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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #661
I found JO's quote about DG and him being non-existent to her and KL almost a jab/insult but not said purposefully if that makes sense.

I got the feeling she's saying in a round about way, that her family and KL had no connection and absolutely nothing to do with him. To say someone didn't exist to them are very strong words IMO.

Nathan wasn't supposed to be there, so he wasn't the intended victim. Kathryn and Alvin were intended victims, so there must have been some sort of relationship between the grandparents and the accused. Nathan's mom can distance herself from the accused, but given the circumstances, I don't think that she can distance Garland from the intended victims. Something happened between the parties that resulted in the murders.
 
  • #662
Another angle to consider for motive could very well be a dismissal from AL like you said or rejection and a type of belittling in some way.

I could see intellectual property being motive much more than money, like you say - the idea. Not getting credit for *your* idea would infuriate a lot of creative types, it's very irksome. Myself being an idea person/creative type, this would be a thorn in my side, however DG being psychologically unbalanced he would have took the thorn and used it as weapon, he crossed a moral boundary for revenge most normal folks wouldn't.
I totally agree. It would make sense that he felt more slighted by the infringement and theft of his "genius" idea. Based on everything we know about DG, which isn't much, I get the impression that he thinks VERY highly of himself and his intellect. Match that slight with a troubled mind and I can totally see where a potential motive sprung from. I have always contested that this crime was actually very simple.
 
  • #663
I totally agree. It would make sense that he felt more slighted by the infringement and theft of his "genius" idea. Based on everything we know about DG, which isn't much, I get the impression that he thinks VERY highly of himself and his intellect. Match that slight with a troubled mind and I can totally see where a potential motive sprung from. I have always contested that this crime was actually very simple.

Can you ellaborate what part is simple? Is it simple because the tracks were easy to follow? The murder was simple in process? I just have a hard time understanding the idea of simple. If it was so simple it must fit a criteria to be so. Do other cases that are classified as simple have bodies? If no bodies how is it simple? Recovering the 3 people has clearly proven to be not simple so how does it really fit the "simple" theory?
 
  • #664
That's the same impression I got. JO seemed protective of her and KL in the comment, and no one else strangely. She could have said 'my family' or 'my parents and I' had no idea he existed.

I have the same questions as you also about family dynamics/relationships with the men. There has to be more than the patent I think.

I mentioned JO's comment sounds so sad, because I question whether this estrangement helps process the questions of why this happened to her son and family. Meaning, the crime would feel so much more senseless if DG was so non-existent in all their lives... If DG was a stranger per se, it's just seeems more senseless that KL and NO were killed as they were presumably oblivious to him and what he may have been involved in with AL.

I keep thinking about the split-family dynamic. When my mom re-married, her husband had 3 kids and so did my mom. We had to blend families and as uncommon as it was back then my step-father had custody of his children. As time went on his kids grew up and moved out or back to their mother (they never connected with my mother). My sister was the last to leave the nest and has a much closer relationship with my mother and step-father and they have always been her family. As adults, my sister especially has to deal with her step-siblings and they show so much jealousy and dislike for my whole side of the family and have consistent jealousy of their father's relationship with us. At the same time they try to be civil, it just never lasts. I know a few families who have similar dynamics as I described. I would imagine it to be similar between JO, JL and AL's children from his previous marriage.
 
  • #665
Can you ellaborate what part is simple? Is it simple because the tracks were easy to follow? The murder was simple in process? I just have a hard time understanding the idea of simple. If it was so simple it must fit a criteria to be so. Do other cases that are classified as simple have bodies? If no bodies how is it simple? Recovering the 3 people has clearly proven to be not simple so how does it really fit the "simple" theory?
What I am getting at is, while we can sleuth theories and pontificate motives, I have a sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, we will find out that the motive wasn't elaborate, the murder and removal of bodies and possibly even the dump sight will end up being simple.
 
  • #666
What I am getting at is, while we can sleuth theories and pontificate motives, I have a sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, we will find out that the motive wasn't elaborate, the murder and removal of bodies and possibly even the dump sight will end up being simple.

Yes, I am sure at the end of all this the conclusion will appear to be a simple explanation of events. It certainly was not a simple process for LE to find the motive, suspect, clues, etc. Sleuthers obviously do not have the resources LE has and while we may brainstorm and form opinions and analyze statements and MSM articles I personally would take offence of summing our efforts as being pontificate. (I think I am interpretting your comment correctly?)
 
