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

[otto]

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.

Why would the police go to Mexico to look for people that they knew were dead? That did not happen. Police were there to learn more about plans for the Liknes couple to move to Mazatlan ... which would include investigating the details of the joint Liknes/Garland condo purchase.

"Three weeks after a suspect was arrested and charged with three counts of murder in relation to a missing five-year-old Calgary boy and his grandparents, police have confirmed investigators from Calgary are in Mexico in relation to the homicide investigation.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...arance-of-nathan-obrien-and-his-grandparents/

 

[LoisLane]

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?

Maybe they did. For all we know LE had returned prior to the media announcing they were in Mexico. I wonder if any reporter was able to nail down dates for the departure and arrival of the first and last officer to attend the Mexico investigation. That would have been a good scoop to report.

 

[otto]

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

Isn't that a good question! Why would police be investigating the retirement plans of two grandparents who had a very questionable financial history spanning 20 years, and who were going to live in a condo that is financially connected to both the victims and the accused?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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.

I doubt it..as you've heard...DG had a patent dispute years ago with AL...police would've brought him in as a POI at that point they discovered this fact. The green truck is weak, it was quickest way that lead them to him, but definitely not the only way they could've been lead to him. Especially since he already has a criminal record. Isn't there a DNA databank? Couldn't they have matched his to DNA evidence found at the crime scene? The green truck simply, when checked, associated DG to the L's in terms of the previous business dealings. It's like a pair of shears seen on a camera leading them to a hairstylist, finding out the hairstylist wasn't tipped by KL or AL and thereby becoming a POI, and then a suspect because they've never tipped her, thereby having a possible motive for killing them? So the shears would be the smoking gun? I could've phoned up LE and told them that I met DG and found him odd and that I happened to know there was a patent dispute,etc. Does that me the smoking gun? That's beyond unbelievable.

 

[otto]

Maybe they did. For all we know LE had returned prior to the media announcing they were in Mexico. I wonder if any reporter was able to nail down dates for the departure and arrival of the first and last officer to attend the Mexico investigation. That would have been a good scoop to report.

The scoop was that on August 5, police were in Mexico, and the condo is a joint Garland/Liknes property. A short while later (don't remember how long), it was reported that police had returned from Mexico.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Isn't that a good question! Why would police be investigating the retirement plans of two grandparents who had a very questionable financial history spanning 20 years, and who were going to live in a condo that is financially connected to both the victims and the accused?

DG is not connected to the condo. His sister may be. They could investigate that through the banks, and land agency in Mexico digitally. They had no reason to go down there for something so straightforward and simple. The Mexicans and the way they do things are becoming more like the rest of the world in terms of technology.

 

[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.

For more than checking into paperwork, I can tell you that. They may have been following up on tips received re: sightings. They did say they followed up all tips, so perhaps someone reported them as being seen in Mexico?

 

[LoisLane]

Why would the police go to Mexico to look for people that they knew were dead? That did not happen. Police were there to learn more about plans for the Liknes couple to move to Mazatlan ... which would include investigating the details of the joint Liknes/Garland condo purchase.

"Three weeks after a suspect was arrested and charged with three counts of murder in relation to a missing five-year-old Calgary boy and his grandparents, police have confirmed investigators from Calgary are in Mexico in relation to the homicide investigation.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...arance-of-nathan-obrien-and-his-grandparents/

I don't think police would go to Mexico to look for people who they had declared dead, unless they thought they died in Mexico (highly unlikely). I think LE was already in Mexico when they declared them dead. It could have been one officer relieving another in some sort of shift change and a reporter caught the buzz and reported it and the facts could be simply misreported and LE doesn't see the value in making a formal statement regarding it, because at the time the investigation was before the courts so they don't have to say anything further.

