Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #10

Status
Not open for further replies.
The family has suggested that it is "petty" to have a name omitted on a patent. I disagree. The Liknes family has also said that Garland "altered" the patent of Alvin Liknes. Altering the patent means being listed as a co-inventor, but apparently that is not how Alvin Liknes saw it.

[modsnip]

It is petty if you weren't legally entitled to be on it in the first place. I'd sure give Joe Average some leeway in their statements when talking patents. I didn't know squat about them until we started having this convo. If I said someone altered the patent, I may have meant the concept, the plan, or the actual prototype. Now, my understanding from all that has been presented so far is IF DG was only involved in producing the prototype (as his business was known to do), maybe that is what he altered without consultation from Alvin. If you're suggesting that Alvin may have been angry, of course he might have been, but he didn't kill Garland.

[modsnip]
 
A request was put out by the Calgary police department for information about the a green truck. There is no silence ... it is instead an announcement. The announcement tells stories in photos ... it seems so straight forward. Privacy? ... strangest cases? ...

Who is in the deer headlights?

Garland, in the headlights ... what should people think?
It's weird in such a large city, but if one ignores the ...

I'm not sure I understand your reply. I'm not talking about the police here. I'm referring to silence on the part of people who knew DG and how strange it seems that no one has been quoted speaking about having known DG in the past as is fairly normal in cases like this.
 
Will we ever know anything more about evidence and personal relationships in this case besides what has been presented already? If the court issues a publication ban will the family ever know? Will they be allowed in the court room at all times? I am curious how this works and how much else we will learn.

Yes, we will "know anything more about evidence and personal relationships in this case", but it will not necessarily paint the deceased as a good guy.
 
Will we ever know anything more about evidence and personal relationships in this case besides what has been presented already? If the court issues a publication ban will the family ever know? Will they be allowed in the court room at all times? I am curious how this works and how much else we will learn.

Publication ban should only be in place until the actual trial. I don't see any reason that the ban would continue through trial. At trial, reporters can report trial details from the courtroom anything that is said in front of the jury, but not on what is said when the jury is out of the courtroom.
 
I'd like to hear the truth. From the children of the victims, what were their six children planning to do after their parents vacated their Parkhill home and liquidated the contents in a "leaving the country" sale? Surely the children .... at least one of the six of them ... knew how to contact them after they skipped town. Where were they going first?

Mexico? Where? The newly purchased condo? Edmonton? Evansburg? What is the truth?

Just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean that those we do have are not the truth.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...nathan-o-brien-and-his-grandparents-1.2694198

The couple had recently bought a house in Edmonton and were selling some of their things before they made the move, said Andrus. From Edmonton, the couple had been planning on heading to Mexico.

From:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...it_happen_here.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

The Likneses were downsizing. The plan was to move first to Edmonton and then split time between there and Mexico

From:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ious-disappearance/+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

The couple had been having an estate sale and were downsizing ahead of a move to a home in Edmonton and then on to Mexico
 
I'm not sure how I was unclear or what you are getting at with the reminder. We don't know the details, but IF it is as it has been projected to be and was petty in everyone else's mind but not in DG's, I'm saying his perception is his reality.

I meant nothing other than to inject a different slant on the theory. The term "petty" seems to be accepted without too much debate. I prefer debate.
 
It takes 6 seconds to open a closed garage door from the outside. Check the video on Youtube.
 
It takes 6 seconds to open a closed garage door from the outside. Check the video on Youtube.
I often forget to lock my man door as well though I would guess, in this case, that what looks like the bedroom is right above the garage so they would have heard it opening ... might not have made a difference though .... just might have been less of a surprise.
 
I just had some thoughts. I've been having a hard time falling asleep, so have gone back reading, etc.

On the subject of guns, it's entirely possible to own/possess a restricted firearm, and I'm sure many Albertans do. There are numerous gun enthusiast clubs and trade shows that promote the safe handling and appreciation of such guns. All that is required is a permit to transport said firearms to and from a gun club and a valid gun club membership. And with that being said, IMOO, it is not so hard to believe that on an acreage, a gun would be present, whether belonging to DG or his parents--rifle, shotgun, or pistol. Now, I think a shotgun would be far too loud, but a small-calibre pistol or rifle could be silenced by someone savvy enough to figure out how.

