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

[deugirtni]

Why would *we* disqualify 'anything' tht LE has 'uncovered'? I believe that only the point is being made that certain things are not fact, even though some are stating them to be fact. That does not equate with because certain things are not fact, every clue should therefore be disqualified from discussion. MOO.

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?

 

[deugirtni]

Seriously, consider the costs of our court system.. just in the criminal division alone.. in the country of Canada, where we live and work and pay taxes. When you think of the costs of all of the investigating, all of the court visits, a preliminary trial which is a mini trial in itself, the real trial, perhaps an appeal or two. What percentage of criminals actually pay out of their own pockets for their own defence? I would hazard a very uneducated guess, just based on what I know to be the costs of legal assistance, that MOST accused criminals have their trials paid for via Legal Aid, and that anyone with enough money to actually pay for their own criminal defence would be wiped out of an awful lot of money. Has anyone heard the total final cost in the Pickton trial? It disgusts me.

Agreed. If we can just simply take LE's word for everything, then why not abolish the courts and just throw the accuseds in jail withOUT their day in court. Think of the savings! Are we all comfortable with that? And what if one of us might someday find ourself in a position of 'appearing' to be guilty of something. Or an officer who seems bent on pursuing YOU as the suspect. Or a weird clash of coincidental events points to YOU. Are we still going to be comfortable then also?

I think we have trials for a reason, and the reasons became clear a very long time ago in our country's history. There are reasons why police have to prove their evidence in court also. If that offends some, so be it, but it likely would not offend if people thought it through to what it could reallly mean to them if police did NOT have to prove their case. This wouldn't be Canada if we lived in a country where everything stated and investigated by police was considered 'fact'. Surely we wouldn't want to live in *that* country. MOO.

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.

 

[deugirtni]

Could you please provide a link to when "their bodies were removed from the crime scene"? I seem to have missed that part, and of course, that would change EVERYTHING I have been saying. Thank you.

ETA: Dohhh, sorry otto, I rushed and this is wrong. I thought you were saying that LE had removed their bodies from the crime scene, but clearly you meant, the murderer removed their bodies. Sorry about that.

Police have told us that three people were murdered in SW Calgary, that their bodies were removed from the crime scene, ....

 

[Sillybilly]

But if the moving company pages were not alive until September can that still happen if the FB profile owner wasn't around to like it in the first place? Can FB just like a page on your behalf?

FB won't "like" on your behalf. I'm no expert, but I do know it has to do with merging accounts (i.e. an old account with a new one) and transferring the "likes" to the new page. IOW, if when KL was alive she had "Liked" Joe Average's FB page and Joe opened a new FB account for a biz after KL was deceased, merged the accounts, then as Admin/Manager of both accounts, Joe can transfer certain settings (including old "Likes" from his other account) to the new one.

ETA: This is kind of what I'm talking about (although I'm short on more specifics):

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ages-transfer-likes+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

 

[deugirtni]

Which facts have been provided by police which we have decided to ignore?

.... If we're going to doubt that the victims are deceased, then we've decided to ignore the facts provided by police. ....

 

[deugirtni]

Forgive me for entering your conversation. Just wanted to say.. what information? Not much has been released to MSM or the public. And.. is 'information' the same as 'opinion'?

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

 

[deugirtni]

I believe it was a very small group that made the decision to call off the AA, presume the trio are dead, and charge DG with 3 murders. Chief Hanson said he was 'one of the very few people' who was privvy to seeing all of the evidence in its entirety. We were told that this decision was made after meeting with the prosecution, so likely Shane Parker was also involved in the decision. Whoever was around that table likely agreed, since Hanson said 'all'. It has been stated on WS however, that 200 officers were of the same belief in making that decision.That is not the case, since although there may have been 200 officers of one sort or another involved in one aspect of the case or another, only a small handful were entitled to know all of the details, and therefore, wouldnt' have been in a position to decide one way or another. So instead of 'one', it was 'a handful'. But we still can't be saying things like, 'well 200 officers can't be wrong'. MOO.

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.

 

[deugirtni]

Exactly winnnancy, but some WSers seem to be getting upset and offended with those who are speculating and hypothesizing. And some seem to be making judgement, even though it is not really their place, but I don't think OutOfTheDarkness is one of those WSers. MOO

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

 

[deugirtni]

That is a great thought, but it seems that some WSers are saying NO even to realistic possibilities. So we have all kinds here.