  • #667
What I am getting at is, while we can sleuth theories and pontificate motives, I have a sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, we will find out that the motive wasn't elaborate, the murder and removal of bodies and possibly even the dump sight will end up being simple.

I think it was fairly straight forward. Garland was angry with something that Alvin and Kathryn did. He attacked them at the exact time that they were positioned to retire in Mexico after having sold the house, declared bankruptcy at work, cleaned out the office, cleaned out the house, and declared the intention to leave the country. The timing is probably critical. The joint Garland/Liknes purchase of the condo in Mexico is suspicious as none of the Garland's were in a position to put money into that retirement property for the Liknes couple (either no use for the property, or no surplus cash for that purpose).

He murdered Kathryn and Alvin Liknes, and eliminated the witness (the grandchild). He dragged the victims out the side door and put them in the back of his truck. He hosed down the sidewalk, probably washed some blood off his shoes and hands, drove somewhere in the countryside, disposed of the bodies, went home, burned whatever evidence remained (such as bedding used to cover the bodies in the back of the truck), and went on with his life.
 
  • #668
Yes, I am sure at the end of all this the conclusion will appear to be a simple explanation of events. It certainly was not a simple process for LE to find the motive, suspect, clues, etc. Sleuthers obviously do not have the resources LE has and while we may brainstorm and form opinions and analyze statements and MSM articles I personally would take offence of summing our efforts as being pontificate. (I think I am interpretting your comment correctly?)

Given that Garland was a suspect in four days, I think that it was a simple process for police to find the correct suspect. Police went to Mexico, and it wasn't because they were looking for people that they knew to be deceased. It was probably to investigate motive. The motive might be as simple as the Liknes couple convincing Garland's sister to give them money for their retirement home, and then omitting her name from the title. If Garland felt that Alvin had taken advantage of him, he might have been really angry if he believed that the couple took advantage of his little sister - a mother with three growing children.

In this discussion, all sorts of wild, unsubstantiated theories have been explored, but there's nothing to support any of them. It was probably a very simple, straight forward murder where the bodies were removed for the sole purpose of removing evidence from the scene. The murderer probably wanted to distance himself as quickly as possible from the evidence (that's what murderers usually do), so that last thing he would do is take the victims to his parent's home. The bodies are probably in a field near some water in a location that people rarely visit. Garland is familiar with the area between his parent's acreage and Edmonton, Brooks, and West to the mountains. It's a huge area to search, so the discovery of the remains will happen by chance one day.
 
  • #669
Yes, I am sure at the end of all this the conclusion will appear to be a simple explanation of events. It certainly was not a simple process for LE to find the motive, suspect, clues, etc. Sleuthers obviously do not have the resources LE has and while we may brainstorm and form opinions and analyze statements and MSM articles I personally would take offence of summing our efforts as being pontificate. (I think I am interpretting your comment correctly?)

Not at all. I'm just saying that we may be surprised come trial. Not that our efforts are in vain...
 
  • #670
Given that Garland was a suspect in four days, I think that it was a simple process for police to find the correct suspect. Police went to Mexico, and it wasn't because they were looking for people that they knew to be deceased. It was probably to investigate motive. The motive might be as simple as the Liknes couple convincing Garland's sister to give them money for their retirement home, and then omitting her name from the title. If Garland felt that Alvin had taken advantage of him, he might have been really angry if he believed that the couple took advantage of his little sister - a mother with three growing children.

In this discussion, all sorts of wild, unsubstantiated theories have been explored, but there's nothing to support any of them. It was probably a very simple, straight forward murder where the bodies were removed for the sole purpose of removing evidence from the scene. The murderer probably wanted to distance himself as quickly as possible from the evidence (that's what murderers usually do), so that last thing he would do is take the victims to his parent's home. The bodies are probably in a field near some water in a location that people rarely visit. Garland is familiar with the area between his parent's acreage and Edmonton, Brooks, and West to the mountains. It's a huge area to search, so the discovery of the remains will happen by chance one day.
I think LE went to Mexico to close out any doubt that the trio were alive and living a new life and to ensure the Crown's case. Just like they said... dotting "i's and crossing the "t's".
 
