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

[news.talk]

What is TOS?

Terms of Service. The rules we agree too when registering for a website/forum.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Not only bizarre, but wilda$$ speculation that is not based on any known fact and is against TOS.

I'm at a loss at how the investigative process then begins. Why does anyone hire a private investigator, when facts and evidence seem to have to come first before looking at anything or questioning anything? Investigative journalism would cease to exist.

There were those that "wildly speculated" that there may be a serial killer on the loose in Vancouver, before Pickton was caught. They were also dismissed with similar reasoning. Was that an attempt at soiling the reputation of Law Enforcement, or people simply asking "what if"?

I also fail to see how someone asking why LE went to Mexico, and trying to figure out the reasons behind the trip is "bizzare" and an attack on LE's reputation.

 

[stan laurel]

What do you mean about having his own foundation and taking money from that foundation and moving it to the new corporation? Where does the info about another foundation come from?

it's called web sleuthing and the details of his other foundation of what and who and where he can donate can be found if one looks. being that he wants to remain anonymous, I will refrain from posting more than I have posted.

 

[news.talk]

I'm at a loss at how the investigative process then begins. Why does anyone hire a private investigator, when facts and evidence seem to have to come first before looking at anything or questioning anything? Investigative journalism would cease to exist.

There were those that "wildly speculated" that there may be a serial killer on the loose in Vancouver, before Pickton was caught. They were also dismissed with similar reasoning. Was that an attempt at soiling the reputation of Law Enforcement, or people simply asking "what if"?

I also fail to see how someone asking why LE went to Mexico, and trying to figure out the reasons behind the trip is "bizzare" and an attack on LE's reputation.

Personally, I think it is crucial to the pursuit of justice, to be able to ask questions and challenge the people we 'hire' to pursue that justice. I have spent my adult life balancing the fine art of that pursuit with my family obligations.

The bottom line for me has always been, do we have the facts to support such a pursuit? In this case, we only have a small sliver of the case, there for are not yet in the position to cast aspersions against LE. I would bet that is why we don't see MSM questioning the case at this point.

The job LE has to do, is a grueling one that sucks at the souls of those who do it. They are humans and as such, make mistakes. Further more, the way that our justice system works is often at odds with their mandates. I have always maintained, that to do their job well, they need complete transparency, but the rules of law prevent that.

JMO.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Lalalacasbah, when people disagree with a comment, they too are expressing their opinion. That's not the same as attacking, IMO. That's the joy of Internet forums, we put our comments out there, and others either agree or disagree.

IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Slebby, I totally agree and get what you're saying and I always welcome different perspectives and opinions obviously, as I've always been open minded and never rude to those opinions different from my own….but I gotta say, it's all in the delivery and tone.

There's difference of opinion and then there's certain responses that seem more like someone's personal agenda to rock the boat as well as comments sounding more like personal jabs towards other posters (hence, the use of the word 'attack'), that's all.

I love a good debate that's respectable, I think most of us agree

 

[Sillybilly]

I'm at a loss at how the investigative process then begins. Why does anyone hire a private investigator, when facts and evidence seem to have to come first before looking at anything or questioning anything? Investigative journalism would cease to exist.

There were those that "wildly speculated" that there may be a serial killer on the loose in Vancouver, before Pickton was caught. They were also dismissed with similar reasoning. Was that an attempt at soiling the reputation of Law Enforcement, or people simply asking "what if"?

I also fail to see how someone asking why LE went to Mexico, and trying to figure out the reasons behind the trip is "bizzare" and an attack on LE's reputation.

My post wasn't referring to discussion about the the trip to Mexico, but to the suggestions that any of the 3 murdered victims are possibly alive when the Chief of Police has firmly stated they are dead.

Here's an example of what Admin has to say about "wild speculation":

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...the-case-to-be-released&p=8435079#post8435079

This is "wild speculation" and is NOT allowed. There is NO evidence of this at all. JI has a pretty good alibi so if you want to go down this road, you need to link it to something factual.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...caster-ON-30-Dec-2010-8&p=9800284#post9800284

Remember: It is against TOS to accuse innocent people of crimes. If your sleuthing leads you to speculate, you must speculate and post responsibly. There must be some basis in fact, as we know them from LE or MSM, for the speculation. Wild speculation is NOT allowed. YOU are RESPONSIBLE for the words you post.

<bbm>

hth

 

[Lalalacasbah]

You just keep rocking on girl! I appreciate your balance and that you demonstrate self control and fairness to everyone with respect to the victims and fellow sleuthers. I myself, rely on your respectful approach because at times I am ready to unleash my cocky and smart butt comments and clearly that is just a waste of time and equally offensive.

