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

[deugirtni]

Well I suppose more murder charges must be in the wings for DG then, if that is the case. I wonder what the hold-up is? They have DNA evidence from previous unsolved murders, and they now have DNA to cpmpare with from DG. I'm sure they must have had time to compare samples by now?

By 'closed proceeding', do you mean publication ban? If so, I agree.

If the prosecutor has to 'test drive some of the evidence', then it is no wonder why the Crown did not proceed to trial without a preliminary hearing as has been recently done in some other high profile cases where the evidence seems more overwhelming.

Given the violent nature of this crime - a home invasion and triple murder, including a 5 year old child - it's difficult to believe that this was the first time that the accused did something like this. On that basis, police are looking at other criminal offences with some similarities to determine whether the accused had a history of these types of violent offences. What police are saying is that no one suddenly becomes a premeditated triple murderer at the age of 54 ... that there must be something in his past that made him believe that not only could he commit murder, but that he could murder more than one person at the same time.

"Global News has learned that investigators are now seeing if he has links to any other violent crimes, which experts say is common in cases like this.

“If you have unsolved crimes and you have no idea who might have done them, then you have an individual who you suspect is capable of doing a range of very violent actions, then it makes sense,” says forensic psychologist Dr. Perry Sirota. “There might be a fit between what this person is suspected of doing, because of course it’s alleged now and it might fit with a pattern of crimes that remain unsolved.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/1472714/p...as-garland-has-links-to-other-violent-crimes/

After police have evidence to connect a suspect to a criminal offence, they stop looking for the suspect and focus on verifying the information. That's what happened in this case. The information has been verified, and it's just a matter of time before it will be confirmed in a court room.

The preliminary inquiry is more a less a case of laying their cards on the table. There's a possibility that Garland will waive the preliminary inquiry, and I'm pretty sure that if there is a preliminary inquiry, it will be a closed proceeding.

"[Crown Prosecutor] Parker said although a direct indictment could have been drafted, depriving Garland of a preliminary inquiry and taking the case straight to trial, he said it wasn’t advisable.

“In a case like this I was against a direct indictment,” he following the brief appearance by Garland, who did not address the court.

“It gives us [prosecutor's office] a chance to test drive some of the evidence,” he said, of calling some of the Crown’s case prior to trial."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/09/1...n-and-his-grandparents-alvin-and-kathy-liknes

 

[news.talk]

It speaks to something alright. I don't really see DG as arrogant though...many people that commit crimes start out small, and as they get away with them move on to the next, increasingly bigger crimes. Some do become very arrogant and feel that they're above the law and perhaps that LE are stupid and they'll never get caught, but DG doesn't exude any of that to me.

Although he's been described as a ''genius'', I'm not thinking there's much genius there in the ''thought'' department...his IQ may be above-average, but really? Who thinks they can steal a tractor-trailer and not get caught...they're kind of hard to hide, and it's not like he could outrun LE in it. Who has a meth lab at their parents' property and feels that's okay? Who...if he did this, drives his vehicle past a CCTV camera several times in the neighborhood where the murders took place, and who re-uses fake id that they've already gone to jail for? How is that arrogant I wonder. It is either sheer stupidity (which I highly doubt), or he purposely does things that are going to get him caught....or....there is really something not right upstairs and he has trouble distinguishing reality from what's going on in his head. I always thought that common sense was a given...apparently it's not, and obviously he's short of some of that. He seems to me, to be in another world and not quite connected or grounded, because really not a lot of what he does makes sense.

I'm not convinced that his m/o is to commit crimes and get away with them, I think he's really got something wrong with him in how his head works. He seems to struggle with his thought processes as indicated by his question to the judge in court at the bail hearing regarding not returning to the acreage. Maybe there is some Asperger's Syndrome there? Something's not right, but I don't see him as a cold-blooded, psychopath.

If these murders were committed by DG then I'm going to say that besides the L's and NO, extended family members, as well as DG's family...DG himself may be termed a victim of sorts as well. I feel that he really got the short-end of the stick in a lot of ways as far as his brain function/thought processes go. It doesn't give him an excuse for such behaviour, but he may be as shocked as we are at this situation. JMO

I would call representing your self in court, asking that you be paid for benefits earned while using a dead teens identity - arrogant.

http://m.news1130.com/2014/07/07/pe...y-amber-alert-previously-sentenced-for-drugs/

 

[deugirtni]

Well if arrogant to be entitled to EI, the Court agreed with him, and I guess it was worth it financially for him to do so, no matter what appearances it may have made to some.

