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

[deugirtni]

Thank you sillybilly for coming to the original poster's rescue in providing all of that information, however, for me anyway, what I had asked for were links from the poster who stated that 'most murderers choose trial by judge alone'. It was stated as a fact and not an opinion. There was also nothing about, 'in Alberta only'. I asked for links to back the statement up. The original post when I went looking for it just now, seems to have been deleted, or I just can't find it although I searched, however there are multiple occurrences of almost the same statement, by same poster. Just asking for links to back up the statement that 'most murderers choose trial by judge alone', not that they exist. 'Not uncommon in Alberta' does not equal 'most'. Even if links could be provided that 'most murderers in Alberta choose trial by judge alone', that would suffice.

<rsbm>

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

Not “most” 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




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




The right to elect a judge-alone trial in Alberta only was due to the province at one time being considered a “disadvantaged group” 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



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



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



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

 

[otto]

Could an accelerant have been used to increase the temperature of a possible pyre? And if so, what kind of fuel?

pyre
[pahyuh r]
noun
1.
a pile or heap of wood or other combustible material.
2.
such a pile for burning a dead body, especially as part of a funeral rite, as in India.

otto beat me to the word before I could get posted!

Would an accelerant increase the temperature of the fire? If it would only make everything burn faster, then the wood - I'm assuming that wood was needed to fuel the fire for burning three bodies - would burn faster and he would need a lot more wood.

My Question Is: What chemicals would make the fire burn hotter rather than faster, and how common are those chemicals on a farm, or as household cleaning products?

I think that wood would be needed to get the fire burning in the first place, and burning flesh would probably starve the fire, so more wood would be needed. Burning hotter would shorten the time to turn the body to mostly ashes.

... and I was afraid that someone would think I mis-spelled fire with a p.

 

[deugirtni]

In a word, no. There is a rather large distinction between 'fact' and 'convinced'. I'm sure the man IS convinced, and that is fine. Unfortunately that does not translate into fact.

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"

 

[deugirtni]

Nowhere does it say I am doubting police. I do however, choose to reserve 'my' judgement of truth until such time as I hear the evidence. We are going in circles.. I respond to your questions, the same ones, over and over. I am saying simply that the trio's deaths are not fact. Not yet anyway. For now, they are deemed, suspected, believed, theorized, etc. to be dead. It has nothing to do with believing police, seeing with own eyes, martians, flat earths, or any number of other wild things you suggest, it has everything to do with 'fact' versus 'not fact'.

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.

 

[otto]

You may recall that you have already posted this as your 'proof' that the trio are dead, and I have already responded to that quote by Chief Hanson. You will notice if you read the underlined and bolded-by-you portion, he stated that the evidence 'CONVINCED' them. I am sorry to repeatedly have to inform you that that does not make it a fact. I do not know how to help you understand this difference any more than I have already tried. It is a very large distinction and I am not sure why some are not getting that.

In that quote from the Chief of Police, we learn that there is evidence that the three victims are deceased.

Whether the evidence convinced all parties, or was ignored by all parties, is irrelevant. There is evidence that the three victims are dead. That is a fact.

 

[news.talk]

Would an accelerant increase the temperature of the fire? If it would only make everything burn faster, then the wood - I'm assuming that wood was needed to fuel the fire for burning three bodies - would burn faster and he would need a lot more wood.

My Question Is: What chemicals would make the fire burn hotter rather than faster, and how common are those chemicals on a farm, or as household cleaning products?

I think that wood would be needed to get the fire burning in the first place, and burning flesh would probably starve the fire, so more wood would be needed. Burning hotter would shorten the time to turn the body to mostly ashes.

... and I was afraid that someone would think I mis-spelled fire with a p.

Fuel in Combustion

An accelerant is a liquid or solid fuel source that increases the rate of combustion. An accelerant allows the fire to burn at a higher temperature with an increased rate of spread.

http://resource.rockyview.ab.ca/t4t/forensicscience35-3cr/Module3/L1/M3L1P01-CombustionAndArson.html

From everything I have read on the subject, no matter if an accelerants is used or not, there will be bones left over. At some point, they need to be either ground up or disposed of separately.

[modsnip]

 

[otto]

IIRC, they focused a lot of time and resources at the slough. They brought Sully, the CPS cadaver K-9 at the same time.

What is puzzling, is this was all prior to an arrest yet they never stated whether they found evidence of remains. It is completely possible that they were simply keeping all information very close to the vest.

Something about the slough must be relevant. On the first day, the helicopter circled the acreage for a while, and then moved to the slough - then the footage stopped. Apparently the media helicopter was not invited to film that search area. Police tried to use some fancy boats in the slough, but I don't think they worked because of the grass and mud.

