Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #19

[OutOfTheDarkness]

In Canada, the defence cannot concoct a story. In the US, the defence does sometimes concoct a story and no one seems to mind (see: Casey Anthony). I think it's fair to say that evidence that the victims are deceased is 100% confirmed. If there was even 1% doubt, police could not make an announcement that the victims are in fact deceased.

Everyone that has commented on this case on this forum should be disqualified from sitting on the jury for this trial.

Suddenly, LE has gone from having "no trace" of the victims, to having pieces of the victims that irrefutably prove death. If not B-lack, then W-hite.

We don't know what the evidence is, so I'm willing to admit publicly that "I don't know". It's much like the mechanism for admitting when you're wrong.

If the bodies are not found before the preliminary hearing or trial, proof of death and the evidence LE does have will most likely be the first pieces and arguments presented. If there is any weakness in it, you can bet there will be spirited cross from the defence. No, they can't just willy nilly make up stories, but they can question any probabilities if they exist. It is highly likely the bodies were removed in order to create this type of defence if there were future issues after the crime was committed.

Again, I don't know what the evidence is, so I feel the need to keep an open mind. If you have more detailed facts other than "they said so" then let's hear them, otherwise all I can say is "that's nice".

 

[news.talk]

Victim's Services knows nothing about the case. They only know about helping people recover from traumatic loss of loved ones.
Chief Hanson acknowledged that some family members might want to carry hope, even after they've been told that the victims are deceased, and that this reaction is normal.

They act as a liaison when needed.

 

[otto]

Suddenly, LE has gone from having "no trace" of the victims, to having pieces of the victims that irrefutably prove death. If not B-lack, then W-hite.

We don't know what the evidence is, so I'm willing to admit publicly that "I don't know". It's much like the mechanism for admitting when you're wrong.

If the bodies are not found before the preliminary hearing or trial, proof of death and the evidence LE does have will most likely be the first pieces and arguments presented. If there is any weakness in it, you can bet there will be spirited cross from the defence. No, they can't just willy nilly make up stories, but they can question any probabilities if they exist. It is highly likely the bodies were removed in order to create this type of defence if there were future issues after the crime was committed.

Again, I don't know what the evidence is, so I feel the need to keep an open mind. If you have more detailed facts other than "they said so" then let's hear them, otherwise all I can say is "that's nice".

Where does the "no trace of the victims" come from? Wherever it comes from, it obviously contradicts the first reports about the murders. There was a bloody trail leading from the house to the parking pad, so that's clear "trace of the victims" on day one of the investigation.

Have we forgotten that there was ample evidence of a victim being in medical distress at the crime scene? What are we thinking ... that someone left a note saying "hey, I'm in medical distress"? Obviously there was evidence at the scene that told the medical examiner about severe injuries at the crime scene ... trace of the victims that told a story. That information has been widely available since the day the victims were first reported missing.

Chief Hanson stated loud and clear during an interview that the reason the bodies were removed from the crime scene was because murderers watch CSI shows and know that removing the bodies makes it more difficult to solve the crime. In this case, removing the bodies did not make any difference.

It's one thing to keep an open mind, but something entirely different to refuse to believe the facts of the case that have been shared by police through the media.

 

[otto]

They act as a liaison when needed.

Victim's services is not given any facts of the case as they relate to evidence. Victim's services will know that someone was attacked in a park, and may need financial compensation and counselling. That's all they know. In this case, Victim's Services knows that there are several members of a couple of families that may need counselling and financial compensation due to a triple murder, and nothing more. At no time does the prosecutor's office or police department tell Victim's Services about the evidence, the pending trial, or anything else related to the investigation. They are separate offices offering separate services.

 

[news.talk]

Victim's services is not given any facts of the case as they relate to evidence. Victim's services will know that someone was attacked in a park, and may need financial compensation and counselling. That's all they know. In this case, Victim's Services knows that there are several members of a couple of families that may need counselling and financial compensation due to a triple murder, and nothing more. At no time does the prosecutor's office or police department tell Victim's Services about the evidence, the pending trial, or anything else related to the investigation. They are separate offices offering separate services.

I never said anything about providing evidence. In fact I specifically stated that the victims family's do NOT get such information. What I said was that they are 'guided' by VAST through the procedures of getting documentation so that they may hold memorial services. The lead detectives in the case along with a superior, will take them through their questions with respect to any information that can be shared, while the Crown Prosecutor will be the one to answer any questions regarding the case, although they may or may not be willing to share certain details.

