Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #14

[Lalalacasbah]

Okay so I did a bit of snooping today....found some interesting things....IMO

http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=395534

This news video at about the 55 second mark & on from there...

The wanted/captured poster shown in the video states "using the ALIAS of MKH *shortened by me* (same DOB)"

I don't recall ever seeing that the suspect had used his own birthdate with the stolen identity? I had always assumed that he used the birthdate of MKH? Just rather interesting IMOO.

Again further down on that poster...I noticed a file # for Richmond. Did a search through Richmond court files & found nothing *I assumed after not finding anything it was probably a police file # rather than court*....

So instead did a search under Garland...lots of them in the system...but found him...

https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/esearchHome.do

(This is the British Columbia Ministry of Justice - Court Services Online)

I searched Traffic/Criminal - By Participants' Name *using only the last name* & found him on page 2 of the 5 pages of results.

There are 9 charges there from Oct/Nov 1992 *I'm assuming Calgary/Airdrie charges because of the date although this shows as Richmond Provincial Court* they use the middle name Robert. As of July 16 1999 all 9 charges are referred to as 'SP' (Special Disposition or Decision). Now, I'm just assuming here but would that be when the charges would go back to Calgary? File # 42183

There are 2 charges there from October 2 1998 ...offences occurring in Richmond BC with the middle name John. File # 41250 (in the wanted/captured poster it does say his middle names are Robert & John)

It is noted that he has 4 aliases including DG...DRG...DJG & MKH.

There is one charge from 1992 that I found to be VERY interesting: 23-Oct-1992 CCC - 353(1)(b) possessing automobile master key


I was like....whoa! Had not heard of that one previously? Had of course read about the break in tools but not that one in particular. Interesting anyways. JMOO

If I've posted anything in this post I shouldn't I do understand if it is deleted...but they are public docs/information available by search through the BC Justice *government* website.

I had posted this info awhile back from the eService site, and I believe sillybilly added it to his timeline... VERY interesting stuff indeed. I went back to eService the other day and did more browsing and also found a charge under the name of MRH (BBM) for a MVA - 146(3) Speeding contrary to highway sign from Aug. 20th, 2005. Might not be a different alias, but again - birthdate is 1966, same birth year as the other aliases. I posted what I found on post #766 here if you to read the full info:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-13&p=10882613#post10882613

 

[LoriMcA]

I had posted this info awhile back from the eService site, and I believe sillybilly added it to his timeline... VERY interesting stuff indeed. I went back to eService the other day and did more browsing and also found a charge under the name of MRH (BBM) for a MVA - 146(3) Speeding contrary to highway sign from Aug. 20th, 2005. Might not be a different alias, but again - birthdate is 1966, same birth year as the other aliases. I posted what I found on post #766 here if you to read the full info:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-13&p=10882613#post10882613

Yes, I had seen the post about the traffic charge for speeding...I had not seen the additions to the timeline about the master key & DG using MKH's identity but using HIS own birthdate of Jan 1960. Those 2 things were new to me *yes...I think I need to get to the optometrist cuz I seem to miss a heck of a lot!!*

Thanks for pointing this out to me lala *& I agree...very interesting isn't it?* It seems one thing after another keeps popping up with this suspect...

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Yes, I had seen the post about the traffic charge for speeding...I had not seen the additions to the timeline about the master key & DG using MKH's identity but using HIS own birthdate of Jan 1960. Those 2 things were new to me *yes...I think I need to get to the optometrist cuz I seem to miss a heck of a lot!!*

Thanks for pointing this out to me lala *& I agree...very interesting isn't it?* It seems one thing after another keeps popping up with this suspect...

Oh, shoot, now I think I'm mixed up lol!! I should correct myself, I did not notice the same birthdate of DG and MH on the eService, so thank you! Good catch And I think I made a mistake…the latest charge I found (MVA under the name MRH, isn't the same birth year as DG, I thought DG's birth year was 1966, not 1960. So my the 'coincidence' I thought I found, might not be such a coincidence after all. So thanks for reposting DG's birth year! So much info to try to stay plugged into on this case.

