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

[otto]

Absolutely agree! Therefore, we can safely assume, no one was killed at the Liknes home, correct? They got out of that house on their own two feet...perhaps with some persuasion but my thought is they were alive and walked out of it...in which case they got in DG's truck...unless there was another mode of transportation nearby. JMO

... only if we ignore the facts.

"Police say the scene in the house makes them believe the three were forcibly removed, though Andrus wouldn’t comment on rumours significant amounts of blood were found there."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/07/0...arents-to-make-public-appeal-for-their-return

 

[otto]

That is a very good point Lois and I share your sentiment. There was no reason for the families or the public to be led on until evidence came back from testing. If evidence was found within the two weeks, it must have been pretty obvious that they were likely deceased. The only thing that was mentioned was that "someone in the Liknes home ''could'' be in medical distress". That actually was a comment that was meant not to raise a lot of concern...it was mildy and diplomatically stated, with no warning air that something bigger had possibly gone on.

Those bad police! They should not have hoped that the victims were alive until evidence confirmed that the victims were deceased. They should have given up all hope before they had the facts.

 

[LoisLane]

The video was linked in earlier posts. I don't have time to search for it, but it was posted around the time that police went to Mexico, so around Aug 5-6.

Ok. I will search videos. I have gone thru the written articles and haven't found anything suggesting a joint purchase with a Garland.

I found this video, but no talk about a joint purchase either.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1492641/search-for-missing-calgary-family-moves-to-mexico/

 

[stan laurel]

... but LE also stated someone left in medical distress. I suspect there was a lot of blood by most people's standard.

standard relative to what?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

standard relative to what?

I would think if it were a few droplets, JO wouldn't have called LE, and if it was a few droplets smeared, LE wouldn't have treated the house immediately lIke a crime scene. If you have ever called LE to report something without hysterics and/or very convincing reasons for immediate presence... you don't get immediate presence.

Given the forensic people were there, the house was treated like a crime scene, the ME made an appearance, someone left in "medical distress", which doesn't mean they left their asthma puffer behind, and that they assume there was a violent incident... although we can't state it as fact, it's safe to assume that eliminates the idea that it was only a few smeared drops.

There was enough by scared Mother standards to call Police, and enough by professional standards to assume there was cause for a serious investigation.

One also doesn't contact crime scene cleanup specialists to clean finger print powder, or rearrange furniture... or wipe up a few drops smeared.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

... only if we ignore the facts.

"Police say the scene in the house makes them believe the three were forcibly removed, though Andrus wouldn’t comment on rumours significant amounts of blood were found there."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/07/0...arents-to-make-public-appeal-for-their-return

With all due respect Otto, "forcibly removed", does not mean deceased. They were likely all alive when they left that house. JMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Those bad police! They should not have hoped that the victims were alive until evidence confirmed that the victims were deceased. They should have given up all hope before they had the facts.

Lol...I think you've turned something around here...my post was a response to LL's regarding the hope that police ''did'' have and that hope was merited, and surely that if they had irrefutable proof in that time period that they were deceased, they wouldn't have led the public on as to having hope they were alive. My post was agreeing with her, saying that "yes, LE had hope that they were alive as there was NO EVIDENCE up until the two week mark when they declared it a homicide investigation. I am saying that yes, I believe LE had hopes they were alive...there was no reason for LE to lead people on....I didn't say they were leading people on.

Some of us don't give up all hope until they have the facts.

 

[deugirtni]

Could have been 'a lot', could have been 'not a lot', LE hasn't even stated I don't think, that it was in fact blood they found in the home. We are sure that it was, but has LE ever stated that? If the trio were missing when JO went to pick up her son at the preivously agreed upon time, and she found instead, say, a trail of blood drops leading from one place to the door, that would be disturbing in itself. If she then tried to call them on their respective cellphones and found them ringing instead in the house, that would be disturbing in addition. If some furniture was knocked over, again, disturbing. If it were me and I found those things, I would call the police also. Then police found marks on the side of the house, presumably blood, but yet the trio was gone without having taken the vehicles. No reports of hospital/ambulance visits.. very suspicious. Couldn't violent incident also mean furniture thrown about, the home in disarray, as compared with how it was when JO had departed 12 hours prior, especially if in conjunction with some blood, any amount, cellphones left inside, no vehicles missing, and no hospital reports?

... but LE also stated someone left in medical distress. I suspect there was a lot of blood by most people's standard.

