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

[LoisLane]

Why don't we start with Descartes' "I think, therefore I am", and we can build our reality from there.

I would like to post something a little more poetic...
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff0750.htm

 

[otto]

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?

Police have evidence that absolutely convinced everyone involved with the case that the family was dead. The general public will learn the details at the time of trial. That's normal for Canadians. Canadians don't complain about the fact that investigative information is withheld until trial because it is normal to wait until trial.

 

[otto]

I would like to post something a little more poetic...
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff0750.htm

US politics and law have no place in Canada ... strange, but true. In this case, the police pursued all avenues of investigation, without difference of opinion, and they still arrived at the truth.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

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?

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/1446298

There is no alternate theory. There is just a suspension of belief until it is proven.

 

[LoisLane]

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?

Eeek! Do we dare go down this path? It has been a huge argument just for the attempt alone to suggest looking for an alternate theory.

My first go at it (from this point forward) would be exploring the "Where are they?" question. Not even the professionals have been able to answer that one yet! That could be a safe starting point...possibly. I wonder how DG replied to that question. I also wonder if any other late model Ford trucks were spotted on CCTV that night.

 

[otto]

On a cold, snowy, -22C wintery day, wearing little more than Fall clothes with a light sweater, it's good to Canadian Up. The same goes for this case. To Canadian Up, in this case, would be to respect the justice system as it exists and to stop looking to the country to the South for their manner of handing criminal investigation information prior to trial. It's very entertaining to have the case tried in the media, but Canadian justice just isn't like that - thankfully. The accused will receive a fair trial where the integrity of the case is protected until the evidence is presented in a Court of Law ... Queen's Bench, in this case.

 

[otto]

Eeek! Do we dare go down this path? It has been a huge argument just for the attempt alone to suggest looking for an alternate theory.

My first go at it would be exploring the "Where are they?" question. Not even the professionals have been able to answer that one yet! That could be a safe starting point...possibly. I wonder how DG replied to that question. I also wonder if any other late model Ford trucks were spotted on CCTV that night.

Police have evidence that the victims are deceased. First we have to suspend reality and pretend that there is no evidence that the victims are deceased. Then we have to pretend that the grandparents are very evil, and that they kidnapped their daughter's first born son. That's fiction, not reality. That didn't happen, and I doubt the extended family of the victims would be amused by that theory.

 

[news.talk]

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/1446298

There is no alternate theory. There is just a suspension of belief until it is proven.

Rejecting the null hypothesis.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

On a cold, snowy, -22C wintery day, wearing little more than Fall clothes with a light sweater, it's good to Canadian Up. The same goes for this case. To Canadian Up, in this case, would be to respect the justice system as it exists and to stop looking to the country to the South for their manner of handing criminal investigation information prior to trial. It's very entertaining to have the case tried in the media, but Canadian justice just isn't like that - thankfully. The accused will receive a fair trial where the integrity of the case is protected until the evidence is presented in a Court of Law ... Queen's Bench, in this case.

... and on that warm sunny day MSM is finally able to release the details of the evidence that LE is basing their opinion on, there will probably be many that think to themselves, "Okay, I see why LE would say they were deceased."

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Rejecting the null hypothesis.

Rejecting believing everything I hear. Foil or epee?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Police have evidence that the victims are deceased. First we have to suspend reality and pretend that there is no evidence that the victims are deceased. Then we have to pretend that the grandparents are very evil, and that they kidnapped their daughter's first born son. That's fiction, not reality. That didn't happen, and I doubt the extended family of the victims would be amused by that theory.

Waiting to see the evidence is just that. The rest of your argument is putting words in people's mouths, and then scolding people for your own strange theory.