  • #671
Given that Garland was a suspect in four days, I think that it was a simple process for police to find the correct suspect. Police went to Mexico, and it wasn't because they were looking for people that they knew to be deceased. It was probably to investigate motive. The motive might be as simple as the Liknes couple convincing Garland's sister to give them money for their retirement home, and then omitting her name from the title. If Garland felt that Alvin had taken advantage of him, he might have been really angry if he believed that the couple took advantage of his little sister - a mother with three growing children.

In this discussion, all sorts of wild, unsubstantiated theories have been explored, but there's nothing to support any of them. It was probably a very simple, straight forward murder where the bodies were removed for the sole purpose of removing evidence from the scene. The murderer probably wanted to distance himself as quickly as possible from the evidence (that's what murderers usually do), so that last thing he would do is take the victims to his parent's home. The bodies are probably in a field near some water in a location that people rarely visit. Garland is familiar with the area between his parent's acreage and Edmonton, Brooks, and West to the mountains. It's a huge area to search, so the discovery of the remains will happen by chance one day.

Yes, I totally see the picture you have layed out. The only thing I will mention is that we really have nothing to point at Garland either, other than his arrest and charges. Let's just say we sleuthed Garland but he was not a POI at the time or even currently charged. If sleuthers were convinced it was him they may be considered wild and unsubstantiated. Fortunately DG has been arrested and charged and we won't know the details or verdict for some time so we could easily close this case as being solved. But what if he is found not-guilty? That would be a nightmare.

Just thinking out loud, not trying to argue or sound dogmatic but just keeping an open mind and my thoughts honest.
 
  • #672
Wouldn't Kathryn have had some interest in knowing something about her son's wife and family? Alvin did business with the extended family, so it would be unusual for Kathryn to be completely oblivious to Allen's wife, her family, and the brother that worked with her husband.

From what we know of Kathryn, she was very sociable and very likely the type of person that would want to have a small conversation with every single person at a family event, wedding, funeral, baptism, etc. Unless DG had a very unapproachable aura about him, I think Kathryn would have mingled with him and at least known he existed.
Having said that, I have a daughter in law, and have only been introduced to her brothers and sisters and parents once, and that would have been at their wedding.
FWIW.

**Where is Tinkerbel? **
 
  • #673
Nothing other than a green truck seen in video matching the description of DG's truck, (even though the pictured truck did have a side mirror pictured, while the neighbour knew it was DG's truck because DG's truck does NOT have the side mirror), and faith that LE have found enough *relevant* small pieces of evidence to 'believe' the 3 are dead and that he is their murderer. So many things just don't add up for ME in this thing. Like the truck. If he had blood on his boots/shoes, and even if he hosed them off, the blood would be easily apparent with LE testing, and yet DG was actually released from custody days after the truck was taken for testing. No smoking gun, but there *would* have been a smoking gun if they had found AL, KL or NO blood anywhere in his truck or on his shoes/boots/clothing. I'm waiting to be convinced that LE in fact had the 'correct' suspect 4 days after the trio went missing. I truly hope that in a couple of years when we learn the facts, it is not too late to pursue other avenues in the event there is not enough evidence to convict, or DG is shown to be not guilty at trial.

.... we really have nothing to point at Garland either, other than his arrest and charges. ....
 
  • #674
I keep thinking about the split-family dynamic. When my mom re-married, her husband had 3 kids and so did my mom. We had to blend families and as uncommon as it was back then my step-father had custody of his children. As time went on his kids grew up and moved out or back to their mother (they never connected with my mother). My sister was the last to leave the nest and has a much closer relationship with my mother and step-father and they have always been her family. As adults, my sister especially has to deal with her step-siblings and they show so much jealousy and dislike for my whole side of the family and have consistent jealousy of their father's relationship with us. At the same time they try to be civil, it just never lasts. I know a few families who have similar dynamics as I described. I would imagine it to be similar between JO, JL and AL's children from his previous marriage.

Good points, a close knit family doesn't necessarily mean everyone is happy and gets along. Close knit could happen simply because everyone lives close to one another geographically (Edmonton-Calgary area) also.

There could be some envy or struggle for affections and attentions amongst all of them. I wonder...
 