Police must have found something. I think it took 10 days to 2 weeks to test DNA. On July 14, test results confirmed that the three were deceased, and one suspect was arrested. Without stating that they found DNA evidence that proved that the three were deceased, they waited for results while keeping their suspect either in jail or under surveillance. When the results were returned they made an arrest ... the proof is either at the crime scene, or in the burning pit along the fence at the accused's parents acreage. It could be both: chopped up at the Parkhill residence, burned at the Airdrie acreage ... shovelled into the slough.

Who owns the SUV that was ditched next to the slough North of the Airdrie acreage?

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Off Topic ... sometimes there seems to be tension. From my position, I don't want to, nor mean to, offend anyone or give the impression that I am "scolding". I have a position, and perhaps debate that position unwaveringly, but I wouldn't be able to come to such a firm position without ... what was it again (thx LoisLane) ...

"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and that, I am sure, is the ultimate and sincere object of us both."
~ Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815

Tone and language are important, when some posters have certain tones it can come off as sounding harsh and sometimes rude.

I personally, don't find your postings/positions offensive or scolding-like. Now that I've read lots of your posts, I get your lingo and your style.

Same with other posters, after reading so many of everyone's posts you understand personalities/senses of humour a little bit. Some posters are better communicators than others so their posts are moderate and respectful, some people might not communicate as with a certain tone which can sound disrespectful.

And some posters just sound like Sam Elliot and play footsies with each other, and some posters are just Stan

 

[otto]

Fuel in Combustion

An accelerant is a liquid or solid fuel source that increases the rate of combustion. An accelerant allows the fire to burn at a higher temperature with an increased rate of spread.

http://resource.rockyview.ab.ca/t4t/forensicscience35-3cr/Module3/L1/M3L1P01-CombustionAndArson.html

From everything I have read on the subject, no matter if an accelerants is used or not, there will be bones left over. At some point, they need to be either ground up or disposed of separately.

(Your pm inbox is full and needs to be emptied)

My reading is the same ... that there will be bone fragments left behind. In this case, the remaining fragments would be in the fire pit, or in the slough.

 

[otto]

Tone and language are important, when some posters have certain tones it can come off as sounding harsh and sometimes rude.

I personally, don't find your postings/positions offensive or scolding-like. Now that I've read lots of your posts, I get your lingo and your style.

Same with other posters, after reading so many of everyone's posts you understand personalities/senses of humour a little bit. Some posters are better communicators than others so their posts are moderate and respectful, some people might not communicate as with a certain tone which can sound disrespectful.

And some posters just sound like Sam Elliot and play footsies with each other, and some posters are just Stan

The tone of the romance novelist and the technical writer will be very different, but that doesn't mean that they're not on the same wavelength.

... moderate and respectful (sceptical ... smiling)?

Is it "would of" or "would have"?

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I believe reports that the 43 were turned to ash in a 15 hour fire and the ashes put near a river ... something like that. They were students at a Teacher's College. Point being, if it only takes 15 hours to reduce a human body to ash, then it's possible that the evidence is in the firepit. The bodies were not vapourized with chemicals, and they were not left in a secluded field ... they were chopped up and burned. That would provide absolute, irrefutable DNA evidence that Douglas Garland murdered two grandparents and five year old Nathan O'Brien.

I thought that the search was called off because people from the general public wanted to enter private land and search the property. Private rural landowners would not like that. That would be one reason that the search of private rural properties was called off. Police have called off searches in the past on the basis that they did not want to risk that a crime scene is trampled. Search teams will resume a search, if the victims are not in the fire pit, when/if they have more evidence.

I think this is highly possible about the fire. I only have one stipulation it didn't happen at the acreage though - I highly doubt DG's parents would still live there and stay there if this was the case.

Knowing three persons were destroyed on their property would be VERY hard to swallow, let alone sleep peacefully at night. I'm sure LE would have to tell them their home is a burial site, I don't think they could keep this from them, could they?

 

[LoisLane]

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?

I am not in need of the details of the evidence but a more solid statement. This is an example of what I think could be said without detailing or jeopardizing evidence, "We have confirmed DNA results which allow us to conclude the missing are deceased." I do not think that type of confirmation would breach details. I know I would have had more of an understanding if that could have been done.

Also, I keep meaning to ask why RH appeared on various news channels the following day after the charges were laid. Why was RH commenting after the charges were laid and the investigation was considered before the courts?

 

[deugirtni]

When quoting from articles, it is only fair to quote the thing you want in its proper context. It is unfair to only snip the little bit that you think is valid, for the rest of the paragraph can bring with it new meaning. This is the paragraph from which you snipped your quote:

The decision that “this is now a homicide investigation and charges are appropriate” came Sunday, when investigators met Crown prosecutors. “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.”

