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

jeanne · Jun 10, 2012

otto said:
Police confirmed that Luka Magnotta may have eaten, may not have eaten.

It does not say: It may have been Luka Magnotta.

There's a big difference ... lawyers and investigators are very specific about words and would never mix up the position of word such that the meaning was changed. It is confirmed that Luka did something to suggest that he may have eaten ...

Well, this doesn't prove that they have seen a different video then. We all know that Luka sliced a piece out and lifted it our of sight of the camera on a fork. It could be that is what the Commander is basing his statement on. I does SEEM like Luka ate parts of the body.

PAXIMUS · Jun 10, 2012

Sealuzna said:
I follow exactly what you're saying and totally agree.

And as I've stated before, Lafreniere is far from being an English PhD major and because he has used various sentence structures to make the same statement about cannibalism, there can be no conclusion whether it was Luka Magnotta doing the eating OR whether any cannibalism occurred at all.

Agreed!

otto · Jun 10, 2012

PAXIMUS said:
Then why the use of the word MAY HAVE, why not say POLICE HAVE CONFIRMED LUKA ATE BODY PARTS?

Is there some question as to whether parts were eaten and if so then why even bring that up, IF THEY DONT SEE SOMEONE EATING THE BODY PARTS why suggest that body parts are being eaten, what I am reading says to me YES WE SEE BODY PARTS BEING EATEN that IS CONFIRMED and it MAY HAVE BEEN LUKA but since we cant see his face in the video we arent certain it was him.

Here you go ... no more "may". It happened, and police have the RAW, unedited footage.

"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

PAXIMUS · Jun 10, 2012

otto said:
Here you go ... no more "may". It happened, and police have the RAW, unedited footage.

"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

Yes but here they use the word PERPETRATOR and not MAGNOTTA and that is again TELLING, it says once again that the PERP, in otherwords THE KILLER, is shown doing this or that, and they BELIEVE IT IS LUKA but they cant ID him on the video with certainty thus the person in the video is referred to as PERP and not LUKA MAGNOTTA, these words have meanings folks, I do this for a living and these words are what get guilty people out of prison.

There is not a single utterance from any official to the tune of LUKA MAGNAOTTA IS SEEN ON VIDEO doing this or that, NONE. That tells me all I need to know, they skirt around naming him as the person in the video since day one they have and they continue to.

jeanne · Jun 10, 2012

otto said:
Here you go ... no more "may". It happened, and police have the RAW, unedited footage.

"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

I'm curious: the video you have all seen, does it show him in the actual act of cutting up the body, or just the aftermath? If the police have one showing the act in progress it would mean they have seen a different video than the one posted on the gore site.

prima.facie · Jun 10, 2012

jeanne said:
Well, this doesn't prove that they have seen a different video then. We all know that Luka sliced a piece out and lifted it our of sight of the camera on a fork. It could be that is what the Commander is basing his statement on. I does SEEM like Luka ate parts of the body.

just like the "sex" was simulted IMO, I believe he wanted the viewer to believe he ate something by using the fork and knife and removing a piece of the body towards the camera then out of view....to give the impession he ate something..

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.......

Cappuccino · Jun 10, 2012

PAXIMUS said:
Yes but here they use the word PERPETRATOR and not MAGNOTTA and that is again TELLING, it says once again that the PERP, in otherwords THE KILLER, is shown doing this or that, and they BELIEVE IT IS LUKA but they cant ID him on the video with certainty thus the person in the video is referred to as PERP and not LUKA MAGNOTTA, these words have meanings folks, I do this for a living and these words are what get guilty people out of prison.

Quite apart from your over analyzing of the wording, it is not at all unusual for the police to hold back details of a crime from the public. Especially such a high profile crime where they might get all kinds of liars and band wagon jumpers coming forward to claim some connection to the crime for their 15 minutes.

Just because the police don't say in public that they see his face on the unedited version, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

BBM. IMO, you're jumping the gun here.

MechanicalMan · Jun 10, 2012

jeanne said:
Well, this doesn't prove that they have seen a different video then.

Exactly. We don't know what they have in their possession. The comments about "raw video" and cannibalism are vague. They've implied that they do have an unedited version, and that it shows cannibalism (with the Sun even claiming that it also contains screams), but I'm far from convinced. The police have done a poor job of communicating this information to the media, and at this point, it really isn't clear what they have. As stated by an AP writer, "Police suggested they have access to more extensive video of the killing, possibly an unedited version."

otto · Jun 10, 2012

PAXIMUS said:
Yes but here they use the word PERPETRATOR and not MAGNOTTA and that is again TELLING, it says once again that the PERP, in otherwords THE KILLER, is shown doing this or that, and they BELIEVE IT IS LUKA but they cant ID him on the video with certainty thus the person in the video is referred to as PERP and not LUKA MAGNOTTA, these words have meanings folks, I do this for a living and these words are what get guilty people out of prison.

There is not a single utterance from any official to the tune of LUKA MAGNAOTTA IS SEEN ON VIDEO doing this or that, NONE. That tells me all I need to know, they skirt around naming him as the person in the video since day one they have and they continue to.

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?

Krasopani · Jun 10, 2012

Chorley8 said:
the video is darker than the song though the lines where he sings When I was a very small boy/Other small boys talked to me/Now that we've grown up together/They're afraid of what they see/ is significant.

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 dont like the reflection. Dont look in the mirror. I dont 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.

otto · Jun 10, 2012

jeanne said:
I'm curious: the video you have all seen, does it show him in the actual act of cutting up the body, or just the aftermath? If the police have one showing the act in progress it would mean they have seen a different video than the one posted on the gore site.

