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

[winnnancy]

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?

The " one " who decided to turn it into a homicide investigation? why would you assume ONE person has that power? The result that likely pointed towards these peoples demise most likely passed through many sets of hands. All of whom TOGETHER making the decision that this was a homicide investigation.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

And I see the opposite... a judge is going to have a colder look at the evidence, rather than convict on emotion. If the case is complex with a lot of circumstantial evidence that has to be pieced together...

Tough call. Depends on the evidence, like in every case.

Good point made by you...maybe that would be the wiser thing for DG to do. It will be interesting to see what route he chooses.

 

[winnnancy]

Why would he choose that option?

No one is saying the Police know nothing. That is putting words in people's mouths. People are saying, thank you LE for doing a great job. Thank you for releasing that information. I'll wait to hear the facts for myself before I decide if I agree. You might be 100% right, but I'd like to hear the other side first before I really make a judgement.

But its really not your place to make a judgement? we'll learn information we previously did not know then hear the verdict the jury arrives at or one a judge determines.
all we can do at this point is speculate, hypothesize

 

[Tinkerbel1]

The " one " who decided to turn it into a homicide investigation? why would you assume ONE person has that power? The result that likely pointed towards these peoples demise most likely passed through many sets of hands. All of whom TOGETHER making the decision that this was a homicide investigation.

Someone, would've had to approve that culminated decision, is my thought. LE couldn't do it without the Crown's approval. Therefore, the one that technically deemed it "homicide" is likely the Crown Prosecutor.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

So which LE information are you willing to accept and which will you throw out?

It's about hearing the facts for myself.

 

[winnnancy]

I think the trouble is, the police haven't said very much about the case. They've told us its now a homicide investigation, they have a charged suspect (via a green truck on CCTV) and that the 3 are presumed deceased. Other than that, all they've told us is that they can't disclose anything because this complex case is before the courts and have expounded on the accused's past history with the law. What is there to throw out? We have no information, really.

In order for charges to be laid there surely is more than just a coincidental appearance by a green truck on CCTV?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

But its really not your place to make a judgement? we'll learn information we previously did not know then hear the verdict the jury arrives at or one a judge determines.
all we can do at this point is speculate, hypothesize

Yup. Well said. See disclaimer below.

 

[winnnancy]

Yes, those are the questions people here are trying to answer...if no answers, then they'll move on to the next possibility. We're really just throwing out all possibilities...before we hang anybody. That's the great thing about our justice system...all possibilities are allowed to be explored.

Within reason! All possibilities don't include alien abduction or time travel.... REALISTIC POSSIBILITIES-YES!

 

[news.talk]

And I see the opposite... a judge is going to have a colder look at the evidence, rather than convict on emotion. If the case is complex with a lot of circumstantial evidence that has to be pieced together...

Tough call. Depends on the evidence, like in every case.

I hate to agree with you dear, but in this case I must...

A Judge is a better choice for a defendant involved in a high profile case regarding a child. While jurors are instructed to remain neutral and withhold emotional sentiment, the fact is, only a Judge is versed on remaining impartial and to view the evidence at face value. Jurors have the tendancy to make emotional judgements by allowing bias to creep into their subconscious. I have seen many trials and I would have to say that in 'this' case, the accused would be wise to select a trial by Judge alone.

 

[news.talk]

Yes, those are the questions people here are trying to answer...if no answers, then they'll move on to the next possibility. We're really just throwing out all possibilities...before we hang anybody. That's the great thing about our justice system...all possibilities are allowed to be explored.

While we often feel insulated on this forum, it is important to remember that it is viewable by the public, including the victim's families. It is therefore crucial that we back up any speculation with *facts* or a preponderance of reasonable information.

I FULLY support the search for such information, in the pursuit of uncovering lesser known componants... I just warn those that may suggest outlandish theories based on little more than a hunch, to back up those thoughts prior to publishing them on a public forum.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

While we often feel insulated on this forum, it is important to remember that it is viewable by the public, including the victim's families. It is therefore crucial that we back up any speculation with *facts* or a preponderance of reasonable information.

I FULLY support the search for such information, in the pursuit of uncovering lesser known componants... I just warn those that may suggest outlandish theories based on little more than a hunch, to back up those thoughts prior to publishing them on a public forum.

I'm sorry, warn them of what? Thinking outside of the box. No one has accused anybody of anything, no worse than lawyers would do in a courtroom, not even close to that even. There are many, many public forums where all kinds of people state opinions, and discuss possibilities, outlandish included. We have moderators that ensure the forum is conducted properly. If they feel anything is said that is out of line, it is typically snipped and a warning or timeout is given.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

In order for charges to be laid there surely is more than just a coincidental appearance by a green truck on CCTV?

I am with you, I'm assuming there must be, what I have said, is that we don't know what any of that is yet.

 

[news.talk]

I'm sorry, warn them of what? Thinking outside of the box. No one has accused anybody of anything, no worse than lawyers would do in a courtroom, not even close to that even. There are many, many public forums where all kinds of people state opinions, and discuss possibilities, outlandish included. We have moderators that ensure the forum is conducted properly. If they feel anything is said that is out of line, it is typically snipped and a warning or timeout is given.

