Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #13

[winnnancy]

BRAVO!!! Another voice of logic! l am 100% with you which has been my stance since Day 1.
Add to this the fact that no disclosure documents citing any evidence against DG has been presented to his lawyer as of yet sure makes one think that perhaps there isn't as much evidence against DG as stated by LE. IMO, the Crown is buying more time to collect more evidence. I'm still holding the opinion that LE has arrested and charged DG with these murders as "likely insurance" because all that is required to charge someone is "reasonable and probable" grounds to do so...this, IMO, may be a 'pin the tail on the donkey' thing...he was the POI, released on $ 750.00 bail, public is incensed! IMO, LE arrested DG as he appears to be the most obvious player in this so far at least on the surface...they could not take the chance that he would take off like he has done in the past, therefore losing a potential murderer. IMO, there is likely more information that LE is becoming aware of that perhaps doesn't incriminate DG as much as is hoped.

IMO, it is disgusting how quickly people are ready to "hang DG" based on what we definitely know now of his involvement...the incidentals such as CCTV footage of the truck....CCTV footage of the truck...and more CCTV footage of the truck, oh and pardon me, previous history of petty, non-violent crime. The rest, IMO, is basically heresay of evidence yet to be seen. No one outside of LE has seen this evidence, not even those that are entitled to it have been given the courtesy. The Defense hasn't been apprised of the "evidence" against DG yet...what is the purpose of withholding? The very least we could do as decent human beings, IMO, is wait for the evidence to be presented before we make this judgement against this man.

IMO, after reviewing this post as well as others, I'm sensing a reluctance to explore DGs guilt to the extent of persistently questioning all things LE while at the same time, there appears pervasive desire to point guilt at a grandmother who may or may not have suggested a sleepover?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

With all due respect to the original post by OutOfTheDarkness:

As has been discussed endlessly, if LE could prove NO left the house alive, that would have likely lead to a 3rd charge of 1st degree murder, instead of 2nd degree.

...and my proceeding reply:



.... missed the point! :thinking:

If the cops felt NO left the house alive, then he wouldn't have been murdered. Right?
Therefore.... they wouldn't have any grounds to lay a 1st degree, 2nd degree or manslaughter charge against DG. Right?
Irrespective of the degree of intention....

Not right. My original post was in regards to Stan L saying maybe there were footprints at the acreage, which would indicate NO was kidnapped and alive at the acreage, and then subsequently murdered.

If you read the definition of 1st degree murder closely, which I just posted earlier, you'll see that it specifically states that regardless of intent, if a murder committed during a kidnapping, then it is considered 1st degree.

My point, which you missed, was that if they had evidence that he was taken alive and subsequently murdered... based on the actual definition of 1st degree murder which includes more than just intent... THEN it would have most likely resulted in a charge of 1st degree murder.

If there were no evidence he was murdered, then there likely would be no charge at all.

Right?

 

[LoisLane]

I have explored DG's guilt as much as I can. I am exploring other avenues as well. Until more information and evidence is disclosed that paint a clear picture I will keep searching for answers.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I don't understand the relevance of this question, and didn't when it was posted earlier in the threads by someone else.
What, exactly, is an inopportune, disruptive time?
Isn't that relative to the family's lifestyle?
It sounds like the L's were casual, 'go with the flow' type of people. You didn't need an appointment to visit them, you just dropped in and were always welcome, as KL's Canmore friend was quoted as saying.
A 5 year old grandchild staying overnight only needs a sleeping bag and a foamie to sleep on, maybe a snack and some juice,... I assume there was still running water in the home, flushable toilets.
What is being hinted at here? That they should have known they were in danger? That they 'faked their own disappearance' and abducted the grandchild? Just curious what the relevance is.

[modsnip]

An "inopportune" or "disruptive" time simply means "not the best time". There was a lot going on that weekend. If it was grandparents that requested, one might wonder why they would want the added responsibility of looking after a 5 year old while they had the remnants of a three day sale to deal with as well as the addition of furniture, items from AL's office. As well as no doubt, being very tired themselves. Just a simple question. That's it. And yes, perhaps not the safest of times either now that you mention it. As has been pointed out...there were many people who had walked thru that home on the weekend, did the Liknes' know of all of the attendants' backgrounds? IMO, a high probability of 'likely not'. A lot of criminals have been known to ''case" a place before robbing it...perhaps there may have been someone with this intention cruising through, to have a look if there was anything of value to come back for. If it provokes thought...oh well...IMO, any good detective, LE or amateur would provoke as much thought and as many questions as possible to cover all bases and theories and to make sure that in fact, the right person(s) was being charged, tried and convicted. IMO, there is no room for "tunnel vision", "closed mindedness" or "dismissal" of any and all theories unless absolutely ruled out by evidence, which, I repeat, has as of yet to be disclosed to anyone other than LE.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

IMO, after reviewing this post as well as others, I'm sensing a reluctance to explore DGs guilt to the extent of persistently questioning all things LE while at the same time, there appears pervasive desire to point guilt at a grandmother who may or may not have suggested a sleepover?

