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

[news.talk]

... and now upon reflection of the Vader case, and several arguments made by my better half... how did he get charged without the ME having anything to confirm death? Did ME sign the certificate? Was he charged without a death certificate? Were the charges stayed because perhaps they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victims are deceased?

Not being well versed on the Vader case, I cannot comment on the how's and why's. Putting a pin in this for now...

This is not the first case of homicide without the bodies in Calgary.

"A Calgary judge in 1987 found Al Dolejs guilty of two counts of second-degree murder for killing his 12-year-old son Paul and 10-year-old daughter Gabi. Their bodies were not located until months after Dolejs was sentenced to life."

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/cal...-could-be-prosecuted-without-bodies-1.2706996

From the same article - snipped:

Though such cases are unusual, the absence of victims' bodies does not preclude a murder charge in Canada. A prosecution can still build a solid case, retired Toronto homicide detective Dave Perry said.

"It's not really about not having a body; it's about how much evidence do they have without a body," he said.

"You don't need the body for a conviction, but every case you work on, of course you want to get everything possible in terms of evidence."

"There have been successful prosecutions of people where the body was never found," Toronto criminal defence lawyer Michael Lacy said.

"If you think about it, that makes sense that you shouldn't necessarily need a body. Otherwise, everybody who's going to get away with murder would just make sure they dispose of a body, in acid or whatever."

Proving death is among the essential elements in the offence of murder.

"But I wouldn't want to suggest that that makes this a very difficult prosecution. It doesn't," Lacy said. "It really depends on other circumstances —*a motive, for example, would be an important element of the Crown's case."

.....

The two types of murder charges in this case are also telling.

First-degree murder in Canada refers to a planned and premeditated crime.

"They have evidence an individual went to that house for the purposes of committing that crime," Holmgren said. "For the second-degree murder charge, the individual might not have known there was a little boy in this house, and didn't have the premeditated component to have planned that murder, but in the commission of committing the alleged [planned] crimes, the person is presumed to have also murdered the little boy."

.....

IMHO, the Medical Examiner is a 'silent partner' that never receives much press coverage, yet is the determining factor in these declarations. The ME is a publicly paid employee entrusted to carry out such determinations under the 'fatalities Inquiry Act' and as such:

"When a death occurs suddenly or it cannot be explained, the OCME conducts an investigation, under the authority of the Fatality Inquiries Act.

We hold each of our investigations to determine:

who died, where they died, when they died, why they died, how they died..."

http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/fatality/ocme/Pages/default.aspx

Of course, the defense has every right to question, cross-examine and solicit rebuttal expert witnesses. There are plenty of those willing to speak... for a hefty fee -

Janne Holmgren, an associate professor in the Department of Justice Studies at Calgary's Mount Royal University says, "based on that evidence, they would have been able to say that if those people didn't receive that urgent medical care, somebody died..."

"We always say the body speaks volumes. The dead speak volumes,"

 

[news.talk]

Since you reposted the moderator's post, why is it so difficult for some to allow opposing views? I'm not really sure why you are posting this link of CP's. I do not believe that I have been disrespectful of someone else's opinion. I only ask that opinion be stated as opinion and not as fact. Thank you. BBM.

Like I stated - it wasn't directed at you. It was the content that stated that the victim's were "declared officially deceased".

 

[deugirtni]

How could any half get any better than you? Can you provide a link?

... and now upon reflection of the Vader case, and several arguments made by my better half... how did he get charged without the ME having anything to confirm death? Did ME sign the certificate? Was he charged without a death certificate? Were the charges stayed because perhaps they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victims are deceased?

 

[news.talk]

I think that to have an alternate theory is not to say that Chief Hanson is untrustworthy, dishonest, discredited, a liar, incompetent, stupid, or any other number of derogatory labels that have been thrown at those who reserve judgement. One thing does not equal the other thing. It feels to me like these accusations are being thrown around so that those who are considering alternate theories will stop speaking, because some have become so personally and emotionally charged in this case that they cannot accept opposing views. That is my own opinion of why these accusations are being tossed about constantly on this thread. Another seeming tactic is declaring opinions as truths, when they are no such thing. I see all of that as being attempts at silencing those who are entertaining other potential possibilities, even though those people are perfect entitled to do so since there is an absence of facts in this case. MOO.

I for one would never wish to silence anyone... Simply stating one side of the discussion.

