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

[LoisLane]

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?

That is a tough one to know. I imagine they are still at the home. I wonder if the extended family of PG have had access to the property since the house was released from the investigation and have tried to look for themselves. I know I would need to look.

 

[news.talk]

That is a tough one to know. I imagine they are still at the home. I wonder if the extended family of PG have had access to the property since the house was released from the investigation and have tried to look for themselves. I know I would need to look.

The larger question, which obviously I cannot answer, is would they be able to disclose that information to the Garland's, if in fact it was the case? My guess is they would or could not disclose such information without constituting a breech in protocol.

 

[Sillybilly]

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

<rsbm>

That's why we post links, so other posters can read the full article themselves and come to their own conclusions.

 

[deugirtni]

haha, great logic. I love that philosophy question too. How about this one? If a respected police chief says something based on something that only a handful know about, does it make it a fact?

Schrödinger's Cat is in the realm of physics, but it's a fun philosophy debate. It always reminded me of another philosophy question: if a tree falls in the forest when no one is listening, does it make a sound? If the cat dies in a box when no one can see into the box, is the cat still alive?

 

[Sillybilly]

haha, great logic. I love that philosophy question too. How about this one? If a respected police chief says something based on something that only a handful know about, does it make it a fact?

It makes it official

 

[LoisLane]

The larger question, which obviously I cannot answer, is would they be able to disclose that information to the Garland's, if in fact it was the case? My guess is they would or could not disclose such information without constituting a breech in protocol.

If JO walked LE thru the Parkhill home would LE ask the Garland's to verify anything out of the ordinary on their property or home? Maybe what they came across was obvious, maybe not. Maybe the parents do not believe their son did it or maybe they do. Maybe they helped LE by clarifying some details and possibly evidence.

 

[deugirtni]

Staunch supporters of LE... stating that LE is honest, and etc.. some WSers theorize about possibilities the trio could be alive, or that the murderer could be someone different, or that there could be 2 murderers involved, and they are accused of saying LE are therefore incompetent and more. Now it is being asked if police were lying when they answered questions? It doesn't make sense.

Regarding the fire.. in the Tim Bosma case, it is believed he was incinerated beyond recognition, and first put through a 'chipper'.. but his wife still received a small box containing his remains. In this case there were no remains given and no statement from police that remains believed to be the trio were found. If LE can identify TB's remains, and if they can say the remains of all of these people burned were found, then they should also be able to state that the trio was found, if their remains were indeed found.

Being in the fire pit makes a lot of sense. That's where the tent was. When asked, police said the tent was for sandwiches and water.

The neighbour mentioned the fire going on for many hours.
There was also quite a search near the irrigation system taps.

And ... we shouldn't forget the other case that police are investigating in connection with the same suspect ... a young woman with a child whose phone kept working long after she died.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

That is a tough one to know. I imagine they are still at the home. I wonder if the extended family of PG have had access to the property since the house was released from the investigation and have tried to look for themselves. I know I would need to look.

I know, it is a tough one. I have no idea if LE would have to disclose this information to the home owners, I would think so for some reason. Especially, if they're religious, I would think this would be almost disrespectful no matter what it means for the case.

I would need to look myself also, but after I looked with my own eyes to make sure nothing was found and if I knew a child was possibly discarded on my property like that I would be out of there fast, it's just sick.

Unless the parents might be in denial and don't think anything happened on their property maybe they could stay with a clear conscience.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

The larger question, which obviously I cannot answer, is would they be able to disclose that information to the Garland's, if in fact it was the case? My guess is they would or could not disclose such information without constituting a breech in protocol.

Such a hard call for LE I bet, I would think they would have to disclose this somehow. I can't even imagine living somewhere a horrendous crime happened (I almost think the disposal part of a murder is almost as horrific as the actual murder, ugh).

I wonder if they don't disclose this, if they can be sued after the fact for mental anguish?

 

[otto]

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.

Cherchri has been very helpful with grammar. I especially appreciated clarification of the point "that", and the point "who", which require the correct word in terms of object or subject.

It's a bit like whether the arrow is pointing in the right direction with illustrated instructions when trying to figure out where the screwdriver fits in relation to the sledge hammer.

There's probably a Thomas Jefferson Dem or Rep fan club with a lot of quotes about political position and rights.
Is it required to know about Thomas Jefferson to graduate from a US high school?

US freedom of speech laws have resulted in a pseudo-religious family of 80 persons picketing funerals of soldiers because that pseudo-religious family believes that the deceased died because they committed a serious sin. It's bizarre not only that there are people that think like that, but moreso it is bizarre because freedom of speech in the US allows this type of harassment. In my opinion, Canada has stricter laws than the US, but equally just ... more protection to the individual, less room for mob (eg: religious, political, social) antagonism.

 

[deugirtni]

It is a fact that police say they have evidence which leads them to believe the trio are dead. When the evidence gets to trial, the defence may wish to refute that evidence. Facts aren't up for determinations and beliefs, to one way or another, they just 'are'. The evidence would just BE the fact, it wouldn't just 'lead' to a 'belief'.

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.

 

[otto]

Such a hard call for LE I bet, I would think they would have to disclose this somehow. I can't even imagine living somewhere a horrendous crime happened (I almost think the disposal part of a murder is almost as horrific as the actual murder, ugh).

I wonder if they don't disclose this, if they can be sued after the fact for mental anguish?

Stating publically that there was evidence that the three victims were dead would have been a difficult call for police to make, but they probably had known it for a long time ... since they viewed the crime scene two weeks earlier.

