's simply where the evidence pointed and that the evidence was clear. Again we don't know the details and we won't for a long time but I'm sure when we do know it will explain a lot. So many things are unanswered still so some reservation must be held.

 

[kittymeow]

Also I also wonder if LE revealed some of their evidence to the family as they have now had a memorial service for Nathan and there is an upcoming one for Alvin and Kathy. Just my opinion but I would guess that most families wouldn't even do that with 99% certainty, but would probably wait for 100%. Could also explain why this is happening in September instead of shortly after the murder charges in July. Maybe they had information revealed to them that showed them Nathan, Alvin, and Kathy were indeed gone.

 

[deugirtni]

I have also been thinking about the amber alert which was put out (hours after the family was discovered missing). I'm going to do point form:
-it's almost (to me, IMOO) like they waited to see if perhaps they returned on their own, before issuing the AA
-obviously there was blood in the house; for whatever reason, they must have felt that it was KL's blood (IMOO), because didn't the initial AA say to look for Grampa and NO? I'm pretty sure it could be tested in seconds to see if it was male or female blood? (Just guessing?) I'm not sure if the testing would be so quick to determine if it was human or other though?? Does anyone know?
-issuing an AA would get the word out across the land, to look for these people.... all airports.. border crossings.. highways.. malls.. hospitals.. whatever.. why would this be important to do if the 3 were murdered quietly in the house in the middle of the night? To me, IMOO, they *must* have suspected that these people were 'out there'.
-issuing an AA as above would get the word out, and have all kinds of people looking for these 3 people, which would bring in more tips.. tips of what? Tips of some old guy driving a beater with 3 bodies in the back? Or tips of 'sightings' of 'live' people? If they were murdered in the house, who is really going to be seeing them??
-even after LE declared that the 3 were murdered, at least some family members refused to believe that, until they are shown proof (ie bodies are produced?). If the evidence in the house were so obvious, would they still be saying that? If the evidence in the house is NOT so obvious, then what leads LE to believe that is what happened?

 

[Lalalacasbah]

All of the discrepancies can easily be chalked up to hearsay. Reporters were scrambling at that time, they were going off multiple sources who only have their own perspective/knowledge to share, and those statements can really snowball. I had made one comment here about what I heard from the Garland's neighbour in early July and I very clearly said that it should be taken with a grain of salt, and I later saw it printed in a news article as if it were fact, when I clearly stated it likely wasn't. So I've seen firsthand how those "facts" can get messed up. Also if one family member said that Alvin last saw Douglas in September 2013, and another family member says it's been 4 years, etc etc, well they are probably just going off what they know firsthand. Maybe the person who said it's been 4 years simply wasn't aware about the Thanksgiving gathering. Same with the comments about Alvin and Douglas' working relationship. Maybe one family member simply wasn't involved with their business issues and just assumed from the outside that things ended quietly and everything was fine, while another family may have been closer to the situation and known more info about what went on. Basically, I don't think the confusion and discrepancies suggest anything suspicious.

Also the conflicting LE comments are clearly because they were trying to be as ambiguous as possible to protect the investigation at that time. They have said as much. This continues now as there was clearly enough compelling evidence to charge this man with three counts of murder. The simple fact is we don't know what they know and I think the fact that they aren't sharing it shows their conviction and competency more so than the opposite. We all know how hard it is to charge murder without bodies so it's easy for me to trust and believe that the evidence must be clear cut and compelling in order for the case to be presented and accepted. That's not easy to do if you are rushed and not doing things right. Maybe the fact that LE moved so quickly after Douglas is because well, that's simply where the evidence pointed and that the evidence was clear. Again we don't know the details and we won't for a long time but I'm sure when we do know it will explain a lot. So many things are unanswered still so some reservation must be held.

Whoah, so do you mean a reporter read a comment you made on websleuths and published it as fact in MSM? That doesn't sound like professional journalism, and that's too bad that happened.

I agree though, as crazy confusing as this case is, it's probably because the case takes on a life of it's own with new findings. Just when things are going right, something happens and it takes a left. Makes this case very curious.

 

[deugirtni]

Thank you for your reply kittymeow. That is interesting about your post being quoted. I will have to try to find it!

I just wanted to clarify.. it has never varied that ALJr said the last time AL saw/spoke to DG was 7 years ago. What varied was when the last time was that Allen (ALJr, AL's son) saw DG, but yet both reports I believe were reported by ALJr. Either the media got it wrong, or he said 2 different things to 2 different reporters.

And I believe it was also ALJr who was the party providing the information on the business dealings between AL and DG NOT ending on bad terms, and then MSM also getting from him, the same person, that there was bad blood between them because of a past business thing. So again, did one set of media misunderstand what he said, or did he say two different things?

