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

[ABro]

Why do some seem so personally invested in blindly supporting LE's theory at this point, when nothing has been released to the public? This is an usual case with many twists and turns and players with very little information, and so I would think it fairly normal for the many who are interested in the fate of these 3 missing people to speculate based on what IS known. The worst that can happen is that the speculators waste their time and end up being wrong. The best that can happen is that perhaps a speculator's theory might spark a far-away little thought in someone else, perhaps something worth pursuing, and it ends up in more concrete evidence, or another avenue to pursue and follow up on. I think that most don't have a vested interest in the outcome of the hows or whos or whys, but rather, most just want the facts and justice to be served, whatever the facts may be. Until the facts are known, whatever facts there might be, 'sleuthing' is what we do here on WS. For anyone who only wants to hear facts, they're (possibly) better off reading the newspaper. MOO.

Who's blindly supporting LE? [modsnip]

The grandparents were murdered and it is being suggested they kidnapped their grandson to flee the country:

Could it be possible that DG was assisting AL, KL by providing documentation for them to leave the country? . How on earth could they smuggle a child out of the country?

This is a victim family forum and I do accept that this could be quite an insensitive theory for me to post. Ultimately in this theory the victim is Nathan O'Brien.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-17&p=11052540#post11052540

I feel badly for thinking ill of the grandparents but something is just not right about them and I would take this theory over any other if it meant the grandparents and Nathan were alive and safe. Once the court proceedings start I am sure this will be a more straightforward forum but until evidence is presented I still believe they are alive. How would the case be jeopardized if LE released a simple statement to state that blood and DNA evidence is substantial enough to presume the victims are dead. They haven't even said that.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-17&p=11054058#post11054058

 

[Coldpizza]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, please think about that when posting and leave the snark at the door.

Thank you

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

IMO, it doesn't mean that LE did a freaking terrible job. It simply means they did the best they could in that moment with the information they had. My goodness, this case has them running in hundreds of different directions. If someone misses the mark, it doesn't mean its a complete failure, nor does it mean that it can't go back on and be corrected. It means that perhaps what seemed obvious and logical at the time, after more investigation, no longer is valid. For now, there has to be the ability to look at it both ways, we have no choice but to consider ALL the options. We don't have all the information yet.

Indeed. Read up on Travis Vader.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Who's blindly supporting LE? [modsnip]

The grandparents were murdered and it is being suggested they kidnapped their grandson to flee the country:





http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-17&p=11052540#post11052540



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-17&p=11054058#post11054058

IIRC, someone simply asked if it was possible that they could be on the run. I myself stated it was highly unlikely. I don't recall anyone presenting it as fact.

 

[otto]

What do you mean "other than in the back of Garland's truck"? They most certainly were not seen there, unless I've missed a huge piece of extremely vital information. If they were not seen with anyone, then why did AL not go to the CPS station, or RCMP station to report the crime? Logical thinking suggests that would be the place one would be headed to directly.

It has always baffled me as to what concrete evidence we have that has been confirmed by LE, that it was KL that was deceased first? That's based on...? What is the crieteria for the "sound reasoning" that is being used? Again, I must be missing something.

Amber Alerts are issued in the cases of the most dangerous "missing children" situations. They are not issued for adults.

https://missingkids.ca/app/en/amber_alert-criteria

How did the accused, a man with a pick up truck that was of great interest to police, remove the bodies from the crime scene? What are the possibilities?

 

[otto]

Lye is a chemical commonly found on farms I would think. I know that my family uses lye quite regularly in the outhouses at the lake, which is just the best idea ever! Lye can be used to make a person disappear, at least down to bones. There are pesticides, herbicides, rat poison, etc. that can certainly kill a person...a lot of us have that at our homes. They have the capacity to kill a person, and if you so happened to have a barrel and some lye (as Cherchri suggests), easy enough work in the garage. It doesn't have to be on the acreage. And it doesnt' have to be an outrageous, uncommon chemical. Naptha soap granules can kill you. Anything that could possibly be involved in a murder was likely taken from the acreage as "possible" methods of homicide/disposal. Any chemicals taken from the acreage weren't necessarily the type to make someone "disappear", they may have been chemicals that could simply kill someone if ingested or injected, or whatever. IMO whatever there was that could "possibly" be used in the deaths and or disposal of a human being (or animal) was taken as possible options. LE had basically one shot at collecting whatever they could collect at the acreage. The victims could have "disappeared" in a myriad of ways....water bodies, burial, dismemberment...none of which may or may not have occurred on the Garlands' property.

Do we have any indication of "exactly" what was taken as far as chemicals from the Garland property? Or,are we assuming again?

What is lye used for on a grain farm? If it is such a common farm chemical, why is it not sold by the United Farmer's of Alberta?

