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

[Sillybilly]

Caveat ... according to the CL we are seeing on FB, he is JO's cousin, not uncle, so it seems there is an uncle CL and a cousin.

 

[Krystine]

I've been visiting this site for about 8 years...6 as a reg member...
This is the first case I was highly active in...so many I followed closely...
I still go back to a few select cases to this day to re-read a lot...in the off chance of finding 'something'..

The Boy in the Box...breaks my heart & it happened before I was even born...& never been solved...
Victoria Stafford...the after school video will haunt me forever...

Kyron..sweet little Kyron...Four years later and I still wonder about that little guy....
Tim Bosma...now that case has some twists and turns...with revelations about DM's father...and the missing girl Laura Babcock...

Patricia Kimmi...after reading her case every day...and insight from her family here...you would know what an awesome lady she was...& would have been such a great friend to have...

Lyric & Elizabeth...
& some fairly recent...including our case here...& Beverly Carter...Erin Corwin...
I could go on for days....

It seems fairly typical that high profile cases have a large flood of information and visitors on the page....to begin with...
Then...either a suspect is arrested...there is the wait for trial...or...with no new information at all it goes one of 2 ways...
It becomes very quiet...or remains somewhat active with scenarios & re-sleuthing what is known to that point...

I know there are a lot of cases where some are invested greatly into it and will 'bump' quiet threads to keep them visible..
As for 'typical' in regards to twists...turns....all kinds of things like that....there are actually quite a few that have some 'wow' & 'aha' moments...

It seems there are certain cases that seem to 'grab' people's attention right away....huge press...huge numbers following & contributing on WS...
Then there are others where it just seems to fade off...sadly...

What makes one case any more important...or any more 'sleuth worthy'? I have yet to put my finger on that one....
What I do know is...there are far too many tragic stories...far too many families & loved ones out there without answers...sometimes decades later...
I think we all want the same thing & what is typical to all the cases....we want happy endings & answers...

JMOO

Great post, Lori. I have wondered too what makes a case sleuthworthy.

If ever there was one that needs some help, it's the young father in Montreal that has been missing since early September. He left to talk to someone while watching a football game with friends, said he'd be right back and never returned.
The only thing we know is that he worked in construction, and that his own Montreal nightspot had burned to the ground last winter. It was ruled to be arson. He played hockey and he has a very honest face with very kind eyes... Matthew Kustra.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Great post, Lori. I have wondered too what makes a case sleuthworthy.

If ever there was one that needs some help, it's the young father in Montreal that has been missing since early September. He left to talk to someone while watching a football game with friends, said he'd be right back and never returned.
The only thing we know is that he worked in construction, and that his own Montreal nightspot had burned to the ground last winter. It was ruled to be arson. He played hockey and he has a very honest face with very kind eyes... Matthew Kustra.

I've been watching that case as well. Also Justin McKinnon-Blomme.

 

[LoriMcA]

Wow, seeing all those names you mentioned is heartbreaking and a reminder of the loss of life out there. So many people out there, so many tragedies, and it only takes one person knowing something to break something wide open.

I don't know how LE does it, waiting…waiting…looking... for one tiny detail on a case that can solve it. Respect to LE and the families and victims too of course.

Yes...so so many names I forgot quite a few...but like I said...I could go on for days...
In regards to LE....absolutely....the dedication...the heart...these men & women put into some of these cases is astounding...
Some...it haunts them their ENTIRE life...not just during their career...their life.
The Boy in the Box...
As years...decades have passed...some of the detectives who first worked the case...were novice policemen...some it was their very first case...
Most from the case have kept it close to them...50+ years on....they even have a website dedicated to this poor little fellow...
These men buried him...made sure he had a gravestone...revisit each year to remember him...
They've kept stacks of case files...& they keep on sleuthing...
Some have passed on as old men...having this case at their heart...since they were in their 20s...
What I find particularly tragic in the case of TBITB....no one ever came forward to say....'that's my boy' or 'where is my son?!' How could a 3-4 year old child...be 'no one's'?
To those detectives tho....he was 'their boy'....
I know here on this case...we know who NO's Mom & Dad are....we know who his Grampa & Gramma are...we know he had a very large family & that he is so loved...
But we've all come to love him too.....I think he is to many here...who so want him safe & back home....'their boy' as well...
It may sound silly to say...but I think of TBITB...& wonder....where were his Mom & Dad....his family to love him?....no one came forward. Except those dedicated detectives.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Not over-analyzing in my opinion lala. When I first read this I found that statement very odd as well...the 'no names' put me off....
I think AL and AL are twins...I think CL is older...
JMOO

