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

[Lalalacasbah]

I feel like this case could be one extreme or another in terms of motive and events that occured - extremely simple or extremely intertwined/complex.

It seems it could really be either although something about how the aftermath unfolded seems like there's something unique and atypical about the case that makes people feel they're missing a piece of a puzzle.

 

[Sillybilly]

I feel like this case could be one extreme or another in terms of motive and events that occured - extremely simple or extremely intertwined/complex.

It seems it could really be either although something about how the aftermath unfolded seems like there's something unique and atypical about the case that makes people feel they're missing a piece of a puzzle.

WADR Lala ... each and every case is unique and there is really nothing atypical about this case as far as murder investigations go. We NEVER have all the pieces of the puzzle beyond what LE chooses to release to the public. LE is sitting there with ALL their evidence while we have only snippets of what that evidence might be. Pretty much guaranteed they have the missing pieces that allows them to move forward to trial while we agonize over what we don't know.

 

[Hez]

Cognitive dissonance indeed!

I don't know how many ways I can say it, but no one has said the victims are alive, and no one has said LE is incompetent. I ask for links, proof... anything... and it never comes... just the insistence that somebody somewhere said it.

Sleuthing the possibilities is just that. Sleuthing the possibilities... it is no different than what a judge or jury may have to consider if this goes to trial. Is there a reasonable doubt one or more of the victims could be alive... is there a reasonable doubt DG is the perp, or did he have an accomplice, or was he involved at all...

I sense cognitive dissonance alright, mixed with a healthy dose of superiority complex. Something as simple as bringing up examples of previous faked deaths is not an indictment of LE or the victims... it's a simple discussion tool and a chance to educate yourself on the subject.

I thought the whole discussion was pretty darned interesting... and shockingly... I don't think the victims are alive, or that LE is incompetent. I'm also, however, open to the possibly that I could be completely wrong.

BBM - I don't consider what a jury will have to do when this goes to trial to be 'sleuthing the possibilities' because that is not their job. The jury will be presented with actual facts and evidence with which to deliberate, far more than what is available to people on crime forums, thus they aren't required to do any 'sleuthing' or developing of their own theories of the crime in making their determination of guilty or not guilty. In a lot of jurisdictions, an empaneled juror attempting to do any 'sleuthing', real or imagined, will get them booted off the panel and for good reason. I just don't think discussions and debates on a crime forum should be elevated to such a comparison of what a jury is instructed to do.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

<rsbm>

To name a few examples of discussion (too numerous to link, but paraphrased here):

Escaping to Mexico
They&#8217;re not in Disneyland but in Panama
Travelling with new passports and leaving their old ones at home
Saving up quantities of blood to dump to confuse the investigation
Taking NO because it is so ugly, nobody would believe it
Having a letter of permission to take NO across the border
Amber Alert was issued to deflect from them being in a witness protection program

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=liknes+faked+site:www.websleuths.com&start=30

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-17&p=11057059#post11057059

etc ..

If those aren't suggestions that relate to the family possibly being alive, I don't know how else to interpret them.

Again... if someone asks if there is possibly (your own word) a way they are alive, and tries to sleuth out ways for it to be possible... is that any different than anything anyone else does on here?

Some are far fetched, and eliminated. Some are far fetched, and can't be completely eliminated. Some, if true, might mean LE had some failings or were incompetent... but not once has any of it been presented as a fact.

I recall the majority of regulars on here looking at the aerial pics of the acreage, and speculating about what was there, like barrels, vehicles, tarps buildings etc... and not one person waited for the Chief of Police to say what anything was before talking about it, and speculating what it was used for.

The Chief of Police also hasn't mentioned any relationship between the murders and Winter Petroleum, so why are any of the regulars talking about it? It's not a fact, so don't look anything up, or discuss it at all... right?

Oil and gas? Not a fact. Don't talk about it. How the victims were murdered? No facts. Don't talk about it. Were the drag marks outside the home related? The Chief of Police hasn't said anything... therefore it's not a fact... therefore, don't talk about it.

The same arguments keep being rehashed by the same people to regulate discussion here, but they don't hold themselves to that same standard.[modsnip]

I would think LE would be incompetent if they didn't have the very same conversations to determine if there is a chance one or more victims were alive. For this to be presented at trial, the crown has to consider what the defence is going to be, and if the evidence can also be interpreted in another way. If they don't ask themselves the very same questions... could any of this be staged... can the defence argue that one or more is alive and played a part... then, wow... are they in for a nasty surprise come trial.

