Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #17

[Tinkerbel1]

At the website below, you can click on each of the updates to see the next versions. I have pasted text from the one posted June 30th at 5;13pm.
I suppose in all AA's, it says 'not to approach the suspect' ?
BBM

http://emergencyalert.alberta.ca/alerts/2014/06/2568.html

I noticed that...who are they talking about?
That should've been removed for sure...clerical error, right?

 

[Slebby]

True. How long can a manhunt go on for? Surely they have limits.

Yes. Plus I'm sure we would know about a manhunt, and the Amber Alert would not have been lifted.
JMO

 

[Slebby]

At the website below, you can click on each of the updates to see the next versions. I have pasted text from the one posted June 30th at 5;13pm.
I suppose in all AA's, it says 'not to approach the suspect' ?
BBM

http://emergencyalert.alberta.ca/alerts/2014/06/2568.html

I looked through about a year worth of the Alberta AAs. I only say one case where it didn't say not to approach the suspect. FWIW.

 

[deugirtni]

I would really like to believe this, but I feel that if it were true that death had been called by the ME based on concrete evidence, this would have been stated. But it wasn't. Instead, there was the comment by the police officer (now missing) that they built the case piece by piece by piece by piece, and that there are presumptions they can make that people are dead, such as no activity in the bank accounts, etc.

Do I think for one second that if LE had a qualified ME/Coroner to state that evidence found inside the home has now been positively ruled by a lab as being from a deceased, and the deceased's blood was a match to , that LE would not have stated this during their press conference? No I don't. Sorry news.talk, no offence to you or your beliefs, knowledge, or opinions, but I just can't fathom that.

And if LE would perhaps not say this because of some kind of reasoning that an accused has already been arrested and murder charges have been laid, if the evidence was a fact such as the above, well they still have to show the proof during trial, they don't have to elaborate on the 'who', or 'what', or 'how', and give their case away, but I am sure they would have stated the facts. But instead, the officer (is it Andrus?) said:

"The preponderance of evidence is such that it has led our investigators to believe that they are dead."

and the Amber Alert was cancelled, and the missing persons case was officially a homicide. They could not very well charge someone with murder and yet still have the AA in effect.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-ctv-vancouver-police-say-missing-trio-murdered/article19608716/#video2id20849008

As I pointed out in my post upthread, there are two ways to arrive at the declaration of death in absentia - One being through the courts, in which they look at things like not using bank accounts over an extended period of time, and the other being by the Medical Examiner, as is the case in this investigation. The ME doesn't use those "presumptions" but rather bases a conclusion on forensic evidence.

Since the standard is more absolute with the ME declaration, we can assume this was based on blood loss, human tissue and more importantly, the cellular analysis of certain chemical changes that only occur with death.

IMO, there wasn't a decision that the three were dead and to charge a man with two counts of first degree murder and one count of second degree murder, just because they hadn't used their bank accounts for a week. That would be absurd. I cannot fathom that the Chief Medical Examiner either made a mistake or was duped by two Grandparents.

 

[deugirtni]

I'm also sure, imho, that it happens a lot that 'missing' are spotted by numerous sources, but yet hopefully those sightings are followed up on as fully as possible (after the fact, no doubt). The thing is, LE could very simply and easily have said that the 3 missing are declared deceased because of irrefutable forensic evidence, as you have suggested.... however, LE did not say that. What LE said was this:

"The preponderance of evidence is such that it has led our investigators to believe that they are dead."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-ctv-vancouver-police-say-missing-trio-murdered/article19608716/#video2id20849008

preponderance
Line breaks: pre|pon¦der|ance
Pronunciation: /prɪˈpɒnd(&#601r(&#601ns
/
noun
[mass noun]
The quality or fact of being greater in number, quantity, or importance: the preponderance of women among older people

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/preponderance

I agree, news talk. I fully believe LE has declared these 3 missing as deceased because of irrefutable forensic evidence,

I also believe that since it seems they have been determined to be deceased through forensics, this nullifies any so-called sightings. I think folks reported *possible* sightings in good faith when they saw a grampa and grandson pairing that resembled NO and AL.