I haven't seen it. I don't need to.

I posted a link where it is stated that police do have the RAW unedited video. There is no question that what was posted on bestgore and what police have for evidence are different.

prima.facie · Jun 10, 2012

PAXIMUS said:
Yes but here they use the word PERPETRATOR and not MAGNOTTA and that is again TELLING, it says once again that the PERP, in otherwords THE KILLER, is shown doing this or that, and they BELIEVE IT IS LUKA but they cant ID him on the video with certainty thus the person in the video is referred to as PERP and not LUKA MAGNOTTA, these words have meanings folks, I do this for a living and these words are what get guilty people out of prison.

There is not a single utterance from any official to the tune of LUKA MAGNAOTTA IS SEEN ON VIDEO doing this or that, NONE. That tells me all I need to know, they skirt around naming him as the person in the video since day one they have and they continue to.

well PAX this is what we (some of us) have been saying from day 1....
based on what we know.....there is no ABSOLUTE proof that LM was the one on the video and the one who performed the murder. there IS reasonable doubt that can be made based on what we know and see.....

THAT is a defense that can be made.....obviously, if police have more than that...awesome, and we all hope they do....

but if i were the defendent id be saying HELL NO THATS NOT ME...you dont ever see my face!

9InchNails · Jun 10, 2012

PAXIMUS said:
On the other hand if they ARE SURE it is Luka and they can see his face why not say POLICE HAVE CONFIRMED LUKA ATE BODY PARTS, why say HE MAY HAVE EATEN BODY PARTS, if you clearly see body parts being eaten that is then a FACT the use of the words MAY HAVE is not a fact and can then ONLY BE used in relation to WHOM IS DOING THE EATING.

I agree that they "may have" here is not clear, but I'm just saying that if the uncertainty was about the identity of the cannibal then why don't say "may have been Luka"?

Example: When I say: "Luka may be in Berlin" I'm sure it's Luka but I'm not sure he's actually in Berlin. When I say: "someone who may be Luka is in Berlin" I mean I'm not sure it's Luka but he is in Berlin for sure.

Anyway, I think we CANNOT determine the exact meaning of this quote at this point. It is just totally unclear.

PAXIMUS · Jun 10, 2012

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.

jeanne · Jun 10, 2012

otto said:
I haven't seen it. I don't need to.

I posted a link where it is stated that police do have the RAW unedited video. There is no question that what was posted on bestgore and what police have for evidence are different.

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.

prima.facie · Jun 10, 2012

MechanicalMan said:
Exactly. We don't know what they have in their possession. The comments about "raw video" and cannibalism are vague. They've implied that they do have an unedited version, and that it shows cannibalism (with the Sun even claiming that it also contains screams), but I'm far from convinced. The police have done a poor job of communicating this information to the media, and at this point, it really isn't clear what they have. As stated by an AP writer, "Police suggested they have access to more extensive video of the killing, possibly an unedited version."

do you have that link? id like to bookmark it...since things can get confusing around here lol

Chorley8 · Jun 10, 2012

This is a sleuthing site not a memorial site it is too bad but if you murdered the police think through whether you are into drugs S & M whatever.

So let Sony have her view I actually have no opinion on what she is saying though: but her speculation of the PURPOSE of the spectacle if it is a spectacle (her idea, to promote the P.C. anti-gay message assuming they have one) is at least interesting and where I wish more of the discussion would go.

Otto's post: why focus on whether L.M. ate the flesh of his victim before he sent it to the political party and not think through what this odd political element is in the case?

By the way to H in your note to Otto you are right L.M. cannot be linked to the Kennedy assassination. I understand the joke was at my expense I can take it - it is disrespectul to that other victim however. It is interesting that you wrote to him in that way as he posted on that case. We can all be suspicious of each other here pretty easily. Someone I remember suggested the Varaschin and the A.G. case in relation to L.M. I do not see that as likely but I do not know for sure and I do not see what is wrong with that angle of enquiry. If he'd lived within blocks of them that would increase my suspicion.

otto · Jun 10, 2012

MechanicalMan said:
Exactly. We don't know what they have in their possession. The comments about "raw video" and cannibalism are vague. They've implied that they do have an unedited version, and that it is shows cannibalism (with the Sun even claiming that it also contains screams), but I'm far from convinced. The police have done a poor job of communicating this information to the media, and at this point, it really isn't clear what they have. As stated by an AP writer, "Police suggested they have access to more extensive video of the killing, possibly an unedited version."

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.

PAXIMUS · Jun 10, 2012

prima.facie said:
well PAX this is what we (some of us) have been saying from day 1....
based on what we know.....there is no ABSOLUTE proof that LM was the one on the video and the one who performed the video. there IS reasonable doubt that can be made based on what we know and see.....

THAT is a defense that can be made.....obviously, if police have more than that...awesome, and we all hope they do....

but if i were the defendent id be saying HELL NO THATS NOT ME...you dont ever see my face!

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.

Cappuccino · Jun 10, 2012

otto said:
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.

^ This.

This case is in such early stages that Magnotta hasn't even been extradited to Canada yet. The police who are talking to the media haven't even had a chance to interview their man, so anyone reading too much into their public statements at this point in time is jumping the gun bigtime.

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

New Member

Registered user

Verified Expert

Registered user

New Member

Long Time Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Verified Expert

New Member

Verified Expert

Long Time Member

Active Member

Registered user

New Member

Long Time Member

Well-Known Member

Verified Expert

Registered user

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics