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

[OutOfTheDarkness]

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.

If someone could also quote the disparaging remarks that were allegedly made against LE that some are taking such offence to... that would be great!

I hate to sound like A Broken record, but it's a case of some putting words in others' mouths.

 

[otto]

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

I have a good memory and I like to figure things out, so for me there is a lot of information and it strings together very well up until the point of leaving the Parkhill residence with the victims - who are covered with bedding - in the back of Garland's green Ford truck. I believe the information that is released in the media after press conferences.

Why it happened is connected to Mexico, the accused, and the victims. That is where the investigation has led.

The remains have not been found. Some have suggested that the remains were destroyed on the Airdrie acreage, while others believe that the bodies are in a field somewhere.

 

[otto]

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

If I stated that the Calgary Police Service (CPS) are incompetent, then I misspoke, and for that I apologize.

I know that the CPS are very well trained and competent. I have no doubts regarding their capabilities in investigating and prosecuting criminal offenders. I have complete faith in the officers, their superiors, the Chief of Police, the Prosecutor's Office, and Queen's Counsel prosecuting the case.

 

[otto]

If someone could also quote the disparaging remarks that were allegedly made against LE that some are taking such offence to... that would be great!

I hate to sound like A Broken record, but it's a case of some putting words in others' mouths.

I'm sure that no one has questioned whether police screwed up when they identified that one person was responsible, that person is in custody, and the victims are deceased.

 

[Slebby]

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

No. Not true.

Folks who put forth theories that the 3 victims are actually alive cannot say so without suggesting that LE has either erred or lied in their statement that the victims are dead, and in charging DG with 3 counts of murder. If there is a way LE could have been wrong or lying and falsely charged DG with murder yet not be incompetent (or worse) it would be helpful to these discussions if someone could explain how that could possibly be.

IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LoisLane]

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.

Is there a statement from LE that based on DNA analysis all three are deceased?

The link I posted today about the Snelson trial has a list of details the police were comfortable in releasing. It was very straightforward and possibly considered incriminating I guess, I don't know. I would like to understand why LE will not say anything more concrete regarding the charges such as the example below:

As you can imagine, there are complexities of an investigation such as this, one that has spanned 16 years. Many hundreds of tips were followed up, and hundreds of people interviewed.

Today, we are at the point where, in consultation with Crown, a great deal of this information must be protected so that it can be examined and dealt with in a court of law. Please understand that when questions are answered in general terms, or when questions cannot be answered at all, it is for that purpose and must be respected.

There are aspects and facts about the case that we can confirm however. We can confirm that:

The accused, Neil SNELSON was at the house party on October 16, 1993.
The accused was a resident of Kelowna in 1993.
That DNA evidence was collected from the murder scene.
That DNA was but one component, in a myriad of facts, that lead to the identification and arrest of Neil SNELSON.
That SNELSON has no Criminal record.
That SNELSON is appearing in court today, Monday October 26th.
That Jean and Terry Cusworth have been advised of the arrest.

 

[LoisLane]

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.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from. I believe we have enough evidence and reports involving other cases that are proof enough that investigators and police can make mistakes in an investigation and an arrest etc.. I must keep an open mind to this when I consider the case and the little facts that we know from the LE perspective. When the trial starts my thoughts and comments will be focused on presented evidence. I may even come up with a whole other theory on motive and where the three could be.

 

[otto]

No. Not true.

Folks who put forth theories that the 3 victims are actually alive cannot say so without suggesting that LE has either erred or lied in their statement that the victims are dead, and in charging DG with 3 counts of murder. If there is a way LE could have been wrong or lying and falsely charged DG with murder yet not be incompetent (or worse) it would be helpful to these discussions if someone could explain how that could possibly be.

IMHO

Exactly.

Websleuth Statement: perhaps the victims are alive
Police Statement: victims are not alive

To suggest the former, one must doubt the latter.
To doubt the latter means to doubt Chief of Police statements.
I would like to hear just one reason to doubt statements from the Calgary Chief of Police.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

No. Not true.