Hi winnnancy Sorry, no...there is no reluctance on my part to "explore DG's guilt" at all...I believe that is what is happening right now, DG is being investigated as the prime suspect, so that's being taken care of. However, I am of the opinion that it possibly could be someone else either as an accomplice to DG, or perhaps another person/group entirely. There is no desire to point guilt at a grandmother at all...that is not even mentioned here. It was another post I made, which I have responded to above. I'm not questioning 'all things LE either', simply asking where such things are, and why the Crown has not disclosed to the Defence yet. If that is how you've perceived my post, I hope my response clears that up for you.

 

[otto]

Several women in this forum have tested, and/or stated that they could drag a 200 lb body, and it wasn't as tough as they thought. I can also personally confirm a healthy male can easily do it, even in one's 50’s. If you haven't ever tried, it's a stretch to make that claim, and if you have tried it, you'd have to be very small in stature, or have an injury or disability for it to be impossible.

LE is not obligated to release evidence details to the public. Given the complexity of the laws regarding the release of such details, LE is almost obligated NOT to release the details before trial. I'm not sold on the benefit to the public good that the secrecy apparently offers either, but LE cannot compromise the case just to satisfy a curiosity. Whether you know now, or a year from now, isn't as big a priority as ensuring the case can proceed.

It's very impressive that so many women can hoist 200lbs of dead weight, with 6+ feet of dangling arms and legs, into the back of a pickup truck!

 

[otto]

(5)*Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:

(a)*section 76 (hijacking an aircraft);

(b)*section 271 (sexual assault);

(c)*section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm);

(d)*section 273 (aggravated sexual assault);

(e)*section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement); or

(f)*section 279.1 (hostage taking).

Reading to the end of the section:

"All murder that is not first degree murder is second degree murder."

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-231.html

Nathan's murder does not fall into any of the first degree murder paragraphs, therefore it is second degree.

 

[otto]

One other idea that bothers me is that it could be possible DG was waiting for JO to leave and was waiting and watching her. If he watched her leave and enter her vehicle, it would have been obvious that she was alone and not loading a child into the car. That could be hard to prove unless they have truck photos that are within a viewing distance of the driveway and properly timed with the departure of JO.

Also, if DG made an appearance earlier on Sunday to have a conversation with AL or wish them well, he would have possibly met NO and JO. If NO was comfortable speaking to people he may have already said to DG he was having a sleepover, depends if DG has the confidence to speak with children. I sometimes find that the people I sense do not feel comfortable around young children are the ones my son talks non-stop to.

She put her youngest child in the car. Nathan stayed behind.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I think it varies by case and with the amount and type of evidence. In the case earlier this year of Matthew Dr'Grood disclosure was available within a month. The killings happenen April 15 and he was taken into custody right away. At the first court hearing on May 22 it was mentioned that the defense was given a voluminous disclosure.

I think you are right! In the case of Matthew De`Grood, it was absolutely, undoubtedly obvious that he was the perpetrator, so IMO there was no need to collect even more evidence to prove his guilt, therefore, the dispatch of the disclosure documents could be done relatively quickly to move the case along to its final closure. Since there has, admittedly by LE, been `no smoking gun`, it is possible that more time is required to search to find it so that the Crown`s case is completely airtight, and no possibility of a murderer getting out of jail free. JMO

 

[otto]

IMO, I find it interesting that the Crown has not forwarded anything at all to DG's lawyer. There is copious amounts of documentation, one would think that they would have started a steady stream of it over to KR. Yes, the Crown has 30 days to present disclosure documentation, however, its really not in their best interest to do so...all this does is further delay the possibly impending trial...what is the benefit of that to the Crown? DG does not have to enter any plea until disclosure documents have been reviewed. so therefore, the court action tomorrow will be likely to set a new date for entering his plea...likely a month or two more down the road. The only benefit the Crown would receive from purposely delaying disclosure would be to attain more time....hmmm, wonder for what though? Very high profile case...you would think the Crown would be on it quicker than this for the fastest closure for family and others.

The crown has 30 days from the time of arrest to release disclosure related to the arrest. On August 14, that disclosure is due.

It is not yet due, so there is no delay ... everything is on schedule.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Reading to the end of the section:

"All murder that is not first degree murder is second degree murder."

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-231.html



Nathan's murder does not fall into any of the first degree murder paragraphs, therefore it is second degree.

