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

[Tinkerbel1]

So, the Liknes home is no longer a crime scene. It sounds like it's been cleaned up. Has anyone heard anything about what the current owner plans on doing with the property? Just curious. Wonder why he bought it...to move into himself? Rental property? That's a pretty big ticket item to purchase, and it sure was awful nice of him to purchase it and lease it back to the Liknes' for so cheap..you can't find rents like that anywhere! Unless it's a relatively old one bedroom apartment in a similarly rundown neighborhood. Steal of a deal.

 

[stan laurel]

under the garage door

I'm going to email pic to deug and have him/her paste it up as I must go to bed.

 

[otto]

So, the Liknes home is no longer a crime scene. It sounds like it's been cleaned up. Has anyone heard anything about what the current owner plans on doing with the property? Just curious. Wonder why he bought it...to move into himself? Rental property? That's a pretty big ticket item to purchase, and it sure was awful nice of him to purchase it and lease it back to the Liknes' for so cheap..you can't find rents like that anywhere! Unless it's a relatively old one bedroom apartment in a similarly rundown neighborhood. Steal of a deal.

It was a steal of a deal. It's a 50 foot lot in an area that is popular with lawyers. It's ideal for a tear down, and two infills worth $700k each. Most properties sell well over the tax assessment value, yet this was sold at tax value in a private sale. I think the objective was to quietly sell the house, pocket the money, and leave the country.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Reporters don't have to clear the information they learn with police. They can publish whatever they want before the suspect is arrested, and at the time the photo was released, there was no suspect. I just find it odd that the CTV reporter would know two specific times that a truck was photographed, yet only one photo was released, and that time information was not included in any press conferences or news articles. Why would it be withheld by the media if police wanted information about that truck being in the area on the night of the murders? I can understand that police would withhold that information because they would want people to think about the entire night, not just a specific window of time. How did this particular reporter know the times? ... or was she speculating? Would a reporter with a very public reputation, covering a court hearing, really discuss her private theory of the crime with strangers that happened to be in the courtroom that day? It strikes me as odd.

Maybe that reporter was bold enough to knock on the door of the Owner for the CCTV footage and ask exactly what was showing on it. I initially thought maybe he asked to see the footage, but I imagine LE would have taken it as evidence by that time. Not posted in the media...probably because the reporter didn't have the proof of it maybe?

I myself find it interesting that only one (1) photo was released. Why not the other one? And true...why wasn't the time information included in any press conferences or news articles? Good question.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

It was a steal of a deal. It's a 50 foot lot in an area that is popular with lawyers. It's ideal for a tear down, and two infills worth $700k each. Most properties sell well over the tax assessment value, yet this was sold at tax value in a private sale. I think the objective was to quietly sell the house, pocket the money, and leave the country.

But first...to protect the home from the bankruptcy AL was filing in June, 2014...that sale obviously protects the house from being included in the bankruptcy...it had also been sold within the time limits that I believe are set for the 'disposal of assets' when claiming a bankruptcy..it was definitely a planned sale...the buyer got a great deal, and so did the Liknes'. Maybe that was the stipulation by AL in order to turn the property over for less than what might have gotten on the market....lease it back to us at amount of dollars per month because I can't spend more than that during my bankruptcy period. Nice friends. Beautiful arrangement. Win-win the way I see it. JMO

And yes, to pocket the cash and leave the country...kind of a quick and quiet sale to someone that AL could cut a deal with. Wonder what kind of lawyer the purchase is? Real Estate? Corporate? Just curious. Sounds like he knows the in's and out's of cutting a sweet deal...or was it someone else's suggestion? To make it enticing...something no one with any means to purchase could turn down?

Bigger question is...why wouldn't AL put the house on the market and get more money for it? Why make it a quiet deal and quick sale?

 

[Lalalacasbah]

If the reporter knew the times that the one photo (that was released) was taken, why was that information never reported in the media? All that was reported was that the truck was seen more than once in the neighbourhood. None of the press conferences with police gave a time that the truck was in the area. How would the reported known the times?

