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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hiya! I am looking for direct quotes from LE and came across this...

Posted July 10, 2014

“Shortly after the disappearance was reported we made contact with the three landfill sites in Calgary and we asked that all refuse from the Calgary and surrounding area that goes to those landfill sites be segregated off,” Brookwell said.

“There have been items that have been taken from the landfill site, but we don’t know if there’s any relevance to this file or not. You can appreciate that we’re talking about all landfill that was collected for a number of days following the disappearance, so there is quite a quantity to go through.”

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/...hether-business-part-of-missing-persons-case/

Also found a video link of Brookwell:
http://globalnews.ca/news/1443565/p...-and-rural-home-in-search-for-missing-family/

Thanks LL! Sounds like they were going through city garbage delivered there then and not a drop off load.

Although, after reading what I posted and learned about holdback and hallmark evidence, I question all the releases LE made to the public, I really wonder how much and what they're holding back as hallmark evidence.

I'm thinking what you posted is probably all it was at the the landfill and that being part of a standard search, have to wait til trial I guess :gaah:
 
Are you paying homage to Stan? Just kidding, reminds me of Stan's YouTube posts.

Hehe... I thought maybe he posted it because I logged off for about 2 minutes... I tried to but it is easier for me to remain logged on.
 
Hehe... I thought maybe he posted it because I logged off for about 2 minutes... I tried to but it is easier for me to remain logged on.

I always stay logged on at home and on my iPhone, people must think I'm on here 24 hrs/day!
 
I took the time to watch this documentary, otto. The LE involved in this case were a bunch of very bad actors, IMO, weren't they? Bungling, inept and disinterested, to say the least. Of interest, when googling the name of the felon the following came up... Raymond Hatch was born on January 21, 1947 in Waldoboro, Maine, USA as Raymond Walter Hatch. He died on January 3, 2000 in Bangor, Maine.
Longtime criminal who pled guilty to second-degree murder after killing 19-year-old Eric Wilson of Ottawa; sentenced to serve 26 years in prison, he was released after 13. In 1994 he stabbed his girlfriend with an 8-inch knife, and after initially being charged with aggravated assault, he was convicted of assault and sentenced to 364 days in jail and a $10 fine; he was again released after 9 months.

When googling the name of the young Canadian man who was murdered, nada. Nothing.

It's quite sad the notoriety that criminals get, I wish that would change. The victims seem to lie in the shadows of their killers in some cases which isn't right.
 
I took the time to watch this documentary, otto. The LE involved in this case were a bunch of very bad actors, IMO, weren't they? Bungling, inept and disinterested, to say the least. Of interest, when googling the name of the felon the following came up... Raymond Hatch was born on January 21, 1947 in Waldoboro, Maine, USA as Raymond Walter Hatch. He died on January 3, 2000 in Bangor, Maine.
Longtime criminal who pled guilty to second-degree murder after killing 19-year-old Eric Wilson of Ottawa; sentenced to serve 26 years in prison, he was released after 13. In 1994 he stabbed his girlfriend with an 8-inch knife, and after initially being charged with aggravated assault, he was convicted of assault and sentenced to 364 days in jail and a $10 fine; he was again released after 9 months.

When googling the name of the young Canadian man who was murdered, nada. Nothing.

Granted the case happened in 1970s, but it was clear that at that time, no one was interested in doing their jobs. The prosecutor repeatedly lied, the FBI seemed to be acting (as in drama) with the family, and the guilty party was calling the shots. The family's private investigator collected the evidence and solved the case. The family required intervention by the Canadian government to move the case forward, and had to wait several years for the remains of the victim to be returned to them. The 5th Estate episode won the Academy Award for best documentary feature (1983).
 
interesting fifth estate documentary on the reid interrogation technique that cps uses,, not really related but may have been used with DG.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2014-2015/the-interrogation-room

where it went wrong with Calgary police

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/c...id+interrogation+technique/7223614/story.html

CPS uses this technique? And...if they use it, no doubt EPS uses it, as well as LE groups all over the country. Well, for me, that blows the 'integrity' factor right out of the water.

If, in fact, LE used this technique on DG, I hope he is as stoic as he appears on television. It should be illegal. Look what's happened to innocent people. I guess then, a person doesn't have a hope in hell if someone decides otherwise.

If someone commits a crime then figure it out from the evidence, that's their job. If they didn't, then find whoever did, that's also their job. I'm wondering if we employ the "Chinese Water Torture technique" in this country as well? Totally disheartening and more than a little concerning. IMO
 
CPS uses this technique? And...if they use it, no doubt EPS uses it, as well as LE groups all over the country. Well, for me, that blows the 'integrity' factor right out of the water.

If, in fact, LE used this technique on DG, I hope he is as stoic as he appears on television. It should be illegal. Look what's happened to innocent people. I guess then, a person doesn't have a hope in hell if someone decides otherwise.