My point about all of those things being said one way one time, and another way another time, was not really to argue which way it was, but rather, just to point out that just because LE says something at one given time, or just because something is reported in MSM, doesn't mean that's all there is to it and we can just believe in that until the trial. Obviously some of those points changed because LE's information changed, and that was the whole point of the discussion regarding the potential second perp being involved.

Things could change between the time when DG got arrested and when the trial finally takes place, which could potentially lead LE to look at different things, find different evidence, and not necessarily report them publicly. For any sleuthers trying to make some kind of sense about the logistics of all of this, it therefore doesn't really seem fair to say they are only allowed to think in one way, and that way would be only what LE has officially reported to the public to date.

All of the discrepancies can easily be chalked up to hearsay. Reporters were scrambling at that time, they were going off multiple sources who only have their own perspective/knowledge to share, and those statements can really snowball. I had made one comment here about what I heard from the Garland's neighbour in early July and I very clearly said that it should be taken with a grain of salt, and I later saw it printed in a news article as if it were fact, when I clearly stated it likely wasn't. So I've seen firsthand how those "facts" can get messed up. Also if one family member said that Alvin last saw Douglas in September 2013, and another family member says it's been 4 years, etc etc, well they are probably just going off what they know firsthand. Maybe the person who said it's been 4 years simply wasn't aware about the Thanksgiving gathering. Same with the comments about Alvin and Douglas' working relationship. Maybe one family member simply wasn't involved with their business issues and just assumed from the outside that things ended quietly and everything was fine, while another family may have been closer to the situation and known more info about what went on. Basically, I don't think the confusion and discrepancies suggest anything suspicious.

Also the conflicting LE comments are clearly because they were trying to be as ambiguous as possible to protect the investigation at that time. They have said as much. This continues now as there was clearly enough compelling evidence to charge this man with three counts of murder. The simple fact is we don't know what they know and I think the fact that they aren't sharing it shows their conviction and competency more so than the opposite. We all know how hard it is to charge murder without bodies so it's easy for me to trust and believe that the evidence must be clear cut and compelling in order for the case to be presented and accepted. That's not easy to do if you are rushed and not doing things right. Maybe the fact that LE moved so quickly after Douglas is because well, that's simply where the evidence pointed and that the evidence was clear. Again we don't know the details and we won't for a long time but I'm sure when we do know it will explain a lot. So many things are unanswered still so some reservation must be held.

 

[kittymeow]

I have also been thinking about the amber alert which was put out (hours after the family was discovered missing). I'm going to do point form:
-it's almost (to me, IMOO) like they waited to see if perhaps they returned on their own, before issuing the AA
-obviously there was blood in the house; for whatever reason, they must have felt that it was KL's blood (IMOO), because didn't the initial AA say to look for Grampa and NO? I'm pretty sure it could be tested in seconds to see if it was male or female blood? (Just guessing?) I'm not sure if the testing would be so quick to determine if it was human or other though?? Does anyone know?
-issuing an AA would get the word out across the land, to look for these people.... all airports.. border crossings.. highways.. malls.. hospitals.. whatever.. why would this be important to do if the 3 were murdered quietly in the house in the middle of the night? To me, IMOO, they *must* have suspected that these people were 'out there'.
-issuing an AA as above would get the word out, and have all kinds of people looking for these 3 people, which would bring in more tips.. tips of what? Tips of some old guy driving a beater with 3 bodies in the back? Or tips of 'sightings' of 'live' people? If they were murdered in the house, who is really going to be seeing them??
-even after LE declared that the 3 were murdered, at least some family members refused to believe that, until they are shown proof (ie bodies are produced?). If the evidence in the house were so obvious, would they still be saying that? If the evidence in the house is NOT so obvious, then what leads LE to believe that is what happened?

wasn't the official reason for the AA delay was that LE had to seek a special exception because they didn't have a vehicle to include in the alert? so it took time for the exception.

also your last point also echoes my thoughts in a post I just made where I wonder if LE possibly shared some evidence with the surviving family that made them make the move to have the memorial services/funerals. Like you said, they initially refused to fully believe it without proof.

Whoah, so do you mean a reporter read a comment you made on websleuths and published it as fact in MSM? That doesn't sound like professional journalism, and that's too bad that happened.

I agree though, as crazy confusing as this case is, it's probably because the case takes on a life of it's own with new findings. Just when things are going right, something happens and it takes a left. Makes this case very curious.

Yeah, I believe it was a CBC article from back around mid-July. Maybe tomorrow when I'm more alert I'll do some browsing to try and find it.

Thank you for your reply kittymeow. That is interesting about your post being quoted. I will have to try to find it!

