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

[otto]

but they're not allowed to speculate without evidence, so, saying things based on nothing is allowed but saying things based on speculation is not allowed? I think the best neutral statement would have been "we don't know", as most people can understand this type of honesty.

where's otto in all this, the sun set hours ago????

The job thing gets in the way! Police can say whatever they want to a suspect during an interrogation. Police can even have false information posted in the newspaper if they think it might generate a tip. When it comes to reporting on a murder, one would hope that police speak nothing but the truth, but I think there's probably a grey area such that not all of the truth is spoken.

What I wondered, as the facts of the case were slowly revealed, was whether there was a sense that the information had to come out slowly so as to manage public reaction. For example, when the crime scene was first discovered, people kind of assumed that the person responsible was someone that attended the estate sale. If the news was: bloody murder scene, no bodies following estate sale, that would put fear into everyone. If the news was: three people missing, estate sale people asked to come forward, that doesn't sound nearly as bad.

Slowly the gravity of the situation was released, giving the public a chance to digest what happened, and to understand that this was an isolated event ... meaning ... the public was not at risk. We still don't know the full story, perhaps because what's to come is worse than what we know. Perhaps that is reserved for the courtroom ... when most people are only interested in guilty, or not guilty, and they don't want to know the details.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

The job thing gets in the way! Police can say whatever they want to a suspect during an interrogation. Police can even have false information posted in the newspaper if they think it might generate a tip. When it comes to reporting on a murder, one would hope that police speak nothing but the truth, but I think there's probably a grey area such that not all of the truth is spoken.QUOTE]

Otto! Did you really just post that!!??? Some of us have been saying this since July...you've disagreed the whole time!! Now, is this a fact?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

What evidence is there that the family walked out of the house on their own? What we know is that the victims were forcibly removed, that there are drag marks and blood evidence between the side door and the parking pad, that one member of the family was in medical distress in the home, and that the Amber Alert was for the two males. That Amber Alert was discontinued on July 14 when evidence confirmed that the victims were deceased. Nothing about that suggests that three victims walked out of the crime scene alive.

I'm sorry, where is the link stating that the victims were 'forcibly' removed? And where has LE stated that they were 'removed' at all...that makes it sound like they were deceased...no one said that the drag marks between the side door and the parking pad were blood...that's the speculation...there is nowhere that LE has stated that these drag marks are blood either...they've released no information on the composition of the drag marks...nor any other information they have that is being considered ''evidence''.

I would say that to continue the Amber Alert and to continue searching for the victims with the 'hope' that they would be found alive for two weeks after the disappearance suggests that they were not deceased when they left the Liknes home, crime scene or not...

 

[otto]

Otto! Did you really just post that!!??? Some of us have been saying this since July...you've disagreed the whole time!! Now, is this a fact?

I have never disagreed that police can lie to suspects during interrogation. For example, they can tell a suspect that they know the suspect is guilty when they don't know that is true. I know that police/prosecutors do ask the media to post something as a news article in order to elicit leads in a cold case. The media may or may not post the article, but police/prosecutors do ask.

Regarding police speaking the truth about an on-going investigation, we know that they don't tell the whole truth until trial. Until trial, police only reveal information on a need to know basis for investigative purposes. Police don't lie to the public during an investigation where they need leads and tips ... that serves no purpose.

 

[otto]

I'm sorry, where is the link stating that the victims were 'forcibly' removed? And where has LE stated that they were 'removed' at all...that makes it sound like they were deceased...no one said that the drag marks between the side door and the parking pad were blood...that's the speculation...there is nowhere that LE has stated that these drag marks are blood either...they've released no information on the composition of the drag marks...nor any other information they have that is being considered ''evidence''.

I would say that to continue the Amber Alert and to continue searching for the victims with the 'hope' that they would be found alive for two weeks after the disappearance suggests that they were not deceased when they left the Liknes home, crime scene or not...

I posted the link this morning ... I wonder if the drag marks and blood outside the house had something to do with the "forcibly removed" belief:

"Police say the scene in the house makes them believe the three were forcibly removed, though Andrus wouldn’t comment on rumours significant amounts of blood were found there."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/07/0...arents-to-make-public-appeal-for-their-return

We can see the blood outside the house with our own eyes. The 8 metres of dark coloured, hosed-down drag marks might be a result of someone in the Liknes family dragging leaky garbage bags around the front yard before putting them in the bin in the alley, but I doubt it.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I think LE had hope NO was possibly alive as it was reported they were knocking on neighbors doors asking them to look where a child might hide IIRC. Maybe that's why the initial info was so 'grey'.

Maybe they knew at least one or two murders happened at Parkhill but thought the child might still be alive, so that's why they treaded so carefully at the beginning and kept the AA active.

Maybe they thought the suspect had NO alive still so they tip-toed around with what they released to the public and held on to some hope there was one survivor.