Is it possible that down the road, if evidence has been collected say on DG`s acreage that NO was there alive, not be considered `forcible confinement`and the charge upgraded to 1st degree? Not sure how this works.

 

[otto]

Kids are so sweet...your son must pick up on this and is being extra friendly to those people...too cute

JO apparently had her youngest with her as well, so she would be loading him into the vehicle. If DG was there during the day, that indicates a comfort level with the Liknes', IMO. Which is not the general belief held out there, however, I disagree with that general belief. JMO

Also, it has been speculated that NO was likely asleep when JO left him and he was left behind as not to be disturbed or cause JO more work for an already tired JO. If in fact DG may be privy to information regarding a sleepover at his grandparents, it brings me back to my question that I've asked several times....who requested the sleepover? NO or grandparents? Relevance of this question is....if it was grandparents...seems to be a most inopportune, disruptive time. JMO

There's no reason to assume that a 5 year old child was asleep at someone else's house at 9PM on a summer evening.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

It's very impressive that so many women can hoist 200lbs of dead weight, with 6+ feet of dangling arms and legs, into the back of a pickup truck!

As I've said...I sure couldn't do it! No way. Especially if it was being lifted past the knees. But there are those that can, female firefighters have to be able to lift a large amount of weight, equal to the male firefighters amount required.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

There's no reason to assume that a 5 year old child was asleep at someone else's house at 9PM on a summer evening.

Especially at someone's house that had a big event going on that he reportedly helped conduct. He sounds like he was a little firecracker with lots of energy and absolutely adorable!

 

[otto]

IMO, a parent is always a parent. I'm sure that KL and AL were grateful to JO for helping.
I'm thinking jOs mother would have known her daughter would be tired-With 3 children and a job. She and NO we're close . She may have suggested leaving NO overnight but I doubt it would have been for any reason other than as a loving parent and grandparent

There were two children and one half/step child in the Obrien family. I believe the oldest child would most likely live with his mom. It was a four day long weekend ... lots of opportunity to rest, if needed, or help with a three day estate sale, if rest is not needed.

 

[LoisLane]

She put her youngest child in the car. Nathan stayed behind.

Yes, I stand corrected. So suppose DG was aware that JO was in the home with her two children and watched her load only one child into the car. Than he would know that one child was left behind. That is if he was watching them leave and was aware of the three in the home (JO, NO, and youngest son). IMO.

 

[otto]

If my mom was leaving for an extended time to Mexico, weather having a estate sale or not, she would probably be begging to have one of her grand kids stay over as much as possible to get as much time in with them as she could. I really don't see this as a strange thing

The house had been gutted from a three day estate sale. More than 200 people had traipsed through the house in the previous three days. The "come on in" estate sale sign was still posted on the front door. The breadwinner had declared bankruptcy and cleaned out his office that week. Their entire lives were in complete upheaval. Setting aside everyone's personal wishes, why would that be a good environment for a five year old child?

... keeping in mind that it's always about the best interest of the child.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

The crown has 30 days from the time of arrest to release disclosure related to the arrest. On August 14, that disclosure is due.

It is not yet due, so there is no delay ... everything is on schedule.

This is true. However, the purpose of tomorrow's court date is for DG to enter a plea to the charges...therefore, it would be implied/understood that should this situation move forward in a timely manner, the Defense would be getting at least some of it by now in order for that plea to possibly be made tomorrow. IMO, this would suggest that DG's lawyer would not in good practise, have DG make a plea at all tomorrow and ask that the case be remanded to a later date, which just pushes the court date further down the road. There's lots and lots of documentation...wondering why at least some of it wouldn't be sent over, as in the case of Matthew De'Grood's charges as mentioned by another poster. They were moved along quite quickly. I'm questioning the benefit of holding disclosure back to the last day?

 

[winnnancy]

There were two children and one half/step child in the Obrien family. I believe the oldest child would most likely live with his mom. It was a four day long weekend ... lots of opportunity to rest, if needed, or help with a three day estate sale, if rest is not needed.

Speaking as a mother, daughter and woman. I can only say that part of the job description includes multitasking and helping those we love.

 

[LoisLane]

There's no reason to assume that a 5 year old child was asleep at someone else's house at 9PM on a summer evening.

IMO most 5 year olds are asleep by 9pm or 10pm, which would have been JO's cue to leave the home. The baby may have been awake depending on the age and routine whether he was feeding, nursing, nap times, teething, etc. or also fast asleep in his car seat. Most families I know who have multiple children have a pretty consistent bedtime routine. Some are in bed as early as 7:30. NO would also have had a full day full of excitement and activity, he may have fallen asleep very easily that night.