I just wanted to clarify.. it has never varied that ALJr said the last time AL saw/spoke to DG was 7 years ago. What varied was when the last time was that Allen (ALJr, AL's son) saw DG, but yet both reports I believe were reported by ALJr. Either the media got it wrong, or he said 2 different things to 2 different reporters.

And I believe it was also ALJr who was the party providing the information on the business dealings between AL and DG NOT ending on bad terms, and then MSM also getting from him, the same person, that there was bad blood between them because of a past business thing. So again, did one set of media misunderstand what he said, or did he say two different things?

My point about all of those things being said one way one time, and another way another time, was not really to argue which way it was, but rather, just to point out that just because LE says something at one given time, or just because something is reported in MSM, doesn't mean that's all there is to it and we can just believe in that until the trial. Obviously some of those points changed because LE's information changed, and that was the whole point of the discussion regarding the potential second perp being involved.

Things could change between the time when DG got arrested and when the trial finally takes place, which could potentially lead LE to look at different things, find different evidence, and not necessarily report them publicly. For any sleuthers trying to make some kind of sense about the logistics of all of this, it therefore doesn't really seem fair to say they are only allowed to think in one way, and that way would be only what LE has officially reported to the public to date.

Okay thanks for clarifying the who-said-what aspects of this. You're clearly paying closer attention to those specifics than I am. I agree it's hard to say whether it was a mistake in memory, misspeaking, or misquoting from the media. Obviously something went wrong somewhere to cause the discrepancies.

Also I didn't mean to say that people SHOULD believe the stance that LE is taken and shouldn't be allowed to think otherwise. I just meant that it's what I believe and trust in right now. It's very good and wise to also consider alternatives. I only meant that SOME reservation/open mindedness should be held regardless of your stance due to the lack of publicly shared information. Including myself. Right now I believe that the evidence LE is withholding would probably explain clearly why they believe the victims are dead and why they believe Douglas Garland murdered them. I also understand that since there is a lot I don't know, maybe it could come out down the road that things aren't so clear cut about what happened or who did it and how. More questions/suspicions could be raised. That's the tricky part about not knowing all this info but I hope that LE is acting fairly either way and that the accused gets a fair and ethical trial.

 

[deugirtni]

I think I found at least the part about what you had said.. that is amazing (IMOO) if MSM could take something like a comment made by someone who said a neighbour said... and turn it into a news report.. hopefully MSM checked it out with the neighbour themselves first, before reporting it as fact!?!?!?!

..... I had made one comment here about what I heard from the Garland's neighbour in early July and I very clearly said that it should be taken with a grain of salt, and I later saw it printed in a news article as if it were fact, when I clearly stated it likely wasn't. So I've seen firsthand how those "facts" can get messed up. .....

 

[Sillybilly]

Please, if anyone has a problem with a post or a poster, WE ARE EXPECTED TO use the little black triangle on the bottom left of each post so we can keep dissension out of the conversations and keep the discussion about the victims and the accused. Let the Mods review it and handle it appropriately.

 

[newone]

I have a similar line of thinking as you - quick and simple, not as elaborate as we might think. And again, like you - I'm probably thinking this because I find the 'other ways' too hard to swallow and I'm probably just in denial about other methods for the victims and familie's sake.

I think he has a known, private spot that he might've used (IIRC Otto thought similar too, where is Otto these days?) to take them to (deceased or alive), and as you mentioned I'm sure he knew of lots having known the area well.

As for getting victims out of the house without suspicion, did AL play hockey or sports that required a large sports duffel bag? Maybe thats something from the movies though, I have no idea about sports equipment or how big stuff like that is. By the obit, sounds like AL liked adventure sports, he might've had stuff around for equipment that might have even been used.

there are some huge hockey duffle bags with wheels -- can hold a lot -- 2 bodies no problem brrrrr -- I hate typing that

 

[ABro]

Thank you for your reply kittymeow. That is interesting about your post being quoted. I will have to try to find it!

I just wanted to clarify.. it has never varied that ALJr said the last time AL saw/spoke to DG was 7 years ago. What varied was when the last time was that Allen (ALJr, AL's son) saw DG, but yet both reports I believe were reported by ALJr. Either the media got it wrong, or he said 2 different things to 2 different reporters.

And I believe it was also ALJr who was the party providing the information on the business dealings between AL and DG NOT ending on bad terms, and then MSM also getting from him, the same person, that there was bad blood between them because of a past business thing. So again, did one set of media misunderstand what he said, or did he say two different things?