If someone commits a crime then figure it out from the evidence, that's their job. If they didn't, then find whoever did, that's also their job. I'm wondering if we employ the "Chinese Water Torture technique" in this country as well? Totally disheartening and more than a little concerning. IMO

Did you even read the article? From 2012:

Calgary police Insp. Steven Barlow said Monday the force is reviewing its practices and training in light of the judge’s ruling.

While the Reid Technique formed a significant part of interview training in the past, the department has veered away from it in recent years, favouring an approach that is less aggressive and involves building rapport with the suspect and “putting all the cards on the table,” he said.
 
CPS uses this technique? And...if they use it, no doubt EPS uses it, as well as LE groups all over the country. Well, for me, that blows the 'integrity' factor right out of the water.

If, in fact, LE used this technique on DG, I hope he is as stoic as he appears on television. It should be illegal. Look what's happened to innocent people. I guess then, a person doesn't have a hope in hell if someone decides otherwise.

If someone commits a crime then figure it out from the evidence, that's their job. If they didn't, then find whoever did, that's also their job. I'm wondering if we employ the "Chinese Water Torture technique" in this country as well? Totally disheartening and more than a little concerning. IMO

It seems the accused's "hope in hell" was their defence attorney who did their job, resulting in that particular judge dismissing that particular case based on improper application of the technique.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/1...avourite-interrogation-tactic-under-scrutiny/

The basic tactics of the Reid Technique, including lying about evidence, have been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Oickle, a 2000 case about an arsonist whose confession was rejected by a lower court. Since then, judges have frequently heard arguments about Reid, and gone both ways in their analysis of its specific uses, tossing out some accusatory interrogations while accepting others.

Dismissal of a case does not allow any of us to know what the other evidence was, and doesn't denote guilt or innocence. We don't even know that it was used in the interrogation of DG, but if it was, hopefully it was properly administered within established guidelines.
 
CPS uses this technique? And...if they use it, no doubt EPS uses it, as well as LE groups all over the country. Well, for me, that blows the 'integrity' factor right out of the water.

If, in fact, LE used this technique on DG, I hope he is as stoic as he appears on television. It should be illegal. Look what's happened to innocent people. I guess then, a person doesn't have a hope in hell if someone decides otherwise.

If someone commits a crime then figure it out from the evidence, that's their job. If they didn't, then find whoever did, that's also their job. I'm wondering if we employ the "Chinese Water Torture technique" in this country as well? Totally disheartening and more than a little concerning. IMO

That's quite a leap to make. Peel Regional Police has a very questionable history dating back to the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin. They also had involvement with crimes committed by Paul Bernardo and his wife Karla Homolka. What happens in the Peel Regional Police force has absolutely nothing to do with what happens in Calgary. Research first, then make connections ... there are none in this case.

Jun. 27 2011
"With 1,855 officers, the Peel force ranks behind only those of Toronto, Montreal and Calgary. It watches over a sprawling melting pot of new immigrants.
...

For the second time in less than a month, a judge has set free someone charged by Peel Regional Police, and ruled that officers lied and intimidated suspects.
...

Peel is not the only force that lacks such a mechanism. The Edmonton Police Service, for example, relies largely on prosecutors to notify it of judicial criticism of its officers. Unlike Peel, however, the Edmonton force is not content with the status quo.

"We have been alerted to some of these after the fact, so we need to go back to the Crown and talk about that process," said Mark Neufeld, inspector in charge of professional standards for the EPS.

Defence lawyers roll their eyes at the mention of Peel and its attitude toward law enforcement.
...
In an apparent plan to change Peel culture, the Brampton judiciary was stocked in recent years with street-savvy judges who do not shrink from throwing out evidence and criticizing authorities."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-police-abuse-the-law-critics/article584846/
 
It seems the accused's "hope in hell" was their defence attorney who did their job, resulting in that particular judge dismissing that particular case based on improper application of the technique.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/1...avourite-interrogation-tactic-under-scrutiny/



Dismissal of a case does not allow any of us to know what the other evidence was, and doesn't denote guilt or innocence. We don't even know that it was used in the interrogation of DG, but if it was, hopefully it was properly administered within established guidelines.

In the documentary on the 5th Estate, the interrogation method was used on a witness. The method was not intended to be used on witnesses, it was intended for suspects. Garland is a good suspect - totally different ball game. What's happening in Peel Region is simply bizarre - unbelievable that it's been going on for a few decades with little change other than with newly appointed Judges - which seem to be making a difference.
 
This is an interesting article about life after conviction:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=10103016


I found this part specifically of note - If DG is found guilty he may be sentenced to consecutive sentences and harsher parole restrictions:


Legislation passed in recent years is changing the way life sentences are administered in Canada, meaning more offenders will serve longer terms before being eligible for parole. The Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, which came into effect in 2011, means judges can now impose parole ineligibility periods of up to 75 years in cases of multiple homicide. (In the past, multiple life sentences were served concurrently, leading some to complain about “discounts” for multiple murderers like Ennis.)