I'm sure it happens a lot, that a missing person is reportedly spotted by well-meaning tipsters, only for the facts to later emerge that the missing was in fact already dead at the time of the sighting. My memory is rusty, but I seem to recall there were alleged sightings of Laci Peterson, yet later it was proven she was already dead at the time. Caylee Anthony was *spotted* alive, yet it later turned out her little body was decomposing a the time of the so-called sightings.

IMHO

 

[news.talk]

I would really like to believe this, but I feel that if it were true that death had been called by the ME based on concrete evidence, this would have been stated. But it wasn't. Instead, there was the comment by the police officer (now missing) that they built the case piece by piece by piece by piece, and that there are presumptions they can make that people are dead, such as no activity in the bank accounts, etc.

Do I think for one second that if LE had a qualified ME/Coroner to state that evidence found inside the home has now been positively ruled by a lab as being from a deceased, and the deceased's blood was a match to , that LE would not have stated this during their press conference? No I don't. Sorry news.talk, no offence to you or your beliefs, knowledge, or opinions, but I just can't fathom that.

And if LE would perhaps not say this because of some kind of reasoning that an accused has already been arrested and murder charges have been laid, if the evidence was a fact such as the above, well they still have to show the proof during trial, they don't have to elaborate on the 'who', or 'what', or 'how', and give their case away, but I am sure they would have stated the facts. But instead, the officer (is it Andrus?) said:



and the Amber Alert was cancelled, and the missing persons case was officially a homicide. They could not very well charge someone with murder and yet still have the AA in effect.

Keep in mind, LE tend to couch comments made to the public. Their early public statements have NO relation to the Medical Examiner's findings. Those are two separate entities for obvious reasons. LE has built their case piece by piece - one of those pieces are the Medical Examiner's findings.

FWIW, LE *did* concretely and emphatically state that "the trio are in fact deceased. "

 

[deugirtni]

Can you provide a link? What do you believe would be the reason why LE would not have stated this during their press conference, rather than what they did in fact state?

Keep in mind, LE tend to couch comments made to the public. Their early public statements have NO relation to the Medical Examiner's findings. Those are two separate entities for obvious reasons. LE has built their case piece by piece - one of those pieces are the Medical Examiner's findings.

FWIW, LE *did* concretely and emphatically state that "the trio are in fact deceased. "

 

[deugirtni]

So.. I understand that my personal opinion (which is that I am not personally convinced that DG is their man, and I am also not 100% convinced that the trio are dead) is not popular here, however even in the past day when I have been researching things for my own comments, I came across other things that I find disturbing in regard to MSM articles I came across. Please bear with me as I try to lay it out since we seem to be rather civil here today.

 

[news.talk]

Can you provide a link? What do you believe would be the reason why LE would not have stated this during their press conference, rather than what they did in fact state?

It *was* stated in the a July 14th press conference and linked here MANY times. They may use more sensitive wording, but they clearly stated that the trio are deceased and charges were laid.

 

[deugirtni]

Could LE be stating that the trio are dead however, because they 'believe' the trio are dead, based on a preponderance of evidence, rather than on actual concrete evidence found in the home which can irrefutably prove that the trio are dead? It disturbs me that the comment regarding 'not accessing bank accounts after awhile', etc., is now missing and nowhere to be found. And it makes me wonder if they had that deleted because it sounds rather wishy-washy, rather than factual. I do not understand why they wouldn't back up their claim, if they could, with a statement that suggests they have irrefutable proof of this.

It *was* stated in the a July 14th press conference and linked here MANY times. They may use more sensitive wording, but they clearly stated that the trio are deceased and charges were laid.

 

[Slebby]

Can you provide a link? What do you believe would be the reason why LE would not have stated this during their press conference, rather than what they did in fact state?

