Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #18

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #141
Why would people send criminal investigation tips to the media?
MOO:

Depends on their motive, which is often difficult to ascertain. Sometimes they simply don't know who to call, but often they have informed LE and didnt get the desired response, e.g., "the police didnt seem interested..." There are also times they just want to be recognized publicly or want to insert themselves into the case. Of course there are always the whack jobs... Every now and then, there is a genuine tip - These are often people that want to remain anonymous and don't want to have contact with LE.
 
  • #142
MOO:

Depends on their motive, which is often difficult to ascertain. Sometimes they simply don't know who to call, but often they have informed LE and didnt get the desired response, e.g., "the police didnt seem interested..." There are also times they just want to be recognized publicly or want to insert themselves into the case. Of course there are always the whack jobs... Every now and then, there is a genuine tip - These are often people that want to remain anonymous and don't want to have contact with LE.

Anonymous tips to police are always possible without contacting media. Contacting media strikes me as anything but anonymous.

"If you have information that will help police solve a crime, we’d like to hear from you. You can call, type or text your tip to Crime Stoppers. To ensure your information and identity remains anonymous we invite you to follow the steps below."

http://crimestoppers.ca/send-a-tip/
 
  • #143
Anonymous tips to police are always possible without contacting media. Contacting media strikes me as anything but anonymous.

"If you have information that will help police solve a crime, we’d like to hear from you. You can call, type or text your tip to Crime Stoppers. To ensure your information and identity remains anonymous we invite you to follow the steps below."

http://crimestoppers.ca/send-a-tip/
I agree but there are some people that want zero contact with LE. They may hate LE, have a record or don't trust that they will not be called to testify due to a subpoena. Like I said, it is often hard to discern motives.
 
  • #144
I am very impressed with the level of professionalism in the media covering this case. People send in tips all the time but unless they can be verified, they are simply rumour. Even when it can be verified, the question remains, does the public need or have a right to know this information.

Like others, I have heard information from LE, but it has to be balanced with the protection of the case and the defendants right to a fair trial. Leaking information can have unforseen consequences so it is best to stick to the facts that have been confirmed and officially released.

Does your own personal theory and thoughts about this case mirror what LE thinks or do you think there's more to what we the public hear?

I guess what I'm asking in a round about way is (without you having to compromise your ethical/opinion boundary) do you think this is a cut and dry/simple motive case or do you think it's more layered and complex based on your gut and the info you know?
 
  • #145
I agree but there are some people that want zero contact with LE. They may hate LE, have a record or don't trust that they will not be called to testify due to a subpoena. Like I said, it is often hard to discern motives.

Going back to the question of whether the media has access to information that should only be known by investigators and the owner of the video surveillance, I rather doubt it. I doubt that police would release that information to the media simply because they don't want to restrict the times that people will review in terms of whether they saw the vehicle. I doubt that the owner of the video would release that information to the media simply because police would have informed the owner that he/she will be a witness during trial for the purpose of authenticating the video. The video was taken from a construction site, so it's conceivable that word got around the construction site that the vehicle was seen on video surveillance at 9 and 10PM, but why wouldn't additional times also be offered. For example, since the vehicle was seen at that location at least twice before the murders (nothing in the back of the truck), it's very likely that there is at least one more photo where there is something in the back of the truck. Why wasn't that time mentioned ... if it came from the video owner.

I suspect that because the back of the truck is empty in the photo, it's possible to conclude that the photo was taken prior to the murders, which would be anytime around sunset.
 
  • #146
I agree but there are some people that want zero contact with LE. They may hate LE, have a record or don't trust that they will not be called to testify due to a subpoena. Like I said, it is often hard to discern motives.

So true, there's a lot of fringe folks who are bold cop haters.

Also, there is a sense of media vigilantism and people these days rely on trust the media in a sense for some justices as they do have a lot of power to draw attention to David Vs. Goliath type scenarios.

Like a person seeking help but LE has done all they can *legally* do, or it's a little man against a big corporate power, etc. The next step to get help is go to the media and create a public outrage, and it works a lot of the time. Double-edged sword I guess.
 
  • #147
Does your own personal theory and thoughts about this case mirror what LE thinks or do you think there's more to what we the public hear?

I guess what I'm asking in a round about way is (without you having to compromise your ethical/opinion boundary) do you think this is a cut and dry/simple motive case or do you think it's more layered and complex based on your gut and the info you know?