I bet LE chuckles over MSM reports as much as they chuckle over Weblseuth posts

 

[otto]

I doubt it..as you've heard...DG had a patent dispute years ago with AL...police would've brought him in as a POI at that point they discovered this fact. The green truck is weak, it was quickest way that lead them to him, but definitely not the only way they could've been lead to him. Especially since he already has a criminal record. Isn't there a DNA databank? Couldn't they have matched his to DNA evidence found at the crime scene? The green truck simply, when checked, associated DG to the L's in terms of the previous business dealings. It's like a pair of shears seen on a camera leading them to a hairstylist, finding out the hairstylist wasn't tipped by KL or AL and thereby becoming a POI, and then a suspect because they've never tipped her, thereby having a possible motive for killing them? So the shears would be the smoking gun? I could've phoned up LE and told them that I met DG and found him odd and that I happened to know there was a patent dispute,etc. Does that me the smoking gun? That's beyond unbelievable.

Police wouldn't be investigating seven year old business related disputes in a murder investigation until years after the murder.

DNA at the crime scene is useless because of the "leaving the country" sale. However, if the murderer is identified, and his DNA is in the residence, that is different ... but it's still not enough.

Where is the problem with direct evidence and smoking guns?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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".

LE went to Mexico on August 5th. 3 weeks after the victims had been presumed deceased.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

k

Police wouldn't be investigating seven year old business related disputes in a murder investigation until years after the murder.

DNA at the crime scene is useless because of the "leaving the country" sale. However, if the murderer is identified, and his DNA is in the residence, that is different ... but it's still not enough.

Where is the problem with direct evidence and smoking guns?

Because it's asinine. If DG's DNA in the Liknes home is not enough...then how is the truck the smoking gun? It's okay, I don't want to know. If you think tis the smoking gun, then so be it. I think that would laughed out of court. Sorry Otto. JMO

 

[otto]

I don't think police would go to Mexico to look for people who they had declared dead, unless they thought they died in Mexico (highly unlikely). I think LE was already in Mexico when they declared them dead. It could have been one officer relieving another in some sort of shift change and a reporter caught the buzz and reported it and the facts could be simply misreported and LE doesn't see the value in making a formal statement regarding it, because at the time the investigation was before the courts so they don't have to say anything further.

I bet LE chuckles over MSM reports as much as they chuckle over Weblseuth posts

Police don't have the money to pay for detectives to sit around in Mexico from prior to July 14 all the way until after August 6. They went there to do a job.
I don't think that police have the money to pay people to sit around reading online forums either.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Police wouldn't be investigating seven year old business related disputes in a murder investigation until years after the murder.DNA at the crime scene is useless because of the "leaving the country" sale. However, if the murderer is identified, and his DNA is in the residence, that is different ... but it's still not enough.

Where is the problem with direct evidence and smoking guns?

What? LE would be investigating everything they could to find anyone in any kind of dispute with AL or KL in order to perhaps get a POI. They certainly wouldn't be waiting until years later, unless you are suggesting LE isn't on the ball? JMO

 

[otto]

k

Because it's asinine. If DG's DNA in the Liknes home is not enough...then how is the truck the smoking gun? It's okay, I don't want to know. If you think tis the smoking gun, then so be it. I think that would laughed out of court. Sorry Otto. JMO

All the words in the sentence matter. The closest thing to a smoking gun is very different from the smoking gun.
Attention to detail makes all the difference in understanding this home invasion and triple murder.

 

[otto]

What? LE would be investigating everything they could to find anyone in any kind of dispute with AL or KL in order to perhaps get a POI. They certainly wouldn't be waiting until years later, unless you are suggesting LE isn't on the ball? JMO

Police were investigating the murder ... following the evidence of the crime scene. If they were going to investigate all the financial disputes in the Liknes couple's history, which span 20 years, it would take years before they would focus on a contract employee that did some patent design work.

 

[news.talk]

DG is not connected to the condo. His sister may be. They could investigate that through the banks, and land agency in Mexico digitally. They had no reason to go down there for something so straightforward and simple. The Mexicans and the way they do things are becoming more like the rest of the world in terms of technology.