Thanks LL! Right back at ya!

I think we all do a pretty good job at being civil and communicating respectfully when we disagree on here. And trust me…I've held back a lot, some days I just want to swear like a trucker on here, but don't lol! When you're ready to unleash and open up a can of whoop a$$, I got yer back lol!

 

[Slebby]

Thanks Slebby, I totally agree and get what you're saying and I always welcome different perspectives and opinions obviously, as I've always been open minded and never rude to those opinions different from my own….but I gotta say, it's all in the delivery and tone.

There's difference of opinion and then there's certain responses that seem more like someone's personal agenda to rock the boat as well as comments sounding more like personal jabs towards other posters (hence, the use of the word 'attack'), that's all.

I love a good debate that's respectable, I think most of us agree

I totally agree with you about the tone of comments. I've participated in many Internet forums over the years, but this NO thread seems like the worst for dissolving into, well, snark. And the snark can come from both sides of any given discussion. I would participate more but frankly it's often not worth it to me and I step away all the time and let others duke it out. Unfortunately, when snippy tones show up in the comments, folks drop out and the forum misses out on the shared ideas of many minds. A handful of posters remain and, imo, dominate the discussion.

Anyway, just keep up your positive respectful tone. Hopefully it will becomes contagious! Cheers!

(All IMHO [emoji2])


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Rapist murderers always claim that they had consensual sex with the murder victim shortly before the murder, but someone else committed the murder. Good for him for getting a new trial using that argument.

Again, what was done during the investigation into the three murders that looks wrong?

Myself being on and off the fence with theories (dead vs. alive), I don't think it's a matter of what LE did wrong, but more of the persons involved in the crime (victim and suspect) and their past activities and history that make this case more challenging and not so black and white. JMO.

I don't think most posters have issues with what LE has done, it's more a question if there's any smoke and mirrors being put before us from persons other than LE that relate to the crime scene and events surrounding/following the crime.

It all seems a little peculiar - and then throw in aliases/fraud, foreign countries, possible shell companies, living on the lam into the mix it just adds to questions of 'what if' and makes for some creative scenarios.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Staged? We saw human tissue in front of the house. What are the chances that there was more human tissue inside the house?

Me playing devil's advocate otto, do we for certain that's what it was? Might've been drudge from the sidewalk crack that had blood on it and it got gooey/sticky. (Sorry to be graphic people, I hate this part of the discussion).

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I totally agree with you about the tone of comments. I've participated in many Internet forums over the years, but this NO thread seems like the worst for dissolving into, well, snark. And the snark can come from both sides of any given discussion. I would participate more but frankly it's often not worth it to me and I step away all the time and let others duke it out. Unfortunately, when snippy tones show up in the comments, folks drop out and the forum misses out on the shared ideas of many minds. A handful of posters remain and, imo, dominate the discussion.

Anyway, just keep up your positive respectful tone. Hopefully it will becomes contagious! Cheers!

(All IMHO [emoji2])


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, the snark can be a big turn off that's for sure. This is my first and only forum (so far), I guess I'll develop some thick skin for any future ones then? Good to know

Please step in and participate more!!! The more, the merrier!

You might have something to contribute no one else has yet. Like you said, we could all be missing out on new ideas, new minds, thinking and trains of thought. And the more people participate, the more it'll break up any dominance and recurring themes from happening in the discussion. I hope you contribute more, hopefully you will!

 

[deugirtni]

With all due respect, I completely disagree. It is LE's opinion based on the evidence LE has thus gathered and put together in its entirety. Have you seen any MSM articles wherein it is stated by the reporter that the trio are dead, without hedging that statement with 'presumed'? I have not. In fact as recently as 3 days ago, CTV (which I believe to be a reputable news agency) in its story regarding the NO Foundation, wrote (BBM):

Though their bodies have never been located, Nathan and his grandparents are presumed dead. Douglas Garland has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one charge of second second-degree murder in connection with their deaths.
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/parent...anging-grief-for-hope-1.2077733#ixzz3Hs8QVAJb

Please note that conversely, when the author stated that DG has been charged with their murders, he/she does not hedge that statement with 'presumed', because it is instead, a fact. Please find an MSM article from a respected news agency which states the trio are dead as a fact, without it being a quote from LE.

Also, please look up the definition of 'presumed'.

From Macmillan Dictionary:
1 [transitive] to think that something is true because it is likely, although you cannot be certain
a. legal to accept that something is true unless someone proves that it is not true
Everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
--
From Miriam Webster Dictionary:
: to think that (something) is true without knowing that it is true
: to accept legally or officially that something is true until it is proved not true
: to do (something) that you do not have the right or permission to do
1: to undertake without leave or clear justification : dare
2: to expect or assume especially with confidence
3: to suppose to be true without proof <presumed innocent until proved guilty>
4: to take for granted : imply
Synonyms
assume, conjecture, daresay, imagine, guess, speculate, suppose, surmise, suspect, suspicion [chiefly dialect]
--

The are dead. It is not an opinion, it is a fact based on evidence at the crime scene.