I would call representing your self in court, asking that you be paid for benefits earned while using a dead teens identity - arrogant.

http://m.news1130.com/2014/07/07/pe...y-amber-alert-previously-sentenced-for-drugs/

 

[Slebby]

There has been previous discussion on WS as to the validity of GH's statement regarding 'lots of blood'. The word 'lots' is subjective, and reported as something he heard. If we assume there WAS 'lots of blood', tissue, brain matter, and enough DNA for an ME to call the 3 deaths, as has been reported by some posters as being fact, then I wonder why they would hold out hope for two entire weeks, let alone for one minute?

If we assume, as you say, there was lots of blood, tissue, brain matter or DNA evidence for the ME to call the 3 deaths, I suspect they held out hope for 2 weeks because they couldn't confirm if the blood or tissue came from 1, 2 or all 3 victims. Not until the DNA evidence confirmed it. If this was the case, they had no choice but to continue to hold out hope and continue the Amber Alert. Imagine if they had called all 3 dead prematurely, that is, before DNA evidence convinced them - what if they only had enough evidence of one death, and they hadn't continued the search. That would have been incredibly negligent, IMO.
IMHO

 

[Slebby]

Just a comment about the use of the term "smoking gun". I think it is being tossed about in a pretty loose way. My understanding of the origins of the term "smoking gun" was to describe the kind of evidence that is very strong proof of guilt, such as when the killer is found standing over his victim with a smoking gun in his hand.

In this case of these 3 murders, police are correct to say there is no "smoking gun". No one was caught standing over the bodies or driving down the street with the victims in the truck bed. This is why, IMO, Chief Hansen described the way the case came together "brick by brick".

Please don't ask my for a link, I can't say this for certain, but I believe there are very few actual cases tried that could be described as being based on "smoking gun" evidence. If we had to depend on a "smoking gun", I think very few murderers would be convicted.

IMHO

 

[news.talk]

Well if arrogant to be entitled to EI, the Court agreed with him, and I guess it was worth it financially for him to do so, no matter what appearances it may have made to some.

One that thinks they are entitled to be compensated as a direct result of their crimes, whether legally based or not is, well, arrogant.

 

[Sillybilly]

I would call representing your self in court, asking that you be paid for benefits earned while using a dead teens identity - arrogant.

http://m.news1130.com/2014/07/07/pe...y-amber-alert-previously-sentenced-for-drugs/

Yes, and arrogance is an attitude, not related to intelligence. I know some very stupid AND some very intelligent people who are arrogant.

 

[news.talk]

Just a comment about the use of the term "smoking gun". I think it is being tossed about in a pretty loose way. My understanding of the origins of the term "smoking gun" was to describe the kind of evidence that is very strong proof of guilt, such as when the killer is found standing over his victim with a smoking gun in his hand.

In this case of these 3 murders, police are correct to say there is no "smoking gun". No one was caught standing over the bodies or driving down the street with the victims in the truck bed. This is why, IMO, Chief Hansen described the way the case came together "brick by brick".

Please don't ask my for a link, I can't say this for certain, but I believe there are very few actual cases tried that could be described as being based on "smoking gun" evidence. If we had to depend on a "smoking gun", I think very few murderers would be convicted.

IMHO

Since it is a rather colloquial term, it is not able to be defined in a legal setting. The common references are:


A piece of evidence that almost is nearly irrefutable. It's origin is from a Sherlock Holme's story and it references how a gun smokes directly after being fired. Therefore if somebody is suspected of shooting a person and they having a still "smoking gun" in their possession, it's evidence that is pretty hard to deny.

1. I know Tom shot Jim, he was still holding a smoking gun when I walked into the room.*

2. A: "It's thought that Mary died of an overdose."*
B: "Well no one knows for sure yet."*
A: "They found heroine and a needle with her DNA on it by the bed"*
B: "Oh, I didn't know about that smoking gun"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smoking gun

The term "smoking gun" was originally, and is still primarily, a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive *evidence* of a crime or similar act. In addition to this, its meaning has evolved in uses completely unrelated to criminal activity: for example, scientific evidence that is highly suggestive in favor of a particular hypothesis is sometimes called smoking gun evidence. Its name originally came from the idea of finding a smoking (i.e., very recently fired) gun on the person of a suspect wanted for shooting someone, which in that situation would be nearly unshakable proof of having committed the crime. A piece of evidence that falls just short of being conclusive is sometimes referred to as a "smoldering gun."