I wonder that too Otto. I'm curious if that's her own thoughts/personal theory or she was told that by LE.

Maybe if Cherchri reads this, she can tell us what impression she got from the reporter's statement.

 

[winnnancy]

I have a question about reporters and their reporting on crimes. If they happen to "hear" or "overhear" from a neighbor, or anyone, are they able to go and directly air their findings? Or does everything they put in print have to be cleared by LE? Are they allowed to expose things that they know, that perhaps LE are keeping quiet?

I would think that an experiences reporter would have a strong working understanding of ethics and conduct themselves professionally. There are "fine lines"and subtleties that allow for conversation.

 

[otto]

Maybe that reporter was bold enough to knock on the door of the Owner for the CCTV footage and ask exactly what was showing on it. I initially thought maybe he asked to see the footage, but I imagine LE would have taken it as evidence by that time. Not posted in the media...probably because the reporter didn't have the proof of it maybe?

I myself find it interesting that only one (1) photo was released. Why not the other one? And true...why wasn't the time information included in any press conferences or news articles? Good question.

The property was under construction, so there was no one living in the property at the time of the murders. The construction company obviously delivered the video to police, rather than the media, so why would they release time of photos to the media? Why wouldn't the media report the time if they knew it? I would expect the people that provided the video to police to remain silent, at the request of police, because they will be witnesses during trial as to the authenticity of the footage.

If a reporter doesn't have proof of the time that the photo was taken, then it's not a fact. I can see reporters talking to each other about the case, but I can't see them talking to strangers in a courtroom about their opinion. Something seems off about it ... but that's just my opinion.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

under the garage door

I'm going to email pic to deug and have him/her paste it up as I must go to bed.

Alright! Goodnight, sleep with angels And Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family ... thank you so very much for your wonderful mind and for sharing your keen insight! fftobed:

 

[otto]

I would think that an experiences reporter would have a strong working understanding of ethics and conduct themselves professionally. There are "fine lines"and subtleties that allow for conversation.

Exactly, and the reporter in question is a professional with a reputation to protect ... yet all of a sudden her theory of a crime is shared with a stranger in the courtroom, and subsequently posted as hearsay on a forum. Doesn't that strike anyone else as odd? ... and she knows information that was not released to the media during police conferences, and she is sharing that information with strangers.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/more/bios/elissa-carpenter-1.302794

 

[Tinkerbel1]

The property was under construction, so there was no one living in the property at the time of the murders. The construction company obviously delivered the video to police, rather than the media, so why would they release time of photos to the media? Why wouldn't the media report the time if they knew it? I would expect the people that provided the video to police to remain silent, at the request of police, because they will be witnesses during trial as to the authenticity of the footage.

If a reporter doesn't have proof of the time that the photo was taken, then it's not a fact. I can see reporters talking to each other about the case, but I can't see them talking to strangers in a courtroom about their opinion. Something seems off about it ... but that's just my opinion.

Someone is building that house. That house is someone`s property, or does it belong to the construction company right now? Does it belong to a real estate investor who builds houses and sells them? I am not sure the construction people delivered the video, I think LE checked around for one and found one there. Perhaps a construction worker was watching while police viewed the video...and noticed 2 sightings of the truck...then LE took it. Do we know for sure that the construction company delivered the video, or if LE actually asked around at particular points to see if there is a camera around...especially a construction site? If someone happened to view the video at the same time as LE, well....you know how people like to talk. JMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Exactly, and the reporter in question is a professional with a reputation to protect ... yet all of a sudden her theory of a crime is shared with a stranger in the courtroom, and subsequently posted as hearsay on a forum. Doesn't that strike anyone else as odd?