 

[deugirtni]

I do not have to see everything with my own eyes to believe it is true, but for me to accept this trio's death, I need it to be fact, and failing the ability to prove the deaths as fact, I need to hear the evidence on which that 'belief' is based. I cannot accept someone else's belief as fact at least until I have heard their argument as to why the belief is held. And even if after hearing such argument, it doesn't make sense for me, then I would require more evidence in order for same to become 'fact'. All I ask is that WS rules be adhered to and that statements presented as facts, should indeed BE facts, and if not fact, then statements should state 'IMOO', 'MOO', 'IMHO', etc.

In the statement from the City of Calgary website which includes the Calgary Police Service from which is pasted below, the poster has failed to include the 'ambiguous' part which the poster says proves there is no ambiguity. It is only missing because it was snipped out by the poster and only the portion which the poster believes proves their belief, has been left intact, which of course, is unfair. Please note that this same article was previously posted by the same poster in its entirety and at that time I pointed out the key word which the poster seems to miss. I will bold it again for clarification while I re-paste the entire 'statement' below (which is not, by the way, the official police statement regarding their belief the trio are dead, but rather, it is a news article) BBM. Please look up the definition of 'deemed', which might assist clarification.

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-...-investigation

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.

 

[deugirtni]

I'm just wondering if anyone here can say that it has in fact happened to them.

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.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/1446298

There is no alternate theory. There is just a suspension of belief until it is proven.

Read the MSM article in the link. LE thought they had enough evidence to charge Travis Vader, and proceed to trial. Something changed, be it new evidence, or a new interpretation of the evidence. It happens. In Alberta. With lots of officers on the case. Without the need to scream incompetence from the hilltops.

(Although in that case, it might be smart to have an independent review of its handling should no progress be made)

 

[LoisLane]

Police have evidence that absolutely convinced everyone involved with the case that the family was dead. The general public will learn the details at the time of trial. That's normal for Canadians. Canadians don't complain about the fact that investigative information is withheld until trial because it is normal to wait until trial.

Canadians don't complain? Hmmm. Can we complain? Is there an avenue I could explore and file a complaint that I could challenge LE to release a statement? Specifically, a statement to clarify and to confirm that they have DNA evidence that proves the three victims are certainly deceased? Why haven't they done this? How would it jeopardize the case before the courts? Have they ever made such a factual statement in other cases? Is this Calgary's first murder case without a body? Could that be why?

 

[LoisLane]

I'm just wondering if anyone here can say that it has in fact happened to them.

It hasn't happened to me. But I don't subscribe to any apps. I think I will just message the moving company and ask if the page is new or merged from a previous page.

 

[news.talk]

It hasn't happened to me. But I don't subscribe to any apps. I think I will just message the moving company and ask if the page is new or merged from a previous page.

That is too funny Lois... In this age of technology as an appendage, we often forget to simply pick up the phone. Instead we run around finding links or articles while the simplest answer evades us. [emoji12]

 

[deugirtni]

I have never been arrested, I respect the police, and I have had no bad experiences with any police. I have an acquaintance who is an officer in Hamilton with whom I get together at functions rather regularly and I love talking with him. That still does not put me in a position of believing what police say is true without being fact, and without hearing of any evidence. The world just doesn't work like that for me. Please provide a link showing that the trio are dead is a proven fact, otherwise please refrain from stating beliefs as facts, as per WS TOS. Thank you.

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.

 

[deugirtni]

Just a question. Does 'convinced' mean 'proved' to you?

con·vinced
kənˈvinst/
adjective: convinced
completely certain about something.
"she was not entirely convinced of the soundness of his motives"
firm in one's belief, especially with regard to a particular cause or issue.
"a convinced pacifist"

prove
pro͞ov/
verb: prove; 3rd person present: proves; past tense: proved; gerund or present participle: proving; past participle: proven

1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
"the concept is difficult to prove"

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 dead,” Chief 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/

 

[deugirtni]

Why do you ask for an alternate theory when I say that the victims have not been proven to be dead in response to posters who state it instead as fact? One has nothing to do with the other. I am not refuting that they are dead, they could very well be dead. All I am saying is that their deaths are simply not fact and should not be presented on here as such.

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?