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

[winnnancy]

I don't reject all statements unless made by police. And if a statement by anyone is an opinion, then I don't necessarily accept it as fact. We can agree to disagree and that is okay.

16
agree to disagree
Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
"Do you have any chocolate milk?"
"No."
"Agree to disagree."

-----

"I'm here for make your own food Monday's."
"Uh, sir we never had a make your own food Monday."
"Agree to disagree."

by Calvin the Great February 06, 2006
2182 7552 Shop
20 Words Related to Agree to disagree

agree disagree argue arguing argument weinervitter agreement ending the argument petty truce whatever acknowledgement alright arguments middle ground okay opinions pilot taste wrong
Random Word
1
Agree to disagree
What someone says when they want to end an argument, essentially concluding that both parties think they are right and that they will get nowhere in arguing.
Guy: It doesn't matter what a judge's background or opinion is when he/she is making a decision.
Girl: But what they believe has a huge effect on the verdict; nothing is objective!
Guy: But to be a judge you must be impartial.
Girl: Aaaah, you just don't get it.
Guy: Can't we just agree to disagree? This argument is really petty. We both seem to be set in our argument.
by WordJunkie May 16, 2009
329 112 Shop

2
agree to disagree
to agree to discuss something, but retain one's opinions
I have not decided anything accept that I agree to disagree.
by Light Joker May 14, 2005
362 221 Shop
3
agree to disagree
A phrase typically used to indicate a settled argument or coming to a truce instead of continuing an argument or debate.

But what happens when the argument is between two BEST friends?

How can they just drop it and say, "Well, we agree to disagree. I suppose?"

They can't. Not entirely. Hence a new definition: "We agree to disagree as long as we can present our arguments and let other people decide who is right on, www.weagreetodisagree.org " This is a term which describes the situation where two best friends realize again and again that they have nothing in common - they agree to disagree.
Friend one: "I love shopping in boutiques!"

Friend two: "Are you effing nuts?! They are way too expensive!"

Friend one: "Well I guess we agree to disagree... in a very public way!"
by Noodia June 16, 2010
65 40 Shop
4
Agree to Disagree
When to people attempt to, but cannot reach common ground and agree that there can be no agreement between them.
Kid 1: Mom and dad had a big argument yesterday
Kid 2: What happened?
Kid 1: Mom wanted to go to Olive Garden for some alone time with dad, but the NBA championships were on, it was 4th quarter in game 6 of the Bulls-Celtics series. Dad promised to go later, but mom insisted on going now. After 10 minutes of bickering, they ordered me to my room. I could still hear them cursing though
Kid 2: So what happened?
Kid 1: They agree to disagree. Mom went to olive garden with some of her friends and dad stayed home and watched the game.
Kid 2: Was it worth it?
Kid 1: I guess, the bulls won by one point in OT and mom came home full with a smile
by J Wonda May 16, 2009
74 61 Shop
5
agree to disagree
What a person says when they are too lazy or bigoted to enter a discussion which may lead them to reassess their opinions.
Me: Climate change is real.
Some guy: Nah, it's a myth.
Me: I have the data here to prove it. Take a look.
Some guy: Let's agree to disagree.
by obgyndydna August 08, 2012
16 5 Shop

6
agree to disagree
When two people hold strongly to opposite beliefs but choose to remain friendly with each other in spite of their differences. Let's face it... no two people agree about everything, so sometimes you just gotta give a little.
Joe: I think John McCain is a blithering idiot.

Bob: Well I think Obama might be the anti-christ.

Joe: Well, let's just agree to disagree. Wanna do lunch?

Bob: Sure thing, old buddy! How about "The Greasy Spoon Diner"... I love that place!

Joe: Seriously??? I think their food SUCKS!

Bob: Ahem! Here we go again!
by oerthrnbw May 16, 2009
39 36 Shop
7
Agree to disagree
1) verb: When multiple parties accord that they have/will not reconcile(d) a dispute.