I'm pretty sure that Nathan's parents have the right to know why their son has been declared dead. They would be entitled to proof, but they would also be told that the information must remain confidential until the time of trial. Jen accidentally spill the beans about the bloody crime scene to the neighbour (the guy with the helicopter looking for a new client in the CPS) and he spilled the beans about the bloody crime scene to the media. Jen saw everything for herself. She knows what happened. She did not arrive at the house and think that everyone was at the park, or the ice cream store. She knew immediately that she was looking at a crime scene that required police. All she knew at that time was that her son was missing ... she left him there, and everyone was missing. All that was left behind was a very bloody crime scene. The neighbour reported viewing the crime scene and seeing that even the walls were cleaned by the crew. He was actually invited by the cleaning crew to do a walkthrough.

Imagine that your 19 year old daughter was a victim of suffocation, but suffocation was caused by something in the throat. As a relative of the family, one would know what it was that caused suffocation, but that would not be in the news ... not even are trial. It would be something that was resolved in a voir dire and only the decision would be known: suffocated, or not ... never mind how.

 

[LoisLane]

Just wanted to point out that the walls inside the L. home could have been cleaned because of that purple finger print stuff (can't remember the name of it) that was all over the garage. I suspect the forensics team applied it all over the interior of the house as well. Which would have been cleaned afterwards.

I think RO could have been the one to tell GH about the blood everywhere as they were working closely with eachother. But yes, there could have been blood everywhere.

I also think the house was full of moving boxes and belongings pulled out and scattered throughout the rooms for the Estate sale and pending move. Items could have been easily thrown around and broken and knocked over during a struggle of sorts. That could have been an obvious disturbing sign that something was wrong when JO entered the home. It may not have been blood in the home. And if that is blood that was marked outside that does not necessarily mean that JO discovered that but that they learned of it afterwards and that could also be where GH sourced his comments from.

 

[Sillybilly]

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'.

It is important to read back in the convo to put your reference to post #369 in context ... otto was responding to OOTD's question about Douglas Garland. The question was:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...14-*ARREST*-19/page15&p=11196164#post11196164

Why would he choose that option?

"he" being Doug Garland who lives in Alberta

The response to that question was:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-19&p=11196170#post11196170

Who knows why accused murderers usually elect to be tried by Judge alone ... they just do.

As for insistence that anyone provide links to back up what they have stated to be their personal experience? Well, that's a tough one.

 

[deugirtni]

If you say so. For me, it seems deceiving to post a snippet out of context.

<rsbm>

That's why we post links, so other posters can read the full article themselves and come to their own conclusions.

 

[deugirtni]

It makes it official that LE believe it to be true, it does not make death official.

It makes it official

 

[deugirtni]

You see... as mentioned, I was unable to find the original post where the poster had stated that.. the very original one.. subsequent to that original one, it was mentioned again in one way or another, but not in the exact way, so that is what I found still remaining that I could quote for reference. It has since then become way convoluted and intertwined with others' posts, and poster now mixing up with other subjects. Too far gone now. I suppose there will be no links provided to substantiate the statement that 'most murderers choose trial by judge only', but that is ok, I wasn't sure any could really be provided to show that as being true.

It is important to read back in the convo to put your reference to post #369 in context ... otto was responding to OOTD's question about Douglas Garland. The question was:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...14-*ARREST*-19/page15&p=11196164#post11196164



"he" being Doug Garland who lives in Alberta

The response to that question was:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-19&p=11196170#post11196170



As for insistence that anyone provide links to back up what they have stated to be their personal experience? Well, that's a tough one.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Just wanted to point out that the walls inside the L. home could have been cleaned because of that purple finger print stuff (can't remember the name of it) that was all over the garage. I suspect the forensics team applied it all over the interior of the house as well. Which would have been cleaned afterwards.

I think RO could have been the one to tell GH about the blood everywhere as they were working closely with eachother. But yes, there could have been blood everywhere.

I also think the house was full of moving boxes and belongings pulled out and scattered throughout the rooms for the Estate sale and pending move. Items could have been easily thrown around and broken and knocked over during a struggle of sorts. That could have been an obvious disturbing sign that something was wrong when JO entered the home. It may not have been blood in the home. And if that is blood that was marked outside that does not necessarily mean that JO discovered that but that they learned of it afterwards and that could also be where GH sourced his comments from.

Very true LL, we don't know what was being cleaned off the walls, could've been the purple finger print powder (or whatever it's called, I forget too!)

IIRC, with the McStay case, there was a half eat bowl of cereal (or food, something to that effect) so LE knew they left in a hurry, and it was suspicious. Could've happened here too if JO saw something that was out of character for her parents (a door open, open basement window, signs of struggle, etc.)

 

[LoisLane]

Here is the reply from one of the moving companies that KL "Likes" on FB. I had asked if they had a previous FB page in August.

"Ive lost all messages from then. It was this name but has just changed to a like page. Did i quote her for it already?"

I still have not heard back from the other one.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Here is the reply from one of the moving companies that KL "Likes" on FB. I had asked if they had a previous FB page in August.

"Ive lost all messages from then. It was this name but has just changed to a like page. Did i quote her for it already?"

I still have not heard back from the other one.

Hhmmm, so the company was/is/always the same name but the page type changed, so it's now 'likable'. Wonder if it was a group before, as I think pages have always been a 'like' thing.

I read in an article when researching (might've even posted, will have to check), that if you PM a company link to someone (maybe even the company) it can create an auto-like, which was quite controversial but not sure this is the same type of thing at all.