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

[Tinkerbel1]

DG is scheduled to appear in court sometime in December, 19th is it? What is this court appearance for? Does anyone know?

 

[otto]

If blood from the victims was found in DG's truck, I'm quite certain that would be considered a really smokey gun, I don't see how it could get much more smoking than that.

We really have no clue why LE went to Mexico on this case, but nobody has said it was related to the accused. If LE had received reports of sightings or governmet had videos of people at the airport that could potentially be the trio, surely LE would follow up with those. Surely LE wouldn't discard tips and/or evidence that could relate to other potential perps, just because they believed DG was their perp?

In earlier posts you had indicated that you believed the motive would be that police went to Mexico regarding ownership, or lack thereof on official condo ownership documents. But LE had stated the ownership was shared. For LE to stated the ownership was shared amongst L family and G family, surely they had proof before stating that, and if they had proof, that blows apart the motive theory you previously held wherein the G name was missing, which fuelled DG's anger.

Police were reported to be in Mexico on August 5, well after the victims were confirmed deceased, so we can rule out any possibility that police were looking for victims in Mexico.

Circumstantial evidence, such as blood evidence in a truck, isn't a smoking gun. Direct evidence is a smoking gun.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Police were reported to be in Mexico on August 5, well after the victims were confirmed deceased, so we can rule out any possibility that police were looking for victims in Mexico.

Circumstantial evidence, such as blood evidence in a truck, isn't a smoking gun. Direct evidence is a smoking gun.

What makes you think they weren't looking for victims in Mexico? Nothing like that has been stated. The victims have not been "confirmed" deceased they've been "deemed" and ''presumed'' deceased based on evidence.

In terms of a definite "he did it"...nowadays thats what the term "smoking gun" references, we're not in the days of Bonny and Clyde or the Wild West anymore. If there is forensic evidence that definitely places DG at the crime scene with the L's and NO's blood on his hands, could, in my opinion, be viewed as a "smoking gun" for us laymen.

 

[LoisLane]

DG is scheduled to appear in court sometime in December, 19th is it? What is this court appearance for? Does anyone know?

I did not not know that! I am very curious to know as well. There is one court date listed as May 19, 2014 and I see that one was suggested for December. Is it because the disclosure should have been fully reviewed and the defence can make a plea or ask bail?

http://www.newstalk770.com/2014/09/17/preliminary-hearing-set-for-douglas-garland/

 

[news.talk]

What makes you think they weren't looking for victims in Mexico? Nothing like that has been stated. The victims have not been "confirmed" deceased they've been "deemed" and ''presumed'' deceased based on evidence.

In terms of a definite "he did it"...nowadays thats what the term "smoking gun" references, we're not in the days of Bonny and Clyde or the Wild West anymore. If there is forensic evidence that definitely places DG at the crime scene with the L's and NO's blood on his hands, could, in my opinion, be viewed as a "smoking gun" for us laymen.

The police are not about to declare three people dead, charge someone with their murder's and then decide to go searching for them in a foreign country. That makes no sense:

A police spokeswoman confirmed on Tuesday that officers are in Mexico.

“It’s just making sure that all the avenues are covered. There’s nothing to it other than just crossing t’s and dotting the i’s,” said Calgary police spokeswoman Emma Poole.

“We’re not going to get into details of how long they’ve been down there, where they are or how many went.”

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/n...s-family-case/article19927438/?service=mobile

ETA: A smoking gun is referenced as something that has DIRECT, indisputable evidence connecting a suspect to a crime. Finding the murder weapon with the victim's blood, in the suspect's possession is a smoking gun.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

DG is scheduled to appear in court sometime in December, 19th is it? What is this court appearance for? Does anyone know?

I did not not know that! I am very curious to know as well. There is once court date listed as May 19, 2014 and I see that one was suggested for December. Is it because the disclosure should have been fully reviewed and the defence can make a plea or ask bail?

http://www.newstalk770.com/2014/09/17/preliminary-hearing-set-for-douglas-garland/

Oh, I'm glad you found that one was suggested for December, I haven't been able to find it, but I know I heard there would be a brief appearance in December...it could be to see if all disclosure has been received, or perhaps to request bail, or perhaps even to request a psychiatric assessment should KR feels the evidence and DG's story suggest one may be required? Just can't find the date. :dunno:

 

[otto]

What makes you think they weren't looking for victims in Mexico? Nothing like that has been stated. The victims have not been "confirmed" deceased they've been "deemed" and ''presumed'' deceased based on evidence.