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/more/bios/elissa-carpenter-1.302794

I'm missing something like usual...how is that professional behaviour for a seasoned reporter? And yes it's very odd...she won't write it...but she'll verbalize it off-the-cuff at the courthouse. That is very, very odd...and...very, very unprofessional. I would really like to know where she got her information? Inside information? Tidbits amongst other reporters that were put together as a theory? She's entitled to her theory, but for heaven's sake! Those are some pretty big words to be slinging around, in the wrong place IMO.

Her bio states the highlight of her career as: • Interviewing Bo Diddly on the News at Noon - it's not every day that you get to meet a legend. Bo Diddly...he's an entertainer, hardly the same caliber as crime news reporting...yet there she was, reporting out loud regarding a high-profile at the courthouse. Woah. Kinda messed up to me. JMO

 

[otto]

Someone is building that house. That house is someone`s property, or does it belong to the construction company right now? Does it belong to a real estate investor who builds houses and sells them? I am not sure the construction people delivered the video, I think LE checked around for one and found one there. Perhaps a construction worker was watching while police viewed the video...and noticed 2 sightings of the truck...then LE took it. Do we know for sure that the construction company delivered the video, or if LE actually asked around at particular points to see if there is a camera around...especially a construction site? If someone happened to view the video at the same time as LE, well....you know how people like to talk. JMO

We don't know anything about the video, but we do know that the house was under construction at the time of the murder. We know that police had the video quickly, and that by July 4 they had a photo in the news. We know that the owners of the video did not contact the media. We also know that police would be interested in all sightings of the truck, so they would not release the time of the photo ... for the obvious reason that people would then only think about that specific time rather than the entire day and night.

 

[deugirtni]

Reporter was just talking what she had heard; reporters have access to all kinds of people that would have been involved, ie other reporters, neighbours, family members, S&R team members, LE friends, legal community, etc.

If the reporter knew the times that the one photo (that was released) was taken, why was that information never reported in the media? All that was reported was that the truck was seen more than once in the neighbourhood. None of the press conferences with police gave a time that the truck was in the area. How would the reported known the times?

 

[otto]

I'm missing something like usual...how is that professional behaviour for a seasoned reporter? And yes it's very odd...she won't write it...but she'll verbalize it off-the-cuff at the courthouse. That is verym, very odd...and...very, very unprofessional. I would really like to know where she got her information?

Her bio states her highlight of her career as: • Interviewing Bo Diddly on the News at Noon - it's not every day that you get to meet a legend. Bo Diddly...he's an entertainer, hardly the same caliber as crime news reporting...yet there she was, reporting out loud regarding a high-profile at the courthouse. Woah. Kinda messed up to me. JMO

It is messed up. That was my first thought ... why would a professional risk her reputation by suddenly telling strangers in the courtroom information that was not released by police or media? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Exactly, and the reporter in question is a professional with a reputation to protect ... yet all of a sudden her theory of a crime is shared with a stranger in the courtroom, and subsequently posted as hearsay on a forum. Doesn't that strike anyone else as odd? ... and she knows information that was not released to the media during police conferences, and she is sharing that information with strangers.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/more/bios/elissa-carpenter-1.302794

As much as I love nitty gritty, hearsay/gossip and read a lot of other forums and comments to find the 'through the grapevine' word of mouth from locals for this, I know I have to be careful and remind myself to take it with a grain of salt regardless of how juicy the info is.

I read lots of stuff from not so good sources (the blood bath comment, that DG had a change of clothes on him back in the day with his B&E paraphernalia, the truck sightings from locals, that DG might've been an informant back in the day, etc.) and consider it rumor, but it could still also be true, it's definitely a fine line.

There's usually a ring of truth to these kinds of things, but at the same time it's good to keep things in check. I don't think it hurts to hypothesize and brainstorm ideas, as long as we don't take them as pure 100% facts (until we hear it in court). It's still good to discuss as these things might trigger another idea or revelation. JMO.

 

[otto]

Reporter was just talking what she had heard; reporters have access to all kinds of people that would have been involved, ie other reporters, neighbours, family members, S&R team members, LE friends, legal community, etc.

