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

[Wondergirl]

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.

Now I remember why I always hated math. Lol. Just kidding [emoji24]

 

[winnnancy]

Please note that 'convinced' is not 'fact'. Thank you.

Is this not just a figure of speech? While it may be dangerous to "interpret" statements, I see this as a statement made by a man who had in fact held out hope for as long as possible and now is almost reluctantly stating that he is " now convinced"

 

[news.talk]

Good point, I have heard that for the purpose of consumption( in Meat plants) the want a quick, unexpected slaughter because otherwise, stress hormones result in meat being tough.
I haven't read the link above but it seems to me that blood can be tested for these chemicals. I'll research this and post links as I find them...

It is known that different cells of body die at different times after somatic death. The cellular death arises by an irreversible change in the internal environment of body consequent to death. This irreversible change in the internal environment is due to non-availability of oxygen, accumulation of carbon dioxide, pH change and accumulation of toxic products (1).

Cells that are likely to be affected in blood by any irreversible altered internal environment are the normal blood cells i.e. red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. Considering the cellular change occurring in WBCs, degenerative changes were early identified in monocytes and eosinophils, intermediate in neutrophils and late in lymphocytes.*


http://www.indmedica.com/journals.php?journalid=9&issueid=96&articleid=1307&action=article

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Is this not just a figure of speech? While it may be dangerous to "interpret" statements, I see this as a statement made by a man who had in fact held out hope for as long as possible and now is almost reluctantly stating that he is " now convinced"

As frustrating as this is, it is a very clear example of why LE is not allowed to discuss the evidence publicly. Their stature or power in society creates a bias toward 'being the absolute truth' in many people.

No one is even claiming he's wrong or that they are alive. The simple claim that I'll wait to see the evidence myself is causing people to defend it as unquestionable truth. Fair trial?

 

[news.talk]

As frustrating as this is, it is a very clear example of why LE is not allowed to discuss the evidence publicly. Their stature or power in society creates a bias toward 'being the absolute truth' in many people.

No one is even claiming he's wrong or that they are alive. The simple claim that I'll wait to see the evidence myself is causing people to defend it as unquestionable truth.

I agree with you... Don't tell anyone!

It is perfectly reasonable to want to see or hear the evidence before accepting something as a fact. What is not reasonable however, is the assertion that there is a ruse being perpetrated by high levels of LE, essentially screwing over an innocent man, in an effort to catch an accomplice or hide the fact that these people are on the lam. In suggesting such, it is an affront to said people's reputations.

Put the flogger away and do the dishes.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I agree with you... Don't tell anyone!

It is perfectly reasonable to want to see or hear the evidence before accepting something as a fact. What is not reasonable however, is the assertion that there is a ruse being perpetrated by high levels of LE, essentially screwing over an innocent man, in an effort to catch an accomplice or hide the fact that these people are on the lam. In suggesting such, it is an affront to said people's reputations.

Did anyone actually accuse LE of that, or is it all assumptions made by those offended? I know I'll be on the couch tonight for this, but you're beginning to sound like A Bro ken record.

The Chief of Police is a wonderful, and honest man. I look forward to hearing the evidence.

 

[news.talk]

Did anyone actually accuse LE of that, or is it all assumptions made by those offended? I know I'll be on the couch tonight for this, but you're beginning to sound like A Bro ken record.

The Chief of Police is a wonderful, and honest man. I look forward to hearing the evidence.

Don't be accusing me of that my sweetness... Yes. Such shenanigans have been suggested. You will have to earn your way off the couch this time mister.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Aren't we able to also see which apps a person has on their FB? You can see everything else, so why not see those too? I wonder if those apps are on KL's FB? I find it odd that if someone does have access to KL's FB account, why haven't they made it private, ie all the posts, friends, photos, etc. That is assuming the family doesn't want to just shut it down for whatever reason.

Privacy settings are no longer 'all or nothing' on FB like it used to be. I used to be able to make ALL my photo albums private in one click - period. Now, you have to change the privacy on *each* album, tricky.... If one isn't careful, tons of info can easily become public.