To me that is saying that 'all of us' means whoever was in that meeting referred to on the Sunday which included investigators and Crown prosecutors; it is not saying that all of the 200 LE involved in one way or another on the case, came to this decision together. Hanson was quoted at a different time saying that he was 'one of the few' who had was privvy to *all* of the evidence which they then pieced together, piece by piece by piece; from that I think we can take that it was a small handful that came to the decision they did, since only ver few got to know all the evidence. Please note that if it were a fact that the trio were dead, there would be no decision to be dead, they just simply WOULD be dead. That is the difference between fact and not fact.

You will notice in that very same article, it also states, "now all presumed to be dead" - does this sound like fact to you? Or does that sound like presumption? How about this part, “the preponderance of evidence that leads investigators to believe they are dead.” - does that sound like fact to you? Or does that sound like belief?

In future, please post MOO or IMO or IMHO or IMOO or some other indication when stating opinions as opposed to facts, since that may potentially mislead some readers.

“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/

 

[LoisLane]

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.

Can you please elaborate on the major error? Just in case I missed something.

 

[news.talk]

Can you please elaborate on the major error? Just in case I missed something.

I guess what *I* call a major error, might be interpreted as minor grammatical errors or poor word choices. Cherchri has been kind enough to dissect those issues on earlier threads.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

The tone of the romance novelist and the technical writer will be very different, but that doesn't mean that they're not on the same wavelength.

... moderate and respectful (sceptical ... smiling)?

Is it "would of" or "would have"?

I totally agree, different tones and vocabulary doesn't mean different ways of thinking, but it can change how that thinking or idea is received from others. I like that it's a mixed bag here on the forum, interesting personalities makes for interesting discussions and posts!

Is it "would of" or "would have"? Well, that's up to the person saying or writing it (yes, I'm trying to be witty here).

 

[Sillybilly]

Tone and language are important, when some posters have certain tones it can come off as sounding harsh and sometimes rude.

I personally, don't find your postings/positions offensive or scolding-like. Now that I've read lots of your posts, I get your lingo and your style.

Same with other posters, after reading so many of everyone's posts you understand personalities/senses of humour a little bit. Some posters are better communicators than others so their posts are moderate and respectful, some people might not communicate as with a certain tone which can sound disrespectful.

And some posters just sound like Sam Elliot and play footsies with each other, and some posters are just Stan

:goodpost:

 

[LoisLane]

I guess what *I* call a major error, might be interpreted as minor grammatical errors or poor word choices. Cherchri has been kind enough to dissect those issues on earlier threads.

Good, thanks. I am up to speed and not missing anything.

 

[deugirtni]

My post wherein I asked you to back up your statement that 'most murderers choose trial by judge alone' (which original post seems to now be missing, or at least I am unable to find it, but there are other similar statements) has not been backed up. You did not at the time state it as an opinion, but as fact. I asked for links/backup. Most murder trials hit the news, whether tried by judge or jury. It should not be difficult to back this up if in fact it is true that most murderers choose 'judge alone'.

11-12-2014, 08:06 PM #369
Quote Originally Posted by otto
Who knows why accused murderers usually elect to be tried by Judge alone ... they just do.

It is a fact that murderers can elect to be tried by Judge and Jury, or by Judge alone in Alberta. There are no conditions attached to either choice. I have provided links to support this fact. I was aware of this fact, in spite of a link stating the opposite being generally true in Canada.

I know that many murderers elect to be tried by Judge alone from attending murder trials and discussing murder trials with senior crown prosecutors ... take it or leave it. It's an opinion based on experience. If people prefer to believe that murderers believe it is to their advantage to be tried by Judge and Jury, and that Judge and Jury is more common for murder trials, that's okay with me. I suspect that Douglas Garland will elect to be tried by Judge alone.

 

[otto]

Nowhere does it say I am doubting police. I do however, choose to reserve 'my' judgement of truth until such time as I hear the evidence. We are going in circles.. I respond to your questions, the same ones, over and over. I am saying simply that the trio's deaths are not fact. Not yet anyway. For now, they are deemed, suspected, believed, theorized, etc. to be dead. It has nothing to do with believing police, seeing with own eyes, martians, flat earths, or any number of other wild things you suggest, it has everything to do with 'fact' versus 'not fact'.

<mod snip>

Everyone will accept the verdict, obviously. In many ways, everyone reserves judgement until trial, but at the same time ... there's the question of whether the Chief of Police can speak for "all" when he says that all have lost hope now that there is evidence that the it was a triple murder.

What about that as a scenario ... chopped to pieces, perhaps with an axe, at the Parkhill crime scene (explains blood on the walls in the living room, evidence of "medical distress", and bloody tissue drag marks spanning 8 metres from the sidedoor to the parkingpad), burned to dust over a 15 hours pyre in the fire pit that is near the property line fence ... burning through the night on the night that the victims were murdered?

The accused is presumed innocent, but there is enough evidence against him in connection with the triple murder that he is sitting in Prison.