I just want to clarify that obviously there is no way for me to know a gun was used, nor do I assume one way or the other, but I'm just expressing MOO that it is entirely possible.

TARGET SHOOTING...You have Restricted PAL and now what do you do? In order to use a restricted firearm you will need an Authorization to Transport (ATT). This allows you to take your firearms to and from the shooting range. In order to get one - you need to belong to a club. Many times your instructor will be able to give you a list of clubs in your area that are taking new members. If not, we have listed many of the clubs across Canada. Click here to find one in your area. Each club will have its own process for joining. Generally, once you have become a member, the club will request an ATT for you from the respective CFO.

http://www.canadianfirearmsinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37&Itemid=11

On the topic of DG's personality, motive, and what have you, I have seen a trend about discussing his intelligence, why he would lie about having a BSc, why he'd blame leaving the U of A for a car accident when he had been expelled for cheating, his perceived slight of the patent, etc. To me, he seems to fit many criteria for being narcissistic personality disorder: Trying to use others to gain, having an inflated sense of self, being manipulative to put himself in a status he felt he belonged in, and possibly (if proven guilty), punishing those he felt did not measure him as he felt he should be.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...onality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568

Lastly, I found it interesting that at the very end of the patent's description was the paragraph reading:

"[0036] A number of embodiments of the present invention have been described. Nevertheless, it will be understood that various modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims.

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130020069

Is it plausible or possible that one of these "modifications" was suggested or engineered by DG?

I hope I haven't posted anything improperly or rambled on too much. Just some thoughts and of course MOO.
 
I meant nothing other than to inject a different slant on the theory. The term "petty" seems to be accepted without too much debate. I prefer debate.

We don't have anything other than what the family says, but okay ... let's speculate that it was a big deal. Does this somehow make the alleged perp less culpable in the murder of 3 members of the family?
 
We don't have anything other than what the family says, but okay ... let's speculate that it was a big deal. Does this somehow make the alleged perp less culpable in the murder of 3 members of the family?

One could argue it increases culpability if you acted out of pure anger and vengeance, as opposed to a delusional perception. Unless there is a plea deal, or a dismissal of charges, these are the types of details that might be relevant, especially during a trial. It might help explain why there are so few public statements from either family.
 
Why on the fifth day was JO brought into the home by LE if it was determined that murder had taken place? Is that standard procedure especially if evidence of blood was visible in the home? Is it normal that a family member is allowed to enter a murder scene if it is still under investigation? She was quite collected when the media coverage shot her exiting the home as she removed the blue foot covers. Her family members were sitting in the driveway while she entered the home. I just have a hard time believing the murders took place in the home.

Police also took family members through the home to get a better sense of whether anything was missing.

Police had asked anyone who attended the sale and bought something to bring a photo of the item to a community centre Thursday and speak with investigators


http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...mystery-after-police-receive-new-information/


I think LE wanted to know if certain items were missing , a huge task considering the sale.jmo
 
Police also took family members through the home to get a better sense of whether anything was missing.

Police had asked anyone who attended the sale and bought something to bring a photo of the item to a community centre Thursday and speak with investigators


http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...mystery-after-police-receive-new-information/


I think LE wanted to know if certain items were missing , a huge task considering the sale.jmo

I wonder if this was before or after the bedding was removed from the landfill.
 
This is what I just can't get my head wrapped around ... no one, no one has come forward with any information about DG. He lived in the same home from 1973 with the exception of the time he spent on the lam. He went to school in the area. Normally you get one of several types of quotes from people .... "He was always a little strange," ... "He's a great guy, I just can't believe it," .... "I saw him kick dogs when he was a teenager ....." Yet in this case NOTHING. There are a lot of long time residents in the Airdrie area, are you telling me no one remembers anything about DG? WTH?????? This is so strange .... complete silence .... and DGs parents, I understand that this must be exceedingly difficult for them but where are they ... why haven't they issued any kind of statement whether it be support for either side or please respect our privacy while we try to make sense of all of this. This has to be one of the strangest cases I've ever encountered.

