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

[9InchNails]

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.

If they weren't sure it was Luka I believe they would have said someting like: "someone we suspect might be Luka has eaten body parts". And the "may have eaten body parts" could mean that it looked like he did eat them but they couldn't be sure because the video wasn't clear enough or because they couldn't determine whether it was staged... Well, that's how I understood it.

Edit: could also be that the journalist misquoted LE (?)

 

[ccaudill0062]

Someone posted the link to this on here and when I looked at the video it really disturbed me. It seems that if nothing else the person posting the video on youtube should be reported for terrifying and threatening a little child. When I looked for a place to report it online, all I could find was this internet crime report site with a very constraining report form. It only allowed for complaints about crimes toward one's self.

Has anyone reported this video or youtube profile to the authorities yet?

[/QUOTE

I tried reporting it on youtube but I don't know where else to report it at....I find it very disturbing. the YT account is Trolley Rulle...but I'm like you and don't know where to report it

 

[jeanne]

That doesn't really matter. As of June 9, police were still confirming that they knew each other ... and probably got this information from one of their computers.

I think we can agree that "knowing each other" doesn't have to translate into "having a relationship" or being "lovers." I am sure that they knew each other at least casually, or Lin Jun would not have been in Luka's apartment.

 

[PAXIMUS]

You're over analysing the wording, Paximus. I know its frustrating, but whether or not Luka's face is shown in the unedited version is just one of those things we'll have to wait and see about. Not enough info at this stage to say either way.

Ok fine I may be but the use of the words MAY HAVE have meaning, you dont just throw that in there for *advertiser censored* and giggles.

 

[girlinblue]

I've mixed medications accidentally. It's a very lethargic feeling. I could barely move, managed to crawl to bed, to my phone, but couldn't talk, even though I was attempting to. I remember being out of it and even though I was thinking clearly in my head, I CAN'T MOVE, I NEED HELP, I couldn't speak it. I remember opening my mouth and nothing coming out. It scared the hell out of me and I can honestly say I never want to feel that way again.

Just telling that story because I don't think there's a barometer for drugs VS sexual desire. People are effected differently. You can't ascertain he must have liked it because he wasn't screaming. Just like we can't be sure of the opposite.

Man, this thread has made people edgy.

 

[jeanne]

I'm not following. Police have confirmed that Luka Magnotta may have practiced cannibalism. How do you then conclude that police are unable to see his face?

"Montreal Police Cmdr. Ian Lafreniere said that although police have not been able to conclusively confirm it, they suspect Luka Magnotta did eat parts of the body."

 

[Scales]

How do you explain the "MAY HAVE" then, if you say he MAY HAVE eaten you are saying that there is EATING GOING ON and it MAY HAVE BEEN LUKA, if there was some QUESTION AS TO WHETHER there was eating going on then why even bring up the EATING and the word CONFIRMED? I read it as:

Police say Luka may have been eating body parts, that means they can SEE SOMEONE EATING BODY PARTS that much is confirmed and it MAY HAVE been Luka but they cant be certain because they cant see him but they CAN SEE body parts being eaten.

Does anyone follow me here, the may have clearly indicates they cant prove it is LUKA doing the eating only that there IS EATING GOING ON and it MAY HAVE BEEN LUKA but since they cant see his face they are not CERTAIN it was him.

When this story came out, it marked the beginning of all the forced articles the media began churning out. They're looking for anything to keep this story alive and sell more adspace.

Seriously, they'll print anything at this point. I could call up the newspaper and say that I know a guy, who knows a girl, who knew Luka Rocco 5 years ago, and they'll print that. It's pathetic.

 

[Karmady]

Consider this, you sit down and you watch the unedited version of the video, you EITHER SEE body parts being eaten OR YOU DO NOT, IF YOU DO then you report that BODY PARTS HAVE BEEN EATEN, if you do not see that then YOU NEVER BRING UP THE IDEA that body parts were eaten, SO SINCE THEY DID bring up that body parts were EATEN on the video, THE ONLY REASON FOR THE USE OF THE WORDS "MAY HAVE" is to suggest that it MAY HAVE BEEN LUKA but they do not know for sure since they cant see his face.

I am not trying to go on and on about this but it is VERY IMPORTANT to me from a legal standpoint as to whether they actually see his face on that video and I see NO REASON for the use of the words MAY HAVE unless it is wrt the fact that they arent certain WHO ATE THE BODY PARTS.

Does anyone follow me here or am I crazy?

I argue semantics for a living so maybe I am just being anal here but what I say above is the proper use of my language.

fwiw, I'm a semantics stickler myself, and see exactly what you're saying.