In terms of a definite "he did it"...nowadays thats what the term "smoking gun" references, we're not in the days of Bonny and Clyde or the Wild West anymore. If there is forensic evidence that definitely places DG at the crime scene with the L's and NO's blood on his hands, could, in my opinion, be viewed as a "smoking gun" for us laymen.

Police had evidence on July 14, 2014 that the victims are deceased.
How could police be looking for the victims in Mexico on August 5 when the victims died on June 30 in Calgary?

Direct evidence is a "smoking gun". Circumstantial evidence is not. In this case, the closest thing to a smoking gun is the green truck, which led police straight to the man that now stands accused of the triple murder.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

The police are not about to declare three people dead, charge someone with their murder's and then decide to go searching for them in a foreign country. That makes no sense:

A police spokeswoman confirmed on Tuesday that officers are in Mexico.

“It’s just making sure that all the avenues are covered. There’s nothing to it other than just crossing t’s and dotting the i’s,” said Calgary police spokeswoman Emma Poole.

“We’re not going to get into details of how long they’ve been down there, where they are or how many went.”

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/n...s-family-case/article19927438/?service=mobile

ETA: A smoking gun is referenced as something that has DIRECT, indisputable evidence connecting a suspect to a crime. Finding the murder weapon with the victim's blood, in the suspect's possession is a smoking gun.

The quote for the Mexico trip was: "It's just making sure that all the avenues are covered. There's nothing to it other than just crossing t's and dotting the i's" Also..."we're not going to get into details of how long they've been down there, where they are or how many went".

I wonder why not? They were down there for what 5 days? Why not say how many went...how many would they need to look at ownership papers for the condo? Further to that, in this day and age, is it really necessary to make a physical trip to Mexico to check over condo ownership documents...its the digital age...fax, computers, etc...that info can be gotten and quickly at that. Why were they in Mexico? What possible t's and i's needed to be crossed and dotted I wonder? Obviously LE is not disclosing simple housekeeping activities either, seems a little strange. They went there to "check all avenues". I'm curious as to what those are?

 

[otto]

The quote for the Mexico trip was: "It's just making sure that all the avenues are covered. There's nothing to it other than just crossing t's and dotting the i's" Also..."we're not going to get into details of how long they've been down there, where they are or how many went".

I wonder why not? They were down there for what 5 days? Why not say how many went...how many would they need to look at ownership papers for the condo? Further to that, in this day and age, is it really necessary to make a physical trip to Mexico to check over condo ownership documents...its the digital age...fax, computers, etc...that info can be gotten and quickly at that. Why were they in Mexico? What possible t's and i's needed to be crossed and dotted I wonder? Obviously LE is not disclosing simple housekeeping activities either, seems a little strange. They went there to "check all avenues". I'm curious as to what those are?

Perhaps police wanted to get the job done rather than function on Mexico time.

"Detectives with the Calgary Police Service traveled Mexico, working with authorities there to learn more about the details of the Liknes’ plans about moving there. They have not said anything about what they found, if anything."

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/accused-in-liknes-and-o-brien-murders-in-court-1.1959334#ixzz3JIWNqMh8

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Direct evidence is a "smoking gun". Circumstantial evidence is not. In this case, the closest thing to a smoking gun is the green truck, which led police straight to the man that now stands accused of the triple murder.

I'm confused, earlier upthread, you had stated that the green truck was considered circumstantial evidence and not the smoking gun when replying to a post made by Deugirtni...now, you're referring to it as being akin to a smoking gun. Which is it? Smoking gun or circumstantial? And, how is the truck a smoking gun? Pretty weak one it seems. There better be more than that green truck. Just sayin'. JMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Perhaps police wanted to get the job done rather than function on Mexico time.

When in Rome...

I don't think that they would've had huge delays getting information out of their land registration services via digital services (or even Purolator), their trip was 3 weeks after the L's were declared ''deceased''. Unless they wanted to talk to Mexican LE for some reason?

 

[otto]

[/I]

I'm confused, earlier upthread, you had stated that the green truck was considered circumstantial evidence and not the smoking gun when replying to a post made by Deugirtni...now, you're referring to it as being akin to a smoking gun. Which is it? Smoking gun or circumstantial? And, how is the truck a smoking gun? Pretty weak one it seems. There better be more than that green truck. Just sayin'. JMO

Blood in the truck is circumstantial evidence. The closest thing to a smoking gun is the truck, which led directly to the man now standing accused of a triple murder. Of course there is more evidence than the green truck.

 

[LoisLane]

Police had evidence on July 14, 2014 that the victims are deceased.
How could police be looking for the victims in Mexico on August 5 when the victims died on June 30 in Calgary?

Direct evidence is a "smoking gun". Circumstantial evidence is not. In this case, the closest thing to a smoking gun is the green truck, which led police straight to the man that now stands accused of the triple murder.

