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

[deugirtni]

I am not convinced that a death certificate has in fact been issued. Is this a publicly attainable record, because if so, then we would be able to state that as a fact. Until then, it is an opinion.

It was stated by another WS member that the Calgary Herald refuses to place an obit without providing a death certificate, however according to their website, "All notices will be confirmed with the funeral home prior to publication", which suggests that there are other ways the Calgary Herald will accept obit notices. The reasoning for the newspaper(s) to do this is obvious, in that they would not want some alive person coming to them and suing them for publishing a death notice when the person is obviously alive, just because someone paid to post an ad saying otherwise. In this case, that is not going to happen.

Considering this is a high profile case that is heavily covered by MSM, including the Calgary Herald, and that they would therefore be familiar with the case and see that the police chief stated that based upon the preponderance of evidence, they believed the trio to be dead, I'm 100% certain that they would not refuse to publish an obit for these people. MOO

maybe others missed it but I thought tink clarified why she asked, which was along the lines of a covert manner to flush out another. though, I wonder when the dc was issued ?(on a completely different train of thought)

 

[deugirtni]

I'm not convinced that people here are questioning the integrity of professionals investigating and trying this case, however there is a reason why we have courts of law, and things need to be proven before they can be stated as facts. If we could all just take someone's say-so as fact, then we would have no need for courts of law. Our country could save a LOT of money if we didn't need to prove things. By 'someone's', I mean anyone, no matter their position or wealth or status in society, and no matter if individual or group. Facts must be proven. As free citizens we have the right to question and ponder and be provided with proof from those in positions of power who control the fates of others. This does not suggest that anyone is incompetent, and for those who feel that it does, I can't help how you feel.

Imagine if we had a Prime Minister (or insert any position of power here, such as Chief of Police, Medical Examiner, Lawyer) who stated things as facts, but which were not proven and not fact but opinion, and nobody bothered to question because he is in a position of power and he believes what he stated. Scary thing, that concept.

There is no reason to question the integrity of professionals that are investigating and trying this case.

 

[deugirtni]

You mustn't forget though, that these land owners "would not know what they're looking for". I would assume the land owners would be no different from the general public who was asked NOT to search for the bodies.

That's not something you hear everyday...

Where to look, for bodies or for granules, is still the biggest hurdle. LE has obviously exhausted their leads... I wonder how many land owners actually did a search of their properties when LE put out that request, and how thoroughly did they look? It will be unfortunate if they are found somewhere obvious or close by.

I suppose a light snow cover would offer the best visible signs, rather than deep snow... ?

 

[otto]

It's research information my pretty...any and all information pertaining to previous cases (especially in Alberta) should be allowed to be discussed. How else does one find precedents? Anyway, enough for me for today. You win...you're still standing...lol.

When finding precedents, if the intent is to make a statement that they exist, and leave it at that, that is not good enough. There must be links to back up statements that are claimed as fact, and one would hope that the links are relevant to the discussion.

 

[otto]

Just a question to ponder, but do you believe that human beings who reside and work in Calgary are superior somehow from all of the other cities and provinces in our country? I believe that humans are humans, no matter where they work, no matter where they live, no matter where they may have moved from or to, and no matter which year it is. MOO.

There may be cases in other parts of the country, or the world, where 200 police officers investigating one case all got it wrong, where their superiors were all too stupid to see the mistakes, and the Chief of police was a bumbling fool that didn't ask questions, while the prosecutor blindly followed the 200 incompetent police officers, but that has never happened in Calgary. If fact, I doubt that it has happened in any Westernized country. Does this mean that Calgary is superior? I don't think so. I think it means that mistakes of that scope don't happen.

 

[deugirtni]

For those that insist that the trio has been proven dead already, at least one has even suggested that the ME pronounced death based on a body:

Quote Originally Posted by otto
"I would think that presenting the medical examiner with a dead body, or crucial parts of a dead body, would be sufficient for a death certificate."