My point about all of those things being said one way one time, and another way another time, was not really to argue which way it was, but rather, just to point out that just because LE says something at one given time, or just because something is reported in MSM, doesn't mean that's all there is to it and we can just believe in that until the trial. Obviously some of those points changed because LE's information changed, and that was the whole point of the discussion regarding the potential second perp being involved.

Things could change between the time when DG got arrested and when the trial finally takes place, which could potentially lead LE to look at different things, find different evidence, and not necessarily report them publicly. For any sleuthers trying to make some kind of sense about the logistics of all of this, it therefore doesn't really seem fair to say they are only allowed to think in one way, and that way would be only what LE has officially reported to the public to date.

The bad blood comment came from a source close to the police investigation.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/nathan-o-brien-amber-alert-police-search-landfill-1.2701030

 

[CentralAlberta]

I am thinking... .. why do you suppose DG, with his particular 'chemist' knowledge, and his 'genius', and perhaps also his access to different chemicals, even think about premeditated murder in that manner.. any messy manner.. when.. there are probably quite a few concoctions which could be administered in one way or another, even while the victims were asleep, which could potentially be undetectable. Especially if he was just going to remove the bodies anyway.. why travel with all the gore? Why take that additional risk on top of doing the actual murders? Why take the chance of a roadside check, or DNA contamination in his truck? And what a perfect plan it would have been to just inject the victims with insulin or something (easily available over the counter without a prescription), because without the blood evidence in the house, my guess is that there would be a lot more suspicion about the family just leaving of their own accord for whatever reason(s), and less suspicion about murders having actually taken place. He could have left them all in the house, without any gore, or he could have still taken the bodies, but without the gore.

Maybe because it would have been too humane and not so scentational. IDK

 

[CentralAlberta]

Please, if anyone has a problem with a post or a poster, WE ARE EXPECTED TO use the little black triangle on the bottom left of each post so we can keep dissension out of the conversations and keep the discussion about the victims and the accused. Let the Mods review it and handle it appropriately.

But I can't see a little black triangle.

 

[CentralAlberta]

:hills::hills::hills:

there are some huge hockey duffle bags with wheels -- can hold a lot -- 2 bodies no problem brrrrr -- I hate typing that

Wow, I didn't know they were THAT big. I do know the smell would probably blend in, if not cover up remains (and that was just a little guy's bag)! :hills:

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Also I also wonder if LE revealed some of their evidence to the family as they have now had a memorial service for Nathan and there is an upcoming one for Alvin and Kathy. Just my opinion but I would guess that most families wouldn't even do that with 99% certainty, but would probably wait for 100%. Could also explain why this is happening in September instead of shortly after the murder charges in July. Maybe they had information revealed to them that showed them Nathan, Alvin, and Kathy were indeed gone.

"The purpose of memorial services are to give meaning to a person’s life. It is a public show of support and acknowledgment of the importance of the lost one. Although most funeral plans have traditionally been more formal events, and dictated by religious rites, memorial services are able to be more personalized and unrestricted. Memorial services are a wonderful opportunity for family and friends to gather and remember the deceased while offering support and comfort to one another."
http://www.funeralresources.com/plan-a-funeral/memorial-services/

If I were the survivors of the victims, it wouldn't matter to me if the remains were found or not, I would want to give my deceased family members' lives some sort of tribute. Remains are secondary to their spirit, their characters and their lives. Depending on religious beliefs, it could be a very important way to ensure that loved ones are safe in the arms of God, and that may be why they wanted to do this in a respectable timeframe. I would feel terrible to "wait" until I was shown something by LE. It's quite obvious to the family, as indicated by LE already, that their loved ones are deceased. My first and foremost responsibility and thought would be to offer closure and respect for my deceased family members. JMO

 

[deugirtni]

Just a little time out here.. struck me funny this morning..
I have many dogs, very small dogs that if combined, would make up one medium sized dog, but the youngest one in particular, is just a tiny little thing who is spoiled beyond rotten.. she has to be coddled when she is fed because she is so tiny, it takes her so long to chew with that tiny little mouth and teeth that we have to keep her away from the others or her food would be gone before she had a chance to eat her first morsel. One of the family usually brings her to wherever they are, and sits there with her while she eats.. this morning it was me, and I brought her onto my desk.. and she didn't quite finish, there were a few morsels left in the bowl..
Then a few minutes later, I left my desk for a minute.. I forgot to push my chair all the way in so that no dogs could jump up in my absence.. and when I got back to my desk, I see this little 1" piece of a skinny blade of grass.. and I thought, hmm, where did that come from, and then I realized.. that is the evidence left behind by the dog thief who jumped up on my chair to eat the few morsels of remaining dog food left in the bowl on my desk, which were of course now gone. I am becoming quite the sleuther (and I have some very disobedient dogs).