ARRESTED- Luka Rocco Magnotta:1st deg murder charge #8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given that the article is about Magnotta, do you think that the sentence in question means some other perpetrator not mentioned in the article?

What reason is there to try to distance Magnotta from the film that he made of the murder of Lin Jun?

I do indeed think it means something, if they knew it was LM for certain they would say that, we are not dealing with illiterate people here in fact we are dealing with people who PICK AND CHOOSE every single word WITH PURPOSE and REASON, therefore when they SKIRT around actually saying YES ITS LUKA ON THE VIDEO and use words like PERP AND MAY HAVE that tells me something, I know how these people work and every word they use is chosen for a purpose, they do not just speak loosely and off the cuff and shoot from the hip. These are people trained in a particular and very precise way of expressing themselves so that things are not picked apart in court by people like me and they are made a fool of.
 
Lafreniere also confirmed police have a “raw” version of the infamous video of the murder that was posted to the Internet. It shows the perpetrator repeatedly stabbing the victim with an ice pick, then cutting up the body. Police confirmed that it also shows acts of cannibalism. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...lance-helped-montreal-police-identify-suspect



ETA.....IM TOO SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW.......


When that article was first published it originally said:

"Lafreniere also confirmed police have a “raw” version of the infamous video of the murder that was posted to the Internet. That version was visibly edited. It shows the perpetrator repeatedly stabbing the victim with an ice pick, then cutting up the body. Police confirmed that it also shows acts of cannibalism."

They have since removed that sentence.
 
I have read 3 different reports and they all say something to the effect that he MAY HAVE eaten body parts. Lets look at what that means.

If you say "Luka ate body parts" that means you seen body parts being eaten and you seen him eating them.

If you say "Luka MAY HAVE eaten body parts" you are saying BODY PARTS CAN BE SEEN BEING EATEN but we do not know FOR SURE IT WAS LUKA that was eating them, it may have been him but we arent certain it was him, we ARE CERTAIN body parts were being eaten though AS WE CAN SEE THAT MUCH.


So that tells me they cannot SEE HIS FACE even on the unedited video. Which is going to be interesting when this goes to trial.

What I interpret it to mean is that it was Luka, but whether he *actually* ate body parts or pretended to eat body parts (simulated it), is not clear.
JMO
 
I want to say that I am NOT trying to argue with anyone here, this is not personal and I am not trying to win, this isnt a contest, or show anyone up, I want to,for my own understanding and legal needs, find out for certain if he can been seen on that video and all I have seen so far are little words here and there than tell me as an attorney, that they are SKIRTING around actually saying it is LUKA on that video, they are skirting the issue with semantics and that tells me what I need to know, I know how these things work I do it everyday.

We know that police have RAW footage of the murder.
We know that police have confirmed that the perpetrator ate the victim.
We know that Luka Magnotta has been arrested and charged with first degree murder as the perpetrator.
We know that we will not get more information about evidence until trial.

I get the impression that you are frustrated with the Canadian laws that do not release evidence to the media during an investigation.
 
If LM really only just simulated cannibalism, his name "Magnotta" will never ever get rid of the "Cannibal" again. I have seen articles in so many languages, all across the world, and they all use the term "cannibal killer". I know it because I have read german, french, british, american, chinese and canadian news for better coverage.
This is crazy. If police never really confirmed it, then include the term? This is messed up.
Actually I hate the fact that you cant rely on the MSM anymore.
 
We will find out sooner or later if he can be seen on that video, I bet you anything he cant be, I am probably wrong but that is what I get from these statements. No big deal.
 
Yes, but some on here have suggested that the word "raw" could mean something other than "unedited". I'm not a computer person, so I am sure someone else could better explain this.

RAW is a term that is used with Canon camera and means unedited, original.
 
I'm off to bed now (it's 11pm in the UK)

Thank you to everyone I've interacted with today, either on the thread or via PM.

I wish there had never been a reason for this thread to exist or for me to come here.

But I've 'met' some nice folks and some inquisitive minds :)
 
Police have no reason to communicate their evidence to the public. The evidence will be presented in court during trial, not in the media in the months leading up to the trial. Canadian laws don't allow the release of trial evidence in the news until it has been presented in court ... so if that results in some people being skeptical about the evidence ... so be it.
You seem to be missing the point. Police aren't obligated to tell us what evidence they have, but there is also no reason for them to be misleading us with vague implications that they possess evidence that they (possibly) do not actually possess. If they choose to speak to the media about certain pieces of evidence, then they should be more clear and straightforward with their statements.
 
Firstly, I love New Order, but never really paid attention to the lyrics of the song until now. Very disturbing in this context. Also, the line that you posted reminds me of his message, scrawled inside his closet: “If you don’t like the reflection. Don’t look in the mirror. I don’t care.”

He seems to be referring to society (the other boys, us). Like he's saying "my behaviour is merely a reflection of the society we live in". Just thinking out loud.