2) verb: What many urbandictionary.com users have done in reference to another user's definition of 'agree to disagree'.
1) If people with leftist views agree to disagree with the views of right-wingers, and vice versa, I'm not too sure they will have anything to talk about.

 

[Sillybilly]

I don't reject all statements unless made by police. And if a statement by anyone is an opinion, then I don't necessarily accept it as fact. We can agree to disagree and that is okay.

Over in the Bosma thread, some folks are questioning a statement from a non-LEO that DM held coke-fuelled parties. There is a separate statement from another non-LEO that makes reference to DM having supplied coke to one of his alleged victims. Two independent parties making reference to DM and coke, it becomes more believable that DM has involvement with cocaine.

In this case, we have one non-LEO statement referencing the trail of what appears to be blood (as posted ^^ by otto), and another separate non-LEO party who makes reference to lots of blood, combined with LE's reference to a violent incident. IMO when considering all references, it becomes more believable that there was lots of blood.

 

[kaley]

Thanks LoriMcA. I find the search mechanism on WS really cumbersome and time consuming and would love to know how to get an archived report like the one LL posted recently, because from that it is very easy to search. I did go back and read posts from the time period when it was stated that the G family also owned the Mexican property.. and I can find only one media with that information, the one which you and news.talk linked yesterday.. and so I have to agree that considering none of the other media outlets seem to have ever reported that, and considering the Sun's reputation, I don't think that statement carries much weight. MOO. Interesting how rumors get started and keep going based on one little (false) bone thrown in along the way! It may also be worthy of note that considering how it seems that all kinds of media outlets have the same story, and the exact same wording in fact, that no other media picked up on this statement thrown out by the Sun. Very telling, imho.

Another thing I happened upon in my search regarding the Mexican statement, I relistened to the interview from the L's neighbour who had been 'invited' into the L home to have a look. I recall there was discussion on WS about a rug having been removed, and speculation was had regarding that it could have been used to wrap the bodies in for transport. The man doesn't say it was removed, he says it was 'picked up'. Nothing about it being absent. More like it was picked up for moving into storage. One would have to assume that if there were 'lots' of blood on the carpet, LE would have removed it as evidence. We're not sure which 'rug' he's referring to in which room, but just thought I would mention, because I had thought WSers had been discussing how the rug had been removed. Link below:
http://globalnews.ca/news/1492641/search-for-missing-calgary-family-moves-to-mexico/?utm_source=Other&utm_medium=MostPopular&utm_campaign=2014

Definitely interesting to go back on historical posts!

The rug was also "scrunched up" in areas. I am referring to the green carpet in some of the kijiji photos. I made a comment about it before that it looked almost like outdoor carpet but inside. The neighbour (if they had never been in the home before) could have been talking about this carpet. Perhaps he just meant that it looked like it was removed and then put back into place. I have a couple pictures of the carpet I am talking about. This is MOO.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I don't reject all statements unless made by police. And if a statement by anyone is an opinion, then I don't necessarily accept it as fact. We can agree to disagree and that is okay.

That particular statement about lots of blood, was just one piece of information used to conclude a theory. It is consistent with other factors, both fact and reasoned, to support the theory.

We'll also wait to see the evidence of death, but because LE made the statement, it lends itself to the high likelihood they are deceased.

No different.

 

[Sillybilly]

That particular statement about lots of blood, was just one piece of information used to conclude a theory. It is consistent with other factors, both fact and reasoned, to support the theory.

We'll also wait to see the evidence of death, but because LE made the statement, it lends itself to the high likelihood they are deceased.

No different.

The fact the ME was at the scene at all (presumably would be at the request of LE who found the scene/circumstances suspicious) most likely resulted in pathological forensic evidence being collected. If the ME had no input from his/her attendance, LE could have made the statement earlier than they did. LE didn't make their statement upon initial observations, and for them to subsequently announce the trio are dead was more than likely in conjunction with consultation with the ME and whatever other forensic evidence may have been collected. If the ME was unable to collect evidence upon attendance, he/she probably would not have had any other way to provide input to the decision-making process.