My beliefs are based in the trust I have in our homicide and forensic teams. The people involved are all highly ethical, professional and skilled at their jobs. If say, there were personnel involved that I know are unscrupulous, lazy investigators or have a history of cutting corners, I wouldn't be so convinced that they have a solid case.

I believe that there is a lot of strong circumstantial and forensic evidence that points to the suspect. I may be wrong, but all the hallmarks for a solid case are there. IMO, I also think this will turn out to show a very uncomplicated chain of events.
 
  • #148
Going back to the question of whether the media has access to information that should only be known by investigators and the owner of the video surveillance, I rather doubt it. I doubt that police would release that information the media simply because they don't want to restrict the times that people will review in terms of whether they saw the vehicle. I doubt that the owner of the video would release that information to the media simply because police would have informed the owner that he/she will be a witness during trial for the purpose of authenticating the video. The video was taken from a construction site, so it's conceivable that word got around the construction site that the vehicle was seen on video surveillance at 9 and 10PM, but why wouldn't additional times also be offered. For example, since the vehicle was seen at that location at least twice before the murders (nothing in the back of the truck), it's very likely that there is at least one more photo where there is something in the back of the truck. Why wasn't that time mentioned ... if it came from the video owner.

I suspect that because the back of the truck is empty in the photo, it's possible to conclude that the photo was taken prior to the murders, which would be anytime around sunset.
The media sometimes gains access in various ways to pertinent information, but if it cannot be confirmed by LE, it becomes moot. IMO, it is important to not release ANY information that may compromise an investigation.

IMO, the truck was seen more than what has been released. I would go as far to say that it is possible that CCTV also caught *something* in the back of the truck. It may not just be the CCTV camera that caught the truck earlier.
 
  • #149
The media sometimes gains access in various ways to pertinent information, but if it cannot be confirmed by LE, it becomes moot. IMO, it is important to not release ANY information that may compromise an investigation.

IMO, the truck was seen more than what has been released. I would go as far to say that it is possible that CCTV also caught *something* in the back of the truck. It may not just be the CCTV camera that caught the truck earlier.

If information was leaked by someone on the construction crew, I'm pretty sure that all times that the truck was seen on video would have been leaked, not just the time prior to the murder. We have one photo, we know that the truck was seen more than once and, given the angle of the camera, I have no doubt that there is another photo taken after the murders - where the victims will be in the back of the truck. Point being, that all times that the truck was seen on video would have been shared (if someone was leaking information), not just the obvious time prior to the murder where the back of the truck is empty.

On that basis, I'm inclined to believe that the suggested timeline associated with the photo of the truck can only be speculation that is based on the fact that the photo appears to have been taken in the evening or at night, and the bed of the truck is empty. That suggests that the photo was taken prior to the murders ... so anytime after 9-10PM

It's interesting that police were photographing a basement window that is exactly on the opposite end of the house to the upstairs bedrooms. As was suggested yesterday, this seems like a very good way to break into the house. If Garland broke in through a basement window, he could have hidden in the basement until he was sure that everyone was in bed, or he could have entered through a basement window some time after the lights were out.

Israel Keyes said that he cased a house to learn the layout, paid attention to where bedrooms were - last light to go out at night. He liked to enter through garage windows, but a basement window probably works too. What he did was wait for the occupants to go to sleep, and then did what he called a "blitz" attack, where he suddenly stormed through the house, burst into the bedroom, and completely caught the occupants off guard. Russell Williams, the former military man from Ontario, did pretty much the same thing. He cased the house, found a way to break in, entered the house, waited for the occupants to go to sleep, and then surprised them when they were sleeping.

Interesting point about security bars on basement windows ... a few years ago I was looking at open houses, and I learned that many people have keys for the basement security bars within inches of the bars. There has to be a way to open the security bar in case of fire, so what people very often did was place the keys on a nail right next to the bars ... kind of defeating the purpose of security bars.
 

Attachments

  • WestSideHouse2 - Copy.jpg
    WestSideHouse2 - Copy.jpg
    63.5 KB · Views: 53
  • #150
Good points. It is a VERY fine line to walk and at times, against our every instinct. I personally choose to withhold investigative details here and IRL, because I am not covering the story and want to see justice served without my interference. If I was covering the story, I would have to remain cognizant of both my duty to report the news while balancing the facts with what is the public's right to know.