 

[deugirtni]

I wonder if the CCTV cameras caught the face at all? It appears to show the back of the truck.. the box.. but yet there are no bodies. At least one poster here has made statements claiming that the bodies were seen by police on camera (covered up of course by the household bedding, which of course would be easily recognizable) in the back of the truck, travelling away from the L property. I suppose anything is possible if we all keep an open mind.

I wonder if the CPS were able to utilize their new facial recognition software.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/technology...hnology-is-creeping-into-daily-life-1.2824623

Even though they just 'officially' rolled out this technology, I have heard that they have been using it for a while. From what I gather about this tech, they would be able to take the suspect's drivers license and match it with the person seen on CCTV driving the truck. I know they have other high tech gadgets in order to clean up the resolution and enhance the footage...

 

[news.talk]

He's trustworthy. I believe he believes it, and knows more than I do. If you took a poll as to how many people absolutely believed they are alive... you'd get 0%... and if anyone came on here to say they were absolutely alive as fact, we'd all make the same arguments... you can't say they are alive as fact because you have not seen the evidence, and if you have seen the evidence, then I would like to know what it is too so I can judge for myself.

His opinion of his own ability to be trustworthy is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that he is a highly decorated officer that has a career in policing that has been above reproach. He has not committed any acts that suggest otherwise. We pay him to make these decisions. If he has made poor decisions in this regard, he shouldn't continued to hold the office of Chief.

 

[LoisLane]

His opinion of his own ability to be trustworthy is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that he is a highly decorated officer that has a career in policing that has been above reproach. He has not committed any acts that suggest otherwise. We pay him to make these decisions. If he has made poor decisions in this regard, he shouldn't continued to hold the office of Chief.

I wonder what happened to the Chief in the Vader case.

 

[deugirtni]

How do you propose a medical examiner would be able to declare death without bodies, I mean, realistically? In my humble opinion, your theory is as outlandish as some of the other theories which I believe you complain about. No offence, just MOO.

Not being well versed on the Vader case, I cannot comment on the how's and why's. Putting a pin in this for now...

This is not the first case of homicide without the bodies in Calgary.



From the same article - snipped:







.....

The two types of murder charges in this case are also telling.



.....

IMHO, the Medical Examiner is a 'silent partner' that never receives much press coverage, yet is the determining factor in these declarations. The ME is a publicly paid employee entrusted to carry out such determinations under the 'fatalities Inquiry Act' and as such:



Of course, the defense has every right to question, cross-examine and solicit rebuttal expert witnesses. There are plenty of those willing to speak... for a hefty fee -

 

[news.talk]

I wonder what happened to the Chief in the Vader case.

It was the RCMP, not municipal...

Besides, the mistrial was declared when a judge discovered he was not provided with two witness statements by the Crown.

 

[news.talk]

How do you propose a medical examiner would be able to declare death without bodies, I mean, realistically? In my humble opinion, your theory is as outlandish as some of the other theories which I believe you complain about. No offence, just MOO.

From the crime scene (s):

Loss of blood in the amount life cannot be sustained...

Human organ tissue...

Chemical changes in body tissue or blood recovered...

*Death is likely to result in very extensive biochemical changes in all body tissues due to lack of circulating oxygen, altered enzymatic reactions, cellular degradation, and cessation of anabolic production of metabolites.*

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082011

 

[deugirtni]

In my humble opinion, it *feels* like attempts to silence. Re-read your posts. Why go on about how this equals that and therefore we should get the guy out of his office. To me, that is an attempt to make sleuthers open to alternate theories feel guilty that they are waiting on 'evidence' before agreeing with LE's theory, and to try to silence them in shame. This happens each time someone speaks of the possibility of the trio possibly being alive somewhere. Or each time anyone questions anything that police say at all, even though police have presented little fact or evidence. Personally, and even so, I think Chief Hanson is pretty cool, but those who wish to theorize and sleuth have every right to keep an open view until we hear evidence. It is a two-edged sword when police remain so silent in a case such as this. Obviously they do not want to give up their case and they do not want to answer even basic questions, but at the same time, that leaves people to theorize, such as some members on here have 'theorized' (even though presenting as fact) their version of even the police theory.

I for one would never wish to silence anyone... Simply stating one side of the discussion.