That would make sense for the statements/behaviors, JMO.

 

[otto]

I would say that to continue the Amber Alert and to continue searching for the victims with the 'hope' that they would be found alive for two weeks after the disappearance suggests that they were not deceased when they left the Liknes home, crime scene or not...

There is absolutely no correlation between waiting for evidence that confirms the victims were murdered in the Parkhill house, and an assumption that waiting for that evidence means that the victims were not murdered in the Parkhill house.

 

[news.talk]

I think LE had hope NO was possibly alive as it was reported they were knocking on neighbors doors asking them to look where a child might hide IIRC. Maybe that's why the initial info was so 'grey'.

Maybe they knew at least one or two murders happened at Parkhill but thought the child might still be alive, so that's why they treaded so carefully at the beginning and kept the AA active.

Maybe they thought the suspect had NO alive still so they tip-toed around with what they released to the public and held on to some hope there was one survivor.

That would make sense for the statements/behaviors, JMO.

I think your assessment is the most likely scenario.

Even seasoned homicide detectives would have a hard time believing that the child was among the victim's, if for no other reason than 'hope.' Considering that IMO, the most likely victim of an abduction would be the child over the adults, LE had much to contemplate and weigh out.

I would imagine that in an abduction scenario, the rules would significantly change with regards to releasing information. LE would have to base such decisions on the facts specific to each case and fortunately, Calgary does not see too many violent child abductions IMHO. Since they would have no idea initially who or how many people were injured or deceased, they had to operate on the presumption that someone was alive and possibly being held. Given the presumed level of violence that occurred in the home, I would imagine that LE was very careful with the wording they chose for public statements, in the event that they were looking at an abduction.

 

[otto]

I think your assessment is the most likely scenario.

Even seasoned homicide detectives would have a hard time believing that the child was among the victim's, if for no other reason than 'hope.' Considering that IMO, the most likely victim of an abduction would be the child over the adults, LE had much to contemplate and weigh out.

I would imagine that in an abduction scenario, the rules would significantly change with regards to releasing information. LE would have to base such decisions on the facts specific to each case and fortunately, Calgary does not see too many violent child abductions IMHO. Since they would have no idea initially who or how many people were injured or deceased, they had to operate on the presumption that someone was alive and possibly being held. Given the presumed level of violence that occurred in the home, I would imagine that LE was very careful with the wording they chose for public statements, in the event that they were looking at an abduction.

Perhaps police have a lawyer on staff who can advise them on how to ensure that the words they use communicate only what is necessary under the circumstances.

 

[news.talk]

Police probably have a lawyer on staff who can advise them on how to ensure that the words they use communicate only what is necessary under the circumstances.

I am convinced that they do. Along with Public Information Specialists, Media Advisor's and the appropriate specialty unit department heads.

I don't presume that a couple of homicide detective's or even the Chief, unilaterally decides on the componants for a press release on a whim.

Everything is VERY carefully worded and discussed prior to the dissemination of information.

 

[deugirtni]

I had asked if you have a link supporting your statement of fact, which I am pasting directly below, but you instead post what the Office of the Chief ME provides. I'm looking for where the information is that confirms that the ME is ONLY called out in the event of death.:

Quote Originally Posted by news.talk View Post
What you described is the role of the forensic technicians with the CPS. The ME is ONLY called out in the event of death.

I have posted it three times now:


The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) provides responsive front-line death investigation and death certification services.

http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/fatality/ocme/Pages/default.aspx

.....

Just for reference, this is the CPS Forensic role:

Operating out of a state of the art forensic laboratory building, the Forensic Crime Scenes Unit's (FCSU) primary function is to impartially locate, collect and process trace, latent and physical evidence in order to link a person to a place or an object.

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Specialty-teams/About-our-Forensic-Crime-Scene-Unit.aspx

------

Very different scopes and disciplines.

 

[news.talk]

I had asked if you have a link supporting your statement of fact, which I am pasting directly below, but you instead post what the Office of the Chief ME provides. I'm looking for where the information is that confirms that the ME is ONLY called out in the event of death.:

I gave you the scope of their role in Alberta. No where does it say that they perform services other than in the event of death. It is clearly defined in the link I provided multiple times.

Furthermore, I provided the scope of the services provided by the FCSU for the CPS that once again, outlines the suggestions you surmised the ME could provide but under their directive, they don't - What you preposed the ME could do, is outlined in the description given for the FCSU.


ETA:

Here is a job description for a ME in Alberta:

http://ca.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=702ac2d83d0bea4f&from=serp

Again, I cannot find any indication that they would be called upon to provide services OTHER than in the event of death.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

There is absolutely no correlation between waiting for evidence that confirms the victims were murdered in the Parkhill house, and an assumption that waiting for that evidence means that the victims were not murdered in the Parkhill house.