If a person IS dead, and this is a proven fact like some are stating, then why do you suppose, at various times during the past 4 months, newspapers are stating things such as this (these are but a few examples, BBM and italics by me):

Memorial honours missing Calgary grandparents who police believe were murdered
The Canadian PressBy The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – Sat, 27 Sep, 2014
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/memorial-honours-missing-calgary-grandparents-police-believe-were-192419930.html

Hundreds pay respects to Alvin, Kathy Liknes at memorial
CBCCBC – Sat, 27 Sep, 2014

Douglas Garland has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the presumed deaths of Alvin and Kathy Liknes. He is also charged with one count of second-degree murder in the presumed death of Nathan O'Brien.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/alvin-kathy-liknes-memorial-held-150928122.html

Calgary-News
Man Charged in Missing Persons Investigation
July 15, 2014 Leave a comment
Man Charged in Missing Persons Investigation
"The future is Binary – The Calgary Police Service can now officially identify a man charged in relation to an ongoing missing persons investigation, now deemed to be a homicide"
http://newscanada-plus.com/man-charged-missing-persons-investigation-74902/79585

 

[otto]

For those that insist that the trio has been proven dead already, at least one has even suggested that the ME pronounced death based on a body:



If a person IS dead, and this is a proven fact like some are stating, then why do you suppose, at various times during the past 4 months, newspapers are stating things such as this (these are but a few examples, BBM and italics by me):

Memorial honours missing Calgary grandparents who police believe were murdered
The Canadian PressBy The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – Sat, 27 Sep, 2014
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/memorial-honours-missing-calgary-grandparents-police-believe-were-192419930.html

Hundreds pay respects to Alvin, Kathy Liknes at memorial
CBCCBC – Sat, 27 Sep, 2014

Douglas Garland has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the presumed deaths of Alvin and Kathy Liknes. He is also charged with one count of second-degree murder in the presumed death of Nathan O'Brien.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/alvin-kathy-liknes-memorial-held-150928122.html

Calgary-News
Man Charged in Missing Persons Investigation
July 15, 2014 Leave a comment
Man Charged in Missing Persons Investigation
"The future is Binary – The Calgary Police Service can now officially identify a man charged in relation to an ongoing missing persons investigation, now deemed to be a homicide"
http://newscanada-plus.com/man-charged-missing-persons-investigation-74902/79585

It's simple. Police cannot lay murder charges based on a belief. They know that the victims are deceased, and therefore they could lay murder charges.

Chief Hanson: “We have to assume that, whatever that is, whatever the small likelihood is, that someone, somewhere, was keeping one of those people alive so we will always err to the side of caution, so we meticulously put this file together, until yesterday afternoon and in meeting with the Crown prosecutor and in reviewing all the evidence in its entirety, the decision was reached that this is now a homicide investigation and the charges would be appropriate against the accused individual that will be named later,” said Chief Hanson.

...

"Our efforts to locate the bodies of the three deceased is obviously a big part of what we're hopeful, at some point in time, to be able to address," said Hanson. "I'll always remain optimistic that we will be relentless in pursuing every lead."

The family has been notified and Hanson says they are devastated. "Unfortunately with the laying of the charges, we've taken that hope away from the family so they are devastated."

Read more: http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/man-faces...nce-of-calgary-family-1.1912596#ixzz3IrgQhRur

 

[deugirtni]

Did you miss my earlier post wherein I posted an example of when police have in the past in fact laid murder charges even when a death was not yet fact? I believe I may have posted more than one example. One of the cases was the Victora Stafford case. The body was not located until after murder charges were laid. LE could not state as a fact that VS was dead until her body was found. There was 'proof' in that they had a 'witness statement', but that is not fact. That is why we have trials here in Canada.

It's simple. Police cannot lay murder charges based on a belief. They know that the victims are deceased, and therefore they could lay murder charges.

Chief Hanson: “We have to assume that, whatever that is, whatever the small likelihood is, that someone, somewhere, was keeping one of those people alive so we will always err to the side of caution, so we meticulously put this file together, until yesterday afternoon and in meeting with the Crown prosecutor and in reviewing all the evidence in its entirety, the decision was reached that this is now a homicide investigation and the charges would be appropriate against the accused individual that will be named later,” said Chief Hanson.

...

"Our efforts to locate the bodies of the three deceased is obviously a big part of what we're hopeful, at some point in time, to be able to address," said Hanson. "I'll always remain optimistic that we will be relentless in pursuing every lead."

The family has been notified and Hanson says they are devastated. "Unfortunately with the laying of the charges, we've taken that hope away from the family so they are devastated."