Yes, Allen and Alvin are the twins, CL is a much older brother by about 6 or 7 years.
I was imagining this situation as if in my own family...I think that we would refer to each other as "my brother, his wife, my niece, nephew and so on. I think it's actually a more personal address than their given names...I always refer to my brothers Barry, Dale and Wes as my brother(s), and my nieces as "lil" miss...nephews as "the boys"...so I don't know if its more impersonal or not to address them by the relationship rather than their given names. JMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Caveat ... according to the CL we are seeing on FB, he is JO's cousin, not uncle, so it seems there is an uncle CL and a cousin.

Yes, CL (Sr.) is AL's brother, and CL (jr.) is AL's nephew, therefore JO's cousin, the elder CL, her uncle. CL and CL are actually father and son.

CL Sr is the flooring specialist, "used car salesman" and CL jr. is the boxer/model/etc....married to S L who worked with her uncle AL at Winter Pet.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I've been watching that case as well. Also Justin McKinnon-Blomme.

Yes, Justin McKinnon-Blomme is an interesting one as well. Wonder what's going on there? With the introduction of the young lady into the picture, there's likely more complexity to that situation than a straight-forward MIA deal.

 

[ABro]

I am not sure privacy legislation would apply to an off the record friendly discussion between people in the same field. Regardless, adults that engage in conversation or share details with anyone, even within their own household, can't be surprised when that conversation takes on legs. Most of us know better than to disclose anything that we don't want shared.

"The problem with the phrase "off the record" is that many people, reporters and the general public alike, misunderstand its precise meaning. These days many interviewees think "off the record" is largely synonymous with "on background" or "not for attribution." There is so much murkiness about what "off the record" means that it is essential that the reporter and source agree on a definition before beginning an "off the record" portion of an interview. In the Department of Journalism, "off the record" means the information should not be used in the story unless the reporter can confirm it through another source. In general, it is best to avoid off the record conversations; another option might be to converse off the record and then try to convince the source to agree to waive the agreement."


"Off the record" restricts the reporter from using the information the source is about to deliver. The information is offered to explain or further a reporter's understanding of a particular issue or event. (Various presidents have invited reporters to have dinner with the understanding that no information from this meeting can ever be published.) But if the reporter can confirm the information with another source who doesn't insist on speaking off the record (whether that means he agreed to talking on the record, on background, or not for attribution) he can publish it.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/human-sources/

 

[Tinkerbel1]

No two cases are alike and I don’t think this one is too far out there. Some threads have only 1 victim, others multiple victims, male/female, adults/kids, some straight forward, others twisty-turney. The fact that AL and KL were involved in businesses and that theirs is such a large family, it perhaps adds more sleuthability and curious coinkydinks than in other cases.

Curious coinkydinks...or synchronicity? I am leaning more towards the 'synchronicity' definition. There are waaaay too many coinkydinks here. However, one never knows.

Psychologist Carl Jung believed the traditional notions of causality were incapable of explaining some of the more improbable forms of coincidence. Where it is plain, felt Jung, that no causal connection can be demonstrated between two events, but where a meaningful relationship nevertheless exists between them, a wholly different type of principle is likely to be operating. Jung called this principle "synchronicity."

http://www.strangemag.com/mysteryofchance.html

 

[Sillybilly]

Yes, CL (Sr.) is AL's brother, and CL (jr.) is AL's nephew, therefore JO's cousin, the elder CL, her uncle. CL and CL are actually father and son.