I agree ... it is highly likely there is sufficient pathological forensic evidence to support LE's statement.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

The fact the ME was at the scene at all (presumably would be at the request of LE who found the scene/circumstances suspicious) most likely resulted in pathological forensic evidence being collected. If the ME had no input from his/her attendance, LE could have made the statement earlier than they did. LE didn't make their statement upon initial observations, and for them to subsequently announce the trio are dead was more than likely in conjunction with consultation with the ME and whatever other forensic evidence may have been collected. If the ME was unable to collect evidence upon attendance, he/she probably would not have had any other way to provide input to the decision-making process.

I agree ... it is highly likely there is sufficient pathological forensic evidence to support LE's statement.

The ME may have been called in for an 'opinion' as to whether or not the amount of blood at the scene would be congruent with death or not...could someone survive with an injury that bled alot, and if so, for how long?

 

[news.talk]

The ME may have been called in for an 'opinion' as to whether or not the amount of blood at the scene would be congruent with death or not...could someone survive with an injury that bled alot, and if so, for how long?

Which is exactly what some of us have been saying! He would have given his 'opinion' which was that life could not be supported because of (tissue, blood loss, pathological changes, etc...) which after analysis, provided his report and subsequently they were declared deceased.

Based on the links I have provided, that is the role of a Pathologist - ME. The FCSU does not make determinations of death, but since someone did, it stands to reason that it was the ME'S conclusion.

 

[lynck]

Yes I think we all know what the term smoking gun means. And if victims' blood was found in or on DG's truck, to me, that is very much a smoking gun. MOO. One of our members states that the victims were indeed seen in the video in the back of DG's truck, and that too would be very much a smoking gun. Do you disagree?

Not necessarily. Smoking gun to prove his truck was used to transport bodies, yes - LE still needs to prove he was in fact driving that truck. MOO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

16
agree to disagree
Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
"Do you have any chocolate milk?"
"No."
"Agree to disagree."

-----

"I'm here for make your own food Monday's."
"Uh, sir we never had a make your own food Monday."
"Agree to disagree."

by Calvin the Great February 06, 2006
2182 7552 Shop
20 Words Related to Agree to disagree

agree disagree argue arguing argument weinervitter agreement ending the argument petty truce whatever acknowledgement alright arguments middle ground okay opinions pilot taste wrong
Random Word
1
Agree to disagree
What someone says when they want to end an argument, essentially concluding that both parties think they are right and that they will get nowhere in arguing.
Guy: It doesn't matter what a judge's background or opinion is when he/she is making a decision.
Girl: But what they believe has a huge effect on the verdict; nothing is objective!
Guy: But to be a judge you must be impartial.
Girl: Aaaah, you just don't get it.
Guy: Can't we just agree to disagree? This argument is really petty. We both seem to be set in our argument.
by WordJunkie May 16, 2009
329 112 Shop

2
agree to disagree
to agree to discuss something, but retain one's opinions
I have not decided anything accept that I agree to disagree.
by Light Joker May 14, 2005
362 221 Shop
3
agree to disagree
A phrase typically used to indicate a settled argument or coming to a truce instead of continuing an argument or debate.

But what happens when the argument is between two BEST friends?

How can they just drop it and say, "Well, we agree to disagree. I suppose?"

They can't. Not entirely. Hence a new definition: "We agree to disagree as long as we can present our arguments and let other people decide who is right on, www.weagreetodisagree.org " This is a term which describes the situation where two best friends realize again and again that they have nothing in common - they agree to disagree.
Friend one: "I love shopping in boutiques!"

Friend two: "Are you effing nuts?! They are way too expensive!"