 

[PAXIMUS]

If they weren't sure it was Luka I believe they would have said someting like: "someone we suspect might be Luka has eaten body parts". And the "may have eaten body parts" could mean that it looked like he did eat them but they couldn't be sure because the video wasn't clear enough or because they couldn't determine whether it was staged... Well, that's how I understood it.

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.

 

[jeanne]

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 word MAY HAVE is not a fact and can then ONLY BE used in relation who WHOM IS DOING THE EATING.

"Montreal Police Cmdr. Ian Lafreniere said that although police have not been able to conclusively confirm it, they suspect Luka Magnotta did eat parts of the body."

 

[Sealuzna]

Consider this, you sit down and you watch the unedited version of the video, you EITHER SEE body parts being eaten OR YOU DO NOT, IF YOU DO then you report that BODY PARTS HAVE BEEN EATEN, if you do not see that then YOU NEVER BRING UP THE IDEA that body parts were eaten, SO SINCE THEY DID bring up that body parts were EATEN on the video, THE ONLY REASON FOR THE USE OF THE WORDS "MAY HAVE" is to suggest that it MAY HAVE BEEN LUKA but they do not know for sure since they cant see his face.

I am not trying to go on and on about this but it is VERY IMPORTANT to me from a legal standpoint as to whether they actually see his face on that video and I see NO REASON for the use of the words MAY HAVE unless it is wrt the fact that they arent certain WHO ATE THE BODY PARTS.

Does anyone follow me here or am I crazy?

I argue semantics for a living so maybe I am just being anal here but what I say above is the proper use of my language.

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.

 

[girlinblue]

Warning talk about the video




The first man tied up moving to me has much longer hair. and differs from the last picture in the video stills. head by the bathtub.

I believe that's the blindfold you see, not hair.

 

[Cappuccino]

Someone posted the link to this on here and when I looked at the video it really disturbed me. It seems that if nothing else the person posting the video on youtube should be reported for terrifying and threatening a little child. When I looked for a place to report it online, all I could find was this internet crime report site with a very constraining report form. It only allowed for complaints about crimes toward one's self.

Has anyone reported this video or youtube profile to the authorities yet?


I tried reporting it on youtube but I don't know where else to report it at....I find it very disturbing. the YT account is Trolley Rulle...but I'm like you and don't know where to report it

Guys, seriously - relax. That person is playing a joke. He's called his video 1 Lunatic, 1 Eyepack for crying out loud. Its sick, but these types of sick jokers always crawl out of the woodwork in the after math of something shocking.

Report it to the police if you like, or to You Tube, but only to put your minds at rest. That person hasn't killed anyone, he's just a hoaxer.

 

[jeanne]

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.

We have to take into consideration that English is not his first tongue, and there may be some problems with translation.

 

[Sealuzna]

"Montreal Police Cmdr. Ian Lafreniere said that although police have not been able to conclusively confirm it, they suspect Luka Magnotta did eat parts of the body."

That's a media paraphrase, not a direct quote (and Lafreniere's direct quotes are bad enough!)

 

[otto]

How do you explain the "MAY HAVE" then, if you say he MAY HAVE eaten you are saying that there is EATING GOING ON and it MAY HAVE BEEN LUKA, if there was some QUESTION AS TO WHETHER there was eating going on then why even bring up the EATING and the word CONFIRMED? I read it as:

Police say Luka may have been eating body parts, that means they can SEE SOMEONE EATING BODY PARTS that much is confirmed and it MAY HAVE been Luka but they cant be certain because they cant see him but they CAN SEE body parts being eaten.

Does anyone follow me here, the may have clearly indicates they cant prove it is LUKA doing the eating only that there IS EATING GOING ON and it MAY HAVE BEEN LUKA but since they cant see his face they are not CERTAIN it was him.

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 ...

 

[PAXIMUS]

"Montreal Police Cmdr. Ian Lafreniere said that although police have not been able to conclusively confirm it, they suspect Luka Magnotta did eat parts of the body."

Exactly, that tells me they likely see parts being eaten but they cant be sure it was him, otherwise I see no reason to bring up the idea that body parts were eaten, obviously they see that so they bring it up, the question then becomes who is eating them, WELL IT MAY BE LUKA, everything we have tells us it is Luka but we cant be certain because his face is hidden.


Anyway Im done.

 

[Cappuccino]

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.

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.

 

[PAXIMUS]

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 ...

So explain to me in precise terms what the may have refers to.

 

[Sealuzna]

We have to take into consideration that English is not his first tongue, and there may be some problems with translation.

Yes, that is exactly what readers have to understand, thank you!.