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

[Tinkerbel1]

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.

Do you need a link for common sense nowadays...lol

 

[Jess]

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?

Jurors and presumption of innocence

 

[news.talk]

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?

When they made that statement, the suspect had been arrested. The ONLY amount of information that could be disclosed is that the victims were declared deceased.

They have to err on the side of caution when releasing information to the public after an arrest because LE has no idea how the Crown will use the evidence nor do they know the ramifications for the Defense. Legally, they cannot disclose ANY information.

 

[ABro]

Do you need a link for common sense nowadays...lol

Common sense? It's hardly common sense to maintain the police said they were declared dead on the basis of not accessing their bank accounts in a video that's been disappeared from the internets.

So yes, I'd say if you're going to make that claim, a link would be nice.

 

[Slebby]

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?

I just explained why it would be a problem. Because it is inflammatory.

IMO, if the public hears the graphic and gruesome details of NO's final moments, it would impede DG's chances of a fair trial. Many folks here are concerned that he be regarded as innocent until proven guilty, yourself included. I would suggest the jury pool could become tainted or biased if too much detail came out regarding such evidence. I think LE has tried to avoid that scenario.

Chief Hanson was able to communicate the finality of the conclusion of death without helping folks paint an unnecessary mental picture.

IMO

 

[Slebby]

Jurors and presumption of innocence

Thanks Jess, beat me to it, and short and sweet. [emoji2]

 

[otto]

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.

It was high profile when it happened. No one sensationalized the story. The high profile story before that was the mass murder of five students two months earlier. Neither story is high profile anymore because there have been arrests in both mass murders, and the cases are winding through the courts. People are curious about why both mass murders happened, but everyone knows the drill and is prepared to wait for a verdict in a year or two. Other than family, close friends, and recognized news outlet reporters, I doubt anyone else is even interested in attending the hearings. The hearings and trials are now family matters.

 

[news.talk]

It was high profile when it happened. No one sensationalized the story. The high profile story before that was the mass murder of five students two months earlier. Neither story is high profile anymore because there have been arrests in both mass murders, and the cases are winding through the courts. People are curious about why both mass murders happened, but everyone knows the drill and is prepared to wait for a verdict in a year or two. Other than family, close friends, and recognized news outlet reporters, I doubt anyone else is even interested in attending the hearings. The hearings and trials are now family matters.

Forgive me - I should have used "was" and not "is" and should have included the word "potentially" prior to the word sensational. Once the trial comes around, the story will pick up coverage again and I have no doubt that the court room will be packed. This case has garnered international attention, and once details start emerging, barring a media publication ban, the story will take on sensationalistic attributes.

 

[otto]

Forgive me - I should have used "was" and not "is" and should have included the word "potentially" prior to the word sensational. Once the trial comes around, the story will pick up coverage again and I have no doubt that the court room will be packed. This case has garnered international attention, and once details start emerging, barring a media publication ban, the story will take on sensationalistic attributes.

I think it was initially a big case because people thought there was a crazy person attending garage sales, and then returning after the end of the sale to murder the occupants. Now we know that isn't the case. This is an internal family homicide, which is common. The mass murder of five students got everyone's attention too, not because people were afraid that a crazy person was loose, but because it was so bizarre. News outlets will send someone to report on both trials. Friends and family will attend, but after that, I suspect that Calgary courtrooms are fairly empty during trials.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Common sense? It's hardly common sense to maintain the police said they were declared dead on the basis of not accessing their bank accounts in a video that's been disappeared from the internets.

So yes, I'd say if you're going to make that claim, a link would be nice.

Can you please clarify your above statement, actually as well as the last sentence of your previous post? I'm sorry, I really don't know what you're talking about. Your comments are very cryptic and difficult to understand at times.

Or, perhaps, words are being put into my mouth? I did not say that LE 'declared anyone dead based on not accessing their bank accounts'. I offered my opinion on how anyone could avoid use of their bank accounts and credit cards. I don't believe I need a link to point out common sense.

 

[news.talk]

I think it was initially a big case because people thought there was a crazy person attending garage sales, and then returning after the end of the sale to murder the occupants. Now we know that isn't the case. This is an internal family homicide, which is common. The mass murder of five students got everyone's attention too, not because people were afraid that a crazy person was loose, but because it was so bizarre. News outlets will send someone to report on both trials. Friends and family will attend, but after that, I suspect that Calgary courtrooms are fairly empty during trials.

Not in my experience Otto. If anything, there will be vast media representatives. When ever there is a murder of a child, there always seems to be more interest.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I just explained why it would be a problem. Because it is inflammatory.

IMO, if the public hears the graphic and gruesome details of NO's final moments, it would impede DG's chances of a fair trial. Many folks here are concerned that he be regarded as innocent until proven guilty, yourself included. I would suggest the jury pool could become tainted or biased if too much detail came out regarding such evidence. I think LE has tried to avoid that scenario.

Chief Hanson was able to communicate the finality of the conclusion of death without helping folks paint an unnecessary mental picture.

IMO

I guess I'm a little confused by your comment because it looks like things are already well on their way to tainting the jury pool. What more could have been said that would be more inflammatory than "they're dead" and this green truck has been spotted on CCTV driving around the area several times the night they went missing; we have a POI that we want to talk to and oh...he's got a prior criminal record, and we're hoping they're alive and POI has breached his bail conditions and this is now a murder, we cannot release the accused's name, etc. The mention of any particular forensic evidence wouldn't make the accused look any more guilty than he already does. IMO

 

[news.talk]

I guess I'm a little confused by your comment because it looks like things are already well on their way to tainting the jury pool. What more could have been said that would be more inflammatory than "they're dead" and this green truck has been spotted on CCTV driving around the area several times the night they went missing; we have a POI that we want to talk to and oh...he's got a prior criminal record, and we're hoping they're alive and POI has breached his bail conditions and this is now a murder, we cannot release the accused's name, etc. The mention of any particular forensic evidence wouldn't make the accused look any more guilty than he already does. IMO

While those examples you gave are vague, forensic evidence and subsequent investigative discovery are not.