"They are dead", he said, matter-of-factly.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2014/07/16/21809716.html?cid=rsshomepage

 

[news.talk]

Could LE be stating that the trio are dead however, because they 'believe' the trio are dead, based on a preponderance of evidence, rather than on actual concrete evidence found in the home which can irrefutably prove that the trio are dead? It disturbs me that the comment regarding 'not accessing bank accounts after awhile', etc., is now missing and nowhere to be found. And it makes me wonder if they had that deleted because it sounds rather wishy-washy, rather than factual. I do not understand why they wouldn't back up their claim, if they could, with a statement that suggests they have irrefutable proof of this.

Press statements are carefully worded by Public Information personnel. Words are chosen carefully as to not hinder the investigation while informing the public in the most sensitive and non-inflammatory way. Sure, many of the posters here would like detailed forensic evidence and specific words so that the meaning is clear, but in my experience, that is not how press statements are worded.

LE cannot read from the Medical Examiner's report, nor can they speak on behalf of the ME. Those details are reserved for trial and is not in the public's interest to know.

Bottom line, charges have been laid and memorials have taken place. If there was ANY chance that any of the victims were alive, neither would have taken place.

 

[Slebby]

Press statements are carefully worded by Public Information personnel. Words are chosen carefully as to not hinder the investigation while informing the public in the most sensitive and non-inflammatory way. Sure, many of the posters here would like detailed forensic evidence and specific words so that the meaning is clear, but in my experience, that is not how press statements are worded.

LE cannot read from the Medical Examiner's report, nor can they speak on behalf of the ME. Those details are reserved for trial and is not in the public's interest to know.

Bottom line, charges have been laid and memorials have taken place. If there was ANY chance that any of the victims were alive, neither would have taken place.

Just to add to news.talk's comment -

Say, for example, Chief Hanson was more revealing of details, and he said "we base the determination that the 3 missing are deceased on the following: DNA testing proved that the massive volume of blood found in the L home belonged to the 3 victims, and was so voluminous as to be incompatible with life" IMO, this is too much information, and it could be argued to be inflammatory or sensational, or an impediment to the accused's right to a fair trial. It's possible the determination was based on even more gruesome evidence - such as brain matter, or traces of other vital organs, or evidence of dismemberment. imo, defence counsel would cry foul if that degree of detail was revealed.

Just speaking for myself, I did not need to hear that degree of detail from Chief Hanson in order to believe the Ls and NO are dead.

JMO

 

[news.talk]

"They are dead", he said, matter-of-factly.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2014/07/16/21809716.html?cid=rsshomepage

Thanks for providing a link. From the article:

CALGARY ─ The family can cling to hope, and Calgary's Chief of Police certainly doesn't blame them.

But as one of the few people who's actually viewed the forensic evidence tying accused triple killer Douglas Garland to the disappearance of three Calgarians, Chief Rick Hanson says he has absolutely no doubt.

"They are dead," he says, matter-of-factly.

Calgary's top cop gives absolutely no wiggle room for "maybe" or "what if" in the murder of five-year-old Nathan O'Brien and his grandparents, Alvin and Kathryn Liknes.

It's impossible to argue with someone who has all the facts: Hanson already knows what is soon to be presented before a judge and lawyers in court, and he has a one-word answer for those asking if the trio is certainly, without-any-doubt dead.

"Yes."

It gives the chief no satisfaction to be so sure, other than to know that with certainty comes a likelihood of conviction when accused killer Douglas Garland goes to trial.

"This is not a decision we come by easily, but when all the evidence points to one thing, we would be remiss if we weren't totally honest, as painful as we know that is for the family, and for the community," says the chief.

"The facts point to only one outcome."

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Press statements are carefully worded by Public Information personnel. Words are chosen carefully as to not hinder the investigation while informing the public in the most sensitive and non-inflammatory way. Sure, many of the posters here would like detailed forensic evidence and specific words so that the meaning is clear, but in my experience, that is not how press statements are worded.

LE cannot read from the Medical Examiner's report, nor can they speak on behalf of the ME. Those details are reserved for trial and is not in the public's interest to know.

Bottom line, charges have been laid and memorials have taken place. If there was ANY chance that any of the victims were alive, neither would have taken place.