I personally think that police were in Mexico during the investigation and prior to the confirmation by LE that it was a homicide and that possibly LE returned or was arriving home at the time that the media found out about Mexico being part of the "search".

 

[otto]

When in Rome...

I don't think that they would've had huge delays getting information out of their land registration services via digital services (or even Purolator), their trip was 3 weeks after the L's were declared ''deceased''. Unless they wanted to talk to Mexican LE for some reason?

Detectives wanted to learn more about the Liknes plans for moving to Mexico ... hmmmmmmmmm ... I wonder if that includes looking into the condo where they planned to live.

"Detectives with the Calgary Police Service traveled Mexico, working with authorities there to learn more about the details of the Liknes’ plans about moving there. They have not said anything about what they found, if anything."

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/accused-in-liknes-and-o-brien-murders-in-court-1.1959334

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Blood in the truck is circumstantial evidence. The closest thing to a smoking gun is the truck, which led directly to the man now standing accused of a triple murder. Of course there is more evidence than the green truck.

That green truck is absolutely not the "smoking gun"...there could be other green trucks. So what if it lead them to DG? I think they would've been lead to DG by other means, perhaps the patent dispute...would that be the smoking gun then? I can't believe he's been accused of 3 murders based on the smoking gun being his old green F150 truck...that's ridiculous.

We all better hope that we're not caught on CCTV in our vehicles driving through a neighborhood where a brutal crime has been committed...I wouldn't want my SUV called a "smoking gun" because I drove thru the neighborhood and was caught on camera. That truck Otto, is no smoking gun. JMO

 

[otto]

I personally think that police were in Mexico during the investigation and prior to the confirmation by LE that it was a homicide and that possibly LE returned or was arriving home at the time that the media found out about Mexico being part of the "search".

So perhaps detectives were on Mexico time ... they flew to Mexico prior to July 14, knowing that the victims were most likely deceased, and hung around in Mazatlan for 3-4 weeks, well after they had evidence that the victims were deceased, but they were looking for the deceased victims?

 

[LoisLane]

Detectives wanted to learn more about the Liknes plans for moving to Mexico ... hmmmmmmmmm ... I wonder if that includes looking into the condo where they planned to live.

"Detectives with the Calgary Police Service traveled Mexico, working with authorities there to learn more about the details of the Liknes’ plans about moving there. They have not said anything about what they found, if anything."

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/accused-in-liknes-and-o-brien-murders-in-court-1.1959334

Maybe the L's or the G's had made a recent trip to Mexico prior to the disappearance and so LE went to follow a trail of sorts.

 

[news.talk]

I personally think that police were in Mexico during the investigation and prior to the confirmation by LE that it was a homicide and that possibly LE returned or was arriving home at the time that the media found out about Mexico being part of the "search".

Police confirmed it was a homicide on Jul 14th and they were in Mexico on August 5th. I doubt they were there that long. I believe it was 5th days but I will have to find that link.

 

[otto]

That green truck is absolutely not the "smoking gun"...there could be other green trucks. So what if it lead them to DG? I think they would've been lead to DG by other means, perhaps the patent dispute...would that be the smoking gun then? I can't believe he's been accused of 3 murders based on the smoking gun being his old green F150 truck...that's ridiculous.

We all better hope that we're not caught on CCTV in our vehicles driving through a neighborhood where a brutal crime has been committed...I wouldn't want my SUV called a "smoking gun" because I drove thru the neighborhood and was caught on camera. That truck Otto, is no smoking gun. JMO

For some reason, the green truck led police to the suspect, who was then arrested, and who was subsequently charged with murder ... as soon as there was DNA evidence. Without the green truck, police might still be looking for a suspect.

There is no smoking gun. There is no direct evidence. Discussing the green truck does not mean that there is no evidence except the green truck.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Detectives wanted to learn more about the Liknes plans for moving to Mexico ... hmmmmmmmmm ... I wonder if that includes looking into the condo where they planned to live.

"Detectives with the Calgary Police Service traveled Mexico, working with authorities there to learn more about the details of the Liknes’ plans about moving there. They have not said anything about what they found, if anything."

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/accused-in-liknes-and-o-brien-murders-in-court-1.1959334

What on earth would Mexican police possibly know about 'snowbirds buying and moving into a Mexican condo'? I'm sure Mexican police don't care who's moving into a condo in their country. Why do LE need to know about the L's plans to move to Mexico? Did they expect to find evidence there of DG? It doesn't jive. It doesn't make sense. And there's more to the visit than they're saying and it's certainly not because they wanted to find out about the L's moving to the condo. JMO