CL Sr is the flooring specialist, "used car salesman" and CL jr. is the boxer/model/etc....married to SL who worked with her uncle AL at Winter Pet.

Tinkerbel, please edit your post to remove SL's full name. I took the liberty of changing it to intials in the quote ^^. IF it's too late to edit, please ask a mod to do it for you.

 

[Sillybilly]

Curious coinkydinks...or synchronicity? I am leaning more towards the 'synchronicity' definition. There are waaaay too many coinkydinks here. However, one never knows.

Psychologist Carl Jung believed the traditional notions of causality were incapable of explaining some of the more improbable forms of coincidence. Where it is plain, felt Jung, that no causal connection can be demonstrated between two events, but where a meaningful relationship nevertheless exists between them, a wholly different type of principle is likely to be operating. Jung called this principle "synchronicity."

http://www.strangemag.com/mysteryofchance.html

<bbm>

"One ever knows" is right. A lot of members weren't around during the Tori Stafford case. There were suspicions and coinkydinks that would knock yer socks off as it relates to Tori's mom. We pretty much had her tarred and feathered, and in the long run were just plain wrong. We dug up history on her bf as well that certainly led us in a certain direction, but that was not the case either.

 

[stan laurel]

Curious coinkydinks...or synchronicity? I am leaning more towards the 'synchronicity' definition. There are waaaay too many coinkydinks here. However, one never knows.

Psychologist Carl Jung believed the traditional notions of causality were incapable of explaining some of the more improbable forms of coincidence. Where it is plain, felt Jung, that no causal connection can be demonstrated between two events, but where a meaningful relationship nevertheless exists between them, a wholly different type of principle is likely to be operating. Jung called this principle "synchronicity."

http://www.strangemag.com/mysteryofchance.html

There used to be a real estate firm in cowtown that had signs around town of JUNG REALTY which kinda looked like Jung Reality.

Neither here nor there.

 

[LoriMcA]

<bbm>

"One ever knows" is right. A lot of members weren't around during the Tori Stafford case. There were suspicions and coinkydinks that would knock yer socks off as it relates to Tori's mom. We pretty much had her tarred and feathered, and in the long run were just plain wrong. We dug up history on her bf as well that certainly led us in a certain direction, but that was not the case either.

Everyone was SO suspicious of TM...everything was suspect...her past...her present...her daily news conferences....even how she dressed....and when it came down to it...it was very basic...she wanted her little girl back.

 

[news.talk]

Everyone was SO suspicious of TM...everything was suspect...her past...her present...her daily news conferences....even how she dressed....and when it came down to it...it was very basic...she wanted her little girl back.

I have been following Isabella Grogan-Cannella... VERY similar in that the mother has been the source of vast criticism and speculation. In fact, the mother and the step-father were just arrested this evening on 'unrelated' drug charges, while the family friend accused of the murder is awaiting to find out if the death penalty will be sought. It is one of those cases that should never have happened if the parents weren't involved in drugs and atrocious parenting choices. An all too familiar theme here on WS.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

"The problem with the phrase "off the record" is that many people, reporters and the general public alike, misunderstand its precise meaning. These days many interviewees think "off the record" is largely synonymous with "on background" or "not for attribution." There is so much murkiness about what "off the record" means that it is essential that the reporter and source agree on a definition before beginning an "off the record" portion of an interview. In the Department of Journalism, "off the record" means the information should not be used in the story unless the reporter can confirm it through another source. In general, it is best to avoid off the record conversations; another option might be to converse off the record and then try to convince the source to agree to waive the agreement."


"Off the record" restricts the reporter from using the information the source is about to deliver. The information is offered to explain or further a reporter's understanding of a particular issue or event. (Various presidents have invited reporters to have dinner with the understanding that no information from this meeting can ever be published.) But if the reporter can confirm the information with another source who doesn't insist on speaking off the record (whether that means he agreed to talking on the record, on background, or not for attribution) he can publish it.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/human-sources/

... and then 2014 came. Journalism is no longer the exclusive domain of the few, and "opinion pieces", like "off the record", have forever been redefined. Welcome to a world exercising a more accurate description of "freedom of speech".