 

[LoisLane]

My post wasn't referring to discussion about the the trip to Mexico, but to the suggestions that any of the 3 murdered victims are possibly alive when the Chief of Police has firmly stated they are dead.

Here's an example of what Admin has to say about "wild speculation":

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...the-case-to-be-released&p=8435079#post8435079



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...caster-ON-30-Dec-2010-8&p=9800284#post9800284

<bbm>

hth

Looking at the first link I do not understand why that is not snipped if deemed inappropriate. Or is that an example and not real?

Are we targetting ourselves for legal action by posting opinions and thoughts as well as breaking rules? I will have to read your second link but what I found under General Use Terms of Service (short version) seems to be more about respect and that we behave fairly and remember that our posts are permanent once we hit send. Have we been called out for wild speculation previously on this thread? If not, why not? I am confused by this.

 

[otto]

Personally, I think it is crucial to the pursuit of justice, to be able to ask questions and challenge the people we 'hire' to pursue that justice. I have spent my adult life balancing the fine art of that pursuit with my family obligations.

The bottom line for me has always been, do we have the facts to support such a pursuit? In this case, we only have a small sliver of the case, there for are not yet in the position to cast aspersions against LE. I would bet that is why we don't see MSM questioning the case at this point.

The job LE has to do, is a grueling one that sucks at the souls of those who do it. They are humans and as such, make mistakes. Further more, the way that our justice system works is often at odds with their mandates. I have always maintained, that to do their job well, they need complete transparency, but the rules of law prevent that.

JMO.

Fair enough, but when 200 people were overseen by several different departments in the police force, do we really need to challenge whether they got the right guy? Did all the officers and each of their superiors all get it wrong, plus the medical examiner and the police chief? Is that realistic? This wasn't a two man investigation where maybe they screwed up. This was an effort by the entire police force involving several CPS departments, the RCMP, and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP?) as consultants.

Where was there a misstep? Regardless of what be suspected generally speaking of most police investigations, in this case things were very different.

In what way do we only have a "small sliver of the case"?

There is nothing sinister behind the media silence. In Canada, media is not allowed to print anything about the case because it is before the courts. It is a serious violation to publish details about the case after an arrest and before trial. Journalists know this. When there is a trial, the media know that they are allowed to publish what is presented in court on that day. That's when we learn the gory details of the crime scene.

Police can't afford to make mistakes. They are trained to not make mistakes.

In what way is the Canadian Justice System inconsistent with their mandates?

There is complete transparency within the justice system and criminal prosecutions. We all know that anyone can sit in the courtroom for hearings, as one of our own has done that. At the same time, the accused has rights. It would be foolish of police to release the evidence to the media and have the accused tried by media instead of in the courts. Obviously that's the wrong thing to do, so there's no reason to object to the fact that police will keep the evidence confidential until the time of trial.

At the same time, we have enough information to know exactly what happened that night, and even a good speculation on why. What we haven't figured out yet is where he put the bodies.

 

[otto]

Me playing devil's advocate otto, do we for certain that's what it was? Might've been drudge from the sidewalk crack that had blood on it and it got gooey/sticky. (Sorry to be graphic people, I hate this part of the discussion).

Some will see the human blood and tissue on the parking pad as something from the bottom of a garbage bag that was dragged to the front yard even though the garbage bins are in the alley, and others will see it as human blood and tissue.

 

[Slebby]

With all due respect, I completely disagree. It is LE's opinion based on the evidence LE has thus gathered and put together in its entirety. Have you seen any MSM articles wherein it is stated by the reporter that the trio are dead, without hedging that statement with 'presumed'? I have not. In fact as recently as 3 days ago, CTV (which I believe to be a reputable news agency) in its story regarding the NO Foundation, wrote (BBM):


Please note that conversely, when the author stated that DG has been charged with their murders, he/she does not hedge that statement with 'presumed', because it is instead, a fact. Please find an MSM article from a respected news agency which states the trio are dead as a fact, without it being a quote from LE.

Also, please look up the definition of 'presumed'.