I cannot tell you how many cases I have been privy too, as it would span decades. There are many people from all aspects of LE that interact with the victim's families.

 

[Krystine]

Did you attend Krystine? I look forward to watching the coverage tonight.

Yes, and I'm still choked. Then came home and turned on CBC radio, where they were reading letters home from Canadian soldiers in WWI. Pretty much let myself marinate in the sadness and bravery of it all, all day long.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Yes, and I'm still choked. Then came home and turned on CBC radio, where they were reading letters home from Canadian soldiers in WWI. Pretty much let myself marinate in the sadness and bravery of it all, all day long.

As I'm getting older, I've become more and more interested in the history of war. The human stories are unbelievable and there are just so, so many from different places, ages and are never boring. Good vs. Evil never seems to end.

I, like you, kind of torture myself (so my spouse calls it lol) in a way by getting so absorbed in all, but Remembrance Day truly is a moving day.

 

[LoisLane]

I never said anything about providing evidence. In fact I specifically stated that the victims family's do NOT get such information. What I said was that they are 'guided' by VAST through the procedures of getting documentation so that they may hold memorial services. The lead detectives in the case along with a superior, will take them through their questions with respect to any information that can be shared, while the Crown Prosecutor will be the one to answer any questions regarding the case, although they may or may not be willing to share certain details.

I cannot tell you how many cases I have been privy too, as it would span decades. There are many people from all aspects of LE that interact with the victim's families.

I misinterpreted or am confused about what you were stating in your earlier comment about LE and other sources (VAST) explaining the "findings". I interpret that as some sort of proof offering or evidence that would reassure the family and leave them without doubt. But can LE offer that reassurance that the three are dead without some sort of proof? Or is the family to take LE at their word and respectful position of power?

What would be the point if the family came forward now and stressed their feelings? How would they know where to find proof if they felt something was not making sense or a piece doesn't fit if they have no idea what the pieces are? If they did make a public statement of doubt would they jeopardize the relationship with the authorities and risk having a damaged relationship with the police because they challenged such authority? I think it would be very tricky for them to do that and I think they (the family) are very well versed on how that may prove ineffective. The victim's families probably have to suck up their feelings in order to keep LE close and whatever limited communication flowing. If that makes sense... JMO.

 

[Slebby]

How hard is it to get a fake Death Certificate? If one can obtain fake credit cards, drivers licenses, passports and birth certificates...I don't think it would be difficult to present a Death Certificate to a funeral home. JMO

What a preposterous suggestion. Who in the world, in this case, would possibly want to present a fake Death Certificate to a funeral home? Calgary Police Service? Chief Hansen? Medical Examiner? The L or O family? Can you fathom the degree of collusion that would have to take place in order for such a forgery to go unchallenged?

I'm sure, dear one, you cannot actually mean to say that someone or some group, in this case, has sought a fake Death Certificate. Again, I have got to ask, to what end?
(Or, can you clarify what exactly you mean by the suggestion that death certificates can be faked? Thx)

JMO

 

[Krystine]

As I'm getting older, I've become more and more interested in the history of war. The human stories are unbelievable and there are just so, so many from different places, ages and are never boring. Good vs. Evil never seems to end.

I, like you, kind of torture myself (so my spouse calls it lol) in a way by getting so absorbed in all, but Remembrance Day truly is a moving day.

My grandfather was a veteran of WWI in Europe and my dad WWII. Both of them struggled with PTSD before it even had a name.
So my sons and I share your interest too.
It was very obvious today that school kids here in Ottawa think Nathan Cirillo is a true hero, and he will not be forgotten.
OT, but I think it needed a mention today.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

The truck led police straight to their suspect. That is the smoking gun.
The Parkhill house was a bloody crime scene with sufficient evidence to confirm that the three victims are deceased.

The truck is not necessarily the smoking gun...any vehicle on that CCTV video could've led them to a suspect. DG could've been there for any number of reasons, although it would be highly coincidental (and unlikely) given the past circumstances. He is still a suspect, that's been charged. I will be satisfied when in the trial they can provide evidence (ie., DNA or something very concrete), that DG was in that house. Until then, I prefer to keep an open mind about his guilt or innocence...although I must say, it doesn't look good for him. JMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

What a preposterous suggestion. Who in the world, in this case, would possibly want to present a fake Death Certificate to a funeral home? Calgary Police Service? Chief Hansen? Medical Examiner? The L or O family? Can you fathom the degree of collusion that would have to take place in order for such a forgery to go unchallenged?