Friend one: "Well I guess we agree to disagree... in a very public way!"
by Noodia June 16, 2010
65 40 Shop
4
Agree to Disagree
When to people attempt to, but cannot reach common ground and agree that there can be no agreement between them.
Kid 1: Mom and dad had a big argument yesterday
Kid 2: What happened?
Kid 1: Mom wanted to go to Olive Garden for some alone time with dad, but the NBA championships were on, it was 4th quarter in game 6 of the Bulls-Celtics series. Dad promised to go later, but mom insisted on going now. After 10 minutes of bickering, they ordered me to my room. I could still hear them cursing though
Kid 2: So what happened?
Kid 1: They agree to disagree. Mom went to olive garden with some of her friends and dad stayed home and watched the game.
Kid 2: Was it worth it?
Kid 1: I guess, the bulls won by one point in OT and mom came home full with a smile
by J Wonda May 16, 2009
74 61 Shop
5
agree to disagree
What a person says when they are too lazy or bigoted to enter a discussion which may lead them to reassess their opinions.
Me: Climate change is real.
Some guy: Nah, it's a myth.
Me: I have the data here to prove it. Take a look.
Some guy: Let's agree to disagree.
by obgyndydna August 08, 2012
16 5 Shop

6
agree to disagree
When two people hold strongly to opposite beliefs but choose to remain friendly with each other in spite of their differences. Let's face it... no two people agree about everything, so sometimes you just gotta give a little.
Joe: I think John McCain is a blithering idiot.

Bob: Well I think Obama might be the anti-christ.

Joe: Well, let's just agree to disagree. Wanna do lunch?

Bob: Sure thing, old buddy! How about "The Greasy Spoon Diner"... I love that place!

Joe: Seriously??? I think their food SUCKS!

Bob: Ahem! Here we go again!
by oerthrnbw May 16, 2009
39 36 Shop
7
Agree to disagree
1) verb: When multiple parties accord that they have/will not reconcile(d) a dispute.

2) verb: What many urbandictionary.com users have done in reference to another user's definition of 'agree to disagree'.
1) If people with leftist views agree to disagree with the views of right-wingers, and vice versa, I'm not too sure they will have anything to talk about.

This is very interesting, but I'm a little confused as to why it was posted? I believe someone was trying to end a discussion that was going around in circles and getting nowhere. That, is one of the definitions...#6...When two people hold strongly to opposite beliefs but choose to remain friendly with each other in spite of their differences. Let's face it... no two people agree about everything, so sometimes you just gotta give a little.

It's fine to say "agree to disagree". Sorry, not sure what your point was.

 

[otto]

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

I think it's important to keep the statements in their correct chronological order. At the time the crime occurred, police said that there was evidence that the victims were forcibly removed. That would suggest that on June 30, police could see that the victims did not walk out of the crime scene. Two weeks later, evidence confirmed that the victims were deceased.

Did police did make a statement about how the victims were removed from the crime scene after they had confirmation that the victims were deceased?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I think it's important to keep the statements in their correct chronological order. At the time the crime occurred, police said that there was evidence that the victims were forcibly removed. That would suggest that on June 30, police could see that the victims did not walk out of the crime scene. Two weeks later, evidence confirmed that the victims were deceased.

Did police did make a statement about how the victims were removed from the crime scene after they had confirmation that the victims were deceased?

I'm sorry Otto, we must be thinking of 'forcibly removed' as different. If the victims weren't capable of walking out of the L's home, then why would they have to be forcibly removed? They could only be forcibly removed if they were still alive.

To me, forcibly removed means "alive when they left the Parkhill home".

 

[otto]

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

What is the origin of the idea that police were going to conduct some sort of 30 day ongoing investigation?

This is what I remember of the comment about 30 days:

"The case has been adjourned to Aug. 14 because Crown prosecutors are still waiting for police disclosure.

Crown prosecutor Shane Parker says it normally takes 30 days for disclosure in a major crime — especially one that involved a homicide and missing persons investigation"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ay-civilian-search-teams-not-needed-1.2708571

 

[news.talk]

What is the origin of the idea that police were going to conduct some sort of 30 day ongoing investigation?