The phrase originated in the*Sherlock Holmes story,*The Gloria Scott*(1893).[1]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_gun

 

[Tinkerbel1]

One that thinks they are entitled to be compensated as a direct result of their crimes, whether legally based or not is, well, arrogant.

DG worked there, whether it was under his name or not, the labour put forth was by him. As with ALL Canadians that are employed and have paid EI benefits, he was entitled to them. He didn't need legal representation for that case...it was pretty clear cut. We are allowed to represent ourselves if we so choose. Its not necessarily arrogance. Confidence and arrogance are two different things.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Personally, I don't think the ME reached conclusions of death at all. But my point was that if the Parkhill home was as gruesome as some have proposed, with the brain bits, tissue and massive bloodshed, I don't know why anyone wouldn't think the worst right from day one.

I think because you cannot confirm who it belonged to, until you do the DNA testing... if you recall, there was hinting that AL and NO might be together, omitting KL for reasons unknown. As well, LE mentioned driver and passenger when first releasing the truck information. LE obviously had several different working theories in the early stages. The fact that DG was charged so quickly is probably a good indication the evidence of death is compelling.

 

[news.talk]

DG worked there, whether it was under his name or not, the labour put forth was by him. As with ALL Canadians that are employed and have paid EI benefits, he was entitled to them. He didn't need legal representation for that case...it was pretty clear cut. We are allowed to represent ourselves if we so choose. Its not necessarily arrogance. Confidence and arrogance are two different things.

Again, it is not about the technicality of the law... Or even that he represented himself in court...

It is that he felt that he deserved 100% of the benefits that he only earned as a result of perpetrating a crime.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Again, it is not about the technicality of the law... Or even that he represented himself in court...

It is that he felt that he deserved 100% of the benefits that he only earned as a result of perpetrating a crime.

That's not how he earned his paycheque. He worked, like most everyone else employed there. False documentation is no basis to say he is not entitled to what ALL Canadians are entitled to. DUI is a crime. It carries with it a criminal record. Should all who have received DUI's not be entitled to their EI benefits? Even if that DUI was procured while driving a company vehicle...that employee still has a right to their EI benefits.

 

[news.talk]

That's not how he earned his paycheque. He worked, like most everyone else employed there. False documentation is no basis to say he is not entitled to what ALL Canadians are entitled to. DUI is a crime. Should all who have received DUI's not be entitled to their EI benefits? Even if that DUI was procured while driving a company vehicle...that employee still has a right to their EI benefits.

He used someone else's identity to obtain the job. Unlike anyone else that worked there, he got the job by perpetrating a fraud. He would have had to falsely University transcripts, manufacture identity documents and concuct an entire false history. In my books and under the law for that matter, that is called fraud; an ongoing, deliberate act of felonious behaviour, with callous disregard for those people who *earned* their positions, or those that were denied a livelihood because of his actions.

However, we are not debating those merits with regard to a legality - we were discussing whether said actions constituted "arrogance."

 

[LoisLane]

Welcome back katydid23! The mystery is solved for some, but not all. The accused apparently was hired by one of the victims to alter the patent design. Although the accused's sister's husband, who also happens to be the victim's son, has been quoted as saying 'the business relationship did not end on a bad note', other media and LE have stated there was a patent dispute. This was apparently 7 years ago. Apparently the accused had wanted his name to be colisted as inventor on the patent, a request which apparently was refused by the victim. It seems the patented design failed in the end anyway.

PS What is a 'Verified Juanette'? Just curious! Love your dog!

I wonder if the business relationship involved the land that AL and AL jointly owned in Evansburg. Actually, I am not sure which AL that would be. Is the son of AL AJL or is AJL the twin brother? So confusing when the offspring have the same first and last names of relatives.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Again, it is not about the technicality of the law... Or even that he represented himself in court...

It is that he felt that he deserved 100% of the benefits that he only earned as a result of perpetrating a crime.

Sorry, I misunderstood where you were going with this news.talk...let me answer based on your point.

Of course he felt he deserved it...he worked for it and paid into it. He did deserve them. He didn't earn the benefits by perpetrating a crime, he worked for the money and his paycheque was deducted for EI benefits. It's not even an argument about taxpayer's dollars...he was a taxpayer as well. He may have gotten the job under false pretenses, which is a crime, I agree. The onus is on the employer to check out the backgrounds of their employees. Regardless of how he got the job, he still deserved the benefits. To you he is arrogant. To me, he doesn't seem so...he just doesn't have that arrogant air about him. IMO

 

[deugirtni]

Yes I think we all know what the term smoking gun means. And if victims' blood was found in or on DG's truck, to me, that is very much a smoking gun. MOO. One of our members states that the victims were indeed seen in the video in the back of DG's truck, and that too would be very much a smoking gun. Do you disagree?