I would like to think that we are compassionate enough and able to be self-regulating towards the weight of our public declarations, that we don't need a moderator to step in before we utilize some common sense. Is it wise to yell, "fire" and wait until we are told it is wrong before we first check whether there is in fact smoke? Ask yourself this - If you were one of the victim's family members, how would you feel about some if the assertions presented here?

Even 'lawyers in the courtroom' need to back up their assertions with actual facts.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Within reason! All possibilities don't include alien abduction or time travel.... REALISTIC POSSIBILITIES-YES!

Alien abduction? Time travel? I don't think anything that's been thrown out there is anywhere close to these...let's be reasonable.

I'm sorry, I've lost the gist of this whole conversation and where it originated...it feels like mud-slinging to me. I don't understand the rationale of such strong pushback when someone doesn't align with particular views.

Most times, if I don't like or agree with what someone says, it goes in one ear and out the other. I dont take personal offense at someone else's viewpoint (unless of course its meant as a personal affront).

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I don't stop and build a condominium there.
It seems we keep getting stuck on certain things and they go on forever.

JMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I would like to think that we are compassionate enough and able to be self-regulating towards the weight of public declarations, that we don't need a moderator to step in before we utilize some common sense. Is it wise to yell, "fire" and wait until we are told it is wrong before we first check whether there is in fact smoke? Ask yourself this - If you were one of the victim's family members, how would you feel about some if the assertions presented here?

Even 'lawyers in the courtroom' need to back up their assertions with actual facts.

Absolutely! Agreed, however, none of us are lawyers in a courtroom, nor has anyone yelled fire where there isn't one. As I said in response to your 'warning', the moderators that are in place are there to help those of us that aren't as well-equipped or aren't authorities in the 'ultimate knowledge' areas as you seem to be.
How would I feel if these were my family members and I read some of the posts that have been put forth here? Probably hurt and upset...I would definitely be shocked and surprised if I found out things that were news to me about my family members. I am pretty sure that if these were my family members, I wouldn't be looking at anything at all..news story, newspaper, public forum or anything that pertained to their case...it would be unbearable. JMO

 

[LoisLane]

While we often feel insulated on this forum, it is important to remember that it is viewable by the public, including the victim's families. It is therefore crucial that we back up any speculation with *facts* or a preponderance of reasonable information.

I FULLY support the search for such information, in the pursuit of uncovering lesser known componants... I just warn those that may suggest outlandish theories based on little more than a hunch, to back up those thoughts prior to publishing them on a public forum.

It would be great if some of the lesser known components that are shared on this forum could be considered with an open mind. What is an example of the lesser known components and how detailed do they need to be in order to be safe from being suggested as outlandish? If we share something that doesn't fall into the list of determinations made by LE does that count?

 

[news.talk]

Absolutely! Agreed, however, none of us are lawyers in a courtroom, nor has anyone yelled fire where there isn't one. As I said in response to your 'warning', the moderators that are in place are there to help those of us that aren't as well-equipped or aren't authorities in the 'ultimate knowledge' areas as you seem to be.
How would I feel if these were my family members and I read some of the posts that have been put forth here? Probably hurt and upset...I would definitely be shocked and surprised if I found out things that were news to me about my family members. I am pretty sure that if these were my family members, I wouldn't be looking at anything at all..news story, newspaper, public forum or anything that pertained to their case...it would be unbearable. JMO

The fact is, we have no idea whether the victim's families are viewing our comments, nor can we possibly understand their motives for doing so. It is about being responsible for our comments and ensuring that 'wild speculation' is backed up with facts. I am sure that is why many people keep reminding the posters that it is a victim friendly forum.

 

[news.talk]

It would be great if some of the lesser known components that are shared on this forum could be considered with an open mind. What is an example of the lesser known components and how detailed do they need to be in order to be safe from being suggested as outlandish? If we share something that doesn't fall into the list of determinations made by LE does that count?

Absolutely! I have personally always contended how important group investigation is and how essential it is in the pursuit of justice. I don't think it is unreasonable however, to ask that speculation to be based on solid facts and can be supported by a clear line of verifiable links.

 

[tweed]

"There are some charges for which you don’t get a choice of trial format. These are limited and the only one that really applies with any regularity is murder. In a murder trial, there is no option; you have to have a jury trial unless the Crown consents otherwise, which they almost never do.'
- See more at: http://info.lawyershop.ca/archives/...oosing-trial-by-jury-or-trial-by-judge-alone/

 

[LoisLane]

Absolutely! I have personally always contended how important group investigation is and how essential it is in the pursuit of justice. I don't think it is unreasonable however, to ask that speculation to be based on solid facts and can be supported by a clear line of verifiable links.

Okay. So, I am curious what you and others make of the activity on KL's FB. Her FB acct. has "liked" two moving companies from the UK and these moving co. pages appear to have been created in September of 2014.