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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #441
Is there another 'liked' company now? I do not recall seeing 'Howells & Son' on there yesterday. (The page apparently born in January 2014 and also another UK business)

Website http://www.howells-removals.com

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.
 
  • #442
Just for information, this seems to be an informative/interesting link regarding how to buy property in Mexico. There are 2 different ways, either of which could have been used by the L's to purchase their Mexican condo in conjunction (or not) with a member of the G family also enjoying part ownership. If owned by a 'corporation', it must be a Mexican corporation, which can be set up.

http://www.investmentpropertiesmexico.com/buying-safely#1
 
  • #443
I am merely refuting some postsmade by WS members stating that the trio has already been declared dead and that it is already a fact they are dead, because it just isn't fact yet.

Just because it isn't fact yet that the trio is dead, does not mean they are NOT dead and that it has to therefore be something else. I am merely pointing out that opinion, belief, wishful thinking, prayer, surmisal, rumor, hearsay, etc., should not be stated as fact. And since some things are in fact NOT yet fact, that leaves a door open, however small some feel it to be, to speculate alternate theories and conclusions, and WS members should not be chastised for sleuthing other potential alternate theories and conclusions until such time as they are opposing actual fact.

When police stated that, given the arrest, no significant updates could be released until trial without compromising the impending court case, how did police describe the victims: dead, or alive? Where is the problem in accepting that statement ... or is there nothing left to debate except the police statement where they describe the "deaths of Kathryn and Alvin Liknes", and the "death of Nathan O'Brien".
 
  • #444
Is there another 'liked' company now? I do not recall seeing 'Howells & Son' on there yesterday. (The page apparently born in January 2014 and also another UK business)

Website http://www.howells-removals.com

Yes, that link has been there for a while. I have a list of the pages that are not individuals or individuals related to moving companies or other businesses. I wish I had something to reference back too to see any changes.
 
  • #445
When police stated that, given the arrest, no significant updates could be released until trial without compromising the impending court case, how did police describe the victims: dead, or alive? Where is the problem in accepting that statement ... or is there nothing left to debate except the police statement where they describe the "deaths of Kathryn and Alvin Liknes", and the "death of Nathan O'Brien".

I think the problem may be that there are no bodies. We have the ritual of funerals in order to get closure on a person's death. Many funerals are open-casket, at least at some point in the service. That is for the simple reason that our minds have difficulty in accepting that the person is actually gone. Why would that be different in this case? We don't necessarily have to 'see' the bodies, but knowing that they have been found would definitely dispel the thought that perhaps they aren't dead. I am of the opinion that to think along these lines is actually quite normal in human nature. It's not an anomaly, that's for sure. JMO
 
  • #446
I wonder why that has never happened to me? Has that happened to anyone here?

I have heard of this but I thought it was only for "likes" on posts or article that show up in a facebook friends newsfeed. The likes on KL's page are different. They are "likes" on other facebook pages by businesses.

I don't think the two are the same. Neither has happened to me.
 
  • #447
Is there another 'liked' company now? I do not recall seeing 'Howells & Son' on there yesterday. (The page apparently born in January 2014 and also another UK business)

Website http://www.howells-removals.com

I saw this like when I looked into the moving companies on Tuesday I think it was. I remember googling the company.
 
  • #448
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?

I posted links to other Alberta "judge alone" cases in one of the earlier threads. Here's another one which was not previously posted:

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=e0acd766-daaf-422e-bb49-364fd8132ad7

Alberta: Girl pleads not guilty to killing family of 3

A 12-year-old girl accused of first-degree murder in the gruesome triple slaying of a Medicine Hat family has pleaded not guilty and has elected trial by judge alone
 
  • #449
  • #450
I posted links to other Alberta "judge alone" cases in one of the earlier threads. Here's another one which was not previously posted:

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=e0acd766-daaf-422e-bb49-364fd8132ad7

There was some confusion because Alberta is the only province where murderers can elect to be tried by Judge lone without the approval/agreement of the crown. It is their right in Alberta, but not in any other Province. When looking at law documents for Ontario, where the exception for Alberta is not mentioned, it's possible to get the impression that it is not only difficult, but uncommon (neither of which are true) for murderers to be tried by judge along in Alberta.
 