Just a comment about the use of the term "smoking gun". I think it is being tossed about in a pretty loose way. My understanding of the origins of the term "smoking gun" was to describe the kind of evidence that is very strong proof of guilt, such as when the killer is found standing over his victim with a smoking gun in his hand.

In this case of these 3 murders, police are correct to say there is no "smoking gun". No one was caught standing over the bodies or driving down the street with the victims in the truck bed. This is why, IMO, Chief Hansen described the way the case came together "brick by brick".

Please don't ask my for a link, I can't say this for certain, but I believe there are very few actual cases tried that could be described as being based on "smoking gun" evidence. If we had to depend on a "smoking gun", I think very few murderers would be convicted.

IMHO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

He used someone else's identity to obtain the job. Unlike anyone else that worked there, he got the job by perpetrating a fraud. He would have had to falsely University transcripts, manufacture identity documents and concuct an entire false history. In my books and under the law for that matter, that is called fraud; an ongoing, deliberate act of felonious behaviour, with callous disregard for those people who *earned* their positions, or those that were denied a livelihood because of his actions.

However, we are not debating those merits with regard to a legality - we were discussing whether said actions constituted "arrogance."

I understand. My goodness, he's a horrid thing isn't he? Perhaps he didn't have a callous disregard for those people who *earned* their positions or were denied a livelihood because of his actions...perhaps he was offered the job by the employer based on his false credentials who didn't do a proper background check on him. That is not his fault.

Further to that, there are many people that are *denied a livelihood* and there are people who have not gotten positions that they may have *earned*...many of them due to nepotism...so, should those that have gotten positions based on who their *family* member is, not expect to receive EI benefits should they lose their jobs? Nepotism is not a crime, but this favoritism still displaces those that you feel may deserve the job that DG got. The fraudulent activity is a separate issue than that of the procurement of a job that you felt he did not deserve. It does not necessarily constitute arrogance on his part. He needed money. He got a job. He paid EI benefits. He deserved to receive the benefits. JMO

Just for interest's sake....I worked at a very well known post-secondary education institute for many years....Director of Finance way back...taken out in handcuffs in broad daylight and charged with embezzlement from the institute...re-hired not long later to teach night classes in Business...lol. Earned money. Paid EI benefits, likely collected them over the Summer break as well...all after stealing from the company. To me that is arrogance (the stealing while he was in a position of trust and power). I would say DG isn't as bad. JMO

 

[LoisLane]

I think because you cannot confirm who it belonged to, until you do the DNA testing... if you recall, there was hinting that AL and NO might be together, omitting KL for reasons unknown. As well, LE mentioned driver and passenger when first releasing the truck information. LE obviously had several different working theories in the early stages. The fact that DG was charged so quickly is probably a good indication the evidence of death is compelling.

I sometimes wonder if the hinting that AL and NO may be together was because AL wasn't home when JO left or he may have decided to run an errand or discussed going out again the night of the disappearance and possibly JO wasn't positive that AL would have been home after 10pm or that he wasn't home when she left that night.

 

[news.talk]

I understand. My goodness, he's a horrid thing isn't he? Perhaps he didn't have a callous disregard for those people who *earned* their positions or were denied a livelihood because of his actions...perhaps he was offered the job by the employer based on his false credentials who didn't do a proper background check on him. That is not his fault.

Further to that, there are many people that are *denied a livelihood* and there are people who have not gotten positions that they may have *earned*...many of them due to nepotism...so, should those that have gotten positions based on who their *family* member is, not expect to receive EI benefits should they lose their jobs? Nepotism is not a crime, but this favoritism still displaces those that you feel may deserve the job that DG got. The fraudulent activity is a separate issue than that of the procurement of a job that you felt he did not deserve. It does not necessarily constitute arrogance on his part. He needed money. He got a job. He paid EI benefits. He deserved to receive the benefits. JMO

All I am saying is, the term 'arrogance' is subjective. To *me* his actions in that case fits the description. To you it doesn't. To each her own.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Yes, and arrogance is an attitude, not related to intelligence. I know some very stupid AND some very intelligent people who are arrogant.

Lol...you are so right! Many of them having no place or cause to be arrogant either!