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

[news.talk]

Sure. But that just brings me back to holding LE accountable for misleading the public and the families.

I don't for a minute believe that LE misled the families or the public. Their first priority is to the victim's and in order to carry out their duty, they needed all the information. Keep in mind, they were also trying to find a suspect and certain investigative proceedures and information needs to be protected until such time there is a trial or it becomes in the public's best interest to know.

They potentially had a missing child and an Amber Alert needed to be released. Therefore, a statement had to be made that gave the relevant information in the event that the child was alive.

Unless the public is at risk, LE is in no way beholding to the public to release speculation or unverified facts prior to confirmation. Even then, what is released is carefully weighed against a defendant's rights and what is in the best interest of the case.

 

[LoisLane]

Perhaps neutrality is subjective?

"We're very confident that we are going to find these family members and we are hoping that we are going to find them alive," he said.

I take from this early statement, that they are going to find them (dead or alive - remains eventually surface) and they are holding out HOPE that they find them alive.

I can see the distinction and appreciate that not everyone hears the same message, but I find this statement very neutral.

If only we could take a poll of the public's interpretaion of the above statement. I suspect that it would not be considered a neutral comment by most. JMO.

 

[news.talk]

If only we could take a poll of the public's interpretaion of the above statement. I suspect that it would not be considered a neutral comment by most. JMO.

It is a difficult situation for LE - With all the variables and legalities they were contending with, in a VERY uncommon case, I highly doubt that any statement would be considered sufficient. Since the public does not yet know all the factors LE had to consider when drafting that statement, we are in no position to stand in judgement.

Keeping the public informed about an ongoing investigation is a challenge under normal circumstances. These were not normal circumstances.

 

[stan laurel]

I can see the distinction and appreciate that not everyone hears the same message, but I find this statement very neutral.

I don't.

 

[LoisLane]

I don't for a minute believe that LE misled the families or the public. Their first priority is to the victim's and in order to carry out their duty, they needed all the information. Keep in mind, they were also trying to find a suspect and certain investigative proceedures and information needs to be protected until such time there is a trial or it becomes in the public's best interest to know.

They potentially had a missing child and an Amber Alert needed to be released. Therefore, a statement had to be made that gave the relevant information in the event that the child was alive.

Unless the public is at risk, LE is in no way beholding to the public to release speculation or unverified facts prior to confirmation. Even then, what is released is carefully weighed against a defendant's rights and what is in the best interest of the case.

Yeah, a trained eye and experienced detectives would probably know what happened by the scene but I'm still just so surprised and a bit confused they said they were hanging onto hope they'd be find alive.

I mean, just saying the words 'alive' at a press conference conjures up hope for everyone, and letting the family (JO and RO) send a message to NO on TV seems strange to do if LE knew they were all deceased. Unless they were doing this as strategy to maybe weigh on the conscience of the perp.

If they knew they were all deceased from the beginning, they could have said 'no comment' or veiled their statements to not conjure up such hope. Don't get me wrong, I'm not slamming LE, just a bit confused why they did it this way. Maybe they thought NO escaped by chance somehow or was hiding or maybe thought not everyone had succumbed to death at the Parkhill home, I guess they might've known *a* murder occurred, but not how many.

I think they did mislead the families if they knew that murder had occured within minutes of viewing the crime scene. I will refer to Lalala's comment about the plea made by the family as an example.

The AA has a strict protocol as well which could also be considered.

Anywho, I am off to bed.

 

[stan laurel]

sometimes when I read some posts it sounds as though they have been carefully drafted by an outside source but placed carefully so as to give a certain group a more favourable public perception. imo

 

[news.talk]

sometimes when I read some posts it sounds as though they have been carefully drafted by an outside source but placed carefully so as to give a certain group a more favourable public perception. imo

LOL... If you are referring to mine, I guess I should take that as a compliment. Perhaps I should solicit the CPS for a job in their Public Information section!

Just been around this block more times than I can count. Having to deal with LE professionally and personally, I can empathize with their position and understand their reasoning.