This is what I remember of the comment about 30 days:

"The case has been adjourned to Aug. 14 because Crown prosecutors are still waiting for police disclosure.

Crown prosecutor Shane Parker says it normally takes 30 days for disclosure in a major crime — especially one that involved a homicide and missing persons investigation"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ay-civilian-search-teams-not-needed-1.2708571

I think Tink is referring to the thirty day SEARCH plan LE spoke of. Either way, the thirty days had no bearing on the investigative aspects of their case, IMHO.

 

[otto]

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...

What makes Garland a chemist? He completed a little more than one year of university, was expelled for cheating, cooked meth, lied about his credentials, and then did some sort of work in Vancouver. Nothing about that makes him a chemist. Was he was working chemist? I don't remember that he was. I recall that when he broke a beaker he offered to pay for it, but that doesn't make him a chemist. I doubt that a real chemist would refer to Garland as a "chemist".

 

[otto]

Boy, I see why you're confused.

The June PDF on the website, by the way, when *I* download it, is actually July that downloads instead. Are others experiencing this as well or is something wrong with my computer, ie need a reboot or something?

In the June Report that you have attached, it says for June 2014 (as far as I can read it and as compared to all of the other months), there was 1 homicide listed. Could that be: June 20 — Gabriel Okeynan, 45 ? Where are the trio listed? In same report, it totals the homicides for the year as being 15. That matches the listing of Calgary homicides I posted yesterday(?) which was 15 in June, up UNTIL the trio were considered homicides.

Then in the July Report that you have attached, it says '4' homicides in July, with a year to date total of 22 (it grew by 7 (15+7=22) even though only 4 are listed in July). In the listing of homicides which I posted upthread, there were indeed 4 homicides in Calgary in July (see pasted below).

So where is the report that lists '4' homicides in June, instead of the '1' that is shown in the report attached to your post entitled 'June Report', and why does it not seem to be available on the website? If anyone else is able to retrieve the June report, does it continue to say only 1 homicide in June?


In the first excel spreadsheet PDF that you attached, for Parkhill, for the month of June 2014, for 'Violence 'Other'', (which appears to be the only possible category for homicide?), it shows zero.

Same with the second spreadsheet PDF... zero for Parkhill.

There is no "homicide" category on the second pdf document.

 

[otto]

The description may not be taken so seriously if they included:
- If they died

If we look at a police officer's job description would it be just as vague?

The medical examiner attended the crime scene. That suggests that police looked at the crime scene and came to a conclusion, based on observation, that there was evidence of a murder, or, at the very least, medical distress due to a violent crime. The medical examiner, in his role, attended the scene to determine who died, where they died, when they died, why they died, and how they died. The medical examiner would have collected tissue and blood samples. I doubt that the medical examiner was able to answer all the questions, but clearly the questions of who died, and where they died, were answered.

June 30, 2014
"Police also called the medical examiner. Details as to the ME’s involvement in the investigation was not divulged, police did say that it was not due to the discovery of a body or bodies."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/06/30/calgary-police-search-for-missing-boy-and-his-grandparents

Sep 27, 2014
"Police described the couples' disappearance as a homicide, and said the amount of blood found in the Liknes's house suggested at least one person would have been in medical distress because of a violent crime."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...s-to-alvin-kathy-liknes-at-memorial-1.2779924

 

[otto]

I'm sorry Otto, we must be thinking of 'forcibly removed' as different. If the victims weren't capable of walking out of the L's home, then why would they have to be forcibly removed? They could only be forcibly removed if they were still alive.

To me, forcibly removed means "alive when they left the Parkhill home".

On June 30, the evidence at the scene, where "the amount of blood found in the Liknes's house suggested at least one person would have been in medical distress because of a violent crime", combined with the eight metres of dark liquid drag marks, and blood/tissue on the concrete in front of the garage, was sufficient for police to conclude that the victims were forcibly removed. At that time, police could not state that the victims were deceased because they didn't know. They knew the victims were removed from the crime scene, but they couldn't state whether their bodies were dragged out of the house, or whether they were alive and forcibly removed. Police had to wait until July 14 for confirmation that the victims were deceased.