 

[otto]

I think you mentioned they were seen alone, or "in the back of DG's truck". Who saw them in the back of the truck? Perhaps a Uhaul was rented to transport the bodies. Maybe they were laying at the bottom of a boat that was being towed out to a lake; perhaps they were dismembered and in boxes or other containers for transport. There's no way they were in the back of that pick-up truck, unless a canopy or tonneau cover were put on the truck...and that, we have no photos of. Logically or otherwise, we have absolutely no idea how those victims got out of the Parkhill home. None. JMO

Perhaps the accused rented a U-Haul, but there's no evidence of that. The evidence is that the green truck belonging to the accused it critically important to the investigation into the three missing and murdered persons. Why would we think that a U-Haul was used?

I'm pretty sure that the video surveillance picked up the victims in the back of the green pick-up truck, but we'll have to wait for trial to learn whether that is true, or whether the owner of the green pickup ran out to rent a U-Haul in the middle of a triple murder.

The question was whether the victims were seen by anyone after they were murdered at the Parkhill house. I answered that they only place they were seen was in the back of a pick up truck. Perhaps I should have said ... it's very likely that the only time they were seen was in the back of the pickup truck, or that in my opinion the only place they were seen was in the back of a pickup truck. Regardless, they were not seen by anyone after they were murdered at the Parkhill house. Police are still searching for the bodies.

I do have an idea how the victims were removed from the crime scene. They were dragged out of the house via the side door and to the driveway, where a green truck was parked, and they were then put into the back of the green truck. This opinion is based on information about recently washed dark stains that stretched from the side door to the driveway, and police interest in the green truck belonging to the accused that was seen in video surveillance on the night of the murder. If there was nothing in that truck that interested police, they wouldn't have been so interested in that truck. They would have been pursuing every single vehicle that was seen in surveillance video ... but they weren't. They were only interested in the pickup truck. Furthermore, the angle of the camera gives a clear view into the back of the pickup truck. Given police interest in bedding, it's quite likely that bedding was put on top of the victims after they were put in the back of the pickup truck.

 

[otto]

by bbm'ing a line from a post, one essentially changes the context of what one is saying. anyhoo.

all farms have caustic chemicals,, round-up if ingested will turn your insides to mush. the point is, every household and farm has some evidence to suggest a type of murder,, my neighbor is a bow hunter, he has an abattoir in his garage and a vacuum packing system where he can butcher and reduce his kill into nice little sealed packs of meat to tidily fit in his freezer.

the one thing that LE did that made me laugh was the grandstanding that became a caricature of over thinking; bringing the zodiac with the huge motor to the slough. obviously some people on the force have spent far too much time in the city as not only could you not put a boat that size in a slough, but it would destroy possible evidence once you put the throttle into forward. secondly, it would have made more sense to start the investigation in the air as field crop and any/all paths taken in recent or past could have been discerned, instead they had lines of boots on ground crushing such evidence away. (I should mention that recently I did a re-hike into an area that I had been into around June and my original path through prairie grassland was there as if the path had just been made on my second trip. Human paths differ from deer paths or coyote paths, fox, et al,, CPS should have taken pics from above before trampling on.)

I respect LE but that does not mean I have to be a non-critical sycophant.

Round up is good for killing gophers, but it doesn't make their carcasses disappear. What sort of chemicals were on the Airdrie acreage that could make humans disappear? Lye has been mentioned, but it's not available through the UFA. Where would farmers get it, and why would they use it at a crop farm?

 

[otto]

IMO, it doesn't mean that LE did a freaking terrible job. It simply means they did the best they could in that moment with the information they had. My goodness, this case has them running in hundreds of different directions. If someone misses the mark, it doesn't mean its a complete failure, nor does it mean that it can't go back on and be corrected. It means that perhaps what seemed obvious and logical at the time, after more investigation, no longer is valid. For now, there has to be the ability to look at it both ways, we have no choice but to consider ALL the options. We don't have all the information yet.

Police are not running in hundreds of different directions. They did a thorough investigation, they followed leads, they made an arrest, and the case is now in the hands of the prosecutor's office. Police continue to search for the bodies in the large swaths of farmland surrounding Airdrie.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Wrong, you and I have zero evidence. The police have evidence. The crown has evidence. The accused has evidence. His attorney as evidence.



No one said you should believe everything you hear -- just that if you expect anyone to listen to you should get some facts to back up your feelings. If there's a wrongful prosecution happening, why wait for the trial? Get the facts out in the media so your guy can get out of jail.

Reasonable doubt is a standard that has been established based on centuries of jurisprudence. You might want to take that one up with the legal philosophers and various supreme courts. There are good reasons why that's the standard.

Rather than take an aggressive position, I prefer to wait to present my case...not enough info as I've said. However, there is no harm in having an opinion, there are others that think differently than you do and we communicate quite well, thank you. I am not looking to be heard, I've never been one to bang anyone's door down. I find it interesting that there are so many that feel the need to beat others with their opinions. I hope you and your theory are correct, it will likely matter to you more than I, that you be right and I be wrong. In the meantime, those of us that may have a different idea will likely continue on thinking what we think.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Could be bad journalism, but interesting choice of words.