  • #451
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?
BBM

[modsnip]

In Alberta (the above link is from an Ontario lawyer) even murder suspects can elect to be tried by Judge alone and they do not need consent of the Crown. Therefore, it is very common in Calgary for murder suspects to elect to be tried by Judge alone.

Here it is:

"Except in Alberta, an accused charged with murder must, under ss. 427, 429 and 430 of the Criminal Code, be tried by a judge and jury."

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/equality/r_turpin.html

More from the same article:

"The impugned provisions of the Code treated the appellants and those charged with the offences listed in s. 427 more harshly than those charged with the same offences in the province of Alberta who, because of s. 430, have an opportunity to be tried by judge alone if they deem this to be to their advantage. However, while the distinction created by s. 430 resulted in a violation of appellants' rights to equality before the law, such distinction was not discriminatory in its purpose or effect and, therefore, did not violate s. 15 of the Charter. Persons resident outside Alberta and charged with s. 427 offences outside Alberta do not constitute a (page 1299) disadvantaged group in Canadian society within the contemplation of s. 15."
 
  • #452
I think the problem may be that there are no bodies. We have the ritual of funerals in order to get closure on a person's death. Many funerals are open-casket, at least at some point in the service. That is for the simple reason that our minds have difficulty in accepting that the person is actually gone. Why would that be different in this case? We don't necessarily have to 'see' the bodies, but knowing that they have been found would definitely dispel the thought that perhaps they aren't dead. I am of the opinion that to think along these lines is actually quite normal in human nature. It's not an anomaly, that's for sure. JMO

This statement is from the City of Calgary website, which includes the Calgary Police Service:

"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."

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

There is no ambiguity.

Perhaps it's true that some people have to see everything with their own eyes before they believe it's true. For example, some people believe that the world is flat and that landing on the moon was a hoax simply because they haven't seen it with their own eyes. Others believe that the world is round and that man has landed on the moon even though they haven't seen it with their own eyes.
 
  • #453
I wonder why that has never happened to me? Has that happened to anyone here?

I have heard of something like this, not sure it's the same. FB has gotten extremely sly and sneaky in ways to incorporate advertising to keep FB free to users, so I wouldn't put it past FB to be tricky like this.

I have heard of people liking pages when they didn't actually like them and being PO'd about it BUT I can't remember how this actually happens. I'll try to find out though (my hubby might remember) and let you guys know.
 
  • #454
I have heard of this but I thought it was only for "likes" on posts or article that show up in a facebook friends newsfeed. The likes on KL's page are different. They are "likes" on other facebook pages by businesses.

I don't think the two are the same. Neither has happened to me.

Oh yes, I remember this also - what you said!

This was another tricky thing FB started doing...maybe this was what I was thinking of - if you like an article, it will somehow have you like their page or product or something. It's driving me crazy, that I can't remember...
 
  • #455
This statement is from the City of Calgary website, which includes the Calgary Police Service:

"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."

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

There is no ambiguity.

Perhaps it's true that some people have to see everything with their own eyes before they believe it's true. For example, some people believe that the world is flat and that landing on the moon was a hoax simply because they haven't seen it with their own eyes. Others believe that the world is round and that man has landed on the moon even though they haven't seen it with their own eyes.

Lol...all good points Otto. :) And they may still believe the world is flat and that no man has landed on the moon if there weren't photos...and satellite views of the planet...those theories have been accepted because they have been "seen". "I'll believe it when I see it" is a common phrase for a reason...not necessarily one that I live by, but nonetheless, a standard by which a lot of people live.

In this case, they've been presumed dead based on evidence collected. Lots of things are presumed...not necessarily always correctly. I'm with the others that are waiting to see what's presented at the trial. Until then, it makes sense to assume they are deceased and that everything we've been told is correct. If it's not, that will turn up at the trial. If that happens, I will be only half as surprised as some others.
 