When preparing documents and evidence exhibits for trial including photos, everything needs to be carefully documented by investigators.

Since the couple were planning to move to Mexico at some point and there were some possible questions regarding finances and joint ownership, the Mexico property may or may not turn out to be relevant come trial. But because it is part of the timeline, it needed to be documented to be entered into evidence. A fax or a phone call does not suffice.

The other possibility, is perhaps they were trying to nail down exactly what had been sold over that weekend, what belongings had been moved already, therefore what could be missing as a result of the crime, perhaps they needed a catalogue of all property in the condo?

IMHO, it was simple evidence gathering and ensuring proper documentation of every detail of the timeline. When the investigators take their turn on the stand, they will need to swear to the evidence and as such, they need first hand handling of said evidence.

 

[LoisLane]

Police don't have the money to pay for detectives to sit around in Mexico from prior to July 14 all the way until after August 6. They went there to do a job.
I don't think that police have the money to pay people to sit around reading online forums either.

I have no idea what the breakdown of man hours on this case is. Maybe they had sent an officer in early July and back again in August. I think it is odd that they would have made the first trip in August.

 

[otto]

I have no idea what the breakdown of man hours on this case is. Maybe they had sent an officer in early July and back again in August. I think it is odd that they would have made the first trip in August.

It makes sense to me. They investigated the murder, located a suspect, processed evidence, and then arrested a suspect. What we know is that Mexico is where the evidence led detectives after the arrest. It makes sense that three weeks after the arrest they made a connection between the victims, the accused, and the condo.

It doesn't make sense that police would send someone to investigate the victim's plans to move to Mexico if there was no connection to the murder, and they couldn't know if there was a connection to the murder until they had a suspect. After the arrest, there was a clear connection between the accused, the victims, and Mexico.

 

[LoisLane]

It makes sense to me. They investigated the murder, located a suspect, processed evidence, and then arrested a suspect. What we know is that Mexico is where the evidence led detectives after the arrest. It makes sense that three weeks after the arrest they made a connection between the victims, the accused, and the condo.

It doesn't make sense that police would send someone to investigate the victim's plans to move to Mexico if there was no connection to the murder, and they couldn't know if there was a connection to the murder until they had a suspect. After the arrest, there was a clear connection between the accused, the victims, and Mexico.

LE had a suspect before July 14th. Could it be possible that LE went to Mexico prior to the arrest and discovered something that they were able to include and apply to the charges?

LE went to Mexico, that has been confirmed. LE never stated they went to check on the condo but they surely would have. They also never stated the timeline of the investigation in Mexico and if they did the MSM articles did not cover the timeline accurately enough because they were not privy to anything further besides the vague statement from the police spokesperson. Maybe it was just a safeguard and technicality after the arrest. It will be interesting to hear if anything came of it.

 

[LoisLane]

When preparing documents and evidence exhibits for trial including photos, everything needs to be carefully documented by investigators.

Since the couple were planning to move to Mexico at some point and there were some possible questions regarding finances and joint ownership, the Mexico property may or may not turn out to be relevant come trial. But because it is part of the timeline, it needed to be documented to be entered into evidence. A fax or a phone call does not suffice.

The other possibility, is perhaps they were trying to nail down exactly what had been sold over that weekend, what belongings had been moved already, therefore what could be missing as a result of the crime, perhaps they needed a catalogue of all property in the condo?

IMHO, it was simple evidence gathering and ensuring proper documentation of every detail of the timeline. When the investigators take their turn on the stand, they will need to swear to the evidence and as such, they need first hand handling of said evidence.

BBM. I wonder if they moved personal items if they flew small items over or if they drove a larger amount of belongings down and when was their last visit to the Mexico residence. It may not matter but I am curious if it applies to any information that DG would have learned that could have set events in place.