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

[Tinkerbel1]

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.

Most people would just hand the situation over to the police and keep their mouths shut, so it doesn't surprise me that media were not contacted. Police are viewed as authoritative and in charge of the case...why would anyone call the media? I would be afraid to be in trouble with LE for that, plus, I imagine LE asked them to keep it quiet...but like I said, people talk. JMO

 

[otto]

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.

She was reporting on the case.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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.

I guess it kind of puts it down to "attention seeking behaviour", or you know the people, the ones that have to let everyone know they are a bit special and use their position to impress others. Who knows what that girl was thinking...kind of a professional 'blooper' I guess.

 

[otto]

Most people would just hand the situation over to the police and keep their mouths shut, so it doesn't surprise me that media were not contacted. Police are viewed as authoritative and in charge of the case...why would anyone call the media? I would be afraid to be in trouble with LE for that, plus, I imagine LE asked them to keep it quiet...but like I said, people talk. JMO

The owner of the video will be a witness during trial in order to authenticate the footage. Police would have told the owner to not discuss the information with anyone because of protecting the integrity of the case. The police, and the owner of the video, would be the only parties that knew the timestamp on the photos. I'm pretty sure that police would withhold that information in order to gather the most information about any time that the truck was seen in the area, and specifying a time of 9-10PM would limit the information they would receive.

Where did the information come from, and why would a reporter casually give that information to a stranger that was in a courtroom for a 5 minute hearing? I find it surprising, but perhaps this particular reporter habitually discusses her work with strangers, and reveals information that is not revealed by police or published by the media.

 

[winnnancy]

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.

My bad, somehow I thought this was referring to our reporter/ fellow sleuther that was present in the courtroom...

 

[otto]

My bad, somehow I thought this was referring to our reporter/ fellow sleuther that was present in the courtroom...

Do we have any verified reporters on this thread? If there are actual reporters, they should probably be verified ... otherwise ... it's rather common for people to make all sorts of claims about all sorts of things. That's nothing new here.

 

[deugirtni]

Ok, what did I miss NOW? What was the rent, and how do we know?

.... 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.

 

[deugirtni]

I couldn't get stan laurel's pic to post either, so I reblew it up and circled area.

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.

 

[deugirtni]

Take it for what it's worth.. a conversation between interested, uninvolved parties during a court appearance. I would hate to think that anyone might get into trouble when we have one of our own WSer's who took the time to attend court that day, be privvy to a conversation, and then report back to us. The things discussed are not facts and not presented as facts. There are many individuals who through the course of their jobs, or their contacts, may know and/or hear certain tidbits of information through various sources that perhaps LE are not sharing with the public, perhaps some true, some untrue, and due to the interest in this case, further conversations are bound to take place and theories are going to be imagined. None written in stone. The reporter's name should be removed, and we should just take that info as any other post in this case, with a grain of salt, and understanding that we are not privy to much at all until the actual court proceedings commence. I'm sure the last thing our WS member would want is for someone to get into trouble for speaking to her.

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.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

My bad, somehow I thought this was referring to our reporter/ fellow sleuther that was present in the courtroom...

Oh no!! Not our fellow sleuther(s) reporters! They have shown the epitome of professionalism in my opinion! No...this is particular to the young lady Cherchri overheard at the last court appearance...about her tire iron/dissolving theory. IMO, she shouldn't be sharing that with people who may take it as facts from LE. She really should choose her audience to ensure they know these are just her opinions.

 

[Coldpizza]

No more discussion about the reporter and what she said please.

Thank you

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Ok, what did I miss NOW? What was the rent, and how do we know?

I believe the home was leased back to the Liknes' by the new owner for $ 1,000/month. It's been stated in several MSM articles. I will try and find one for you.

 

[otto]

I couldn't get stan laurel's pic to post either, so I reblew it up and circled area.

View attachment 61138

Thanks Stan and Deugirtni. I see the area now, and it certainly does pose the question of whether the garage door was open at some point.

 

[otto]

This is off topic, but may be of interest to many. Over the years, I've been asked how to take a screen shot of a video or image on the internet. I've recently been asked this same question in relation to this thread. There are software programs that do this, such as Snaggit, and Snippet, but it's possible to take a screen shot without any professional software.

Every keyboard has a PrtScn key (usually near the number pad). This is the Print Screen key, and it does exactly what it says, it takes a snap shot of your computer monitor. Here's how it works.

Hit the PrtScn Key. Open another software, such as Word, Photoshop, or another photo manipulation program. File --> New. The size of the image is automatically aligned with the size of the print screen image, so do not modify the dimensions of the New image - leave at defaults. Then Paste. On a PC, Control V will paste the image. With a laptop, it many be necessary to hit the Fcn key at the same time as the PrtScn key.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I feel for the Liknes/O'Brien's this Thanksgiving weekend, it's got to be extremely hard on them. How can they be thankful when dealt this card. All the holidays and birthdays will forever be changed. So sad.

 

[news.talk]

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.

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.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

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.

news.talk in your opinion and what investigative details you know, do you feel MSM have covered this story fairly?

And does the media in fact know inside details and facts such as said CCTV times comments that don't make it to print? And if so, do they get the info from their own sources as opposed to LE? Sorry, I'm just curious! Thanks for sharing a journalist's point of view

 

[news.talk]

news.talk in your opinion and what investigative details you know, do you feel MSM have covered this story fairly?

And does the media in fact know inside details and facts such as said CCTV times comments that don't make it to print? And if so, do they get the info from their own sources as opposed to LE? Sorry, I'm just curious! Thanks for sharing a journalist's point of view

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.

 

[otto]

news.talk in your opinion and what investigative details you know, do you feel MSM have covered this story fairly?

And does the media in fact know inside details and facts such as said CCTV times comments that don't make it to print? And if so, do they get the info from their own sources as opposed to LE? Sorry, I'm just curious! Thanks for sharing a journalist's point of view

I'm not a journalist, but if we look at it from the perspective of police, they are not going to leak, or communicate, any information to the media that they do not want published. Police and prosecutors will sometimes communicate false information to the media specifically because they want elicit information from the public, and sometimes a false piece of information achieves that goal. Prosecutors/police will also ask the media to cover a story, such as an anniversary story about an unsolved murder, with the hope of generating new leads. The media is a tool for police.

 

[otto]

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.

Why would people send criminal investigation tips to the media?