  • #675
Nothing other than a green truck seen in video matching the description of DG's truck, (even though the pictured truck did have a side mirror pictured, while the neighbour knew it was DG's truck because DG's truck does NOT have the side mirror), and faith that LE have found enough *relevant* small pieces of evidence to 'believe' the 3 are dead and that he is their murderer. So many things just don't add up for ME in this thing. Like the truck. If he had blood on his boots/shoes, and even if he hosed them off, the blood would be easily apparent with LE testing, and yet DG was actually released from custody days after the truck was taken for testing. No smoking gun, but there *would* have been a smoking gun if they had found AL, KL or NO blood anywhere in his truck or on his shoes/boots/clothing. I'm waiting to be convinced that LE in fact had the 'correct' suspect 4 days after the trio went missing. I truly hope that in a couple of years when we learn the facts, it is not too late to pursue other avenues in the event there is not enough evidence to convict, or DG is shown to be not guilty at trial.
Keep in mind that forensic testing takes a significant amount of time. While LE could assume evidence, it would take at least two weeks (in my understanding) to confirm results.
 
  • #676
Even that 'once', being intro'd to your DIL's siblings and parents, you still now 'know' them, have met them, have heard of them, and know they exist.. perhaps you even know or have heard some information about them, ie what they do for a living, etc. You will forever now have a mental image of them to be dug up if needed from your memory. Perhaps you even had a conversation with one or some of them. The relationship between JO and DG would be further separated than the one you mention, but KO's relationship with DG would be the same as your relationship with your daughter-in-law's siblings.
While it perhaps makes no 'legal' or 'tax' difference whether ALJr and PG were 'married' or 'common-law', it makes the one difference in that if they are married, there may have been a wedding, and at the wedding, all of the immediate family members on both sides may have been present. (This paragraph is not directed at you Krystine, just saying.. )
From what we know of Kathryn, she was very sociable and very likely the type of person that would want to have a small conversation with every single person at a family event, wedding, funeral, baptism, etc. Unless DG had a very unapproachable aura about him, I think Kathryn would have mingled with him and at least known he existed.
Having said that, I have a daughter in law, and have only been introduced to her brothers and sisters and parents once, and that would have been at their wedding.
FWIW.

**Where is Tinkerbel? **
 
  • #677
Forensic testing for DNA matching may take that long, but to confirm blood in the truck bed, floor, seats, brake/gas pedals, shoes/boots, etc. would be immediate. If LE nabbed the truck and sent it for testing, and subsequently found human blood, no matter whose, surely, combined with 'all' of their other pieces of evidence they stated they have, this would have been enough to keep him in custody?

Keep in mind that forensic testing takes a significant amount of time. While LE could assume evidence, it would take at least two weeks (in my understanding) to confirm results.
 
  • #678
From what we know of Kathryn, she was very sociable and very likely the type of person that would want to have a small conversation with every single person at a family event, wedding, funeral, baptism, etc. Unless DG had a very unapproachable aura about him, I think Kathryn would have mingled with him and at least known he existed.
Having said that, I have a daughter in law, and have only been introduced to her brothers and sisters and parents once, and that would have been at their wedding.
FWIW.

**Where is Tinkerbel? **

KL did seem awfully good natured and bubbly like that from what I get from reports, so you're probably correct. Question is, did DG ever attend any of these types of functions? Sounds like he wasn't social or seen a lot….maybe we'll find out what he did with his time at trial.

Yes, where is Tinkerbel?
 
  • #679
Forensic testing for DNA matching may take that long, but to confirm blood in the truck bed, floor, seats, brake/gas pedals, shoes/boots, etc. would be immediate. If LE nabbed the truck and sent it for testing, and subsequently found human blood, no matter whose, surely, combined with 'all' of their other pieces of evidence they stated they have, this would have been enough to keep him in custody?
Quite possibly. I still believe that they released him in an attempt to 'trap' him into divulging the location of the bodies or even further evidence.
 
  • #680
I believe that if LE had enough *relevant* evidence, they would not need to play such games, and they would just simply arrest him. They wouldn't need to try to set him up to try to fish for more evidence. MOO.

Quite possibly. I still believe that they released him in an attempt to 'trap' him into divulging the location of the bodies or even further evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
1,023
Total visitors
1,149

Forum statistics

Threads
632,392
Messages
18,625,738
Members
243,133
Latest member
nikkisanchez
Back
Top