Interesting choice of words "while informing the public". Out of the 3 or 4 press statements held, there sure wasn't very much information given

IMO, I don't recall a crime in the past decade that LE was this tight-lipped on...to 'protect the integrity of the investigation'. Is this investigation being more protected than others or have I just missed that in previous cases? There is essentially ZERO information disclosed. Wonder why they bothered with the press conferences? The majority of the info was high-level info on LE efforts, the green truck, the estate sale, the missing people and the POI.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Could LE be stating that the trio are dead however, because they 'believe' the trio are dead, based on a preponderance of evidence, rather than on actual concrete evidence found in the home which can irrefutably prove that the trio are dead? It disturbs me that the comment regarding 'not accessing bank accounts after awhile', etc., is now missing and nowhere to be found. And it makes me wonder if they had that deleted because it sounds rather wishy-washy, rather than factual. I do not understand why they wouldn't back up their claim, if they could, with a statement that suggests they have irrefutable proof of this.

Anyone can stop using a bank account, credit cards, etc. Anyone can open new ones under different names (if good I'd is obtained) and/or use cash...and/or have someone else open a bank account using the persons name. IMO, the non-use of a bank account reason is pretty weak.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Lashing indeed. I assume there must be some indication AL is deceased as well. I would hope there is more than just 'he's gone, therefore he's deceased'. I haven't heard a single word about any issues between the two, and taking NO somewhere, anywhere, is unbelievably risky.

Sadly, it's highly likely that the current narrative will stay that way until a verdict or plea. It would be interesting to see what paths LE followed to arrive at dead ends in this. It would help to understand the investigative process in something as complex as this case.

Agreed. The current narrative will stay the way it is cause that's the best they've got so far. Unless DG talks, IMO, this will be what's run with...that is...if DG even knows anything.

 

[ABro]

Anyone can stop using a bank account, credit cards, etc. Anyone can open new ones under different names (if good I'd is obtained) and/or use cash...and/or have someone else open a bank account using the persons name. IMO, the non-use of a bank account reason is pretty weak.

Right. And no one's been able to provide a link to this weird bank account comment. It seems we're supposed to take it on faith because it's mysteriously been wiped from the internet.

I'm going to suggest fallible memory as an alternative explanation.

 

[news.talk]

Interesting choice of words "while informing the public". Out of the 3 or 4 press statements held, there sure wasn't very much information given

IMO, I don't recall a crime in the past decade that LE was this tight-lipped on...to 'protect the integrity of the investigation'. Is this investigation being more protected than others or have I just missed that in previous cases? There is essentially ZERO information disclosed. Wonder why they bothered with the press conferences? The majority of the info was high-level info on LE efforts, the green truck, the estate sale, the missing people and the POI.

It is a very high profile and sensational case. The fact that there has been more media focus and public interest is the main reason behind the pressers. LE does put out daily releases on new cases or new charges as it is in the public's interest to be informed and in LE's pervue to remain transparent while not hindering prosecution.

They legally cannot release details after an arrest and yes, this is common and also protocol. The fact that an arrest came relatively early is the reason why less information was disclosed.

I can honestly say that IMHO, this handling of this case is on point and no different than any of the other homicides in recent and past history. The only difference is that it started out as a missing person's case with an Amber Alert, and the focus of much speculation and publicity.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Just to add to news.talk's comment -

Say, for example, Chief Hanson was more revealing of details, and he said "we base the determination that the 3 missing are deceased on the following: DNA testing proved that the massive volume of blood found in the L home belonged to the 3 victims, and was so voluminous as to be incompatible with life" IMO, this is too much information, and it could be argued to be inflammatory or sensational, or an impediment to the accused's right to a fair trial. It's possible the determination was based on even more gruesome evidence - such as brain matter, or traces of other vital organs, or evidence of dismemberment. imo, defence counsel would cry foul if that degree of detail was revealed.

Just speaking for myself, I did not need to hear that degree of detail from Chief Hanson in order to believe the Ls and NO are dead.

JMO

Why would that degree of information cause a problem? If it's true, there should be no worries. It'll be found out at the trial anyways. Defense can appeal the trial results as well..so what would be the difference if it was said now or later?