The statement that they were forcibly removed was made in June, the statement that they were deceased was made in July. After police stated that the victims were deceased, they did not make any remarks about how the victims were removed from the crime scene.

What should police have said about three people that were missing from a bloody crime scene where there was evidence of violence, eight metres of dark liquid drag marks and blood on the concrete outside the house? Could the general public not properly interpret the following:

"Three evidence tags can be seen next to what appears to be drag marks on the walkway of a home where three people were reported missing Monday. Running about eight metres from a side door to the driveway, the marks look like dark liquid that was recently cleaned up."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2014/07/01/21777926.html

 

[otto]

I think Tink is referring to the thirty day SEARCH plan LE spoke of. Either way, the thirty days had no bearing on the investigative aspects of their case, IMHO.

I see ... on July 17, police had a plan to search specific areas for the victims over the following 30 days.

"Despite extensive searches of the Liknes’ Parkhill home along with a rural property owned by Garland’s parents — where he lived — and two landfills in Calgary, no trace [of a missing boy and his grandparents] has been found.

Community members organized a massive search effort on Wednesday, however that was scrapped at the request of police.

In a statement released Thursday, police said they are implementing a 30-day search plan, “that is intelligence driven, which cannot be shared outside of law enforcement in order to protect the integrity of the investigation.”

“We are systematically searching locations that have a high likelihood of locating evidence utilizing officers from the CPS, RCMP and provincially sanctioned civilian search organizations,” reads the statement."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/07/1...ien-and-grandparents-alvin-and-kathryn-liknes

 

[news.talk]

The medical examiner attended the crime scene. That suggests that police looked at the crime scene and came to a conclusion, based on observation, that there was evidence of a murder, or, at the very least, medical distress due to a violent crime. The medical examiner, in his role, attended the scene to determine who died, where they died, when they died, why they died, and how they died. The medical examiner would have collected tissue and blood samples. I doubt that the medical examiner was able to answer all the questions, but clearly the questions of who died, and where they died, were answered.

June 30, 2014
"Police also called the medical examiner. Details as to the ME’s involvement in the investigation was not divulged, police did say that it was not due to the discovery of a body or bodies."

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/06/30/calgary-police-search-for-missing-boy-and-his-grandparents

Sep 27, 2014
"Police described the couples' disappearance as a homicide, and said the amount of blood found in the Liknes's house suggested at least one person would have been in medical distress because of a violent crime."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...s-to-alvin-kathy-liknes-at-memorial-1.2779924

With today's advanced technology, I am confident that they were also able to determine *when* they died, by chemical analysis of the blood (I have posted links on this process), *how* they died, by conferring with FCSU regarding blood splatter and possibly tissue analysis, and the *why* they died would be a joint effort with the investigators. In the end, the TEAM of people including a ME, working on this determination, concluded that the victims were in fact deceased; enough so as to issue a death certificate. Yes, a DC would have to be issued, for all the reasons I and others have previously listed.

MOO.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

What is the origin of the idea that police were going to conduct some sort of 30 day ongoing investigation?

This is what I remember of the comment about 30 days:

"The case has been adjourned to Aug. 14 because Crown prosecutors are still waiting for police disclosure.

Crown prosecutor Shane Parker says it normally takes 30 days for disclosure in a major crime — especially one that involved a homicide and missing persons investigation"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ay-civilian-search-teams-not-needed-1.2708571

Oh goodness...after the disappearance turned into a homicide investigation, LE said that they had a 30-day plan for further investigative efforts...I think you're thinking of the disclosure document stuff...I'm terrible at digging up links...I'm usually in between work calls when I'm online here, so I get distracted...but I'll see what I can find. Actually, I think someone posted it upthread either yesterday or the day before...we were talking about it just a bit ago