As a reporter, I find this very strange indeed and have been wondering about it a lot.
 
You make a lot of negative assumptions about them.

I'd like to see some proof KL even went bankrupt. I'm not convinced it hasn't been misreported. (ETA: proof provided)

It would be hard to find an entrepreneur in AL's field, who hadn't been involved in lawsuits.

There is no proof he did anything incorrect with regard to DG and the patent.

ETA: I find her bankruptcy strange, but it may be irrelevant.


Hi AnneBrocklehurst... Very interested in reading your book... Will have to find some time here this weekend :) :)...

In response to your quote I completely agree about KL bankruptcy being odd... In fact I find the hype surrounding the Linknes's multiple bankruptcies extremely disconcerting. I can wrap my head around the Winter Petroleum bankruptcy and AL's issues with business finances/bankruptcy... It's not uncommon for a true entrepreneur to over-leverage and then get caught up owing monies to vendors (other business that have provided supplies/services to your business), creditors (credit cards in business name, bank loans) and even the government (business taxes previous years or GST remittances)... Basically if a business isn't paid for its services or the business doesn't have any work contracts, it can be very easy for bills to pile up and eventually lead to an inevitable bankruptcy.

The thing that has always struck me as odd is that these two very intelligent business people AL and KL could not have avoided bankruptcy... And I don't mean by managing money better... When you declare bankruptcy, whether business or personal, each person or business that is owed money ends up being SOL... Because if this, most companies and even most banks, will allow a negotiation of payback of some if the debt. Usually they will settle on whatever is realistic ... Such as payback of 20% of the debt, over time as cash becomes available.

A little know fact... In Calgary in the 1980s many of the downtown high-rises and tall, community rental apartment buildings, were going bankrupt... The buildings had costed far more than many of the developers had planned and now(1980s) the buildings weren't fully occupied by tenants and the developers still had mortgages outstanding on the buildings. Eventually the banks started coming after some of these developers... The thing is, the developers were not trying to avoid payments, they quite literally had nothing... All their investments were bunk and they couldn't collect enough leasehold income from tenants (because there weren't enough) to pay back the banks.

Banks are banks, they are NOT in the business of being property owners(in the sense that they will seize your assets - and then have to manage the assets- in a bankruptcy situation). Banks are actually very open to negotiation, but they need to get paid .... So they negotiated a slow payback of a portion of the debt, as the developers received monies.

In my past experience working with small business', even small companies, that are owed money, will settle for partial payback (in a bankruptcy situation). I believe there must have been complexities to the situation that we are not privy to, regarding the business bankruptcies.

In terms of personal bankruptcy things get even more interesting IMO. Typically, individuals will declare bankruptcy to avoid payment of credit card debt. There is actually a substantial amount of loopholes in legislation regarding consumer debt and many personal bankruptcies are extremely strategic. For example, many people don't know this but if you take out debt and then don't make a single payment in the debt for 7 years (you will have to declare bankruptcy and possibly live with friends or relatives) your debt will be wiped off the books and you will get to "keep" whatever you bought... When I worked for a major financial institution I saw this scam often. People would take out all these credit cards and purchase all this stuff and never make a single payment ever...

There are also many valid reason an individual may declare bankruptcy ... Such as getting involved in an investment with the understanding that you will be receiving monthly income from the investment... Then the investment goes bottoms up (maybe a new business that never got off its feet or a Ponzi scheme that stole your savings) and all of a sudden you don't have the monthly cash flow to pay your mortgage, car loans and credit cards.

In my opinion good people who declare personal bankruptcy only do it once. And KL only did it once. I'm sure it was humiliating for her and a major learning experience. It also may have been because of a divorce...we know JO was not AL bio daughter and KL and AL had been married for 20years...

I think, in our minds, we should keep separate the KL personal bankruptcy and the AL business bankruptcies.
 
