Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #20

[otto]

I just saw this. They're going to court today to determine the admissibility of some of the evidence and apparently Garland will be making an appearance. Why would he need to appear to determine admissibility of evidence? Unfortunately, this too has a publication ban. I assume any other hearing will as well until the trial next year. I don't recall the last time I've seen something like this but I guess given the fact that they haven't found their remains it would make sense?

http://globalnews.ca/news/3098854/a...-garland-to-appear-in-calgary-court-thursday/

He has the right to be present for all proceedings related to his case.

I suspect that the remains were burned on the property, so although the victims haven't been found, perhaps bone fragments have been found. If that is true, perhaps the tricky part is connecting bone fragments to the victims. If no DNA connection can be made, there could be an argument to exclude bone fragment evidence.

 

[otto]

"While the motive of the killings is unclear, police have confirmed they're looking into a patent dispute and other business dealings between Garland and Alvin Liknes.​"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...re-nathan-obrien-kathy-alvin-liknes-1.3877523

I guess it all comes down to money. Liknes was in the process of liquidating everything and moving to Mexico, and wasn't Garland money (Garland's sister) used to pay for the Liknes condo in Mexico? There was also the patent that Garland worked on and which Liknes registered solely in his name.

For whatever reason, Liknes quietly sold his house but continued to live there, he quietly emptied his offices and declared bankruptcy. It's my impression that he probably owed money all over the place and was hoping to disappear (conflicting stories about moving to Mexico and to a small town) and avoid taking responsibility for any debt.

I wonder if Garland went to the property to demand money that he believed he was owed, and things got out of hand.

 

[Jay78]

The reason you cannot find out anything about the proceedings in the preliminary hearing (which was, as you noted, open to the general public) is because all of that is under a publication ban.

Here's a link:

http://calgaryherald.com/storyline/...d-of-killing-calgary-boy-and-his-grandparents

Publication bans are serious business. They don't restrict people from talking to their family or friends about what they heard at the hearing, but it very explicitly prohibits any public transmission of any details. So, no blogging, no Facebook entries, no messages to chat groups, nothing verbally transmitted via the radio or other audible media, nothing "published" in any form whatever, whether written or orally communicated.

Here's more information on the rationale, etc.:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/victims-victimes/factsheets-fiches/publication.html

Offenders are dealt with promptly and face serious penalties for violations. You and the rest of us will have to wait for the trial for any further information to be released. There's no point Googling for more details, as they are not going to be published anywhere.

I'm not trying to get anyone into any trouble here or push any boundaries--but I was wondering, does this mean that if someone was to tell me something (in person/private setting), this does not violate a publication ban? Still just trying to learn more about how they work...

 

[kdgdid]

I'm not trying to get anyone into any trouble here or push any boundaries--but I was wondering, does this mean that if someone was to tell me something (in person/private setting), this does not violate a publication ban? Still just trying to learn more about how they work...

My understanding is yes it would not violate the pub ban unless it is written down such as a email or discussed verbally where the conversation is likely to be over heard such as over CB radio

 

[otto]

I'm not trying to get anyone into any trouble here or push any boundaries--but I was wondering, does this mean that if someone was to tell me something (in person/private setting), this does not violate a publication ban? Still just trying to learn more about how they work...

Everyone who attends the hearing is covered by the publication ban. Transmitting information (such as passing information to another person) that was heard in court and which is covered by the publication ban is not allowed. The answer is yes - someone who attended the hearing who privately tells you the information covered at the hearing is violating the publication ban.

"under the Criminal Code, publication bans are common for bail hearings, preliminary hearings, and voir dires (a hearing within the trial where the judge decides whether evidence is admissible).
...
Members of the public and media are permitted to view and photocopy court files covered by a section 517 publication ban but, again, details covered by the ban cannot be published in any document, or broadcast or transmitted in any way until the ban ends."

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/pub_ban.php

 

[otto]

My understanding is yes it would not violate the pub ban unless it is written down such as a email or discussed verbally where the conversation is likely to be over heard such as over CB radio

"Transmitting" information is not limited to written information. Anyone who attends a court hearing that is covered by a publication ban is forbidden from sharing that information under any circumstances. The information is available through court records, and anyone who wants that information can obtain it themselves - and fall under the same publication ban criteria.