 

[deugirtni]

What if there is no body, but LE wants ME to see whatever crime scene was in the home? What if LE had questions that an ME could answer or speak to? As you noted, this is an unusual case. I think I read somewhere at one point that there are occasions on which the ME 'must' be called. In this case, no bodies, but perhaps a suspicion; perhaps LE called the ME in case the bodies were found shortly thereafter, and they wanted ME's take on where the deaths occurred, ie thinking ahead. I think that we can't say that we know everything in this case. MOO.

What you described is the role of the forensic technicians with the CPS. The ME is ONLY called out in the event of death.

 

[deugirtni]

Also, do you have a link supporting your statement of fact?

What you described is the role of the forensic technicians with the CPS. The ME is ONLY called out in the event of death.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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?

Conversely, they never said they were deceased in the time period where they "held out hope"either. Do you have a link for that?

 

[deugirtni]

I think some have searched for that video, but have thus far been able to locate it. It may be one of those ones that has subsequently gone missing/been deleted. There should be at least discussion regarding what was said at that time, here on WS if someone can figure out a way to do some good searches on here. In hindsight, it almost seems like that piece of information may have been a slip-up. Perhaps like that other statement they made about ways to know when people are deceased, such as not accessing their bank accounts.

The video was linked in earlier posts. I don't have time to search for it, but it was posted around the time that police went to Mexico, so around Aug 5-6.

Originally Posted by LoisLane View Post
I am having a hard time finding the source/link that states the condo is a joint purchase. Can you please re-post it?

I am curious why reporters did not mention the joint condo purchase alongside the announcement that Police went to Mexico. Unless that is where the link is and I am missing it?

 

[deugirtni]

I disagree with your statement below, because if the tenants of Parkhill had insurance, the cleanup likely would have been arranged through insurance (if in fact crim scene cleanup specialists did do the cleaning), and insurance would call that type of service company; those companies are not just for crime scene cleanup although their range of services would certainly include that. They are called when there is a little smoke to be cleaned up from a small kitchen grease fire, which I can confirm through personal experience. I have heard that fingerprint stuff that LE uses is difficult to remove, and we can see they didn't spare using it on the outside of the home, I can't imagine what the inside may look like. MOO

.... One also doesn't contact crime scene cleanup specialists to clean finger print powder, or rearrange furniture... or wipe up a few drops smeared.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Could have been 'a lot', could have been 'not a lot', LE hasn't even stated I don't think, that it was in fact blood they found in the home. We are sure that it was, but has LE ever stated that? If the trio were missing when JO went to pick up her son at the preivously agreed upon time, and she found instead, say, a trail of blood drops leading from one place to the door, that would be disturbing in itself. If she then tried to call them on their respective cellphones and found them ringing instead in the house, that would be disturbing in addition. If some furniture was knocked over, again, disturbing. If it were me and I found those things, I would call the police also. Then police found marks on the side of the house, presumably blood, but yet the trio was gone without having taken the vehicles. No reports of hospital/ambulance visits.. very suspicious. Couldn't violent incident also mean furniture thrown about, the home in disarray, as compared with how it was when JO had departed 12 hours prior, especially if in conjunction with some blood, any amount, cellphones left inside, no vehicles missing, and no hospital reports?

Yes, but "medical distress" doesn't mean nose bleed. One could also assume the house would be in some disarray already with the sale and planned move. Since an insider was quoted in MSM saying JO found lots of blood... not that it makes any difference at this point... but it's highly, highly, highly likely that there was enough fluids to be considered lots...

I suppose we could consult a dictionary for the definition of lots, as there is no international standard of lots vs little vs some blood evidence...

We'll all wait for the facts, but like LE stating they are deceased, the likelihood is firmly on the side of the information presented so far.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Also, do you have a link supporting your statement of fact?

Everyone is actually agreeing here in that the ME was likely called in to investigate the possibility of death. I assume LE was doing their due diligence by calling in the ME to begin an investigation, and I assume LE also spoke formally, or informally to the ME to get his/her initial opinion on what he/she saw.

 

[news.talk]

Also, do you have a link supporting your statement of fact?

I have posted it three times now:


The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) provides responsive front-line death investigation and death certification services.

http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/fatality/ocme/Pages/default.aspx

.....

Just for reference, this is the CPS Forensic role:

Operating out of a state of the art forensic laboratory building, the Forensic Crime Scenes Unit's (FCSU) primary function is to impartially locate, collect and process trace, latent and physical evidence in order to link a person to a place or an object.