Thank you, If possible, can you tell me(us) what a professional reporters goals are( overall). What is the BASIC ethic? My best moderately educated guess is that The goal is to get news and information to the public as objectively as you can. To cause no harm in the sense that you're not jeopardizing anyone and; especially, not an investigation or legal process but; not necessarily so tied into LE for example that you're covering up information.

Thanks.
 
  • #151
I am very impressed with the level of professionalism in the media covering this case. People send in tips all the time but unless they can be verified, they are simply rumour. Even when it can be verified, the question remains, does the public need or have a right to know this information.

Like others, I have heard information from LE, but it has to be balanced with the protection of the case and the defendants right to a fair trial. Leaking information can have unforseen consequences so it is best to stick to the facts that have been confirmed and officially released.

what are you accountable for if you're not personally covering the case?
 
  • #152
what are you accountable for if you're not personally covering the case?
My family? LoL. Oh, you mean in the general sense - as in ethically?
 
  • #153
Thank you, If possible, can you tell me(us) what a professional reporters goals are( overall). What is the BASIC ethic? My best moderately educated guess is that The goal is to get news and information to the public as objectively as you can. To cause no harm in the sense that you're not jeopardizing anyone and; especially, not an investigation or legal process but; not necessarily so tied into LE for example that you're covering up information.

Thanks.
You summed it up pretty good! Its a balancing act for sure. Cub reporters often fall into the trap of wanting to get 'scoops' and rushing to put out the information. What ends up happening, is they may inadvertently disclose information that is not vetted or confirmed. If that is done while covering crime, the reporter may never get another comment from LE again.
 
  • #154
My family? LoL. Oh, you mean in the general sense - as in ethically?

as a professional reporter. Say you learned information by virtue of the access or connections you have but not during the course of official involvement. would you be free to discuss the " rumour"?
or, are you mindful to not discuss anything that you wouldn't otherwise put in print and sign your name to? ( I guess this comes down to personal ethics)
 
  • #155
Thank you, If possible, can you tell me(us) what a professional reporters goals are( overall). What is the BASIC ethic? My best moderately educated guess is that The goal is to get news and information to the public as objectively as you can. To cause no harm in the sense that you're not jeopardizing anyone and; especially, not an investigation or legal process but; not necessarily so tied into LE for example that you're covering up information.

Thanks.

I think we need to keep in mind that until someone is verified as a reporter, there are no real reporters commenting on this discussion. I would like to know that there is a reporter commenting here simply because it gives so much more validity to those comments ... but without verification, it's just another opinion. Verification is a simple process where no personal information is revealed except to the person that verifies the credentials. The information is completely confidential. In my experience, credentials can be verified through proof of post-secondary degrees, and proof of place of work. It's that simple, and it removes all doubt that the person is the real deal ... making for an all round better discussion.
 
  • #156
I think we need to keep in mind that until someone is verified as a reporter, there are no real reporters commenting on this discussion. I would like to know that there is a reporter commenting here simply because it gives so much more validity to those comments ... but without verification, it's just another opinion. Verification is a simple process where no personal information is revealed except to the person that verifies the credentials. The information is completely confidential. In my experience, credentials can be verified through proof of post-secondary degrees, and proof of place of work. It's that simple, and it removes all doubt that the person is the real deal ... making for an all round better discussion.
Hence why it is all MOO, IMO, ....
 
  • #157
Hence why it is all MOO, IMO, ....

Thanks, I think this is where we can see a professional perspective without the professional having to take full professionaL ACCOUNTABILITY in the sense that it becomes an unofficial opinion.
Please recognize this as the gift it is.... because if we don't accept that its an unofficial professional opinion , we may be listening to silence.
 
  • #158
I am not convinced that this location where the truck is, is the same location as in the photo above it. The sidewalk leading into the property appears to be on a more rounded curve in the picture below, and there appears to be weeds/long grasses in the truck photo, on the lawn part where the picture above has grass. It could be just the camera, but one looks to be a walking path leading off of the sidewalk, while the other looks like a driveway. MOO

It's the same location in both pictures. Otto is correct about the CCTV distortion. Line up the bases of all the trees. They are the same.
 
  • #159
  • #160
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
136
Guests online
952
Total visitors
1,088

Forum statistics

Threads
632,391
Messages
18,625,727
Members
243,133
Latest member
nikkisanchez
Back
Top