Same thing with most timeline/news feed posts, photos and other content. So ALL of KL's info might not be public for us to see, only some. So she either forgot to change some of her stuff to private or chose them to be public (for marketing purposes maybe).

We might not be able to see her ALL her app info. We can obviously see the Puzzles game app content though, so Puzzles app might be public, another app and it's info might be private for her friends to see only.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Let us hope that LE has found a chain of videos and they've been able to lace them together!!

Yes, if they followed the truck's 'route' of sorts, the trail went cold somewhere and they probably had pockets of time that were untraceable. If we and they only knew where that truck went, we might have more answers.

 

[Sillybilly]

Don't know if this link will work (you may have to log in), but if you go to KL's FB page and type in "Apps Kathryn Liknes uses" in the FB search field, it will bring up the apps. I don't know if there are others that aren't publicly viewable:

https://www.facebook.com/search/622636864/apps-used

That's where you'll see the "Boostedpagelike" app that she used and I mentioned before.

 

[Sillybilly]

Is there anything anywhere that states most criminals have a judge rather than a jury trial?

<rsbm>

Tricia, sorry to jump off your short post with such a long, convoluted response.

Not &#8220;most&#8221; in Canada, but not uncommon in Alberta where it is permitted by law. We had been discussing the specifics that relate to Alberta but not all of Canada. Alberta legislation permits an accused to elect trial by judge-alone and links have previously been provided wrt recent murder cases in Alberta where the accused has elected to do so.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ial-in-edmonton-2/+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=e0acd766-daaf-422e-bb49-364fd8132ad7
(this one ^^ might be SOP in Canada given the accused was a minor)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...pleads-not-guilty/+&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...twin/+&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca#.VGZedI10yic


From the Supreme Court Law Review (R. v Turpin)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...8_Roach.Wilson.pdf+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Rather she focused on the fact that Turpin would have had more freedom if she had been tried in Alberta where judge-alone trials were possible in murder cases.

From Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada (iirc, otto posted this one previously):

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...n/item/458/index.do+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

&#8220;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&#8221; &#8230; and

Do ss. 429 and 430 of the Criminal Code (as they read in May, 1985) requiring in Ontario in 1985 a jury trial in murder cases, but permitting in Alberta in 1985 a non-jury murder trial, infringe or deny the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The right to elect a judge-alone trial in Alberta only was due to the province at one time being considered a &#8220;disadvantaged group&#8221; for some reason (not sure if due to geographic or economic factors):


From:
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4132&context=lcp

The Criminal Code of Canada contained an odd provision, repealed before the ruling, that permitted a certain category of accused persons to elect trial by judge without jury in Alberta, but not elsewhere in the country.

From R. v Turpin (Turpin charged with murder in Ontario but requesting trial by judge alone because if Turpin lived in Alberta, she would have that right):

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...n/item/458/index.do+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Persons resident outside Alberta and charged with s. 427 &#61582; offences outside Alberta do not constitute a disadvantaged group in Canadian society within the contemplation of s. 15

From:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...n/item/458/index.do+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

He also held that ss. 427, 428 and 429 of the Criminal Code violated s. 15 of the Charter because s. 430 gave individuals charged with the same offence in Alberta an election to be tried by a judge alone

(Note: some of the CCC section numbers have changed since the R. v Turpin appeal)

 

[otto]

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?

In Canada, the rights of the accused are respected, so police do not discuss the details of the case after an arrest and prior to trial. That is the best way to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected.

What is a reason that police should tell the public about the evidence that was gathered during a murder investigation? Curiosity is obviously not a reason for police to potentially compromise the rights of the accused, but what is?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Don't be accusing me of that my sweetness... Yes. Such shenanigans have been suggested. You will have to earn your way off the couch this time mister.

