Magnotta March Prelim Hearing & Trial Day 1 - Sep 29, 2014 - Thread #1

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, its back on today, with one twist... apparently the fan "Kyle" has gone back home to the U.S

From Twitter:

Justin Ling ‏@Justin_Ling 5m

#Magnotta fan Kyle has fled the country. "I don’t want to bring negative media attention." He wrote on his blog.

Guess he figured it was best to cut his losses and get back to his homeland before anyone started questioning the dirt dug up on him online last night. Probably the best decision for everybody.
 
zvzvzv said:
Interview with super awkward Magnotta supporter Kyle
He manages to form a few sentences in the span of 5 minutes.

Luka Magontta supporter, Kyle Gilgen, talks to Xtra - YouTube
Click to expand...

Yeah he is quite articulate and fluent...NOT

What scares me the most is that he has such a blank stare (just as monotone as his way of speaking). If you only saw the clip without audio and any knowlegde about what the interview was about, one could simply assume he was either high or the convo was about shoelaces.
 
Today will be the last day of the preliminary hearing then will adjourn until April 8.

Tweets coming down this morning saying they're only letting a limited number of people in the courtroom today for some reason.
 
I suspect the court will adjourn for Holy Week, Good Friday and Easter. That makes sense to me.
 
ChelleBelle said:
Can you imagine being the recipient of those packages? :eek:
Click to expand...

I can't even think of it. :eek:

I was also looking at newspaper links from when the deliveries were made. Ottawa called in the hazmat people because they didn't know what they were dealing with.

LM has (already) cost this country a great deal of OUR money!!

:twocents:
 
No_Stone_Unturned said:
I can't even think of it. :eek:

Let's not forget the hazmat teams and huge police response to the handful of phony packages that caused a large scale response. I'm sure that runs up the bill.

I was also looking at newspaper links from when the deliveries were made. Ottawa called in the hazmat people because they didn't know what they were dealing with.

LM has (already) cost this country a great deal of OUR money!!

:twocents:
Click to expand...

For quite some time I've been quite interested to learn, aside from human remains, specifically what the sender included in the package which allowed law enforcement to link the packages to Magnotta.

If I remember correctly there were multiple on the record statements which LE referred to contents linking the packages.

On another note, a quick question:
With the publication ban in mind, what ramifications might young Kyle or other observers of the hearings face if they were to post details of what happened on the web?
 
HastingsChi said:
For quite some time I've been quite interested to learn, aside from human remains, specifically what the sender included in the package which allowed law enforcement to link the packages to Magnotta.

If I remember correctly there were multiple on the record statements which LE referred to contents linking the packages.

On another note, a quick question:
With the publication ban in mind, what ramifications might young Kyle or other observers of the hearings face if they were to post details of what happened on the web?
Click to expand...

I've always been curious about the content of the packages (besides the obvious, and the body parts belonging to Jun Lin). I read in the beginning that there were notes... or letters included with the parcels. The content of the letters were never disclosed. The way I understand it, if information is made public under a publication ban it can be deemed inadmissible later in court, so they keep such evidence closely guarded. I believe there's a LOT of evidence they have not made public for this reason.

I'm not sure what the consequences of breaching a publication ban are, exactly, but I do know that it's a criminal offense.

If the case goes to trial, the pub ban will be lifted and this evidence will eventually be made public.
 
ChelleBelle said:
I've always been curious about the content of the packages (besides the obvious, and the body parts belonging to Jun Lin). I read in the beginning that there were notes... or letters included with the parcels. The content of the letters were never disclosed. The way I understand it, if information is made public under a publication ban it can be deemed inadmissible later in court, so they keep such evidence closely guarded. I believe there's a LOT of evidence they have not made public for this reason.

I'm not sure what the consequences of breaching a publication ban are, exactly, but I do know that it's a criminal offense.

If the case goes to trial, the pub ban will be lifted and this evidence will eventually be made public.
Click to expand...