And yes, the master key thing is interesting as well I read somewhere DG could disarm alarm systems also.

 

[LoriMcA]

Oh, shoot, now I think I'm mixed up lol!! I should correct myself, I did not notice the same birthdate of DG and MH on the eService, so thank you! Good catch And I think I made a mistake…the latest charge I found (MVA under the name MRH, isn't the same birth year as DG, I thought DG's birth year was 1966, not 1960. So my the 'coincidence' I thought I found, might not be such a coincidence after all. So thanks for reposting DG's birth year! So much info to try to stay plugged into on this case.

And yes, the master key thing is interesting as well I read somewhere DG could disarm alarm systems also.

LOL ...doesn't take much with this case to get mixed up at all...I'm guilty of it...believe you me!! Yep...DG is 1960 & MKH was 1966...so it really is a coincidence still...
Yes...the master key thing...I knew about the break in tools...but when I saw that being so specific...I kinda got excited*L*...WOW...alarm systems too...curiouser & curiouser...that's for sure...

 

[Cherchri]

lease:

one day a water buffalo died and it had to be cut down to move (their head's weigh near 200 lbs). Being that it perished in an awkward place - a muddy slough - where a loader couldn't maneuver it out, it was left to me to make it smaller and moveable. Chainsaws are ok but throw a lot of bone and meat (and I didn't want to spend the rest of the day cleaning bits of hair and grizzel out of the tool), nor did I want to handle a whizzing chain in a difficult standing area. It was too far to run electric for a reciprocating saw, and other saws/cleavers would have taken a long time to use in the slough. In the end I opted for my two sharpest knives to help cut thru the skin and then neck muscle to the spine, which I then cut with larger bolt cutters. The cutters also worked well on tendon to remove legs. It was a quick job.

In a previous thread I mentioned that I once was a slaughterer at a zoo, for those who might be confused of my post.

Made me toss my cookies. Also a quick job.

 

[otto]

I have a question... Is it true that publishing police investigation activity is forbidden? Why have we seen photo's of the inside of the Liknes garage with marker 14 placed? That photo appears to be taken from the inside of the garage, the photographer who took that shot was standing with his back to the back of the garage from inside the garage. Who took that photo and why would that be allowed?

I'm sure it's fine to photograph police if you happen to come across them.

 

[Slebby]

Re: theory that NO is really alive and in witness protection - I'm going to reiterate news.talk's comment (from the last thread) about the rights of the accused. Think about this from the perspective of a lawyer working on his client's criminal case and working towards providing the best legal defence possible. The lawyer has been deceived by LE in a way that could alter his legal strategy in his defence of his client. It would be an abuse of DG's charter rights and an abuse of process. When the subterfuge came to light DG would probably get a walk.

 

[Slebby]

Another way to look at the theory that NO is still alive but in some form of modified witness protection is to ask this question - if it could happen in this case why doesn't it happens all the time? Because surely NO would be in as much danger as any potential witness in any other criminal case.

Another question I have asked which has not been answered, how does declaring NO dead trick DG if he knows he didn't kill him? If I was DG, I'd be smirking in my jail cell, knowing that LE has concocted a pathetic lie, knowing full well I sure didn't kill the child, and it's pretty unlikely anyone else came along and killed him. It just doesn't ring true. DG knows therefore DG would not be tricked.

Next, let's assume for a moment that NO truly could be in danger (setting aside again my unanswered argument that DG is just a common criminal and not some high level member of an organized crime network with access to extensive criminal resources and who can get to anyone, anywhere, anytime he wants) - why does he have to be declared dead in order to place him in MWPP? Can he not be protected without deceiving his siblings, extended family, friends, community, city, people fundraising for the family, DG's legal counsel, and so on??

And finally, with the number of members of the LE community involved in this investigation, how do they keep this lie a secret? It would take just one cop to leak the truth.

IMHO

 

[otto]

I think this is going a bit too far IMO. Don't you have a crime to solve? I am simply agreeing with 'goodasgold's theory that perhaps NO may be alive and in a modified form of W.P.P. for his safety until the case is closed. As GAG stated in post #6, "in the WPP, LE can fake amber alerts and even death" to help them in solving the case.
Maybe we're using the term "Witness Protection Plan" too loosely here for you. We're simply talking about a "precautionary protective custody" for a period of time until the case is solved/closed. NO would not be a witness. The thought is just too keep the little guy safe until absolutely all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed for his safety.
Regardless if it's plausible to you or not, IMO means just that...In My Opinion. Despite all that, a precedent wasn't a precedent until it became a precedent. Sometimes we come up with new ideas and new ways of doing things. We call that progress.

Keep him safe from what? Nathan was a five year old murder victim who had two brothers, two parents, and a life of his own. If he were alive, he would be getting ready for his first day of school, he would be at home with his parents, and he would be enjoying the company of his brothers.

 

[goodasgold]

I will find the link that stated this information that i have come across. However, the cases of this happening, they say if done RIGHT in the WP people will not be able to find those cases. If LE fakes a death why would they make that public knowledge. Defeats the purpose. I will find the link when i have a moment today.

 

[goodasgold]

Keep him safe from what? Nathan was a five year old murder victim who had two brothers, two parents, and a life of his own. If he were alive, he would be getting ready for his first day of school, he would be at home with his parents, and he would be enjoying the company of his brothers.

DG is not convicted yet nor do we even have a verdict from him. There is a chance he could get bail which if he knew the child was there that night and alive at the parents house, he could go after him. At least now if he gets bail, the child is not around to go after. JMO

 

[goodasgold]

Another way to look at the theory that NO is still alive but in some form of modified witness protection is to ask this question - if it could happen in this case why doesn't it happens all the time? Because surely NO would be in as much danger as any potential witness in any other criminal case.

Another question I have asked which has not been answered, how does declaring NO dead trick DG if he knows he didn't kill him? If I was DG, I'd be smirking in my jail cell, knowing that LE has concocted a pathetic lie, knowing full well I sure didn't kill the child, and it's pretty unlikely anyone else came along and killed him. It just doesn't ring true. DG knows therefore DG would not be tricked.

Next, let's assume for a moment that NO truly could be in danger (setting aside again my unanswered argument that DG is just a common criminal and not some high level member of an organized crime network with access to extensive criminal resources and who can get to anyone, anywhere, anytime he wants) - why does he have to be declared dead in order to place him in MWPP? Can he not be protected without deceiving his siblings, extended family, friends, community, city, people fundraising for the family, DG's legal counsel, and so on??

And finally, with the number of members of the LE community involved in this investigation, how do they keep this lie a secret? It would take just one cop to leak the truth.

IMHO

JO and RO may know where he is. They would know he is alive. There emotional reactions could be from not being able to see their kid and her parents being murdered. NO is not the only victim to cause mourning and a traumatized reaction. I would be pretty shook up if my parents or in-laws were murdered.

 

[otto]

DG is not convicted yet nor do we even have a verdict from him. There is a chance he could get bail which if he knew the child was there that night and alive at the parents house, he could go after him. At least now if he gets bail, the child is not around to go after. JMO

Police cannot take a five year old child away from his family in order to prosecute a murderer.

 

[otto]

JO and RO may know where he is. They would know he is alive. There emotional reactions could be from not being able to see their kid and her parents being murdered. NO is not the only victim to cause mourning and a traumatized reaction. I would be pretty shook up if my parents or in-laws were murdered.

Nathan's parents know that he is a murder victim.

 

[LoisLane]

Re: theory that NO is really alive and in witness protection - I'm going to reiterate news.talk's comment (from the last thread) about the rights of the accused. Think about this from the perspective of a lawyer working on his client's criminal case and working towards providing the best legal defence possible. The lawyer has been deceived by LE in a way that could alter his legal strategy in his defence of his client. It would be an abuse of DG's charter rights and an abuse of process. When the subterfuge came to light DG would probably get a walk.

What if LE has uncovered more murders by DG which we have not been told about?

 

[Salem]

Progress is good, but wild theories need to be based on facts. Is there any fact in this case that would lead us to believe NO is alive and could be involved in this program? So far, everything we have seen indicates that NO suffered the same fate as his grandparents.

Salem

[modsnip] I am simply agreeing with 'goodasgold's theory that perhaps NO may be alive and in a modified form of W.P.P. for his safety until the case is closed. As GAG stated in post #6, "in the WPP, LE can fake amber alerts and even death" to help them in solving the case.
Maybe we're using the term "Witness Protection Plan" too loosely here for you. We're simply talking about a "precautionary protective custody" for a period of time until the case is solved/closed. NO would not be a witness. The thought is just too keep the little guy safe until absolutely all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed for his safety.
Regardless if it's plausible to you or not, IMO means just that...In My Opinion. Despite all that, a precedent wasn't a precedent until it became a precedent. Sometimes we come up with new ideas and new ways of doing things. We call that progress.

 

[otto]

Progress is good, but wild theories need to be based on facts. Is there any fact in this case that would lead us to believe NO is alive and could be involved in this program? So far, everything we have seen indicates that NO suffered the same fate as his grandparents.

Salem

It is absolutely impossible that police would take a five year old child away from his parents, siblings, friends, home, and schooling in order to further their criminal investigation. That does not happen under any circumstances. The accused has been charged with two counts of first degree murder, and one count of second degree murder. The charges are based on evidence that the accused is responsible for the murders of the three deceased victims. The rights of the child far outweigh the rights of an accused, or the objectives of the Calgary Police Service.

 

[otto]

What if LE has uncovered more murders by DG which we have not been told about?

We know that police are investigating whether he is connected to the murder of Helena Mihaljevic. If there was evidence that the accused in this case is responsible for that murder, he would be charged with the murder ... and that information would be made available to the public.

"“If you have unsolved crimes and you have no idea who might have done them, then you have an individual who you suspect is capable of doing a range of very violent actions, then it makes sense,” says forensic psychologist Dr. Perry Sirota. “There might be a fit between what this person is suspected of doing, because of course it’s alleged now and it might fit with a pattern of crimes that remain unsolved.”

One of the cases being looked at is the death of Helena Mihaljevic. The 32-year-old was found dead in a rural area near Airdrie in 2007, nearly a year after she went missing."

http://globalnews.ca/news/1472714/p...as-garland-has-links-to-other-violent-crimes/

 

[goodasgold]

It is absolutely impossible that police would take a five year old child away from his parents, siblings, friends, home, and schooling in order to further their criminal investigation. That does not happen under any circumstances. The accused has been charged with two counts of first degree murder, and one count of second degree murder. The charges are based on evidence that the accused is responsible for the murders of the three deceased victims. The rights of the child far outweigh the rights of an accused, or the objectives of the Calgary Police Service.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2328439&Language=E&Mode=1&File=19

(d) whether providing relocation and protection will interfere with the relationship between a child who will be relocated, and a parent who will not be relocated; and

This is a link that talks about the WP program and from the line above i assume there have been cases where a child has been relocated without the parents.

 

[goodasgold]

This one is a different country but still gives ideas for WP and faking deaths

http://rt.com/news/prime-time/police-bury-important-witnesses/



This could explain the private court room for certain family members

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/guide/secf.html
Someone mentioned they would never use a 5 year old testimony

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/ovss/whats_my_job_in_court.asp

Looks like they do use kids under 6 as witnesses

There is a table in this PDF that lists costs and stats of WP in Canada called Table 1

http://publications.gc.ca/site/arch...ons/collection_2008/parl/XC76-392-1-1-01E.pdf

Coroners and WP will work together in certain cases

http://vancouver.ca/police/organiza...ive-services/major-crime/missing-persons.html