 

[otto]

Someone who comments here attended an earlier hearing and came very close to revealing information from the hearing in the form of accusing another poster of having attended the hearing and revealing sensitive information. On that basis I am of the opinion that bone fragments were found in the burn pit on Garland's property.

 

[kdgdid]

Someone who comments here attended an earlier hearing and came very close to revealing information from the hearing in the form of accusing another poster of having attended the hearing and revealing sensitive information. On that basis I am of the opinion that bone fragments were found in the burn pit on Garland's property.

Even with out anyone commenting on anything that happened during the hearing a neighbour previously reported that the burn pit was being used on the night the 3 were abducted and burned continuously for a couple of days.

 

[otto]

Even with out anyone commenting on anything that happened during the hearing a neighbour previously reported that the burn pit was being used on the night the 3 were abducted and burned continuously for a couple of days.

Exactly. If bone fragments cannot be connected to the victims, I wonder if Garland's lawyer can successfully exclude bone fragment evidence. I wonder how strong the evidence is in terms of connecting Garland to the victims - can he reasonable explain being near the Liknes home on the night of the murders, and did he successfully remove evidence of himself from the scene of the murders?

 

[Lalalacasbah]

"While the motive of the killings is unclear, police have confirmed they're looking into a patent dispute and other business dealings between Garland and Alvin Liknes.​"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...re-nathan-obrien-kathy-alvin-liknes-1.3877523

I guess it all comes down to money. Liknes was in the process of liquidating everything and moving to Mexico, and wasn't Garland money (Garland's sister) used to pay for the Liknes condo in Mexico? There was also the patent that Garland worked on and which Liknes registered solely in his name.

For whatever reason, Liknes quietly sold his house but continued to live there, he quietly emptied his offices and declared bankruptcy. It's my impression that he probably owed money all over the place and was hoping to disappear (conflicting stories about moving to Mexico and to a small town) and avoid taking responsibility for any debt.

I wonder if Garland went to the property to demand money that he believed he was owed, and things got out of hand.

It wasn't a case of 'things got out of hand'. He was charged with first degree of all three, so premeditated. It was published that they were “likely murdered within hours of the investigation" (so early morning perhaps) and the "truck that was seen driving around the area several times in the course of the night" - with that info, it's possible to speculate it could've happened in between those times in the middle of the night while people were sleeping even.

Regardless of at night, in the middle of the night or early morning, I wouldn't wouldn't think these would be times most people would go to visit someone and demand money about business dealings or otherwise. JMO.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Exactly. If bone fragments cannot be connected to the victims, I wonder if Garland's lawyer can successfully exclude bone fragment evidence. I wonder how strong the evidence is in terms of connecting Garland to the victims - can he reasonable explain being near the Liknes home on the night of the murders, and did he successfully remove evidence of himself from the scene of the murders?

I think Garland will be easily tied to the victims but maybe not for the crime necessarily (but hopefully).

There's the familial connection and the patent that are the obvious connections and I'm hoping LE has dug up more with some sort of stalking or paper trail or something. I ponder stalking because of the fact that he was seen so much in the neighborhood that night, how many times before did he do this I wonder? Was he getting up his nerve or was this something he did often? I hope he messed up somewhere and left something behind.

 

[kdgdid]

It wasn't a case of 'things got out of hand'. He was charged with first degree of all three, so premeditated. It was published that they were “likely murdered within hours of the investigation" (so early morning perhaps) and the "truck that was seen driving around the area several times in the course of the night" - with that info, it's possible to speculate it could've happened in between those times in the middle of the night while people were sleeping even.

Regardless of at night, in the middle of the night or early morning, I wouldn't wouldn't think these would be times most people would go to visit someone and demand money about business dealings or otherwise. JMO.

I agree that it was not a case of "things getting out of hand" Garland was either charged with 1st degree murder because either it was premeditated or they died during the commission of another offense such as abduction. I do find it interesting that he was originally charged with 2nd degree murder of Nathan but that charge was upgraded to 1st degree later.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I agree that it was not a case of "things getting out of hand" Garland was either charged with 1st degree murder because either it was premeditated or they died during the commission of another offense such as abduction. I do find it interesting that he was originally charged with 2nd degree murder of Nathan but that charge was upgraded to 1st degree later.