Am I reading this correctly:
"if information is made public under a publication ban it can be deemed inadmissible later in court"

So if someone attending the preliminary hearing wants their 15 minutes in the spotlight and reveals the details of information disclosed in that hearing via a blog or YouTube video; that information becomes an international news story because the easiest route for the media to circumvent a publication ban is to cite information from a third party source (in the form of numerous American media outlets reporting the salacious details revealed by an attendee and putting it on the front page and all over the web), then all of that material could be inadmissible at trial???
 
HastingsChi said:
Am I reading this correctly:
"if information is made public under a publication ban it can be deemed inadmissible later in court"

So if someone attending the preliminary hearing wants their 15 minutes in the spotlight and reveals the details of information disclosed in that hearing via a blog or YouTube video; that information becomes an international news story because the easiest route for the media to circumvent a publication ban is to cite information from a third party source (in the form of numerous American media outlets reporting the salacious details revealed by an attendee and putting it on the front page and all over the web), then all of that material could be inadmissible at trial???
Click to expand...

Yes, when they place a publication ban on evidence (as opposed to protecting the identity of minors) it's to ensure the person has a fair trial and to protect their charter of rights. The person is presumed innocent so disclosure of evidence at this stage could influence a potential jury's ability to remain impartial. If the evidence is 'out there' beforehand, it can be argued that the jury was biased.

The preliminary hearing is not meant to establish guilt or innocence. It's an opportunity for the Crown to present its evidence, and for the judge to decide if the evidence is sufficient to move to a trial. The judge at that time may also upgrade or downgrade the charges, depending on the evidence. If, after hearing all the evidence presented, Luka would have an opportunity to enter a guilty plea and forgo a trial.

Incidentally, Luka requested the publication ban, and a trial by jury.

If someone wanted some fame and glory, they could blab on social media, but they risk getting in a lot of trouble. Stephen Williams was sentenced for violating the publication ban in the Paul Bernardo case.

What they could ultimately do is jeopardize the integrity of the crown's case.
 
HastingsChi said:
Am I reading this correctly:
"if information is made public under a publication ban it can be deemed inadmissible later in court"

So if someone attending the preliminary hearing wants their 15 minutes in the spotlight and reveals the details of information disclosed in that hearing via a blog or YouTube video; that information becomes an international news story because the easiest route for the media to circumvent a publication ban is to cite information from a third party source (in the form of numerous American media outlets reporting the salacious details revealed by an attendee and putting it on the front page and all over the web), then all of that material could be inadmissible at trial???
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, in the Robert Pickton trial, any information covered under that publication ban was somehow rendered inaccessible by Canadians over the internet to the USA. I don't know how they did it, but it seems the powers that be can even control the web when they need to ;)
 
Well done, my fellow Canadians! I was about to reply to HastingsChi's queries....but you folks did the job for me.

As far as young Kyle goes, he would be wise to NOT place anything he heard/saw in court on the internet. There WILL be consequences for him. I now suspect that's why he was called away by LE in the court.....to read him our Canadian rules and regs!

:twocents:
 
No_Stone_Unturned said:
Well done, my fellow Canadians! I was about to reply to HastingsChi's queries....but you folks did the job for me.

As far as young Kyle goes, he would be wise to NOT place anything he heard/saw in court on the internet. There WILL be consequesnces for him. I now suspect that's why he was called away by LE in the court.....to read him our Canadian rules and regs!

:twocents:
Click to expand...

I guess they don't use publication bans much in the US, if at all. They are considered a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. Instead, they use a grand jury in the preliminary process.

That said, I still don't really understand the purpose of a publication ban in a preliminary hearing when they open the courtroom to the public, as that could also encompass potential jurors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 178 more.
Total: 4,277 (members: 179, guests: 4,098)

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
4,098
Total visitors
4,277
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,817
Messages
17,959,553
Members
228,620
Latest member
ohbeehaave
Back
Top