Very nice link to the scrawled message yes I had forgotten about it.
 
do you have that link? id like to bookmark it...since things can get confusing around here lol

"Investigators in Canada say Magnotta videotaped the killing and dismemberment in his apartment, and posted it online. The video also shows the suspect eating parts of the body, police said. A copy of the video viewed by The Associated Press did not show anyone eating the body but did show a man using a fork and knife on it. Police suggested they have access to a more extensive video of the killing, possibly an unedited version."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...nada-schools-vancouver-montreal?newsfeed=true
 
If LM really only just simulated cannibalism, his name "Magnotta" will never ever get rid of the "Cannibal" again. I have seen articles in so many languages, all across the world, and they all use the term "cannibal killer". I know it because I have read german, french, british, american, chinese and canadian news for better coverage.
This is crazy. If police never really confirmed it, then include the term? This is messed up.
Actually I hate the fact that you cant rely on the MSM anymore.

EXACTLY MY POINT, the fact that they DID BRING UP body parts being eaten VERY LIKELY means that IS WHAT THEY SAW otherwise WHY BRING IT UP? So THAT IS NOW AN ESTABLISHED FACT if you are to trust the language they use, the use of the words MAY HAVE, then, can ONLY refer to who is doing the eating, and that means they see eating taking place but they cannot ID exactly who it is but they BELIEVE it is LUKA, of course we all know it is him but that isnt how it works in the courtroom, it has to be proven and the use of the word MAY HAVE doesnt fly with juries and defense attorneys.
 
You seem to be missing the point. Police aren't obligated to tell us what evidence they have, but there is also no reason for them to be misleading us with vague implications that they possess evidence that they (possibly) do not actually possess. If they choose to speak to the media about certain pieces of evidence, then they should be more clear and straightforward with their statements.

Precisely.
 
Agreed and saying things like MAY HAVE is NOT a matter of them holding back some evidence it is a clear indication that they are not sure what they see in front of them.

Police are sure of what they have. In an article about Luka Magnotta, the suspect charged with first degree murder, they state that it is confirmed that the perpetrator (Magnotta) murdered the victim and ate him.

"Lafreniere also confirmed police have a “raw” version of the infamous video of the murder that was posted to the Internet. It shows the perpetrator repeatedly stabbing the victim with an ice pick, then cutting up the body. Police confirmed that it also shows acts of cannibalism."

June 5, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...lance-helped-montreal-police-identify-suspect[/QUOTE]
 
Regarding the 'raw' video, my opinion on why the police mention 'perpetrator' ate the victim, and not 'Luka' is because he hasn't been convicted yet, and therefore they must choose their words carefully. :moo:
 
I do indeed think it means something, if they knew it was LM for certain they would say that, we are not dealing with illiterate people here in fact we are dealing with people who PICK AND CHOOSE every single word WITH PURPOSE and REASON, therefore when they SKIRT around actually saying YES ITS LUKA ON THE VIDEO and use words like PERP AND MAY HAVE that tells me something, I know how these people work and every word they use is chosen for a purpose, they do not just speak loosely and off the cuff and shoot from the hip. These are people trained in a particular and very precise way of expressing themselves so that things are not picked apart in court by people like me and they are made a fool of.

You should consider having your credentials verified. There is a thread here with a list of people that have had their credentials, like nurse, lawyer, etc verified ... or have you already done that? It's just that usually people don't make claims about having certain credentials on this website without having them verified.
 
RAW is a term that is used with Canon camera and means unedited, original.

it is not associated with a specific camera brand...it just means the original unedited video or photo....

in fact, it is a bit more detailed than that....im not sure what LE means when they say RAW footage...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Cameras all start with raw data and convert this data to JPG images with hardware in the camera. They then throw away the raw data since it's no longer needed.

Saving this raw data is exactly like people who save twenty years of newspapers in piles around their house. They know they might need the information sometime, but it sure gets in the way! Other people think they are crazy.

Some fancier cameras save this raw data so you can use software to do the same thing the camera's hardware did, later. Software takes much longer to do the same thing the camera's hardware does, but gives less confident people the chance to try to fix mistakes later.

if they mean actual raw footage, then that would mean they have the camera it was filmed on or the file sent from the camera to a computer which has not been saved to a format such as .mov .avi etc etc...
 
He wasn't moving at all when LM sat on his chest. He was soooo NOT into it because either:
1. he was dead already.
2. he was passed out completely.

If he was "into it" he would have moved when LM sat on him.

GRAPHIC

He did move, AFTER LM sat on him.He looks disorientated, sleepy. Between that scene and the stabbing, the film was cut. The ropes were gone and JL was dead.
In my opinion: JL thought he was going to have sex, or just a friendly drink at LM's place. But instead he got drugged and became the victim of a terribly sick mind.
LM dismembered him in the bathtub I think, washing of the blood. I've seen pictures of the head, foot and something else in the bathtub, still wet from the water. LM moved the body around alot, because the sheets on the bed in the video, change or are draped differently every time.

Yes, I watched the video a couple of times. Not for kicks, but to see if I could find any evidence of a second person helping LM, or something else.
 
I am not frustrated at all about them not releasing evidence, in my profession in the legal defense business we also do not like LEAKS to the public as it only serves to make it harder for a client to have an impartial jury, that isnt what this is about it is about the authorities being responsible for what they say and how they say it, I DONT CARE IF THEY DONT TALK but if they do they have a responsibility to tell the truth and tell it ACCURATELY so that a false rumors and other unfair things are not attributed to someone before they have even had their day in court, if cannibalism is suggested there better be proof of it or they should NOT EVEN BRING IT UP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
201
Guests online
2,146
Total visitors
2,347

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,118
Members
228,014
Latest member
Back2theGardenAgain
Back
Top