The first person sentenced under the new law was Alberta’s Travis Baumgartner, who was given life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years for the June 2012 murders of three colleagues with an armoured car company, and the attempted murder of another, in Edmonton.

Baumgartner will be eligible for parole in 2052, when he is 62 years old. During sentencing, Associate Chief Justice John Rooke said he believed the maximum 75-year parole ineligibility should be reserved for the most heinous offenders, such as serial killers Clifford Olson or Robert Pickton. He said Baumgartner’s case called for a sentence that still holds out some hope of freedom — in part to deter him from further crimes in prison.

Other legislation, entitled the Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, eliminates the “faint-hope clause,” which once allowed first-degree lifers a chance to apply for parole before their mandatory 25-year eligibility period.

Meanwhile, a private member’s bill called the Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act seeks to increase to 40 years the parole eligibility for murders involving abduction or sexual offences. It is currently in second reading, and if passed, could become law by the spring of 2015.
 
This is an interesting article about life after conviction:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=10103016


I found this part specifically of note - If DG is found guilty he may be sentenced to consecutive sentences and harsher parole restrictions:


Legislation passed in recent years is changing the way life sentences are administered in Canada, meaning more offenders will serve longer terms before being eligible for parole. The Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, which came into effect in 2011, means judges can now impose parole ineligibility periods of up to 75 years in cases of multiple homicide. (In the past, multiple life sentences were served concurrently, leading some to complain about “discounts” for multiple murderers like Ennis.)

The first person sentenced under the new law was Alberta’s Travis Baumgartner, who was given life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years for the June 2012 murders of three colleagues with an armoured car company, and the attempted murder of another, in Edmonton.

Baumgartner will be eligible for parole in 2052, when he is 62 years old. During sentencing, Associate Chief Justice John Rooke said he believed the maximum 75-year parole ineligibility should be reserved for the most heinous offenders, such as serial killers Clifford Olson or Robert Pickton. He said Baumgartner’s case called for a sentence that still holds out some hope of freedom — in part to deter him from further crimes in prison.

Other legislation, entitled the Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, eliminates the “faint-hope clause,” which once allowed first-degree lifers a chance to apply for parole before their mandatory 25-year eligibility period.

Meanwhile, a private member’s bill called the Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act seeks to increase to 40 years the parole eligibility for murders involving abduction or sexual offences. It is currently in second reading, and if passed, could become law by the spring of 2015.

It wouldn't surprise me if Garland tries to use some sort of mental defect defence ... isn't that one of his lawyer's specialties?

If he doesn't use some soft of mental defect defence, he is charged with two first degree murders, which could be consecutive. Would the second degree murder charge fall into the new "consecutive sentencing" laws?
 
It wouldn't surprise me if Garland tries to use some sort of mental defect defence ... isn't that one of his lawyer's specialties?

If he doesn't use some soft of mental defect defence, he is charged with two first degree murders, which could be consecutive. Would the second degree murder charge fall into the new "consecutive sentencing" laws?
The way I understand the new legislation, the consecutive sentencing can be imposed if the crimes are being prosecuted together and they were carried out under one 'spree' such as what occurred with Baumgartner.

I would be surprised if DG uses a NCR defense. They are very difficult to prove and that is why the suspect's counsel immediately requests a mental fitness assessment and 30 day hold, as seen in the De Grood case. Asking for one several months after the alleged offense was committed, does little to help their case.

The NCR defense is a very difficult undertaking, and the new Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act makes sentences potentially harsher than prison terms:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=838179

------------

I am interested to see if the Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act which could be law by next spring will impact this case. DG, if convicted, may be one of the first people sentenced under this new law, *if* they can prove that the victim's were alive after they were "forcibly removed" from the Parkhill crime scene. It would prevent him from being paroled for at least 40 years.
 
No big breaks in this case yet? Thank goodness there was an arrest. Now hoping justice is served. MOO.
 
The way I understand the new legislation, the consecutive sentencing can be imposed if the crimes are being prosecuted together and they were carried out under one 'spree' such as what occurred with Baumgartner.

I would be surprised if DG uses a NCR defense. They are very difficult to prove and that is why the suspect's counsel immediately requests a mental fitness assessment and 30 day hold, as seen in the De Grood case. Asking for one several months after the alleged offense was committed, does little to help their case.

The NCR defense is a very difficult undertaking, and the new Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act makes sentences potentially harsher than prison terms:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=838179

------------

I am interested to see if the Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act which could be law by next spring will impact this case. DG, if convicted, may be one of the first people sentenced under this new law, *if* they can prove that the victim's were alive after they were "forcibly removed" from the Parkhill crime scene. It would prevent him from being paroled for at least 40 years.

Would he not be tried, convicted, and sentenced under the laws at the time the crime was committed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
3,064
Total visitors
3,252

Forum statistics

Threads
592,205
Messages
17,965,068
Members
228,717
Latest member
RedWriter
Back
Top