Apparently, this particular reporter decided to reveal not only unreported facts of the case, but also her theory of the crime, to a complete stranger that happened to be sitting in a courtroom during a 5 minute hearing. That seems like a bit of a professional slip up. Don't reporters usually gather information, rather than spill all sorts of details to complete strangers? I also doubt that the information came from police.

 

[winnnancy]

Exactly, and the reporter in question is a professional with a reputation to protect ... yet all of a sudden her theory of a crime is shared with a stranger in the courtroom, and subsequently posted as hearsay on a forum. Doesn't that strike anyone else as odd? ... and she knows information that was not released to the media during police conferences, and she is sharing that information with strangers.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/more/bios/elissa-carpenter-1.302794

I'm guessing that she is not related to the reporting of the case and therefore is just as free to discuss things as we are. Had she had first hand knowledge from the crime scene because she was for example, present when a discovery was made, I don't think she'd share that.
This is a crime that was talked about by many but it's not likely anyone in the gallery doing the talking was associated in a way to jeopardize the investigation or the process.
I'm not sure reporters take an oath to protect- that see to me to be LE and government.
I think it's fortunate that any reporters are willing to provide an insightful commentary on language and processes that we're unfamiliar with.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Does anyone find these early statements from CH a bit more telling of what the household might have been like? BBM

Cherri Hodgins, Kathy Liknes' friend since junior high, was at the sale on Sunday. She last saw the couple that afternoon. "They were actually pretty happy," she said.

"They did well on the sale. They were relieved they'd sold off some things. They were looking forward to the future and they were looking forward to good change."

Why were they relieved at selling stuff, they had sold the house and had near 700 grand?

http://www.theprovince.com/news/cal...gary+couple+their+grandson/9989542/story.html

As for white collar HA, well, go to Montreal and find out how rooted they are in everything from municipal politics Quebec/police thru Provincial/Surte. They don't ride Harleys, more drive BMW's and are very clean cut. On St. Catherines street during the 92 Stanley Cup riot, most businesses that suffered damages didn't have insurance and had to pay out of their own pockets for repairs as they were also paying Protection money to the HA or Rock Machine.

Yes, I had noticed those words a while back from CH...kind of gives the impression things may not be so happy in wonderland. All couples have their ups and downs, but those are some pretty big "good changes"...with the business failure history, I suppose I would be looking to some "good changes" as well, nothing strange there. But she does seem to give a little more information perhaps than I think she realized...a little bit of the 'personal' stuff. Interesting. Who wouldn't be looking for a fresh start...not so unusual I guess.

Where did I get the impression CH was included in the take out, the movie and the group hug. I'm getting very confused, she seems to have a lot of wishy-washy things to say...IMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I'm guessing that she is not related to the reporting of the case and therefore is just as free to discuss things as we are. Had she had first hand knowledge from the crime scene because she was for example, present when a discovery was made, I don't think she'd share that.
This is a crime that was talked about by many but it's not likely anyone in the gallery doing the talking was associated in a way to jeopardize the investigation or the process.
I'm not sure reporters take an oath to protect- that see to me to be LE and government.
I think it's fortunate that any reporters are willing to provide an insightful commentary on language and processes that we're unfamiliar with.

I still go back to the "decorum" and "professionalism" that teachers had to show even during their time off and personal outings. Why, just because she's not related to the reporting of this crime would it be 'alright' for her to spew this around considering she is known as a reporter and could potentially have her innocent comments and musings thought of as perhaps inside information she had as a reporter. As I've mentioned, most of us aren't aware that reporters get just about as much information as the public does...they have to find it themselves...so naturally, a casual bystander may take her words as fact and information that LE has disclosed. There's no good reason for what she did, and certainly no forethought to a potential outcome.

Notice how Cherchri goes to the courtroom and listens? I don't think she's sitting in a huddle with other courtroom attendees sharing her theories ... that in my opinion is professionalism.