Are any of them alive? Highly unlikely. If you want to sleuth out plausible ways it could happen... have at it. If all this site is about is discussing facts only, then I suppose we have all the links and timelines to the facts already. What's left to discuss then?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

BBM - I don't consider what a jury will have to do when this goes to trial to be 'sleuthing the possibilities' because that is not their job. The jury will be presented with actual facts and evidence with which to deliberate, far more than what is available to people on crime forums, thus they aren't required to do any 'sleuthing' or developing of their own theories of the crime in making their determination of guilty or not guilty. In a lot of jurisdictions, an empaneled juror attempting to do any 'sleuthing', real or imagined, will get them booted off the panel and for good reason. I just don't think discussions and debates on a crime forum should be elevated to such a comparison of what a jury is instructed to do.

So juries don't string together the facts they are presented, and try to determine if it's plausible, or if there is a reasonable doubt???

As you said... all the facts are not in the public domain, so there are those that take the facts we do have, and sleuth for plausible scenarios. Big deal. Honestly, big deal.

 

[Sillybilly]

The Chief of Police also hasn't mentioned any relationship between the murders and Winter Petroleum, so why are any of the regulars talking about it? It's not a fact, so don't look anything up, or discuss it at all... right?

Oil and gas? Not a fact. Don't talk about it. How the victims were murdered? No facts. Don't talk about it. Were the drag marks outside the home related? The Chief of Police hasn't said anything... therefore it's not a fact... therefore, don't talk about it.

Winter Pet, Oil & Gas ... reasonable sleuthing (victimology) based on the premise that the Chief of Police says the victims are deceased.

To sleuth on these folks being alive according to the examples I provided could only be logical if we rely on the belief that the Chief of Police was either wrong or lied. I haven't seen any sleuthing that has brought up one simple fact to support that possibility.

WS is not only victim friendly, it is also pro-LE unless there are strong indications otherwise.

 

[Sillybilly]

So juries don't string together the facts they are presented, and try to determine if it's plausible, or if there is a reasonable doubt???

As you said... all the facts are not in the public domain, so there are those that take the facts we do have, and sleuth for plausible scenarios. Big deal. Honestly, big deal.

The key word there is "facts" ... for the jury to consider the examples previously provided, they would have to start deliberations from the belief that the victims were alive ... and wondering WTH are we doing here if there is no homicide?

 

[Lalalacasbah]

WADR Lala ... each and every case is unique and there is really nothing atypical about this case as far as murder investigations go. We NEVER have all the pieces of the puzzle beyond what LE chooses to release to the public. LE is sitting there with ALL their evidence while we have only snippets of what that evidence might be. Pretty much guaranteed they have the missing pieces that allows them to move forward to trial while we agonize over what we don't know.

I hear what you're saying, but I still think this case is a little different than most.

I think this case is unique for a few reasons:

- Most homicide suspects aren't referred to (whether true or not) 'geniuses' or didn't evade LE for 9 years. Even seasoned criminals/serial killers who might fall under the 'intelligent' umbrella rarely get referred to this way or are able to evade LE
- Most child victims of homicide are usually a result of a sex crime, custody battle (murder/suicide) or bullying
- Most homicide victim's bodies are found (I could be wrong though, would have to check stats)
- A curious question of finances (bankrupcy vs. living in Mexico, how does that happen?)

All I'm saying, is the points mentioned make for an atypical crime and questions compared to most that are slam-dunks in terms of motive and reasons.

People scratch their heads, and I think those points are part of the reason people across the country are gripped by this, especially because a child victim was probably murdered for no reason (I don't think NO would've seen or heard enough of a 'stranger' to be an true witness to have to be rid of because of it).

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Winter Pet, Oil & Gas ... reasonable sleuthing (victimology) based on the premise that the Chief of Police says the victims are deceased.

To sleuth on these folks being alive according to the examples I provided could only be logical if we rely on the belief that the Chief of Police was either wrong or lied. I haven't seen any sleuthing that has brought up one simple fact to support that possibility.

WS is not only victim friendly, it is also pro-LE unless there are strong indications otherwise.

Just being a pest and devil's advocate here - but don't LE 'lie' or 'play along' while working undercover in narcotics or for a sting operation? If a police chief gave a press conference would he be honest with the public when asked about whether they're investigating a drug lord?