I'm sure, dear one, you cannot actually mean to say that someone or some group, in this case, has sought a fake Death Certificate. Again, I have got to ask, to what end?
(Or, can you clarify what exactly you mean by the suggestion that death certificates can be faked? Thx)

JMO

I could clarify but there's really no point. The question was....'how hard is it to get a fake Death Certificate?' based on all the discussion re: the lack of proof that the ME declared them deceased. I have not accused anyone of doing so...that would be presumption on others' parts.

Can I imagine the degree of collusion? Yes, of course I can. Can you imagine the degree of precision and planning that DG would have had to have had to plan this murder and dispose of the bodies without a trace? Neither scenario is easy to swallow. However, I believe that all angles should be looked at. JMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Yes, and I'm still choked. Then came home and turned on CBC radio, where they were reading letters home from Canadian soldiers in WWI. Pretty much let myself marinate in the sadness and bravery of it all, all day long.

As I'm getting older, I've become more and more interested in the history of war. The human stories are unbelievable and there are just so, so many from different places, ages and are never boring. Good vs. Evil never seems to end.

I, like you, kind of torture myself (so my spouse calls it lol) in a way by getting so absorbed in all, but Remembrance Day truly is a moving day.

I agree with both of you ladies...Remembrance Day is a moving and emotional day...we are mindful of it all day as well...then, in the moment of silence we observe for today...Scotiabank calls and wants to do a survey on Customer Service....they were told it was disrespectful to be calling today, reminded them it was Remembrance Day and asked them to call back at a more appropriate time. I'm a little annoyed that a Canadian bank chose to do business today. It's almost sacrilegious.
Sending love, light and blessings to all the men and women who have served and continue to serve, not only our country, but all countries around the world, past, present and future. For those who have lost their lives in service, God Bless you. For those that service is a memory or is the current situation, thank you and I wish for peace and for no further loss of beautiful lives around the world. Amen.

 

[stan laurel]

I could clarify but there's really no point. The question was....'how hard is it to get a fake Death Certificate?' based on all the discussion re: the lack of proof that the ME declared them deceased. I have not accused anyone of doing so...that would be presumption on others' parts.

Can I imagine the degree of collusion? Yes, of course I can.

I was reading some interesting articles specific to Alberta and your imagination is not a far stretch on what LE/Prosecutor has done to arrest/charge/incarcerate someone, even innocent people.

 

[Slebby]

There are many reasons that recent grads have difficulty finding work. One reason is a sense of entitlement that is common in that generation. When they step into a job, they sometimes think that their presence is sufficient to guarantee job security, just like they assumed that attending class should guarantee a grade of A. The previous generation's attitude of "how can I help" has been replaced with this generation's attitude of "not in my job description".

Just to put in my 2 cents worth on this topic....
I think a big reason some grads have a hard time finding work (and to be honest I think my reason is more valid than your cynical reason) is because young people have been told all their lives to work hard and study and go to university to get degree A B or C. But when they finished school, the jobs that were hiring were actually in the trades. So in Alberta, instead of knocking themselves out at U of A or U of C, they would have been better off at SAIT or NAIT.

I'm thinking maybe you've been mingling with a sketchy group of young adults. But what I see in my kids, and in the young folks in my world is a lot of stress to get grades in high school, to achieve in post-secondary, and with no room for a bad grade here or a bad semester there. It is way, way harder than it was in my day. but these young folks I see, they are doing it. They are figuring it out, and if it's 2 part time jobs until the right full time job comes along, they're doing it.

In my volunteer work I need to recruit other folks to fill various volunteer roles. I have great luck with young adults, they jump in with such generous hearts and boundless energy, I am fed by their enthusiasm. I see such a bright future in our youth, and it saddens me to see your cynical, sweeping judgments.

IMHO

 

[otto]

I never said anything about providing evidence. In fact I specifically stated that the victims family's do NOT get such information. What I said was that they are 'guided' by VAST through the procedures of getting documentation so that they may hold memorial services. The lead detectives in the case along with a superior, will take them through their questions with respect to any information that can be shared, while the Crown Prosecutor will be the one to answer any questions regarding the case, although they may or may not be willing to share certain details.