If you look at your examples, any half decent lawyer could explain those as circumstantial and non relevant. However, if they released that the victims DNA were discovered in that truck and the licence plate and suspect were also caught on camera, and say other pictures show the defendant with bags or bedding leaving the scene, it is a whole different ball game. Hence the reason other possible photos or forensic findings were not released. Those would be prejudicial.

I am of the belief that based on what was released (in the interest of obtaining investigative information), that LE did not taint the investigation. What Defence Council argues at trial could prove me wrong, but I am not seeing any red flags. Quite the opposite - I think LE released just the right amount of information while being sensitive to the victims family's and the accused.

 

[Slebby]

I guess I'm a little confused by your comment because it looks like things are already well on their way to tainting the jury pool. What more could have been said that would be more inflammatory than "they're dead" and this green truck has been spotted on CCTV driving around the area several times the night they went missing; we have a POI that we want to talk to and oh...he's got a prior criminal record, and we're hoping they're alive and POI has breached his bail conditions and this is now a murder, we cannot release the accused's name, etc. The mention of any particular forensic evidence wouldn't make the accused look any more guilty than he already does. IMO

I'm confused by your comment.

I'm not sure what you are looking for. On the one hand, if LE does not release enough information, you find it so strange, suspicious, and your seem to suspect LE of either not quite getting it right, or that their failure to reveal evidence must indicate they don't have much evidence. Yet when I describe the reasons not to tell too much in order to respect the rights of the accused, you say they've already tainted the jury pool with the information they have released. Which is it? What would you like to see? More info? Less info? More respect for the rights of the accused? Less?

LE walks a very fine line between informing the public, protecting the rights of the accused, and seeking justice for victims and their families. It's not as easy as you seem to think. IMO, in this case, they have done an exceptional job. They have informed the public as much as they need to, nothing more. It is so easy to be an armchair "sleuth" but quite another to be the LE professional carrying the responsibility to balance all the priorities - for victims and their families, for the public, for justice, and all without trampling the rights of the accused. I'd love to hear your suggestions for how they should be doing their jobs.

IMO

 

[deugirtni]

Well yes, and I'm sure you are among many who agree, and that is why it is disturbing that we can no longer find any reference to him having said that at one of the press conferences, and yet there are at least two of us who distinctly heard him say it.

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.

 

[deugirtni]

ABro, I would be doubting myself if it were not for the fact that someone else also heard it. We did not discuss it at all, LL simply stated to me that she had been searching for a video in which LE said that, and that she was unable to find it anywhere. I immediately knew what she was talking about because I had heard it too, so I then went searching for it, and also was unable to find anything. I swear to God it was said. It could have been when reporters were asking questions afterward, and perhaps the Q&A part of the video got cut?

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.

 

[otto]

Not in my experience Otto. If anything, there will be vast media representatives. When ever there is a murder of a child, there always seems to be more interest.

It sounds like we agree ... "news outlets will send someone to report on both trials", and there will be vast (if such a thing exists in Canada) media representatives say the same thing, don't they? I can't see any foreign news outlets taking an interest in a family murder, but the murder of five students is another situation altogether. Regarding the murder of a child, this was not a planned murder of a child. This was a child at the wrong place, and at the wrong time ... he was at the home where a planned murder occurred, and he was murdered because he was a witness. The trial will focus primarily on the first degree murder charges, which excludes the child.

 

[news.talk]

Well yes, and I'm sure you are among many who agree, and that is why it is disturbing that we can no longer find any reference to him having said that at one of the press conferences, and yet there are at least two of us who distinctly hear him say it.

I honestly don't think there is any big conspiracy behind missing articles. Sadly, in the world we of 'instant news' we live in, mistakes are becoming more common. If an error or potentially inflammatory piece of evidence is published, it is not uncommon to replace it with a correction or remove it at the request of LE.

 

[Sillybilly]

While those examples you gave are vague, forensic evidence and subsequent investigative discovery are not.

If you look at your examples, any half decent lawyer could explain those as circumstantial and non relevant. However, if they released that the victims DNA were discovered in that truck and the licence plate and suspect were also caught on camera, and say other pictures show the defendant with bags or bedding leaving the scene, it is a whole different ball game. Hence the reason other possible photos or forensic findings were not released. Those would be prejudicial.

I am of the belief that based on what was released (in the interest of obtaining investigative information), that LE did not taint the investigation. What Defence Council argues at trial could prove me wrong, but I am not seeing any red flags. Quite the opposite - I think LE released just the right amount of information while being sensitive to the victims family's and the accused.

ITA. The pic of the truck was released when the family was missing under suspicious circumstances because it was a potential lead in the investigation into their whereabouts, not evidence of anything at that point. After the arrest, information was released (arrest made, trio deceased, charges laid), but not evidence (DNA, blood, etc). Not releasing evidence is customary after an arrest and up until trial.

 

[news.talk]

It sounds like we agree ... "news outlets will send someone to report on both trials", and there will be vast (if such a thing exists in Canada) media representatives say the same thing, don't they? I can't see any foreign news outlets taking an interest in a family murder, but the murder of five students is another situation altogether. Regarding the murder of a child, this was not a planned murder of a child. This was a child at the wrong place, and at the wrong time ... he was at the home where a planned murder occurred, and he was murdered because he was a witness. The trial will focus primarily on the first degree murder charges, which excludes the child.

This case was covered by BBC and CNN.