I know, not the same at all and it's not, but LE doesn't have to inform the public the type of surveillance or investigating they're doing, otherwise it's would be pointless and those they're investigating would be tipped off because of it.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

BBM - I don't consider what a jury will have to do when this goes to trial to be 'sleuthing the possibilities' because that is not their job. The jury will be presented with actual facts and evidence with which to deliberate, far more than what is available to people on crime forums, thus they aren't required to do any 'sleuthing' or developing of their own theories of the crime in making their determination of guilty or not guilty. In a lot of jurisdictions, an empaneled juror attempting to do any 'sleuthing', real or imagined, will get them booted off the panel and for good reason. I just don't think discussions and debates on a crime forum should be elevated to such a comparison of what a jury is instructed to do.

A jury wouldn't be sleuthing, but wondering and hopefully being critical thinkers about the facts they're told and not just believe everything they're told.

I agree though Hez, this debate probably isn't important to debate here. I have never been a jury member and really unsure what it's actually like. Not sure if any other sleuthers have been jury members, anyone?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

The key word there is "facts" ... for the jury to consider the examples previously provided, they would have to start deliberations from the belief that the victims were alive ... and wondering WTH are we doing here if there is no homicide?

No... if the defence contests the evidence that the victims are dead, then the jury has to decide if there is a reasonable doubt that they are still alive, and they will run through the same type of discussions.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Winter Pet, Oil & Gas ... reasonable sleuthing (victimology) based on the premise that the Chief of Police says the victims are deceased.

To sleuth on these folks being alive according to the examples I provided could only be logical if we rely on the belief that the Chief of Police was either wrong or lied. I haven't seen any sleuthing that has brought up one simple fact to support that possibility.

WS is not only victim friendly, it is also pro-LE unless there are strong indications otherwise.

That's great that you narrowed down my earlier post, and ignored the rest. It makes for a more simplistic discussion for sure. You OT TO know better by now though, that the Mods control the discussion, and lo and behold, none of what you are objecting to, has been deleted.

Simply because the Chief of Police says they are dead, does not make it absolute, nor is it out of bounds to question it. What if KR thinks the evidence doesnt prove death? Simply because one held a press conference, and the other didnt, that's reason to absolutely believe it? The Crown has said the preliminary hearing will be a good test run for the evidence... the Chief of Police has said there are no other suspects, and that the victims are dead... so if we want to take everything the Police Chief says as God's word, then why would the Crown feel a need for a test run?

And nowhere in there did I say the victims are alive, nor did I say LE is incompetent. I'm allowed to think on a higher level, and question everything. Even juries have the right to question a witness's testimony... this jury might even hear the cross examination of the Chief of Police and what was, his interpretation of the evidence.

 

[Sillybilly]

No... if the defence contests the evidence that the victims are dead, then the jury has to decide if there is a reasonable doubt that they are still alive, and they will run through the same type of discussions.

And if the defence tries to convince the jury the victims are alive, he/she better have something more than just his/her say-so. Although the DT can say pretty much anything in defence of their client without having to offer up proof, to flat-out state the victims are alive and hope the jury buys it, they will have to have some degree of reverse onus to present facts/evidence or a reasonable facsimile to support their position.

Or, are you referring to the defence refuting whatever evidence is presented by the Crown (i.e. medical examiner conclusions, etc)?

(Sorry, I went on a tangent and didn't address what you actually said re contesting the evidence)

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I hear what you're saying, but I still think this case is a little different than most.

I think this case is unique for a few reasons:

- Most homicide suspects aren't referred to (whether true or not) 'geniuses' or didn't evade LE for 9 years. Even seasoned criminals/serial killers who might fall under the 'intelligent' umbrella rarely get referred to this way or are able to evade LE
- Most child victims of homicide are usually a result of a sex crime, custody battle (murder/suicide) or bullying
- Most homicide victim's bodies are found (I could be wrong though, would have to check stats)
- A curious question of finances (bankrupcy vs. living in Mexico, how does that happen?)

All I'm saying, is the points mentioned make for an atypical crime and questions compared to most that are slam-dunks in terms of motive and reasons.

People scratch their heads, and I think those points are part of the reason people across the country are gripped by this, especially because a child victim was probably murdered for no reason (I don't think NO would've seen or heard enough of a 'stranger' to be an true witness to have to be rid of because of it).

All that, and more... one victim even has a twin brother... and was possibly having financial issues. How many times have you seen the old switch identities routine on the crime shows? The possibility for conspiracy theories are endless.