 

[news.talk]

... and then 2014 came. Journalism is no longer the exclusive domain of the few, and "opinion pieces", like "off the record", have forever been redefined. Welcome to a world excerising a more accurate description of "freedom of speech".

My hero! I was worried that you had locked yourself in a dark room, listening to Air Supply on vinyl and drinking in despair - All because I agreed to go out with cherchri...

 

[Lalalacasbah]

<bbm>

"One ever knows" is right. A lot of members weren't around during the Tori Stafford case. There were suspicions and coinkydinks that would knock yer socks off as it relates to Tori's mom. We pretty much had her tarred and feathered, and in the long run were just plain wrong. We dug up history on her bf as well that certainly led us in a certain direction, but that was not the case either.

You have a good point Billy, I often wonder if I'm 'over sleuthing' everything and trying to find links and coincidences (I guess like I do in life) in everything around and things found in this case. If one thinks about it, you can find a connection if you look hard enough.

I sometimes wonder if I'm crossing a line where I'm letting my ideas (or imagination?) get the best of me or if everything I'm seeing is legit, but I think I'm going to start being careful about voicing my suspicions out loud about friends and family on here which I do from time to time. I can't tell if there's enough reasoning for such 'suspicions', or if I have a bad case of over-analyzing!

Thanks for the reminder to keep things in check

 

[Cherchri]

Cherchri I asked news.talk this question and please don't feel obligated at all to answer, only if you feel like it... I was curious, with what you may know more than the rest of us do you think this is a basic, simple crime or a more layered and complex one?

Honestly I don't think I know any more than "the rest of us". I do think it is a fairly straightforward crime in terms of LE being in a position to put forth evidence of what took place. The fact that no bodies have been found is a wrinkle of note and means that the evidence presented at trial will need to be substantive to a T. I have no doubt LE collected enough evidence and the prosecution is confident. What I can't come to grips with is the motive - I just can't reconcile that with what we know. So if you are wondering if I believe there is still something to solve, I do and it is around the motive. LE may well know what the motive was but I sure as heck don't and I can't believe it was the patent issue alone.

 

[LoisLane]

You have a good point Billy, I often wonder if I'm 'over sleuthing' everything and trying to find links and coincidences (I guess like I do in life) in everything around and things found in this case. If one thinks about it, you can find a connection if you look hard enough.

I sometimes wonder if I'm crossing a line where I'm letting my ideas (or imagination?) get the best of me or if everything I'm seeing is legit, but I think I'm going to start being careful about voicing my suspicions out loud about friends and family on here which I do from time to time. I can't tell if there's enough reasoning for such 'suspicions', or if I have a bad case of over-analyzing!

Thanks for the reminder to keep things in check

I like your explanation and feel the same. I have reached a point where I am going through some sort of denial and guilt process right now. After reading all these posts this evening I am feeling even more lost. I certainly have sleuthed in every direction and I just end up confused. I just wish the 3 people are recovered and it will give some peace and closure. I will keep going as this is not even close to resolved, in my mind anyways.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Honestly I don't think I know any more than "the rest of us". I do think it is a fairly straightforward crime in terms of LE being in a position to put forth evidence of what took place. The fact that no bodies have been found is a wrinkle of note and means that the evidence presented at trial will need to be substantive to a T. I have no doubt LE collected enough evidence and the prosecution is confident. What I can't come to grips with is the motive - I just can't reconcile that with what we know. So if you are wondering if I believe there is still something to solve, I do and it is around the motive. LE may well know what the motive was but I sure as heck don't and I can't believe it was the patent issue alone.

Thanks Cherchri

Yeah, the patent is a hard one for me to swallow too for some reason. I never have thought that was it unless it was some sort of reference to DG's ideas where in it was a personal insult as opposed to the patent itself. So not really being about the patent and profit, but about DG's property of *his idea*, so more of a personal jab towards him...

Kind of like the tall, strapping, good-looking popular guy in high school stealing the quiet, nerdy, loner guys with no friends idea or homework and basking in limelight and taking all the credit for it. That could make someone very resentful.