I cannot tell you how many cases I have been privy too, as it would span decades. There are many people from all aspects of LE that interact with the victim's families.

Does the crown prosecutor answer questions posed by relatives of the victims about the investigation? Certainly no questions about evidence will be answered. Questions about process are answered by victim's services. I think it's the other way around. Relatives of victims will answer questions posed by the prosecutor.

The families can hold a memorial any time they want. Police and prosecutors have nothing to do with it. If the family wants financial compensation for funeral costs that is available through various government services, then they probably need a proof that the victims are deceased. That would come from the office of the medical examiner. They'll fill out the paperwork that is provided by victim's services to request that compensation.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

In Canada, the defence cannot concoct a story. In the US, the defence does sometimes concoct a story and no one seems to mind (see: Casey Anthony). I think it's fair to say that evidence that the victims are deceased is 100% confirmed. If there was even 1% doubt, police could not make an announcement that the victims are in fact deceased.

Everyone that has commented on this case on this forum should be disqualified from sitting on the jury for this trial.

There are some that have commented on this case that SHOULD be on the jury to ensure that there's a voice of reason and not a blind following as they have shown no definitive dedication to one theory or other which is highly commendable. (No offense to future jury members as I don't know who you are nor am I suggesting all would follow blindly.) If all jury members are as narrow-minded as some who have commented on this case, why bother with a trial? JMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I was reading some interesting articles specific to Alberta and your imagination is not a far stretch on what LE/Prosecutor has done to arrest/charge/incarcerate someone, even innocent people.

Thank you Stan Laurel. Out of the mouths of babes...and you are a babe! Nothing surprises me anymore, things just get more and more creative in the 21st Century...kind of getting to be like a Steven King novel. JMO

 

[otto]

I misinterpreted or am confused about what you were stating in your earlier comment about LE and other sources (VAST) explaining the "findings". I interpret that as some sort of proof offering or evidence that would reassure the family and leave them without doubt. But can LE offer that reassurance that the three are dead without some sort of proof? Or is the family to take LE at their word and respectful position of power?

What would be the point if the family came forward now and stressed their feelings? How would they know where to find proof if they felt something was not making sense or a piece doesn't fit if they have no idea what the pieces are? If they did make a public statement of doubt would they jeopardize the relationship with the authorities and risk having a damaged relationship with the police because they challenged such authority? I think it would be very tricky for them to do that and I think they (the family) are very well versed on how that may prove ineffective. The victim's families probably have to suck up their feelings in order to keep LE close and whatever limited communication flowing. If that makes sense... JMO.

If the medical examiner provides documents confirming that people are dead, the family can accept it or refuse it - their choice, but police are not in a position to discuss the evidence that led to that conclusion. Let's also not forget that Nathan's mom walked into the crime scene and could see for herself that something very serious had happened. She phoned police. She did not assume that they were at the park.

Relatives of victims are not expected to respect police because of a "position of power". Relatives of victims are asked to respect the integrity of the investigation, and the process of investigation and trial. Victim's Services provides counselling to those that are new to the process and who need help to cope with all aspects of the long drawn out process.

The victims can express their dissatisfaction about the investigation to the media if they choose. The media may or may not offer a one-liner in the news. It would make no difference to the police whether the relatives of victims are satisfied with the information they receive, as police officers are professionals that will not let the emotions of the relatives of victims alter their relationship with those members of the public.

It doesn't make sense that relatives of victims have to behave a certain way in order to ensure that police are cooperative and forthcoming. Police are doing a job, and are trained to deal with every type of emotion in victims and suspects.

 

[otto]

The truck is not necessarily the smoking gun...any vehicle on that CCTV video could've led them to a suspect. DG could've been there for any number of reasons, although it would be highly coincidental (and unlikely) given the past circumstances. He is still a suspect, that's been charged. I will be satisfied when in the trial they can provide evidence (ie., DNA or something very concrete), that DG was in that house. Until then, I prefer to keep an open mind about his guilt or innocence...although I must say, it doesn't look good for him. JMO

Does an open mind include the facts of the case that we have learned from police through media, or does keeping an open mind mean doubting the facts of the case that have been shared by police?