Page 13 of 60 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121314151617181920212223 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 1497

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

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,045
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    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.
    EVERYTHING ABOVE is RUMOR, opinion, speculation, possibilities, potentialities, hunch, guesswork, crapshoot, gut feeling, suggestions, buzz, dish, gossip, hearsay, noise, scuttlebutt, rumblings, musings and whispers and SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS FACT unless otherwise noted.


    All rights reserved.



    THANK YOU!

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to PAXIMUS For This Useful Post:


  3. #302
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by prima.facie View Post
    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/a...entify-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.

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to dandan08 For This Useful Post:


  5. #303
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by PAXIMUS View Post
    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

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to pippirose For This Useful Post:


  7. #304
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,248
    Quote Originally Posted by PAXIMUS View Post
    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.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  9. #305
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    220
    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.

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to italianWSfan For This Useful Post:


  11. #306
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,045
    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.
    EVERYTHING ABOVE is RUMOR, opinion, speculation, possibilities, potentialities, hunch, guesswork, crapshoot, gut feeling, suggestions, buzz, dish, gossip, hearsay, noise, scuttlebutt, rumblings, musings and whispers and SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS FACT unless otherwise noted.


    All rights reserved.



    THANK YOU!

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PAXIMUS For This Useful Post:


  13. #307
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,248
    Quote Originally Posted by jeanne View Post
    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.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  15. #308
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    107
    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 :-)

  16. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to james62 For This Useful Post:


  17. #309
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    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.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MechanicalMan For This Useful Post:


  19. #310
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Krasopani View Post
    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.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chorley8 For This Useful Post:


  21. #311
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,248
    Quote Originally Posted by prima.facie View Post
    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/2012...?newsfeed=true

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  23. #312
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,045
    Quote Originally Posted by italianWSfan View Post
    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.
    EVERYTHING ABOVE is RUMOR, opinion, speculation, possibilities, potentialities, hunch, guesswork, crapshoot, gut feeling, suggestions, buzz, dish, gossip, hearsay, noise, scuttlebutt, rumblings, musings and whispers and SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS FACT unless otherwise noted.


    All rights reserved.



    THANK YOU!

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PAXIMUS For This Useful Post:


  25. #313
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by prima.facie View Post
    do you have that link? id like to bookmark it...since things can get confusing around here lol
    AP article

  26. #314
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,045
    Quote Originally Posted by MechanicalMan View Post
    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.
    EVERYTHING ABOVE is RUMOR, opinion, speculation, possibilities, potentialities, hunch, guesswork, crapshoot, gut feeling, suggestions, buzz, dish, gossip, hearsay, noise, scuttlebutt, rumblings, musings and whispers and SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS FACT unless otherwise noted.


    All rights reserved.



    THANK YOU!

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PAXIMUS For This Useful Post:


  28. #315
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,248
    Quote Originally Posted by PAXIMUS View Post
    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/a...entify-suspect[/QUOTE]

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  30. #316
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3,715
    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.

  31. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hamsterdance For This Useful Post:


  32. #317
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,248
    Quote Originally Posted by PAXIMUS View Post
    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.

  33. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  34. #318
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    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...

  35. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to prima.facie For This Useful Post:


  36. #319
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by matou View Post
    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.

  37. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Dutchie43 For This Useful Post:


  38. #320
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,045
    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.
    EVERYTHING ABOVE is RUMOR, opinion, speculation, possibilities, potentialities, hunch, guesswork, crapshoot, gut feeling, suggestions, buzz, dish, gossip, hearsay, noise, scuttlebutt, rumblings, musings and whispers and SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS FACT unless otherwise noted.


    All rights reserved.



    THANK YOU!

  39. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to PAXIMUS For This Useful Post:


  40. #321
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,248
    Quote Originally Posted by MechanicalMan View Post
    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.
    Not at all. Police have made a press release that provides the public with assurances that the perpetrator, Luka Magnotta, has been apprehended and that they have sufficient evidence to not only have him extradicted to Canada, but to prosecute him for first degree murder. Police have no obligation to provide any more information.

  41. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  42. #322
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    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.
    I think part of the problem here is that we all have our own personal theories of how this happened, or why, and we have a tendancy to quote news stories that back up our particular theories. Unfortunately the reports vary widely both in what is being covered and the words chosen in which to report the crime. We have brought up several different versions of the Commander talking about possible cannibalism, all with minute changes of wordage. I think it can safely be said that we will only have the full picture, or as full a picture as is possible, when the case comes to court and is resolved. Until then, this is all conjecture on our parts. I love the debate, and certainly hope no one takes anything I write here personally, just as I will endeavor to do the same. We are all just playing guessing games based on very little factual information.

  43. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jeanne For This Useful Post:


  44. #323
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Police have no obligation to provide any more information.
    Which is exactly what I said in the comment you quoted.

  45. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MechanicalMan For This Useful Post:


  46. #324
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,045
    As NIN has suggested here the may have could refer to them not knowing if the cannibalism is REAL OR STAGED and if that is the case then that is VERY POOR FORM and unprofessional and even unethical for the authorities to even float the idea of cannibalism and it only serves one purpose and that is to sensationalize and prejudice a potential jury pool and that is reprehensible behavior on the part of those who we trust to be professionals and to handle these matters ethically.

    If they dont have solid proof of cannibalism they have no business even bringing it up, period.

    Therefore the MAY HAVE tells me that it is about who ate it not whether it was eaten because I trust these are professionals we are dealing with who know better.
    EVERYTHING ABOVE is RUMOR, opinion, speculation, possibilities, potentialities, hunch, guesswork, crapshoot, gut feeling, suggestions, buzz, dish, gossip, hearsay, noise, scuttlebutt, rumblings, musings and whispers and SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS FACT unless otherwise noted.


    All rights reserved.



    THANK YOU!

  47. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to PAXIMUS For This Useful Post:


  48. #325
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by PAXIMUS View Post
    As NIN has suggested here the may have could refer to them not knowing if the cannibalism is REAL OR STAGED and if that is the case then that is VERY POOR FORM and unprofessional and even unethical for the authorities to even float the idea of cannibalism and it only serves one purpose and that is to sensationalize and prejudice a potential jury pool and that is reprehensible behavior on the part of those who we trust to be professionals and to handle these matters ethically.
    I think the idea was already floated, don't you? The video was posted on the Internet and shows him slicing off flesh with a knife and fork - obviously journalists are going to ask if cannibalism was involved.

  49. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Cappuccino For This Useful Post:


Page 13 of 60 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121314151617181920212223 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. ARRESTED- Luka Rocco Magnotta:1st deg murder charge;INTERPOL alert #6
    By imamaze in forum Luka Rocco Magnotta General Discussion Threads
    Replies: 1398
    Last Post: 06-08-2012, 10:21 AM
  2. ARRESTED- Luka Rocco Magnotta:1st deg murder charge;INTERPOL alert #5
    By imamaze in forum Luka Rocco Magnotta General Discussion Threads
    Replies: 1481
    Last Post: 06-06-2012, 12:40 PM
  3. CANADA: Luka Rocco Magnotta, wanted for murder and dismemberment
    By scapa in forum Luka Rocco Magnotta General Discussion Threads
    Replies: 1117
    Last Post: 06-01-2012, 04:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •