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

[Tinkerbel1]

Tonight, the episode of NCIS is about somebody being charged for shooting a dead person. I think I'll go watch that...

 

[news.talk]

Well, if that's what Otto meant, perhaps you could explain why Otto keeps flogging the statement that the 'victims were forcibly removed'? That would truly be a first I believe...forcibly removing a deceased person(s). JMO

Hey... I cannot speak for anyone else. I just took a stab at what I thought he might of meant.

 

[news.talk]

Tonight, the episode of NCIS is about somebody being charged for shooting a dead person. I think I'll go watch that...

Yeah. Because TV dramas are the basis for reality. Perhaps the CPS should have had the entire case solved in one hour and the last ten minutes is the suspect confessing, tying up the case in a nice bow.

Enjoy the show. Hope it helps.

 

[deugirtni]

That could be it, although I had it in my head that it was stated in a video directly by LE, but I could be wrong, and good find, at least you have proven that the statement does exist.

I find it very interesting that there is so much incongruity regarding where the family was going. In the video you linked, it is said they were going to Mexico and then heading to Edmonton, while in the story right WITH the video, it says the opposite. Family members and LE and MSM and close friends and neighbours all seem to have different takes on what exactly the L's plans were, even though those plans were to begin imminently (as proven by the family's selling off of virtually everything in the house, everything was apparently up for grabs that weekend).

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

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Who was it that ever said 'lots'? Not LE, not MSM after speaking with LE, but a friend of the family, who did not see it for himself, and we do not even know if he used JO's exact words. And you are basing your theories and beliefs on this? But yet others who dare to theorize get accused of.. you know what. This is no better than that.

Yes... like I said... we are all waiting for the facts. Read the last line of the quote you responded to. The original theory was that there was no blood evidence, to which I answered, and stand by, that it is highly x 3... unlikely, and explained why I felt that way.

There was a standard of lots requested, for which, I again responded.

I will happily defend the right to theorize, but I will equally defend the right to question the theory. Everyone had every right to say the Chief of Police stated the victims were dead, when it was speculated someone could be alive. I see that as a potential issue for trial... the definition of lots vs little in the house, I doubt, will be.

 

[deugirtni]

Excellent post LoriMcA and glad to see you back! Interesting that both you and news.talk found the exact same link. At the time when this came out, surely there was lengthy discussion here on WS.. and as such, any links, one would assume, would be posted in the posts at the time.. I'm really bad at searching WS successfully, but I would be interested to know if there were any other links posted from the time. If in fact it *was* only from this one news source, then I would agree that the Sun isn't the most trustworthy as far as their reporting. (We have one here too!). If there are others however, that may have since disappeared, then perhaps it carries more weight.

The reporter 'inferred' that he had 'JUST' gotten off the phone with LE, and then starts talking about the joint property.. but you're right.. it actually says (BBM) 'before this investigation began, we did learn that the Garland family & the Liknes family combined.... " (that could lead one to wonder if the actual video when it was first stated was from earlier though??)

I also haven't heard of a peep out of the twin, and I also find that very odd, especiallly considering it has been said they were very close.

Your possible reasons for travelling to Mexico all make sense.

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

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Yeah. Because TV dramas are the basis for reality. Perhaps the CPS should have had the entire case solved in one hour and the last ten minutes is the suspect confessing, tying up the case in a nice bow.

Enjoy the show. Hope it helps.

Great idea! Perhaps then we wouldn't have to regurgitate and untwist things as much as we do.

My goodness...even I know those shows are made for TV and compressed into an hour. I just thought the subject matter interesting. Sort of like forcibly removing a deceased.

 

[deugirtni]

Yes absolutely, and also to word their statements so that they do not state what are not facts, as facts.

Perhaps police have a lawyer on staff who can advise them on how to ensure that the words they use communicate only what is necessary under the circumstances.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Response to news.talk: Well, if a solid determination that the victims were deceased in the initial assessment, as indicated by the crime scene as well as LE's practised eye, and the ME performing their job according to your position description posted up thread, then I would think that the s&r efforts may not have been quite so intensive and LE may have shied away from the comments of 'having hope that the victims were still alive', until which time the evidence proved conclusive.