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Specialty-teams/About-our-Forensic-Crime-Scene-Unit.aspx

------

Very different scopes and disciplines.

 

[news.talk]

Conversely, they never said they were deceased in the time period where they "held out hope"either. Do you have a link for that?

I was asking Stan if he had a link that specifically stated that they were alive:

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

 

[news.talk]

I think some have searched for that video, but have thus far been able to locate it. It may be one of those ones that has subsequently gone missing/been deleted. There should be at least discussion regarding what was said at that time, here on WS if someone can figure out a way to do some good searches on here. In hindsight, it almost seems like that piece of information may have been a slip-up. Perhaps like that other statement they made about ways to know when people are deceased, such as not accessing their bank accounts.

I cannot verify what is in the video but after looking through some past posts on this discussion I found this link:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/08/20140805-135924.html


The OP says that the information is at 00:50

 

[LoriMcA]

Regarding the supposed 'joint' property in Mexico....finally found the video...it's from Sun News...I don't rely on them much here *we have a Winnipeg version ...I think they are run all across the country*....because they tend to be more 'tabloid' & sensationalized....even some of their comments make me literally cringe......JMOO

So...here is the article & the video...
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/08/20140805-135924.html

From the video...reporter Rob Gibson...He starts talking about the :35 mark onward:

"...Well, Beatrice I just got off the phone with the Police Department & they have confirmed that officers are working with Mexican authorities (that/they?) are in Mexico.

They would not go into the exact location of where they are but before this investigation began, we did learn that the Garland family & the Liknes family combined have some property in Mexico.

We don't know who specifically that that property is but we do know that they had intended to sell off their property here in Calgary, move to Mexico for awhile before going back to Edmonton, so presumably that is the location where police are investigating...."


Another reason I am skeptical to say the least about the report of a 'joint' venture...they don't say where they got the information....they say 'we did learn'...it does not say that CPS told them..

The reporter may 'infer' it by including it in with all the other info from CPS but he does not state it was from them...

Another reason I tend not to believe their report on the joint ownership.....they are the ONLY *as far as I've found* news report that has stated it. You would think if it were validated and confirmed there would be more than one news source jumping on that fact. At least once. If anyone can find another news source that has said the same...or similar...I would love to read it...so far I have not found any.

Why would they go to Mexico then right?

....Maybe to talk to AL's twin about the condo situation?...maybe he has been in Mexico all this time...doesn't plan to come back any time soon?

....Maybe he won't just 'talk on the phone' or send a photocopy or fax...maybe he doesn't trust important info like that going down the wire....possibly will only talk face to face....who knows?

I don't think he's been seen or heard from since this all began IIRC...someone correct me if I'm wrong please....I just honestly don't recall him being visible or vocal....which I find odd in itself but hey that's me...family dynamics are different for everyone.....JMOO

Maybe LE travelled to Mexico to search for the 3 victims JUST to rule out EVERY scenario the defense could use...no matter how outlandish it may be.....no stone left un-turned as they said....
At least if the defense were to use that in their case....say 'Well there are no bodies....maybe they took off to Mexico...maybe someone should check Mexico...they have a condo there....' they can reply with...."We have done so...and there was no evidence at all etc etc"

I really don't know? I just have my doubts about the above report...JMO.....which seems to be the only one that ever said anything about a joint purchase/venture....Hmmm...just thought of something...*here comes Lori with another fly in the ointment....don't jump all over me please*L*...it's just my thoughts.....you may not agree with me but hey....that's cool! *.....

The reporter didn't say joint...they said the 2 families...combined....possibly meaning both families...the L's & the G's have property...but what if he means...they both own property there...but not necessarily together?....maybe CPS went to check out another property there altogether....maybe owned by the G's.....who knows?*

As always....MOO & JMOO....& IMO....


ETA: haha...newstalk....while I was gabbing away writing this post.....look what you found ....okay shutting up now....
PS: Those are not errors or typos in the news report...it is exactly how he said it...just fyi

 

[otto]

With all due respect Otto, "forcibly removed", does not mean deceased. They were likely all alive when they left that house. JMO

What evidence is there that the family walked out of the house on their own? What we know is that the victims were forcibly removed, that there are drag marks and blood evidence between the side door and the parking pad, that one member of the family was in medical distress in the home, and that the Amber Alert was for the two males. That Amber Alert was discontinued on July 14 when evidence confirmed that the victims were deceased. Nothing about that suggests that three victims walked out of the crime scene alive.