"The stabbing deaths of five students at a quiet end-of-year house party in Brentwood, followed by the violent disappearance of Alvin and Kathryn Liknes and their grandson, Nathan O'Brien, left even people with no personal connection to the cases questioning their sense of safety and security in the Calgary of 2014. (BBM)

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Mass+murders+make+challenging+year+police/10261467/story.html

 

[otto]

Why do some seem so personally invested in blindly supporting LE's theory at this point, when nothing has been released to the public? This is an usual case with many twists and turns and players with very little information, and so I would think it fairly normal for the many who are interested in the fate of these 3 missing people to speculate based on what IS known. The worst that can happen is that the speculators waste their time and end up being wrong. The best that can happen is that perhaps a speculator's theory might spark a far-away little thought in someone else, perhaps something worth pursuing, and it ends up in more concrete evidence, or another avenue to pursue and follow up on. I think that most don't have a vested interest in the outcome of the hows or whos or whys, but rather, most just want the facts and justice to be served, whatever the facts may be. Until the facts are known, whatever facts there might be, 'sleuthing' is what we do here on WS.[modsnip] MOO.

There's no blindness involved. Those that followed the case from day one watched the case unfold, where over 40 different units in the CPS were involved in the investigation. All avenues of investigation were pursued. This was not a situation where a couple of lazy, over-worked, bumbling detectives decided to pin a triple murder on a loser from Airdrie between coffee and donuts. This was something entirely different.

There aren't really any twists and turns. There was a triple homicide and the person arrested is both known to the victims, and a brother to the victim's daughter in law. The man that has been arrested has a long criminal history. He's not exactly an unlikely suspect, where everyone claims that they never expected the convicted criminal to re-offend. We learned early on that the accused had a long standing grudge against the victim.

I sincerely doubt that police are interested in the speculation here. If there is a tip that is in fact directly related to the investigation, it should be reported to police, but at the same time, police are not interested in a speculation about whether a yellow car, rather than a green truck, was used to remove the victims from the crime scene.

We have many facts and, if we use them to build a framework, we can pretty much understand what happened ... except for motive.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Rather than take an aggressive position, I prefer to wait to present my case...not enough info as I've said. However, there is no harm in having an opinion, there are others that think differently than you do and we communicate quite well, thank you. I am not looking to be heard, I've never been one to bang anyone's door down. I find it interesting that there are so many that feel the need to beat others with their opinions. I hope you and your theory are correct, it will likely matter to you more than I, that you be right and I be wrong. In the meantime, those of us that may have a different idea will likely continue on thinking what we think.

Indeed. If the drag marks turn out to be grease stains from the garbage being taken out the evening before, then so much for it being evidence.

 

[otto]

Indeed. If the drag marks turn out to be grease stains from the garbage being taken out the evening before, then so much for it being evidence.

Why would anyone drag garbage to the driveway? The garbage bins are at the back of the house?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Why would anyone drag garbage to the driveway? The garbage bins are at the back of the house?

What if someone dragged something from the garage, back into the house after the sale? There is no telling what all the possible things dragged around legitimately could be. It's just speculation vs. speculation. Is it likely that the drag marks are related to the crime? How about 51% likely? 64%?

 

[LoisLane]

Why would anyone drag garbage to the driveway? The garbage bins are at the back of the house?

Maybe some groceries from the car or truck had leaked and so the garbage was brought from the front of the house. Or maybe someone had just returned home from a picnic or camping trip and cleaned out the cooler in the driveway. Or maybe someone dropped a case of beer or Motts Clamato.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Maybe some groceries from the car or truck had leaked and so the garbage was brought from the front of the house. Or maybe someone had just returned home from a picnic or camping trip and cleaned out the cooler in the driveway. Or maybe someone dropped a case of beer or Motts Clamato.

Maybe AL hosed the Clamato off the sidewalk.

 

[otto]

What if someone dragged something from the garage, back into the house after the sale? There is no telling what all the possible things dragged around legitimately could be. It's just speculation vs. speculation. Is it likely that the drag marks are related to the crime? How about 51% likely? 64%?

If we look at the crime scene markers, we can see that they lead sequentially from the house to the driveway, not the other way around.

 

[otto]

Maybe some groceries from the car or truck had leaked and so the garbage was brought from the front of the house. Or maybe someone had just returned home from a picnic or camping trip and cleaned out the cooler in the driveway. Or maybe someone dropped a case of beer or Motts Clamato.

And maybe the drag stains are evidence marked with crime scene markers leading from the side door to the driveway.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

If we look at the crime scene markers, we can see that they lead sequentially from the house to the driveway, not the other way around.

Yes, but at that time, did they know it was related to the crime, or were they simply marking and documenting anything that looked suspicious before it disappeared or became contaminated? How much does LE picture and test only to find out it is not related to the crime? They told MSM they didn't know if the marks were related. I'll find the quote...

I also don't know the significance of the sequence of the numbers. I would assume it's simply the order they find things in.