Read more: http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/man-faces...nce-of-calgary-family-1.1912596#ixzz3IrgQhRur

 

[otto]

Did you miss my earlier post wherein I posted an example of when police have in the past in fact laid murder charges even when a death was not yet fact? I believe I may have posted more than one example. One of the cases was the Victora Stafford case. The body was not located until after murder charges were laid. LE could not state as a fact that VS was dead until her body was found. There was 'proof' in that they had a 'witness statement', but that is not fact. That is why we have trials here in Canada.

There was no reason to believe that Victoria Stafford was dead because there was no crime scene, no evidence, and no body. That's entirely different from this case where there is a bloody crime scene, evidence, and no body.

 

[deugirtni]

We will not hear of any of the mistakes made until much later in this story, if in fact mistakes were made. 200 officers did not come to the conclusion the trio are dead. 200 officers helped in one way or another on this case. One of the few people to have seen *all* of the evidence put together, is the one officer who stated that police 'believe' the trio are dead. Murder charges were then laid. The man was then asked by reporters for further information and clarity, and he then stated 'they are dead'. That does still not make it a fact. If there were any remains whatsoever, and enough for an ME to base 'death' on, those remains would have been returned to the family for proper burial. They were not. Why? Because they don't exist at this point in time. The Chief's beliefs and statement, will have to be proved in a courtroom. Things that are 'fact', just ARE fact, and the fact speaks for itself. Otherwise, it is a belief, an opinion, a best-guess, that is called 'circumstantial evidence' which will need to be proven in a court.

There may be cases in other parts of the country, or the world, where 200 police officers investigating one case all got it wrong, where their superiors were all too stupid to see the mistakes, and the Chief of police was a bumbling fool that didn't ask questions, while the prosecutor blindly followed the 200 incompetent police officers, but that has never happened in Calgary. If fact, I doubt that it has happened in any Westernized country. Does this mean that Calgary is superior? I don't think so. I think it means that mistakes of that scope don't happen.

 

[deugirtni]

No it is not different, because what we were discussing was your statement that police cannot charge someone with murder without being fact the person is indeed dead. In these 2 cases, both men were charged before the deaths were 'fact'. In VS's case, the death became a fact. That has not yet happened in this case.

There was no reason to believe that Victoria Stafford was dead because there was no crime scene, no evidence, and no body. That's entirely different from this case where there is a bloody crime scene, evidence, and no body.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Did anyone sign on as a searcher on the TOMNOD satellite service for finding the Malaysian aircraft? I think I might drop them a line on taking satellite pictures right now before the snow gets too thick,, who knows?

Does anyone know the name of the NOAA satellite that can detect extraordinarily minute temperature variations, I thought it was called Mopet? Darn, oh well I'll figure it out tomorrow.

And on those notes, have we heard any results (or anything at all) of the scan the neighbor's brother's helicopter business undertook in looking for the L's and NO? They were covering a fair area if I recall correctly.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

There may be cases in other parts of the country, or the world, where 200 police officers investigating one case all got it wrong, where their superiors were all too stupid to see the mistakes, and the Chief of police was a bumbling fool that didn't ask questions, while the prosecutor blindly followed the 200 incompetent police officers, but that has never happened in Calgary. If fact, I doubt that it has happened in any Westernized country. Does this mean that Calgary is superior? I don't think so. I think it means that mistakes of that scope don't happen.

Perhaps it wouldn't be a 'mistake'...it might be 'investigative strategy'.

There are always new techniques, etc. being thought of and possibly used in order to stay ahead of the massively growing crime rate and types of crimes being committed these days. Criminals are getting to be unbelievably adept at thinking up new and improved ways of plying their 'trades' so to speak. I don't think any idea as far as using whatever means may be available or created should be 'off-the-table'. Typically, the public learns of these new approaches after they've been used successfully. It does not mean anyone is incompetent or 'crooked'... it simply means that any method available that may potentially solve a substantial crime (and this is substantial), could possibly be an option. This of course, would depend on various information collected by LE...on both sides of the story. I believe that is how a motive is established, by looking at both sides. JMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

When finding precedents, if the intent is to make a statement that they exist, and leave it at that, that is not good enough. There must be links to back up statements that are claimed as fact, and one would hope that the links are relevant to the discussion.