I've always wondered about that as well, why it bumped from 2nd degree to 1st degree. I guess I think of 2nd degree let's say if Nathan was an after thought to harm if he had witnessed the crime, so to be 1st degree I can't help but think Nathan could have been spared but was harmed regardless so it was "intentional" and classifies as 1st degree. Just a thought…

From what articles/LE described upon arrival about the scene, it sounds like all were deceased before being taken, so not sure about the abduction aspect of 1st degree but maybe.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I also can't help wonder if Garland obsessed over AL, KL or maybe even Nathan. I wonder if AL was his indeed target for sure because of the patent/business dealings or if this branches into another area of obsessing/stalking of any of the three.

It still bothers me that if his grudge was for AL over the years, he could have mustered up a grand plan and harmed him while alone and not with the others. Why harm three people when your target is one?

 

[kdgdid]

I also can't help wonder if Garland obsessed over AL, KL or maybe even Nathan. I wonder if AL was his indeed target for sure because of the patent/business dealings or if this branches into another area of obsessing/stalking of any of the three.

It still bothers me that if his grudge was for AL over the years, he could have mustered up a grand plan and harmed him while alone and not with the others. Why harm three people when your target is one?

I also wonder because of the length of time between the patent and their deaths if that was the motive? Agree why harm all 3 if it was over the patent, he had years to plan and certainly could of killed AL alone at AL's office.

 

[otto]

I think Garland will be easily tied to the victims but maybe not for the crime necessarily (but hopefully).

There's the familial connection and the patent that are the obvious connections and I'm hoping LE has dug up more with some sort of stalking or paper trail or something. I ponder stalking because of the fact that he was seen so much in the neighborhood that night, how many times before did he do this I wonder? Was he getting up his nerve or was this something he did often? I hope he messed up somewhere and left something behind.

I think that he became aware of the fact that Liknes was liquidating, and on that basis he went to the Liknes home on the day of the "estate" sale. As you point out, charges are for first degree murder, so it's likely he went to the house knowing that one outcome would be that he murder the couple - perhaps he brought a weapon. Did he ask for money, or was he simply so angry that Liknes took advantage of him and his sister that his only plan was revenge?

I wonder if he sneaked into the house during the estate sale, went to the basement, and perhaps broke a window (there was something with one of the basement windows on the North side of the house) or removed security bars so he could enter later that night. Alternatively, did he walk up to the front door and overcome whomever answered the door?

I recall something about blood in the living room, so that would suggest that one person was attacked outside of the bedroom,

If convicted, given that all three murders were committed during one criminal act, I wonder whether concurrent sentencing will apply.

 

[otto]

I also can't help wonder if Garland obsessed over AL, KL or maybe even Nathan. I wonder if AL was his indeed target for sure because of the patent/business dealings or if this branches into another area of obsessing/stalking of any of the three.

It still bothers me that if his grudge was for AL over the years, he could have mustered up a grand plan and harmed him while alone and not with the others. Why harm three people when your target is one?

I think this was targeted against Liknes and his wife not only because of the patent, but because I suspect that the couple had convinced Garland's sister to give them money for their Mexico condo (money that may have been inheritance to help her and her children ??). Garland comes from a hardworking rural family where a penny saved is a penny earned. If the sister's name was not included on the title of the Mexico property, Garland may have perceived that the money was as good as lost, or taken. Add that to his sense of being taken advantage of with the patent design, and he might have kind of snapped at seeing his family victimized again by the same person(s).

 

[otto]

I also wonder because of the length of time between the patent and their deaths if that was the motive? Agree why harm all 3 if it was over the patent, he had years to plan and certainly could of killed AL alone at AL's office.

I think that having his name excluded from the patent design was a long standing grudge. Perhaps Garland lent money to Alvin over the years (don't remember), but his sister's money going towards the purchase of a retirement home for Liknes and his wife was probably the straw that broke the camel's back ... especially given that Liknes had declared bankruptcy to absolve himself of all outstanding debt.

 

[Slebby]

I remember that Garland's sister was involved in a (I believe) common relationship with a Liknes son, but I have no recollection her money being used by the Ls for their Mexico condo. Can someone explain that detail?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[kdgdid]

I remember that Garland's sister was involved in a (I believe) common relationship with a Liknes son, but I have no recollection her money being used by the Ls for their Mexico condo. Can someone explain that detail?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am also confused about where the sister buying a condo in Mexico was ever confirmed and would be interested in knowing where the info is from. I seem to remember that AL's twin brother owned a condo there but not the daughter in law.