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

[winnnancy]

With a pool of potential jurors.

Even jurors need SOMETHING to deliberate. If you've disqualified anything LE has uncovered, lets see where this goes from scratch. What have you got?

 

[winnnancy]

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?

people are capable of terrible things! I sincerely doubt that the Ls would take NO along on a restart of thier lives! If this sleepover was unplanned, I'm sure they would have waited for another opportunity.

 

[otto]

With a pool of potential jurors.

... and an accused who will most likely elect to be tried by Judge alone.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Even jurors need SOMETHING to deliberate. If you've disqualified anything LE has uncovered, lets see where this goes from scratch. What have you got?

You missed the point. Jurors have to put aside everything they have heard, and judge the case presented to them in the courtroom.

If you take that stance here, it means you accuse LE of being incompetent, or you accuse LE of lying, or you are right fighting...

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

... and an accused who will most likely elect to be tried by Judge alone.

Why would he do that?

 

[otto]

people are capable of terrible things! I sincerely doubt that the Ls would take NO along on a restart of thier lives! If this sleepover was unplanned, I'm sure they would have waited for another opportunity.

It wouldn't be that much fun to be a retiree and have to deal with an upset child all day long ... and most likely through the night as well ... but if we're running with the "police know nothing" scenario, then ... that must be what happened. That certainly casts a negative light on the victims.

 

[otto]

You missed the point. Jurors have to put aside everything they have heard, and judge the case presented to them in the courtroom.

If you take that stance here, it means you accuse LE of being incompetent, or you accuse LE of lying, or you are right fighting...

You missed the point. Many murder suspects elect to be tried by Judge alone, so there is no jury.

There's no reason why I can't agree with all the insistent posts that assume that we know nothing because we can't believe anything police say.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

You missed the point. Many murder suspects elect to be tried by Judge alone, so there is no jury.

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.

 

[otto]

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.

Who knows why accused murderers usually elect to be tried by Judge alone ... they just do.

If keeping an open mind means doubting police, then I have an open mind.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Who knows why accused murderers usually elect to be tried by Judge alone ... they just do.

If keeping an open mind means doubting police, then I have an open mind.

If you don't leave a slim possibility for LE to be wrong, then why have a trial, by jury or by judge? Someone said it earlier, if LE is always right, then let's get rid of the courts altogether.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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?

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.

 

[otto]

If you don't leave a slim possibility for LE to be wrong, then why have a trial, by jury or by judge? Someone said it earlier, if LE is always right, then let's get rid of the courts altogether.

Guilty people always claim to be innocent, so obviously they need a trial before they are convinced that other people know what they did.
Prison is full of "innocent people" ... always has been.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Even jurors need SOMETHING to deliberate. If you've disqualified anything LE has uncovered, lets see where this goes from scratch. What have you got?

Not to sound like a broken record but what exactly has LE uncovered? We don't have any idea, so how can we judge what to qualify and what to disqualify? They have uncovered a suspect, who was subsequently charged with murder. They have uncovered evidence, which we know nothing of. It looks like we're really already at 'scratch'....there really is no information to disqualify. IMO

 

[otto]

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.

Police have told us that three people were murdered in SW Calgary, that their bodies were removed from the crime scene, that they noticed a suspicious truck in surveillance video, that they tracked down that truck and arrested a suspect. That's what we know ... and that's all that is normally known in a murder investigation until the time of trial. There's nothing happening here that doesn't normally happen.

If we're going to doubt that the victims are deceased, then we've decided to ignore the facts provided by police. If the victims are alive, where are they and why would wonderful, loving grandparents take a five year grandson away from his family?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Why would he do that?

Exactly. His odds are better to be tried by judge and jury. That's 13 people vs. 1 that have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. I doubt he would choose judge alone...it's really not in his favor. IMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Police have told us that three people were murdered in SW Calgary, that their bodies were removed from the crime scene, that they noticed a suspicious truck in surveillance video, that they tracked down that truck and arrested a suspect. That's what we know ... and that's all that is normally known in a murder investigation until the time of trial. There's nothing happening here that doesn't normally happen.

If we're going to doubt that the victims are deceased, then we've decided to ignore the facts provided by police. If the victims are alive, where are they and why would wonderful, loving grandparents take a five year grandson away from his family?

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.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Exactly. His odds are better to be tried by judge and jury. That's 13 people vs. 1 that have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. I doubt he would choose judge alone...it's really not in his favor. IMO

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.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Police have told us that three people were murdered in SW Calgary, that their bodies were removed from the crime scene, that they noticed a suspicious truck in surveillance video, that they tracked down that truck and arrested a suspect. That's what we know ... and that's all that is normally known in a murder investigation until the time of trial. There's nothing happening here that doesn't normally happen.

If we're going to doubt that the victims are deceased, then we've decided to ignore the facts provided by police. If the victims are alive, where are they and why would wonderful, loving grandparents take a five year grandson away from his family?

The word "facts" is the problem...we don't know any "facts", as LE hasn't disclosed any of the evidence. Not until they do that, can we term what LE is presenting as "facts". LE is likely presenting "a highly probably theory" based on the evidence they have obtained. The Crown Prosecutor's job is to present the 'theory' with the evidence, and prove without reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. There are no publicly known facts yet. Statements regarding the victims being deceased are probable likelihoods, statements about evidence obtained and said evidence being strong , is a probable likelihood...but right now that's all we know. They aren't known 'facts' to us yet. There are known facts to LE, ME, the Prosecution and the Defense. The rest of us here, are left with probably likelihoods only.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Police have told us that three people were murdered in SW Calgary, that their bodies were removed from the crime scene, that they noticed a suspicious truck in surveillance video, that they tracked down that truck and arrested a suspect. That's what we know ... and that's all that is normally known in a murder investigation until the time of trial. There's nothing happening here that doesn't normally happen.

If we're going to doubt that the victims are deceased, then we've decided to ignore the facts provided by police. If the victims are alive, where are they and why would wonderful, loving grandparents take a five year grandson away from his family?

If I may borrow someone else's logic, if LE says the victims are deceased, there are no other suspects, and that they are no longer actively searching for victims... what's left to talk about? Close the thread!

 

[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.

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