 

[LoisLane]

sometimes when I read some posts it sounds as though they have been carefully drafted by an outside source but placed carefully so as to give a certain group a more favourable public perception. imo

Shucks! I thought you were talking about me. LOL!

 

[stan laurel]

Shucks! I thought you were talking about me. LOL!

sorry dear, your posts have a natural flow to them as if you are talking,, besides I don't think you have to worry about burning bridges if you post what you *really* think.

 

[news.talk]

I think they did mislead the families if they knew that murder had occured within minutes of viewing the crime scene. I will refer to Lalala's comment about the plea made by the family as an example.

The AA has a strict protocol as well which could also be considered.

Anywho, I am off to bed.

Making an experienced guess about a crime scene, and being able to prove a detective's assumptions are not the same thing. Public statements need to be based on provable facts, not speculation.

Judging by the past-tense slip up by a family member at the first presser, I suspect the family were also asked to operate under the slim hope that one or more of their family members were alive, while they may have been fearing the worst.

 

[LoisLane]

Making an experienced guess about a crime scene, and being able to prove a detective's assumptions are not the same thing. Public statements need to be based on provable facts, not speculation.

Judging by the past-tense slip up by a family member at the first presser, I suspect the family were also asked to operate under the slim hope that one or more of their family members were alive, while they may have been fearing the worst.

I am not sure what past-tense slip up you are talking about. I will look at that again.
I think that LE would have had a different outcome if they suspected murder and if they would have admitted that at the beginning. Whether they could or could not state that is debateable.

 

[stan laurel]

I am not sure what past-tense slip up you are talking about. I will look at that again.
I think that LE would have had a different outcome if they suspected murder and if they would have admitted that at the beginning. Whether they could or could not state that is debateable.

so they were allowed to say they were alive when this wasn't true? I'm confused.

 

[news.talk]

so they were allowed to say they were alive when this wasn't true? I'm confused.

I don't recall them ever stating tjat the victim's were alive... They said they held out hope they were but never definitively stated they were for a fact. Do you have a link to support your statement?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

sometimes when I read some posts it sounds as though they have been carefully drafted by an outside source but placed carefully so as to give a certain group a more favourable public perception. imo

Alright, alright... you caught me. I'm the President of the local Sam Elliot fan club. It's all a ploy to get him meaningful roles once again... and it would've worked if it weren't for you meddling websleuthers!

 

[stan laurel]

but they're not allowed to speculate without evidence, so, saying things based on nothing is allowed but saying things based on speculation is not allowed? I think the best neutral statement would have been "we don't know", as most people can understand this type of honesty.




where's otto in all this, the sun set hours ago????

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

so they were allowed to say they were alive when this wasn't true? I'm confused.

I think they were allowed to hope the victims were alive, like the rest of us, even though they suspected the victims were dead, like the rest of us. Look at the scrutiny we have put them through when they announced they were dead.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Welcome to law enforcement.

 

[stan laurel]

I think they were allowed to hope the victims were alive, like the rest of us, even though they suspected the victims were dead, like the rest of us. Look at the scrutiny we have put them through when they announced they were dead.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Welcome to law enforcement.

why didn't they just say "we don't know"?

 

[stan laurel]

I think they were allowed to hope the victims were alive, like the rest of us, even though they suspected the victims were dead, like the rest of us. Look at the scrutiny we have put them through when they announced they were dead.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Welcome to law enforcement.

I'm not in law enforcement, you must have me confused with someone else.

 

[LoisLane]

I think they were allowed to hope the victims were alive, like the rest of us, even though they suspected the victims were dead, like the rest of us. Look at the scrutiny we have put them through when they announced they were dead.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Welcome to law enforcement.

Are they allowed to conduct their investigations based on "feelings"? I think that notion was kiboshed a while back.

 

[news.talk]

why didn't they just say "we don't know"?

I wouldn't dare speak for my better half... Personally, I think that saying "I don't know" would have created more ridicule than what they did say.

I suspect that they chose their wording based on the possibility of a kidnapping. At the time they had no way of determining conclusively who and how many people were injured or deceased. They needed to provide *some* information to hopefully elicit public assistance, in the event that someone was alive and in dire danger or medical distress.