 

[news.talk]

In my humble opinion, it *feels* like attempts to silence. Re-read your posts. Why go on about how this equals that and therefore we should get the guy out of his office. To me, that is an attempt to make sleuthers open to alternate theories feel guilty that they are waiting on 'evidence' before agreeing with LE's theory, and to try to silence them in shame. This happens each time someone speaks of the possibility of the trio possibly being alive somewhere. Or each time anyone questions anything that police say at all, even though police have presented little fact or evidence. Personally, and even so, I think Chief Hanson is pretty cool, but those who wish to theorize and sleuth have every right to keep an open view until we hear evidence. It is a two-edged sword when police remain so silent in a case such as this. Obviously they do not want to give up their case and they do not want to answer even basic questions, but at the same time, that leaves people to theorize, such as some members on here have 'theorized' (even though presenting as fact) their version of even the police theory.

I cannot help how someone "feels" but as I have repeatedly stated, that is not *my* intent. Moving on..

It is important to note, once a suspect is charged, LE cannot *legally* speak about the case or the evidence against the suspects. They are not being evasive - they are following the law. Given that they announced an arrest at the same presser in which they declared that the victims were deceased, the *law* gave them absolutely zero room to discuss the case.

 

[deugirtni]

But do you know that any of that really happened? Any proof to state that any of this was found? Any proof that the ME declared anything? Any proof there is already a death certificate? Or are you theorizing? Just as some alternate theorists are theorizing about different possibilities? Once again, all I ask is that if anyone on here makes a statement which is not a fact, it should also state MOO, or any number of other notes to ensure readers understand it is not fact.

From the crime scene (s):

Loss of blood in the amount life cannot be sustained...

Human organ tissue...

Chemical changes in body tissue or blood recovered...

*Death is likely to result in very extensive biochemical changes in all body tissues due to lack of circulating oxygen, altered enzymatic reactions, cellular degradation, and cessation of anabolic production of metabolites.*

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082011

 

[deugirtni]

Some of us here have different thoughts on the whys and wherefores. And as a side note, I completely agree that we cannot be responsible for others' feelings, ie those who equate keeping an open mind and discussing alternate theories with bashing police. Fair is fair.

I cannot help how someone "feels" but as I have repeatedly stated, that is not *my* intent. Moving on..

It is important to note, once a suspect is charged, LE cannot *legally* speak about the case or the evidence against the suspects. They are not being evasive - they are following the law. Given that they announced an arrest at the same presser in which they declared that the victims were deceased, the *law* gave them absolutely zero room to discuss the case.

 

[news.talk]

But do you know that any of that really happened? Any proof to state that any of this was found? Any proof that the ME declared anything? Any proof there is already a death certificate? Or are you theorizing? Just as some alternate theorists are theorizing about different possibilities? Once again, all I ask is that if anyone on here makes a statement which is not a fact, it should also state MOO, or any number of other notes to ensure readers understand it is not fact.

The ME was called to the Liknes family home in the very first day. The presence of the ME was well noted in MSM.

 

[deugirtni]

That is not what I asked.

The ME was called to the Liknes family home in the very first day. The presence of the ME was well noted in MSM.

 

[otto]

... 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."

Sure, that's when the Judge will agree that there is evidence that the victims are deceased.

 

[otto]

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.

BBM
That's a funny word, but not appropriate.

Per Schrodinger's Cat, they are either alive or dead. Police have evidence that they are dead. Some don't want to believe that. If we believe that they are alive, then it follows (that P>Q thing)that the grandparents kidnapped the grandchild and escaped from the box. That's plain and simple logic ... nothing more, nothing less.

 

[otto]

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.

It's a fact. Police have stated that they have evidence that the family is dead.

“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/

 

[otto]

I find this response to be unacceptable because it was stated that most murderers choose trial by judge alone, and I merely asked for that statement to be backed up, since that statement was stated as fact and not as opinion. In my humble opinion, most murder trials are publicized and therefore it should not be difficult for a person stating what appears to be a fact, to back up the statement with fact. [modsnip].

I posted an opinion stating that many or most (don't remember which word I used in each of the several remarks) murderers elect to be tried by Judge alone. That was met with links to Ontario law, which of course contradicted my statements, and which is different than Alberta law. I then posted links proving the fact that there are no conditions attached to murderers electing to be tried by Judge alone in Alberta. I posted that twice because people skipped over it, preferring to believe the law of Ontario rather than the law of Alberta. So now we know that if it's advantageous to the murderer, he/she can elect to be tried by Judge alone in Alberta - it's nothing more than a simple choice. This is not allowed in other provinces ... and it's not because that option disadvantages the accused.

I know that many murderers elect to be tried by Judge alone in Calgary because I've taken a great interest in criminal justice for the last 20 years ... but don't take my word for it, take a trip to the courthouse and request transcripts.