If it weren't for Nathan being there, and the CCTV, one has to wonder if LE would even have a suspect at this point.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

All that, and more... one victim even has a twin brother... and was possibly having financial issues. How many times have you seen the old switch identities routine on the crime shows? The possibility for conspiracy theories are endless.

If it weren't for Nathan being there, and the CCTV, one has to wonder if LE would even have a suspect at this point.

This crime does seem like it could be a candidate for a movie plot (not seriously, but Hollywood is shameless in using all types of tragedies) or a conspiracy theorist's dream like you say (good one).

And yes, of course, throw a twin brother into the mix, the poor daughter of AL who was shot (so lucky it wasn't worse), a good friend with a mysterious name-changing husband, a kijiji ad connection, a heavy online presence of the victims, this all opens up all kinds of crazy scenarios. It's all not very typical to me!

 

[LoisLane]

Winter Pet, Oil & Gas ... reasonable sleuthing (victimology) based on the premise that the Chief of Police says the victims are deceased.

To sleuth on these folks being alive according to the examples I provided could only be logical if we rely on the belief that the Chief of Police was either wrong or lied. I haven't seen any sleuthing that has brought up one simple fact to support that possibility.

WS is not only victim friendly, it is also pro-LE unless there are strong indications otherwise.

WS is victim friendly. How do we know what the victim's questions' are regarding this case? They may have doubts. Are they allowed to come forward now that the case is before the courts and state that they still have hope they will be found? What would the ramifications of that be? Can that be denied? As for being pro-LE... I can't even imagine where one would start sleuthing or how to come across any facts to say they are incompetent at their jobs. That is a pretty tight lid to open. That certainly wouldn't go over so well here and would be a whole other mess. For example, What if we heard tomorrow that the Chief of Police has taken a leave of absence? What if I had information or speculated that the Chief of Police was an alcoholic and may have not done his job in line with the rules or was under the influence while making judgement calls? What if we questioned this? Would we be allowed to apply that type of released information to question the integrity of this case?

I am not sure I can explain my thoughts clearly at the moment but I ask you to consider my response.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

WS is victim friendly. How do we know what the victim's questions' are regarding this case? They may have doubts. Are they allowed to come forward now that the case is before the courts and state that they still have hope they will be found? What would the ramifications of that be? Can that be denied? As for being pro-LE... I can't even imagine where one would start sleuthing or how to come across any facts to say they are incompetent at their jobs. That is a pretty tight lid to open. That certainly wouldn't go over so well here and would be a whole other mess. For example, What if we heard tomorrow that the Chief of Police has taken a leave of absence? What if I had information or speculated that the Chief of Police was an alcoholic and may have not done his job in line with the rules or was under the influence while making judgement calls? What if we questioned this? Would we be allowed to apply that type of released information to question the integrity of this case?

I am not sure I can explain my thoughts clearly at the moment but I ask you to consider my response.

Well you have my utmost attention!

Now I'm curious if your example is hypothetical or you know something we don't&#8230;. That would just be another dimension to this case and open up another whole can of worms! :worms:

 

[LoisLane]

Well you have my utmost attention!

Now I'm curious if your example is hypothetical or you know something we don't…. That would just be another dimension to this case and open up another whole can of worms! :worms:

Strictly hypothetical! I only use the Chief as an example because of his involvement in the case and his stature with the organization as opposed to an officer in the field.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Strictly hypothetical! I only use the Chief as an example because of his involvement in the case and his stature with the organization as opposed to an officer in the field.

I thought you had an inside scoop or something lol! And the can of worms graphic was too good to pass up.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Well you have my utmost attention!

Now I'm curious if your example is hypothetical or you know something we don't&#8230;. That would just be another dimension to this case and open up another whole can of worms! :worms:

Oh Lord, don't go there... lol... I can only defend so much.

Victim bashing includes things like "they had it coming" and "who cares... they were (race, sex, whatever your prejudice ) anyway". When 3 people disappear and have yet to be found, if someone, on a Sleuthing site no less, asks if there is a chance they're still alive, and others provide some links of previous cases of such... then it's hardly bashing anyone. In fact, those asking tend to be the ones looking for some feint hope that they are okay.

No one has argued that the Chief of Police is incompetent or wrong. There are some on here that prefer to remain rather agnostic, and look at all theories from a proof and plausibility angle. Some also can't reconcile the belief that the accused has a right to a fair trial, and at the same time accepting everything LE believes as the absolute, and undeniable truth.