Most of what I have read in the unrealistic category, were people applying movie and tv storylines to real life unsuccessfully. They are refuted, and everyone agrees that LE does a good job in the face of adversity and in difficult situations.

I do recall one accusation though... someone had the nerve to cast aspersions at young reporters and how they just don't care about the quality and accuracy of their reports. That was a rough day. Reputations of young journalists everywhere were ruined...and journalism as a profession was respected no more.

I won't name names, but does blackmail get me off the couch?

 

[news.talk]

In Canada, the rights of the accused are respected, so police do not discuss the details of the case after an arrest and prior to trial. That is the best way to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected.

What is a reason that police should tell the public about the evidence that was gathered during a murder investigation? Curiosity is obviously not a reason for police to potentially compromise the rights of the accused, but what is?

It is not just LE that makes me glad I live in Canada. News reporters, for the most part, are respectful of the justice process. I literally cringe when Nancy Grace haunts my TV.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Don't know if this link will work (you may have to log in), but if you go to KL's FB page and type in "Apps Kathryn Liknes uses" in the FB search field, it will bring up the apps. I don't know if there are others that aren't publicly viewable:

https://www.facebook.com/search/622636864/apps-used

That's where you'll see the "Boostedpagelike" app that she used and I mentioned before.

Thanks sillybilly!

Wow, she used a lot of apps. So that possibly tells me, we (the public) aren't seeing all her FB newsfeed. I'd almost think we'd see more app activity if we saw it all considering the amount of apps she uses.

 

[otto]

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.

BBM

No problem. The Chief of Police said that until they had evidence that the victims were dead, they had hope. On July 14, they had evidence and there was no longer any hope that the victims were alive:

"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]

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

Police have evidence that the victims were murdered.

Are we doubting the police simply because we want to? ... so when the police state that they have evidence that the three victims are dead, we're not going to believe it because ... why ... why aren't we going to believe the police? Do we have to see that evidence with our own eyes before we believe it?

I suppose that means that the prisons really are full of innocent people because we sure haven't seen any evidence that they are guilty ... all we know is that police had evidence.

 

[news.talk]

Most of what I have read in the unrealistic category, were people applying movie and tv storylines to real life unsuccessfully. They are refuted, and everyone agrees that LE does a good job in the face of adversity and in difficult situations.

I do recall one accusation though... someone had the nerve to cast aspersions at young reporters and how they just don't care about the quality and accuracy of their reports. That was a rough day. Reputations of young journalists everywhere were ruined...and journalism as a profession was respected no more.

I won't name names, but does blackmail get me off the couch?

Agreeing again... What is the world coming too.

Personally, I am hard on cub-reporter's and their inattention to facts and proof reading. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was studying to enter the field, one needed credentials and actual education. Now, some of them make me feel like they get their degree's from cereal boxes. In this case alone, there has been some major errors and inaccuracies from stories.

It *is* Friday, and as such - date night. If you propose a suitable wooing, perhaps you may earn your way back.

 

[otto]

There were 200 officers involved in this case according to news and according to your prior posts. Please provide a link wherein it states that the evidence found 'absolutely convinced everyone involved with the case that the family was dead'. I believe there were only a handful of people who made that call. Please provide proof that 'everyone involved' agreed with that determination.

And yes, the public, including ourselves, you and me, will learn the details at the trial. That is when statements may perhaps become factual, or not.

“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/

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Agreeing again... What is the world coming too.

Personally, I am hard on cub-reporter's and their inattention to facts and proof reading. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was studying to enter the field, one needed credentials and actual education. Now, some of them make me feel like they get their degree's from cereal boxes. In this case alone, there has been some major errors and inaccuracies from stories.

It *is* Friday, and as such - date night. If you propose a suitable wooing, perhaps you may earn your way back.

I thought that pointed, but cheeky reminder of the big picture, and how reputations are barely dusted, let alone dirtied and smeared here just by someone asking a question, or discussing a theory, was a winner for sure.

There was debate, counterpoint, as little finesse with the epee, and more than enough opposite to attract.