I am just pointing out that its highly unlikely the victims perished in the Parkhill home. JMO

 

[deugirtni]

Yes, I am also able to look at the Alberta website to see what they do. See below from their website. However, that is not backing up your statement:

"The ME is ONLY called out in the event of death."

In this unusual event where it was not known what happened, people were missing, and it looked like a violent something took place (incident?), do you suppose a 'death investigator' from the ME's office could have come to the scene? Or.. what do you suppose a death investigator's role is? To investigate death? What if there are no bodies and there is a possibility that bodies may be found later? You gave a job description for a 'Chief ME'. Was it the Chief ME who came to the site? Was it a death investigator from the ME's office?

All I asked for was a link to back up the factual statement that you made, but you haven't done that. If there is a suspected crime scene where it is possible one or more persons may have become deceased, I believe LE has a duty to inform the ME office, don't they? Perhaps the ME office chose on their own accord to come out and look around. Do we actually know the fine details of that conversation and why someone from the ME's office visited? No we dont'. factual statements should be supported with facts. Otherwise, statements should be presented as opinion.

We shed light on death by:

certifying the cause and manner of death in accordance with the Fatality Inquiries Act
assisting and educating Albertans in time of grief
maintaining and developing a centre of excellence in forensic pathology and toxicology

About the OCME

We have two regional offices – one in Edmonton and the other in Calgary. The Chief Medical Examiner is based in Edmonton.

The OCME has seven functional units:

medical examiners
death investigators
autopsy suite
toxicology
histology
records
administration

I gave you the scope of their role in Alberta. No where does it say that they perform services other than in the event of death. It is clearly defined in the link I provided multiple times.

Furthermore, I provided the scope of the services provided by the FCSU for the CPS that once again, outlines the suggestions you surmised the ME could provide but under their directive, they don't - What you preposed the ME could do, is outlined in the description given for the FCSU.


ETA:

Here is a job description for a ME in Alberta:

http://ca.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=702ac2d83d0bea4f&from=serp

Again, I cannot find any indication that they would be called upon to provide services OTHER than in the event of death.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Yes... like I said... we are all waiting for the facts. Read the last line of the quote you responded to. The original theory was that there was no blood evidence, to which I answered, and stand by, that it is highly x 3... unlikely, and explained why I felt that way.

There was a standard of lots requested, for which, I again responded.

I will happily defend the right to theorize, but I will equally defend the right to question the theory. Everyone had every right to say the Chief of Police stated the victims were dead, when it was speculated someone could be alive. I see that as a potential issue for trial... the definition of lots vs little in the house, I doubt, will be.

Whatever LOTS meant, it was likely enough to assume that it wasn't what most would probably call normal, therefore something out of the ordinary had happened. Even it wasn't LOTs, it was still blood...the source of it had to be investigated. There was enough of it to draw LE to the conclusion that someone was "likely in medical distress''. I felt that that particular comment was very diplomatic and tactful. I do have to give credit to the LE spokespeople at the press conferences for conducting themselves in a highly professional manner with very diplomatic, yet vague information. It's difficult to be quizzed by people for answers when you aren't at liberty to say anything, really. JMO

 

[deugirtni]

Come to think of it........ has it even been stated by LE in their statement they made when they cancelled the AA, charged DG with 3 murders, and stated their 'belief' that the trio were dead, that their presumed deaths occurred at the Parkhill residence? Just wondeing, because I don't recall hearing that part. I could be wrong. Do you have a link? Thanks.

I think what Otto is trying to say is, that just because LE wanted to wait for conclusive confirmation that the victim's were killed at the Parkhill residence, does not mean that they were not killed there.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I think your assessment is the most likely scenario.

Even seasoned homicide detectives would have a hard time believing that the child was among the victim's, if for no other reason than 'hope.' Considering that IMO, the most likely victim of an abduction would be the child over the adults, LE had much to contemplate and weigh out.