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

 

[deugirtni]

Surely, I hope!

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

 

[LoisLane]

FB won't "like" on your behalf. I'm no expert, but I do know it has to do with merging accounts (i.e. an old account with a new one) and transferring the "likes" to the new page. IOW, if when KL was alive she had "Liked" Joe Average's FB page and Joe opened a new FB account for a biz after KL was deceased, merged the accounts, then as Admin/Manager of both accounts, Joe can transfer certain settings (including old "Likes" from his other account) to the new one.

ETA: This is kind of what I'm talking about (although I'm short on more specifics):

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ages-transfer-likes+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Thanks. I will see if I can find more info. about the merging as that seems realistic. Just need to confirm if that company did the merge.

 

[Sillybilly]

But if the moving company pages were not alive until September can that still happen if the FB profile owner wasn't around to like it in the first place? Can FB just like a page on your behalf?

Also KL's FB indicates she used various apps .. one of which is called Boostedpagelike. Am tired and busy, so can't find much on it right now, but it could possibly be involved in the post-July "likes". I've read somewhere that the account holder must be logged in for the apps to work, but could be someone (i.e. LE) has access to the account, and when it is being accessed, an app updates.

 

[deugirtni]

I think about that alot. About how innocent people and families' lives become completely public through no fault of their own, through some personal tragedy. I think about how I would absolutely hate that, and what would I do (I think I would learn to turn a blind eye and not view any of it, just as I presume these families are doing. MOO). The sad fact is however, that nobody can control the world, and humans are what they are (nosey, inquisitive, curious, intelligent, thinking, justice-seeking, etc., MOO). I hope I am never in a position of public display and scrutiny. But I also realize that through some unknown personal tragedy, that is an unfortunate possibility that would go along with the tragedy itself. Many things from WS members cannot be discussed here in the open forum and I can guarantee there are a multitude of private conversations going on for that very reason.

LE has not backed up their assertions with actual facts, just a reminder. Some perhaps believe they do not need to do this. Some disagree with that. We are sleuthers here on this forum. That is what we do. If, and once an assertion becomes a fact, I assume WSers will no longer think about alternate theories on that particular aspect of this case. For example, if the bodies are found today, there will be no more talk and alternate theories that involve the possibility of the family being alive. Until then, what makes one person's theory here better than another's?

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.

 

[LoisLane]

Also KL's FB indicates she used various apps .. one of which is called Boostedpagelike. Am tired and busy, so can't find much on it right now, but it could possibly be involved in the post-July "likes". I've read somewhere that the account holder must be logged in for the apps to work, but could be someone (i.e. LE) has access to the account, and when it is being accessed, an app updates.

Thanks. I will look into that as well. Just to clarify... KL's feed or profile does not say she "liked" the page in September. I was looking at each moving company that she has listed in her friends list and when I select and scroll thru those profiles two companies show as joining FB in September. But it could all still mean the same thing.

 

[deugirtni]

How does one suppose a group investigation can be important if all *ideas* have to be backed up with links (if they are theories, where do you propose one might fetch a link?)? If at any time a WS member has even suggested a theory different from what LE have brought forth as *their* theory, even though there are few facts so far, has anyone happened to notice the accusations that come flying out? Accusations of hurting the family, of believing LE to be incompetent/stupid/liars/choose-your-negative-word, making fun of other members' theories as being so outlandish as to be considered akin to alien abduction. Do you notice how, while it appears some might welcome conversation and sleuthing, which is what we do here, at the same time, 'conditions', (such as, 'as long as speculation is based on solid fact', 'as long as speculation can be supported by verifiable links', 'as long as the theories aren't too outlandish', 'as long as nobody may *feel* that LE is being called incompetent, even when they aren't', and the list goes on) seem to be so tight that there therefore is no actual room for any discussion other than that which agrees with what LE's theories might be. It seems to me that some may be trying to close off conversation, other than what is in MSM and what has been stated by LE, and as some have said before me, if we are going to do that, then why are we here? Read the news if that is all that is wanted here. This is not guaranteed to be a place where one can come to chat with only people who agree with their own points of view. MOO

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.

 

[deugirtni]

tweed, thank you for finding that. I *knew* I had read that somewhere, and I searched for it again and could not find it ANYWHERE. (What s up with THAT??). When another member suggested that 'most' accused murderers elect trial by judge alone, I could not think of one case, and this reading came to mind.. why is this so difficult to find. Is this backed up somewhere on the Canada Justice website?

"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/

 

[deugirtni]

For what it's worth (which is nothing), that seems very strange. I am not sure, and I think someone may have already posted this possibility, if a FB profile quits FB, and then later comes back... does it come back with all of its 'likes'? I happen to think so, only because.. in the past I have become fed up with FB and 'quit', only to later end up returning for one reason or another, and when I returned, I still had all of my 'friends' intact. This, of course, is comparing a 'personal' FB account to a 'business' profile page or whatever, so it may not be the same. If a business profile quits, comes back, and keeps all of its previous 'likes', I am not sure how it would show up as far as the 'date' of when the particular person 'liked' that business profile though... would it be the original date, or the date the company re-established their FB account? If it shows the company only came into existence on FB at a certain date, then I doubt if a previous 'like' would show an earlier date. But nobody is saying that company DID exist previously, so it is a mystery.
It would be interesting if someone here happened to save something from prior to Sept from KL's FB page, in order to see whether those 2 'likes' were there at a different time.
Also.. if the moving companies (which it would be strange for BOTH of them to have been previous FB members and then deleted, and then came back during same month) did exist previously, and then quit, and came back in September.. I believe their FB would come back with ALL of their previous entries (mine did), ie join date, conversations, and I believe old prior posts, etc. were still there when I re-established my account. In fact, I was shocked (not really) that FB had kept all of that info, because I thought when one DELETED their account, they were actually deleting it. Not so.
I'm sorry I am so wordy I think this is indeed strange. No idea why they would be 2 UK companies. Is it a clue? A tip? Do you remember how 'in the olden days', gangsters and other people would put little things in newspapers which would be clues for others? That was pretty clever for the times! If another family member (presumably that could only be someone very close) had access to KL's FB and 'liked' those 2 companies, then why?

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.

 

[deugirtni]

I wonder why that has never happened to me? Has that happened to anyone here?

aka "fake likes" or "zombie likes" ...

from:
http://gizmodo.com/5967716/how-are-dead-people-liking-stuff-on-facebook

<bbm>

 

[deugirtni]

I assume that, without mentioning your point in posting this news article, it is to 'prove' that it is a 'fact' that the 3 are dead. I have posted the actual statement made by the police chief. This is now a news report regarding the arrest of DG. Police cannot say they are charging DG with first-degree murder in relation to the 'presumed' deaths of DG, because that is not a valid charge. This arrest and the reporting of the arrest and charges laid does not prove that their deaths are fact. As I 'proved' earlier today with 'facts', police *have* arrested on murder charges in the past, as well as in this case, before death became fact. Please understand that I am not necessarily arguing that the trio are dead, I am merely trying to distinguish, over and over, the difference between 'presumed' and 'fact'. And it matters, as this will be one of the very important *additional* jobs the prosecution will have to do at trial (it is not that common) - prove the 3 are even dead, before they can hope for a conviction that it was someone in particular who caused their deaths.

Please note the first line in the quote you posted, wherein the keyword is 'deemed': "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 investigation."

July 15, 2014 06:53 AM

"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 investigation.

At approximately 1:30 a.m., Monday, July 14, 2014, police arrested a man on property near the Airdrie acreage currently linked to the investigation into the disappearance of three family members.

Douglas Robert GARLAND, 54, of Airdrie, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder in relation to the deaths of Kathryn and Alvin Liknes, and one count of second-degree murder in the death of Nathan O'Brien. He will next appear in court on Wednesday, July 16, 2014.

The Amber Alert has been discontinued. However, the bodies of the three victims have not been found and investigators continue to ask people to come forward with any information they may have. Rural property and business owners are asked to please search their properties for anything suspicious.

Anyone with information is asked to contact police at 403-266-1234, by email at [email protected], or via Crime Stoppers.

As this matter is now before the courts, no further media availabilities are expected. However, should there be any significant updates that can be released without compromising the impending court case, we will notify the media as soon as possible."

http://newsroom.calgary.ca/news/man-charged-in-missing-persons-investigation

 

[deugirtni]

I just posted that article because that is where I posted the 'quote' from which I quoted in my post. There are many articles on the butterfly effect. In my opinion, it is relevant in this case, because if this case is being built, 'piece by piece by piece by piece', to make a 'whole', then what if one or more of those little 'pieces' turns out to be wrong? What effect would that particular piece being omitted, have on the end result? Interesting indeed.

Very, very interesting article! The Law of Cause and Effect in action.