Great point! However, I don't recall there being any statements made that have been claimed as fact as far as what we were discussing goes by anyone that is looking at all the different angles.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

It's simple. Police cannot lay murder charges based on a belief. They know that the victims are deceased, and therefore they could lay murder charges.

Chief Hanson: “We have to assume that, whatever that is, whatever the small likelihood is, that someone, somewhere, was keeping one of those people alive so we will always err to the side of caution, so we meticulously put this file together, until yesterday afternoon and in meeting with the Crown prosecutor and in reviewing all the evidence in its entirety, the decision was reached that this is now a homicide investigation and the charges would be appropriate against the accused individual that will be named later,” said Chief Hanson.

...

"Our efforts to locate the bodies of the three deceased is obviously a big part of what we're hopeful, at some point in time, to be able to address," said Hanson. "I'll always remain optimistic that we will be relentless in pursuing every lead."

The family has been notified and Hanson says they are devastated. "Unfortunately with the laying of the charges, we've taken that hope away from the family so they are devastated."

Read more: http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/man-faces...nce-of-calgary-family-1.1912596#ixzz3IrgQhRur

I believe the key here is that the case was deemed as "This is now a homicide investigation" after meeting with the Crown Prosecutor. This would be because the Crown Prosecutor felt that there was enough evidence to build a case around that evidence. Somewhere between Friday afternoon when LE were still hopeful of finding these 3 alive, and the meeting with the Crown Prosecutor, someone, decided that the L's and NO were in fact dead. Who was the one that actually decided this in order to turn it into a homicide investigation? Still, there appears to be nothing 'factual' relating to the ME that anyone has been able to find. That's the piece that confuses me...why between Friday and Sunday did things change...and who decided that things had changed? What was that change based on?

 

[deugirtni]

That change was based upon examining 'the preponderance of evidence' all together as a whole. That is why, 'no smoking gun'. No one piece of evidence proves anything. But a small group (with the Chief being "one of the few") who were privvy to *all* of the evidence and details, decided that all together, the evidence points to nothing else but that the trio are dead, and were murdered by DG. As much as this is striking, and as much as we all might want to believe it, it still does not make it a fact. I look very much forward to hearing the evidence when it finally comes to trial.

I believe the key here is that the case was deemed as "This is now a homicide investigation" after meeting with the Crown Prosecutor. This would be because the Crown Prosecutor felt that there was enough evidence to build a case around that evidence. Somewhere between Friday afternoon when LE were still hopeful of finding these 3 alive, and the meeting with the Crown Prosecutor, someone, decided that the L's and NO were in fact dead. Who was the one that actually decided this in order to turn it into a homicide investigation? Still, there appears to be nothing 'factual' relating to the ME that anyone has been able to find. That's the piece that confuses me...why between Friday and Sunday did things change...and who decided that things had changed? What was that change based on?

 

[deugirtni]

These special techniques they were using, which were supposed to be higher-technology equipment than what the police had at their own disposal, were to allow greater ability to hone in an certain areas where they might see something amiss, like earth tampered with. If they found anything showing further investigation was warranted, then surely they would have investigated, and yet we heard nothing. Considering that we heard nothing, you can bet that is because nothing was found. Otherwise, the 'remains' would have been discovered, reported, researched, declared officially dead, and returned to the bereaved families. MOO.

And on those notes, have we heard any results (or anything at all) of the scan the neighbor's brother's helicopter business undertook in looking for the L's and NO? They were covering a fair area if I recall correctly.

 

[otto]

No it is not different, because what we were discussing was your statement that police cannot charge someone with murder without being fact the person is indeed dead. In these 2 cases, both men were charged before the deaths were 'fact'. In VS's case, the death became a fact. That has not yet happened in this case.

Where could they be hiding, and what sort of grandparents would take a five year old boy away from his family, friends, education, and stability?

 

[otto]

Great point! However, I don't recall there being any statements made that have been claimed as fact as far as what we were discussing goes by anyone that is looking at all the different angles.

Let's toss out everything we know about the case because we're not interested in what police have to say about the case.

Where does that leave us?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Let's toss out everything we know about the case because we're not interested in what police have to say about the case.

Where does that leave us?

With a pool of potential jurors.