I would imagine that in an abduction scenario, the rules would significantly change with regards to releasing information. LE would have to base such decisions on the facts specific to each case and fortunately, Calgary does not see too many violent child abductions IMHO. Since they would have no idea initially who or how many people were injured or deceased, they had to operate on the presumption that someone was alive and possibly being held. Given the presumed level of violence that occurred in the home, I would imagine that LE was very careful with the wording they chose for public statements, in the event that they were looking at an abduction.

When I first heard the story my very first thought was a child abduction from a pedophile, I thought this before I thought robbery from the estate sale. I remember thinking how strange to take the child, unless the child was the target.

Then, the more info that started getting released and the series of events that were happening didn't seem 'normal' for any crime or child abduction and then it seemed to spawn more mystery.

 

[deugirtni]

CPS were fairly close, considering they had that entire 'complex' case wrapped up in a neat little package within days. Imho, it does have a nice bow.

Yeah. Because TV dramas are the basis for reality. Perhaps the CPS should have had the entire case solved in one hour and the last ten minutes is the suspect confessing, tying up the case in a nice bow.

Enjoy the show. Hope it helps.

 

[deugirtni]

My first thought was.. robbery in regard to the estate sale.. but then when we found out about the coincidence of WinterPet closing just a couple of days before this event, other things seemed to make much more sense, in relation to that event.

When I first heard the story my very first thought was a child abduction from a pedophile, I thought this before I thought robbery from the estate sale. I remember thinking how strange to take the child, unless the child was the target.

Then, the more info that started getting released and the series of events that were happening didn't seem 'normal' for any crime or child abduction and then it seemed to spawn more mystery.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

If that is the case, where did they locate the evidence that concluded the victim's were deceased?

Perhaps from evidence gathered at the investigations of the green truck, the Garland acreage, the pond and/or other information that the witnesses they expect in the preliminary hearing, have. I feel that they secured their evidence from various avenues. It was definitely not all in the Liknes home. If it was, the 30 days they stated they were conducting ongoing investigation, would not have been required, as LE would have all that they needed to propose to the Prosecution that they move directly to a homicide investigation much sooner than the 2 weeks it took. IMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

My first thought was.. robbery in regard to the estate sale.. but then when we found out about the coincidence of WinterPet closing just a couple of days before this event, other things seemed to make much more sense, in relation to that event.

My first thought was, the grandparents took off with their grandson since the Amber Alert was issued for NO in attendance of his grandparents. The information regarding the business dealings, etc on the victims' side, certainly reinforced that idea. When siteings were reported country-wide, that as well, furthered my original thoughts.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I'm posting the CPS PDF reports for June (thanks Otto for uploading earlier in the thread) and July 2014. I'm also posting the excel spreadsheet stats for crimes by neighborhood for those interested in them as well as link to the documents:

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Statistics/Calgary-Police-statistical-reports.aspx

View attachment CPS_June_2014_Crime_Report.pdf View attachment 2014-july-statistical-report.pdf

ETA - Couldn't attached excel spreadsheet format so resaved the file as a PDF. I cut out 2012 and 2013 so only will see 2014 stats. There are 2 docs - only by community the other by crime category. View attachment 2014-monthly-community-crime-statistics By Category.pdfView attachment 2014-monthly-community-crime-statistics By Community.pdf

 

[Tinkerbel1]

How did he subdue them to get them in the truck (considering one would be a frightened child), keep three people from screaming and fighting back without being heard by neighbours, and prevent them from signaling motorists along the way? It was reported that at least one person was in medical distress, most likely bleeding profusely... How did he manage to not get blood all over his truck, since it has been stated that such evidence would be considered a 'smoking gun'?

Correction: Otto has stated the blood in the truck would be "circumstantial evidence'' not the smoking gun.

As far as getting them not scream, etc...mouth gags? A chemical to knock them out while he transported things? He's a chemist, I'm sure he could've thought up something to knock them out...

 

[LoisLane]

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

Thank you for posting this Lori!

I am not sure if the video has been removed or if my IPad is not allowing me to view it but I will try on a Pc later. i thought it had worked earlier today but I had limited time to watch. I wonder if the reporter would be willing to back up his comments. I am also curious why other news outlets have not (that I am aware of) touched on the joint ownership. It is also interesting the many comments by readers and the suspicion they have about the Mexico connection.