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

[Power of Two]

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".

To me, 'forcibly removed' means alive and against their will.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

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".

You actually have a good point, was he an actual, practicing chemist? Other than working at a lab or at a chemical company, the employees at those places can be pretty broad.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

[/B]

To me, 'forcibly removed' means alive and against their will.

To me, it depends when "forcibly removed" was said, and what evidence was discovered later that maybe changed that theory.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

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".

Sounds to me then, that he has a natural inclination towards it. It doesn't matter what another 'chemist' would refer to him as...the guy made meth (without blowing up the farm)...he's a chemist in my books.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

To me, it depends when "forcibly removed" was said, and what evidence was discovered later that maybe changed that theory.

Read a bit upthread...Otto's given a whole breakdown on when it was said.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

[/B]

To me, 'forcibly removed' means alive and against their will.

Yes...'against their will' for sure...but nonetheless, alive.

The original "issue" was whether or not they died in the Parkhill home. I am saying if they were 'forcibly removed', then they were alive. Another poster says that they were deceased at the Parkhill home. That's all that's going on.

 

[otto]

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

Do you have a link regarding 30 days and "further investigative efforts"?

So far I've found 30 days in relation to disclosure (July 16), and a 30 day plan regarding following evidence when looking for the remains of the victims (July 17). I suspect that the investigative efforts will continue until the time of trial.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Yes...'against their will' for sure...but nonetheless, alive.

The original "issue" was whether or not they died in the Parkhill home. I am saying if they were 'forcibly removed', then they were alive. Another poster says that they were deceased at the Parkhill home. That's all that's going on.

Crime map says 2 at the Parkhill home... brought to you by the same folks that said "forcibly removed".

 

[otto]

[/B]

To me, 'forcibly removed' means alive and against their will.

That's exactly what police hoped on June 30 ... that although there was evidence that the victims did not leave willingly, police hoped that they were alive. Sadly, they were not alive, and that was confirmed on July 14.

 

[otto]

You actually have a good point, was he an actual, practicing chemist? Other than working at a lab or at a chemical company, the employees at those places can be pretty broad.

"Can Test Ltd., a Vancouver laboratory firm where he worked between 1992 and 1997"

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...convicted-drug-trafficker-has-ties-to-family/

Garland claimed to have an M.Sc. He's bold.

http://www.gibsons.ca/include/get.php?nodeid=559

Perhaps he knew enough chemistry to pull it off.
I can't believe that the company didn't ask for proof of degrees! I doubt that would happen today.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Do you have a link regarding 30 days and "further investigative efforts"?

So far I've found 30 days in relation to disclosure (July 16), and a 30 day plan regarding following evidence when looking for the remains of the victims (July 17). I suspect that the investigative efforts will continue until the time of trial.

Nope I don't, but I think it's been posted here about 25 times. When I get a minute, I will look.

 

[otto]

Read a bit upthread...Otto's given a whole breakdown on when it was said.

Is the breakdown related to spending 30 days following investigative leads to search for the remains?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Crime map says 2 at the Parkhill home... brought to you by the same folks that said "forcibly removed".

Go figure.

 

[Power of Two]

That's exactly what police hoped on June 30 ... that although there was evidence that the victims did not leave willingly, police hoped that they were alive. Sadly, they were not alive, and that was confirmed on July 14.

Just when I wrap my head around the probability (according to LE) of none of the trio leaving Parkhill alive and in one piece, another statement, or interpretation of a statement, ie:' forcibly removed', whips my head and brain in another direction. So many convoluted statements and interpretations of language...arg!

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Do you have a link regarding 30 days and "further investigative efforts"?

So far I've found 30 days in relation to disclosure (July 16), and a 30 day plan regarding following evidence when looking for the remains of the victims (July 17). I suspect that the investigative efforts will continue until the time of trial.

Oh! Otto, I think we're referring to the same thing...the 30 day plan regarding following evidence and continuing the s & r efforts (July 17). It was right about the time they declared it a homicide investigation.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Just when I wrap my head around the probability (according to LE) of none of the trio leaving Parkhill alive and in one piece, another statement, or interpretation of a statement, ie:' forcibly removed', whips my head and brain in another direction. So many convoluted statements and interpretations of language...arg!

lol...yes, for sure...and I'm sure it's all just semantics. But which do they mean? Deceased or forcibly removed...as OOTD pointed out...they've said both. :/

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Is the breakdown related to spending 30 days following investigative leads to search for the remains?

No, the breakdown was related to when they said "forcibly removed"...you had given a chronological statement of events about what LE said regarding the crime scene at the L's.

 

[otto]

No, the breakdown was related to when they said "forcibly removed"...you had given a chronological statement of events about what LE said regarding the crime scene at the L's.

In relation to the 30 days, there are two references that I have been able to locate:

1. The prosecutor stated that he was waiting 30 days for disclosure from police (July 16)
2. Police had a 30 day plan to pursue leads in the search for the victim's remains, they would not disclose details to protect the integrity of the investigation (July 17).
(linked in previous post)

What other reference is there to 30 days and could someone please post a link? I'm wondering if point number 2 has been taken out of context and morphed into something completely different than what was stated in the article.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

In relation to the 30 days, there are two references that I have been able to locate:

1. The prosecutor stated that he was waiting 30 days for disclosure from police (July 16)
2. Police had a 30 day plan to pursue leads in the search for the victim's remains, they would not disclose details to protect the integrity of the investigation (July 17).
(linked in previous post)

What other reference is there to 30 days and could someone please post a link? I'm wondering if point number 2 has been taken out of context and morphed into something completely different than what was stated in the article.

It's point #2. I don't think anyone was really talking about it so I don't think it morphed into anything. All I had said was that if they were deceased at the Parkhill home, then why was LE continuing s & r efforts for another 30 days? That was yesterday I think. But, obviously they were looking for the bodies...I wouldn't worry about it...probably just another dead end. It was just a teeny piece of something else, but no one's really talking about it.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

"Can Test Ltd., a Vancouver laboratory firm where he worked between 1992 and 1997"

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...convicted-drug-trafficker-has-ties-to-family/

Garland claimed to have an M.Sc. He's bold.

http://www.gibsons.ca/include/get.php?nodeid=559

Perhaps he knew enough chemistry to pull it off.
I can't believe that the company didn't ask for proof of degrees! I doubt that would happen today.

I know he's had jobs in similar areas, but not a career….that doesn't necessarily mean he's a chemist.

Not that it really matters to debate about, but working at lab does not equate to being a chemist. There are lab techs like there are pharmacy techs who work there and they are quite different from an actual pharmacist who make compounds. There are also lab/pharmacy assistants which are below techs in the hierarchy.

He supervised staff, but he could've supervised the lab assistants which isn't a super big feat.

Agreed, he knew chemistry. I wonder how much.