  • #456
Lol...all good points Otto. :) And they may still believe the world is flat and that no man has landed on the moon if there weren't photos...and satellite views of the planet...those theories have been accepted because they have been "seen". "I'll believe it when I see it" is a common phrase for a reason...not necessarily one that I live by, but nonetheless, a standard by which a lot of people live.

In this case, they've been presumed dead based on evidence collected. Lots of things are presumed...not necessarily always correctly. I'm with the others that are waiting to see what's presented at the trial. Until then, it makes sense to assume they are deceased and that everything we've been told is correct. If it's not, that will turn up at the trial. If that happens, I will be only half as surprised as some others.

It takes about 30 seconds to find statements like this on the internet news because it is published all over the place that the family is confirmed deceased:

Christie Blatchford | July 14, 2014
“Until we had evidence that absolutely convinced all of us that the family was deadChief Hanson said, “we were going to move the investigation based on the smallest hope.”

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...us-secrecy-over-arrest-in-nathan-obrien-case/
 
  • #457
How police describe the victims does not make it a fact, and that is my only point, yet some people on this forum continue to incorrectly insist that it is indeed a proven, irrefutable fact. The problem for me in accepting such a statement is that I personally, as well as many other Canadians, require information as profound as that, to be fact, before embracing it as fact. It is that simple.

When police stated that, given the arrest, no significant updates could be released until trial without compromising the impending court case, how did police describe the victims: dead, or alive? Where is the problem in accepting that statement ... or is there nothing left to debate except the police statement where they describe the "deaths of Kathryn and Alvin Liknes", and the "death of Nathan O'Brien".
 
  • #458
How police describe the victims does not make it a fact, and that is my only point, yet some people on this forum continue to incorrectly insist that it is indeed a proven, irrefutable fact. The problem for me in accepting such a statement is that I personally, as well as many other Canadians, require information as profound as that, to be fact, before embracing it as fact. It is that simple.
What is the alternative theory then? Where are they? Why would they put their daughter and other grandchildren through this? Is there anything, anywhere that disproves the Chief's statement?
 
  • #459
How police describe the victims does not make it a fact, and that is my only point, yet some people on this forum continue to incorrectly insist that it is indeed a proven, irrefutable fact. The problem for me in accepting such a statement is that I personally, as well as many other Canadians, require information as profound as that, to be fact, before embracing it as fact. It is that simple.

It is a proven fact that the victims are deceased. Police have stated that they have evidence that the victims are deceased, so it comes down to whether people want to believe the chief of police of not. Generally speaking, Canadians believe the police. Sometimes people that have had bad experiences with police officers cast aspersions, but that is not the norm.
 
  • #460
otto, thank you for responding to my post. I just wanted to clarify that when I said, 'what's up with THAT?', I meant... although I knew I had read somewhere the information contained in the link I had referenced which was provided by another member, and had subsequently searched for same, I was unable to find it ANYwhere.. just lately finding some things really hidden within google, whereas previously it seemed less often that I was finding that to be true.

BBM

This is "what's up with that":

In Alberta (the above link is from an Ontario lawyer) even murder suspects can elect to be tried by Judge alone and they do not need consent of the Crown. Therefore, it is very common in Calgary for murder suspects to elect to be tried by Judge alone.

Here it is:

"Except in Alberta, an accused charged with murder must, under ss. 427, 429 and 430 of the Criminal Code, be tried by a judge and jury."

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/equality/r_turpin.html

More from the same article:

"The impugned provisions of the Code treated the appellants and those charged with the offences listed in s. 427 more harshly than those charged with the same offences in the province of Alberta who, because of s. 430, have an opportunity to be tried by judge alone if they deem this to be to their advantage. However, while the distinction created by s. 430 resulted in a violation of appellants' rights to equality before the law, such distinction was not discriminatory in its purpose or effect and, therefore, did not violate s. 15 of the Charter. Persons resident outside Alberta and charged with s. 427 offences outside Alberta do not constitute a (page 1299) disadvantaged group in Canadian society within the contemplation of s. 15."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
61
Guests online
1,143
Total visitors
1,204

Forum statistics

Threads
632,420
Messages
18,626,322
Members
243,147
Latest member
tibboi
Back
Top