Folks who put forth theories that the 3 victims are actually alive cannot say so without suggesting that LE has either erred or lied in their statement that the victims are dead, and in charging DG with 3 counts of murder. If there is a way LE could have been wrong or lying and falsely charged DG with murder yet not be incompetent (or worse) it would be helpful to these discussions if someone could explain how that could possibly be.

IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many, many different reasons...

Using the same logic, you cannot say LE was competent without convicting DG before his trial. It's black and white thinking, and immature logic.

Did you state as a fact, DG is guilty? If you don't want words put in your mouth, then...

 

[otto]

Is there a statement from LE that based on DNA analysis all three are deceased?

The link I posted today about the Snelson trial has a list of details the police were comfortable in releasing. It was very straightforward and possibly considered incriminating I guess, I don't know. I would like to understand why LE will not say anything more concrete regarding the charges such as the example below:

As you can imagine, there are complexities of an investigation such as this, one that has spanned 16 years. Many hundreds of tips were followed up, and hundreds of people interviewed.

Today, we are at the point where, in consultation with Crown, a great deal of this information must be protected so that it can be examined and dealt with in a court of law. Please understand that when questions are answered in general terms, or when questions cannot be answered at all, it is for that purpose and must be respected.

There are aspects and facts about the case that we can confirm however. We can confirm that:

The accused, Neil SNELSON was at the house party on October 16, 1993.
The accused was a resident of Kelowna in 1993.
That DNA evidence was collected from the murder scene.
That DNA was but one component, in a myriad of facts, that lead to the identification and arrest of Neil SNELSON.
That SNELSON has no Criminal record.
That SNELSON is appearing in court today, Monday October 26th.
That Jean and Terry Cusworth have been advised of the arrest.

Garland was detained as long as possible (8 days?) on a false identity charge, released, and quickly re-arrested for the murders at the time that evidence was received (July 14, 2014) - presumably DNA evidence analysis results. That evidence came from the Parkhill crime scene. When that evidence came in, Garland was arrested, and the Chief of Police announced that the victims were deceased. There is no possibility, other than DNA analysis results, for police to confirm that the victims are deceased.

I don't think that cases from other provinces are relevant to a case in Calgary. If something terrible happened during a prosecution in another province 15-20 years ago, that is 100% unrelated to what happens in Calgary with the CPS. I am not aware of a Snelson case in Calgary.

 

[otto]

Many, many different reasons...

Using the same logic, you cannot say LE was competent without convicting DG before his trial. It's black and white thinking, and immature logic.

Did you state as a fact, DG is guilty? If you don't want words put in your mouth, then...

BBM ... for no particular reason except emphasis on use of the word "Competent".

Garland's guilt is black and white.

He is guilty.
We have enough information to know that this is true.

 

[stan laurel]

I have a good memory and I like to figure things out, so for me there is a lot of information and it strings together very well up until the point of leaving the Parkhill residence with the victims - who are covered with bedding - in the back of Garland's green Ford truck IMO. I believe the information that is released in the media after press conferences.

Why it happened is connected to Mexico, the accused, and the victims. That is where the investigation has led IMO.

The remains have not been found. Some have suggested that the remains were destroyed on the Airdrie acreage, while others believe that the bodies are in a field somewhere.

Fixed and BBM.

We all see/interpret the info so far in our own way, LaLa her way, LL her way, Darkness in her (<G?)way and so forth. We all have good memory, we all like to figure things out, we all see it in our own way, we all have opinions,, however at no point (personally) would I discredit both the poster or their opinion/interpretation of the info.

Like you said above; some think they were covered with bedding, others think they were removed in sections and so forth, they are opinions and should be respected as such. I have private chat with a member who has a very differing opinion than my own,, it is interesting and plausible and I think they see my opinion the same. However I would never say to them (as they have never said to me), that my opinion is wrong.

I may have crossed the TOS boundary on airing this in open, but, I had to.

I'll close with this,, if they were covered with bedding in the back of the truck, was the bedding weighted down, as the negative air pressure that is created with truck beds in motion (especially once on Deerfoot Trail, Blackfoot Trail, Glenmore Trail) can lift 3/4" plywood out.

 

[otto]

Fixed and BBM.

We all see/interpret the info so far in our own way, LaLa her way, LL her way, Darkness in her (<G?)way and so forth. We all have good memory, we all like to figure things out, we all see it in our own way, we all have opinions,, however at no point (personally) would I discredit both the poster or their opinion/interpretation of the info.

Like you said above; some think they were covered with bedding, others think they were removed in sections and so forth, they are opinions and should be respected as such. I have private chat with a member who has a very differing opinion than my own,, it is interesting and plausible and I think they see my opinion the same. However I would never say to them (as they have never said to me), that my opinion is wrong.

I may have crossed the TOS boundary on airing this in open, but, I had to.

I'll close with this,, if they were covered with bedding in the back of the truck, was the bedding weighted down, as the negative air pressure that is created with truck beds in motion (especially once on Deerfoot Trail, Blackfoot Trail, Glenmore Trail) can lift 3/4" plywood out.

Thank you for making those corrections! I am guilty of accidentally omitting little words, writing of instead of or, and omitting the fact that my opinion on a public forum is my opinion.

Although we all have a good memory, I can't forget the fact that the Chief of Police made a press statement declaring that the victims are deceased. Apparently, some have forgotten about this.

I think that the victims were camouflaged with bedding because police were collecting bedding from the dump. Police wouldn't be collecting bedding if they weren't looking for it, and they wouldn't be looking for bedding if it wasn't missing from the crime scene. If bedding was missing from the crime scene, it was removed for a reason. Given that the victims are also missing, and the accused has a green Ford pickup truck, and there is surveillance imagery of the back of that truck, it's likely that police have a photo of the accused's truck and are looking for bedding to match what is in photo surveillance and what is missing from the house. Clearly bedding is missing from the house if police are collecting bedding from the dump.

Some question how 5'7" 160 pound Garland lifted 6'2" 200 pound Alvin Liknes into the back of a truck. One possibility is that Alvin was disarticulated before being put into the back of the green Ford pickup truck. That does not preclude being covered with bedding. With, or without, being intact, Alvin Liknes was removed from the bloody crime scene by 5'7" 160 pound Garland.

Was the bedding weighted down? Who knows. There were three dead bodies that were removed from the crime scene, so it's quite possible that the bedding was weighted down with the bodies.

 

[stan laurel]

Thank you for making those corrections! I am guilty of accidentally omitting little words, writing of instead of or, and omitting the fact that my opinion on a public forum is my opinion.

Your welcome, WS recommends using these little words and we are all guilty of forgetting to use them from time to time.

As for theories - and despite what LE has stated - I'm still of the camp that DG had assistance.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I have a step-brother. I have met his wife exactly ONCE and I have no idea if she has siblings, never mind their names. When you come from a large family with big age gaps and vastly different social sets, it's not hard to imagine not knowing some extended family members. Hec, I have so many cousins that I couldn't even tell you half their names, and that includes first cousins. Of course there are a few I would like to forget... That's family - You can't pick 'em!

ETA: Just realized that I don't even know if my full-brother's wife has siblings. LOL. Just goes to show how easy it is to be semi-related and not know of the existence of some people.

Sorry for commenting on this so long after the fact but, have you noticed the Friends' Lists on FB of the Liknes family members? Everyone seems to have the same friends...very intertwined....it always struck me what a close and open family they seemed to be...everyone seemed to know everyone kind of thing...I find it difficult to believe that DG would go totally unnoticed...his sister is part of the Liknes family, their kids I believe are friends with their cousins, etc...how can it be that one facet of the family...PG....not have any interest shown in her side of the family...DG is their uncle. PG is JO's step-sister-in-law...how in the world would her family background, etc be missed? Unless PG is super-private...which is entirely possible. She doesn't seem to appear in many family pics, etc. Stan Laurel said it..."baffling" is right. I mean, even so much as to have heard PG had a "strange brother" or something...something! (I'm sorry, I don't have a link). This is JMO.

 

[ABro]

Many, many different reasons...

Using the same logic, you cannot say LE was competent without convicting DG before his trial. It's black and white thinking, and immature logic.

Did you state as a fact, DG is guilty? If you don't want words put in your mouth, then...

If the L's and NO are alive, it follows that there has been no murder and therefore there is no murderer. LE is incompetent because they failed to see there was no murder and charged a man for a crime that did not take place.

If there was no murder they do not have the wrong man. They shouldn't have charged any man with murder because there was no murder.


THe inverse of this situation is not, therefore, what you suggested -- that they must have the right man and it must be DG.

Rather, the inverse is that the L's and NO are dead and there was a murder. It follows from this that someone committed this murder. It does not follow that if LE has charged someone with this murder, LE must have the right man and be competent.

An evaluation of LE's competence is two stage. Did they correctly assess the nature of the crime that occurred? And have they charged the right person with that crime?







Sent from my iPad

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

If the L's and NO are alive, it follows that there has been no murder and therefore there is no murderer. LE is incompetent because they failed to see there was no murder and charged a man for a crime that did not take place.

THe inverse of this situation is not what you suggested.

It is rather that the L's and NO are dead and were murdered. It follows from this only that someone committed this murder. It does not follow that if LE has charged someone with this murder, LE must be competent and must have the right man.



Sent from my iPad

It's exactly the same. How could they charge someone with 3 murders incorrectly, 2 of them 1st degree no less, unless they are incompetent? Same logic.

Therefore, in your logic, saying LE is competent is to convict the man without trial.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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? **

Lol...I'm here...I went to Mexico to check things out for myself! I'm kidding...had a very old little puppy that needed some extra attention for a bit, sadly she's passed and I'm a little heartbroken so haven't been online much at all. One thing I've thought about a lot lately is it's bad enough losing a family pet...I can't imagine what it must be like to lose a child...I don't think I could handle it...how JO and RO are coping is way beyond me. God bless them both for their strength through this and continuing to be present for their other children. Some cards that life hands out are unbelievable.

 

[stan laurel]

Sorry for commenting on this so long after the fact but, have you noticed the Friends' Lists on FB of the Liknes family members? Everyone seems to have the same friends...very intertwined....it always struck me what a close and open family they seemed to be...everyone seemed to know everyone kind of thing...I find it difficult to believe that DG would go totally unnoticed...his sister is part of the Liknes family, their kids I believe are friends with their cousins, etc...how can it be that one facet of the family...PG....not have any interest shown in her side of the family...DG is their uncle. PG is JO's step-sister-in-law...how in the world would her family background, etc be missed? Unless PG is super-private...which is entirely possible. She doesn't seem to appear in many family pics, etc. Stan Laurel said it..."baffling" is right. I mean, even so much as to have heard PG had a "strange brother" or something...something! (I'm sorry, I don't have a link). This is JMO.

I come from a large family, lotsa cousins and so forth,,, our family as well as another family seems to know the other family. That other family is of that certain ilk that they are to be noted as, self appointed as the prime family and all other families are by-product families,, if one is from a by-product family, the by-product must know every fine detail of the prime family but they could care less about you. some families are so tight knit that they forget that other families will at some point become part of a greater family. to be better put, some families like people are so self absorbed that it's not like they don't care to know but merely don't know and of course, don't care, but like to maintain that all know about them. by the sounds of it the non-existent (from that family) dg seemed to know a heck of a lot about the L's and their plans.

 

[Slebby]

Using the same logic, you cannot say LE was competent without convicting DG before his trial. It's black and white thinking, and immature logic.

Did you state as a fact, DG is guilty? If you don't want words put in your mouth, then...

Maybe you can't say LE was competent without convicting DG before his trial, but I personally can. I can say LE did a good job and still have an open mind for the court proceedings to unfold. I can uphold DG's right to a fair trial and to have defence counsel defend him as vigorously as possible. See? I haven't convicted DG of anything.