Okay, this makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

There is absolutely no correlation between waiting for evidence that confirms the victims were murdered in the Parkhill house, and an assumption that waiting for that evidence means that the victims were not murdered in the Parkhill house.

Again, we take a piece of the conversation and machinate it beyond recognition. I am saying that the fact that LE continued to use a couple hundred people to continue the search with the hope they would be found alive and the continuing Amber Alert SUGGESTS that they believed that there was a reasonable expectation that they may find them alive. If not, the Chief of Police, who is very well- respected and integruous, would surely have stepped-down the "rescue" efforts. IMO...unless of course that falls under your "grey" area?

 

[deugirtni]

Regarding the 'drag marks' which you are referring to:

i)at the presser in which Detective Andrus (I think it was that name) spoke of marks along the side of the house, and was asked by a reporter if he meant the sidewalk, and he said no, that he believed along the side of the house. I don't believe the 'drag marks' have ever been stated by LE to be blood, or 'drag marks', or of appearing to have been washed off, but that these statements have only conjectured by media. I could be mistaken, and if so, please provide a link wherein LE stated those things. So yes, the 'drag marks' could very easily have been trash leaking, dragged to the truck for travel to the dump as the family cleaned up in readiness for their 'estate sale'. Or the drag marks could have been from a long time ago and just staining remains. Although that one spot looks horrible, it is considerably blown up, but if you look at it in context, it is quite small. If that was the point of interest, don't you believe the marker would be right there instead of up by the garage door where above it is obvious police interest?

ii)if you will notice the photos (from long ago posts) in which the police markers are displayed, specifically #14 (which is right at the side door of the home, which there are photos of an investigator investigating that area above), and #15 which is directly below the area which was heavily stained from investigative inks(or whatever they are called, the purple stuff), there is no marker along the 'drag marks', nor the spot of what looks to be blood in the concrete crack; the marker instead is where there is heavy evidence of police looking for prints; there is another marker on the driveway;

iii)police say the scene IN the house makes them 'believe' the 3 were forcibly removed (see your quote below BBM)

We can all have our theories, but one unsubstantiated theory is no better than another really.

I posted the link this morning ... I wonder if the drag marks and blood outside the house had something to do with the "forcibly removed" belief:

"Police say the scene in the house makes them believe the three were forcibly removed, though Andrus wouldn’t comment on rumours significant amounts of blood were found there."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/07/0...arents-to-make-public-appeal-for-their-return

We can see the blood outside the house with our own eyes. The 8 metres of dark coloured, hosed-down drag marks might be a result of someone in the Liknes family dragging leaky garbage bags around the front yard before putting them in the bin in the alley, but I doubt it.

 

[news.talk]

Okay, this makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

I think what Otto is trying to say is, that just because LE wanted to wait for conclusive confirmation that the victim's were killed at the Parkhill residence, does not mean that they were not killed there.

 

[deugirtni]

Who was it that ever said 'lots'? Not LE, not MSM after speaking with LE, but a friend of the family, who did not see it for himself, and we do not even know if he used JO's exact words. And you are basing your theories and beliefs on this? But yet others who dare to theorize get accused of.. you know what. This is no better than that.

Yes, but "medical distress" doesn't mean nose bleed. One could also assume the house would be in some disarray already with the sale and planned move. Since an insider was quoted in MSM saying JO found lots of blood... not that it makes any difference at this point... but it's highly, highly, highly likely that there was enough fluids to be considered lots...

I suppose we could consult a dictionary for the definition of lots, as there is no international standard of lots vs little vs some blood evidence...

We'll all wait for the facts, but like LE stating they are deceased, the likelihood is firmly on the side of the information presented so far.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I think what Otto is trying to say is, that just because LE wanted to wait for conclusive confirmation that the victim's were killed at the Parkhill residence, doea not mean that they were not killed there.

Well, if that's what Otto meant, perhaps you could explain why Otto keeps flogging the statement that the 'victims were forcibly removed'? That would truly be a first I believe...forcibly removing a deceased person(s). JMO

 

[deugirtni]

I suppose there is much to be said about presentation and wording.

Everyone is actually agreeing here in that the ME was likely called in to investigate the possibility of death. I assume LE was doing their due diligence by calling in the ME to begin an investigation, and I assume LE also spoke formally, or informally to the ME to get his/her initial opinion on what he/she saw.

 

[news.talk]

Again, we take a piece of the conversation and machinate it beyond recognition. I am saying that the fact that LE continued to use a couple hundred people to continue the search with the hope they would be found alive and the continuing Amber Alert SUGGESTS that they believed that there was a reasonable expectation that they may find them alive. If not, the Chief of Police, who is very well- respected and integruous, would surely have stepped-down the "rescue" efforts. IMO...unless of course that falls under your "grey" area?

Until they can conclusively state that one or more of the victims were deceased, it is incumbent upon them to proceed that one or more of them were alive.

Should they NOT wait for conclusive forensic evidence to prove death before they act?