This is what I just can't get my head wrapped around ... no one, no one has come forward with any information about DG. He lived in the same home from 1973 with the exception of the time he spent on the lam. He went to school in the area. Normally you get one of several types of quotes from people .... "He was always a little strange," ... "He's a great guy, I just can't believe it," .... "I saw him kick dogs when he was a teenager ....." Yet in this case NOTHING. There are a lot of long time residents in the Airdrie area, are you telling me no one remembers anything about DG? WTH?????? This is so strange .... complete silence .... and DGs parents, I understand that this must be exceedingly difficult for them but where are they ... why haven't they issued any kind of statement whether it be support for either side or please respect our privacy while we try to make sense of all of this. This has to be one of the strangest cases I've ever encountered.

One thing I found interesting with regards to statements is that we never heard any comments from the police stating that the person of interest and later the suspect was "known to police." Usually this is a very common statement made and reported on when the police are providing information to the media.
 
Why on the fifth day was JO brought into the home by LE if it was determined that murder had taken place? Is that standard procedure especially if evidence of blood was visible in the home? Is it normal that a family member is allowed to enter a murder scene if it is still under investigation? She was quite collected when the media coverage shot her exiting the home as she removed the blue foot covers. Her family members were sitting in the driveway while she entered the home. I just have a hard time believing the murders took place in the home.
In our situation immediate family was brought to the scene...it was our responsibility to clean it up but police also wanted insight on where stuff may be hidden and it also provided us closure. There was brain matter and lots of blood and well it was not something we wanted to necessarily see...it stopped us from wondering. We had to clean the investigation up as well...finger printing powder ect. It was awful but at the same time it allowed us to grieve the facts as opposed to trying to come to terms with things and allowing our minds to run wild. It also put us on the same page as LE so that we understood the direction the investigation was going, and why. I am not sure that it is "standard" per say....I can only add based on experience.
I remember leaving the scene and not crying...I was numb...dumb founded by what I had seen and totally traumatized. I believe in my heart that JO was brough there yes to explain what may be missing but also so that she understood how and why they suspect murder. As a mother I would need to see it. I would need to know...as a daughter I would need to see it and need to know so that I could grieve. Well the information was not released to public at that point that it was a murder scene...I truly belive that the family knew this early on. And JO remaining composed was because of shock, trauma and numbness. After we left the scene of the tragedy we experienced it took me getting home, walking through my door and seeing my own clean house and how totally out of sorts the scene had been...then I vomited profusely for two hours and shock turned to greif and trauma and total pain. Everytime I looked at a white wall I seen blood and brain matter and finger print dust. however leading up to seeing the scene. ..all we could do was imagine the horror. And well what we seen was awful, scaring and horrific it was not nearly as bad as our minds had envisioned. It still haunts me though. I want to hug JO...my loss was not nearly the same magnitude with what she is experiencing and it nearly wrecked me. I cannot fathom her state right now.
 
Personally, I do think it is likely that DG had a gun and quite possibly used it. Bare with me for a sec:
* It is not as uncommon as people think to own a legal gun in Canada. It's uncommon to use it either in self defense (since it has to be locked up) or to attack someone (as the gun can be traced back to the owner quite easily). I live in Canada, my neighbor, brother in law have guns.
* He lives in a rural area (no proof here but the stereotype is that people in rural areas, especially farms own guns.
* He's been involved in the manufacturing of meth in the past.
* this makes him more likely to need a gun
* this makes him more likely to deal with people who have access to illegal guns
* Three victims were somehow controlled and were not able to escape or even scream. A gun is the most likely used weapon in this case (unless there was a serious element of surprise in which case neither adults was able to scream or escape)
* It is also possible that a fake gun was used to control and intimidate the victims. Lots of perps have pulled off robberies by putting their hand in their pocket and pretending they have a gun.

So having said all that, if he had a legal/illegal gun, my guess is he wouldn't use it to murder the victims, but rather control the victims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
235
Guests online
3,514
Total visitors
3,749

Forum statistics

Threads
593,231
Messages
17,982,727
Members
229,059
Latest member
Chaucer
Back
Top