From Macmillan Dictionary:
1 [transitive] to think that something is true because it is likely, although you cannot be certain
a. legal to accept that something is true unless someone proves that it is not true
Everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
--
From Miriam Webster Dictionary:
: to think that (something) is true without knowing that it is true
: to accept legally or officially that something is true until it is proved not true
: to do (something) that you do not have the right or permission to do
1: to undertake without leave or clear justification : dare
2: to expect or assume especially with confidence
3: to suppose to be true without proof
4: to take for granted : imply
Synonyms
assume, conjecture, daresay, imagine, guess, speculate, suppose, surmise, suspect, suspicion [chiefly dialect]
--

With all due respect, I disagree. Chief Hanson did not say it was an opinion. He did not say "I believe". He left no room for doubt or misinterpretation. He said "they are dead". If the media uses words like "presumed" does not imo trump the Chief's statement of fact.

As someone stated earlier today, Hanson would be in a world of trouble if he carelessly put the word out that the 3 missing are in fact dead, only to be later proven wrong. I completely 100 per cent believe the 3 are dead. We don't get to know the forensic evidence that led LE to that conclusion yet, but I am certain they have it.

Alternatively, I do not see what it is that makes some folks believe the 3 are not dead. I would like to understand.

If the Ls and NO turn out to be alive, I will personally apologize to each and every one of the "They're not dead" camp and I will even buy the first round of beers at, say, the James Joyce pub in downtown Calgary [emoji2][emoji481][emoji482]

IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

Looking at the first link I do not understand why that is not snipped if deemed inappropriate. Or is that an example and not real?

Are we targetting ourselves for legal action by posting opinions and thoughts as well as breaking rules? I will have to read your second link but what I found under General Use Terms of Service (short version) seems to be more about respect and that we behave fairly and remember that our posts are permanent once we hit send. Have we been called out for wild speculation previously on this thread? If not, why not? I am confused by this.

An example of violating the TOS, according to my understanding, would be to to falsely accuse someone of something, or vaguely imply the same. The accusation must be based on a factual, valid, documented statement. For example, I can say that Douglas Garland is guilty of a triple murder based on the evidence that we know. I cannot say that 200 police officers, their superiors, the police chief, the medical examiner, and the prosecutor's office are all incompetent unless I have at least one documented, valid fact on which to base the statement.

 

[stan laurel]

At the same time, we have enough information to know exactly what happened that night, and even a good speculation on why. What we haven't figured out yet is where he put the bodies.

And here, others, myself included;
Don't know what happened that night, something sinister yes, but exactly what? No!
Why it happened, still no real knowledge.
but yes, we don't know where the Likneses or NO are.

Off subject,, My thoughts on questioning authority, absolutely and always. Mark Twain was best known for his quick witted retorts, but he was also known for challenging authority,, namely, King Leopold of Belgiums assertion that we was sending a philanthropic association to the Congo, which was something altogether different and was the first most notable genocide. A bit extreme of a comparison, but, we do need to question and speculate,, afterall, maybe LE glances these threads for new perspectives to break that line of sight that everyone can get stuck on. Even with the vast amount of info within LE and under their fingertips - more than us sleuthers can probably imagine -, every so often something may be posted that may assist in the search for the L's an NO.

Websleuth's is to a large degree a crowd sourcing, and there are some bright minds in the membership. Some have credentials and some don't,, either way, the input is not for naught.

IMO

 

[otto]

With all due respect, I disagree. Chief Hanson did not say it was an opinion. He did not say "I believe". He left no room for doubt or misinterpretation. He said "they are dead". If the media uses words like "presumed" does not imo trump the Chief's statement of fact.

As someone stated earlier today, Hanson would be in a world of trouble if he carelessly put the word out that the 3 missing are in fact dead, only to be later proven wrong. I completely 100 per cent believe the 3 are dead. We don't get to know the forensic evidence that led LE to that conclusion yet, but I am certain they have it.

Alternatively, I do not see what it is that makes some folks believe the 3 are not dead. I would like to understand.

If the Ls and NO turn out to be alive, I will personally apologize to each and every one of the "They're not dead" camp and I will even buy the first round of beers at, say, the James Joyce pub in downtown Calgary [emoji2][emoji481][emoji482]

IMHO

Nicely said. There are statements stating that the victims are deceased. There is no ambiguity. Based on DNA analysis of the evidence at the crime scene, all three were determined to be deceased.

Where are the statements supporting the claim that they are not deceased?

I'll buy the second round.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

An example of violating the TOS, according to my understanding, would be to to falsely accuse someone of something, or vaguely imply the same. The accusation must be based on a factual, valid, documented statement. For example, I can say that Douglas Garland is guilty of a triple murder based on the evidence that we know. I cannot say that 200 police officers, their superiors, the police chief, the medical examiner, and the prosecutor's office are all incompetent unless I have at least one documented, valid fact on which to base the statement.

So far, you are the only one to state they are incompetant.