Armchair psych profile and personal background

[Sigh Sister]

Interesting video clip. I have heard about that murder before. Anyways, when I pull up the link I don't see the comment by pickled smarty, I see others comments, just not that one...

So bizarre. I see other comments now, but not that one.

 

[Sigh Sister]

Don't know what's going on. Pickledsmarty has a YouTube account and has the video posted there, and the comments are the same as the ones from 1999, but they are showing as being recent. So confused....

(sorry that I can't give the YT link. I'm on an iPad using a YT app and can't figure out how to get the URL to show up so that I can copy it.)

 

[sinwonderland]

Found this :

http://www.sahara.beautiful-world.org/video/-ylE5NXR3I0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

It's a short clip about the German cannibal that was posted in1999. User "pickled smarty" comments on video saying "Luka Magnotta much". Eric Clinton didn't change his name to Luka Magnotta until 2006, right? So he was trying as far back as 1999 (at least) to create the Luka persona and was connecting the name with a cannibal.

Not sure why the date is 1999.... Armin Meiwes (the German cannibal in the video) met his victim in 2001 and wasn't arrested until 2002.

Also, the man Meiwes killed and ate wanted this to happen. The whole thing was videotaped. Meiwes had let several other people go after backing out of their 'fantasy' at the last minute. There's a lot more info on him that's interesting but this isn't the place for it. Anyway, the video of him wasn't made until after 2004 (when he was sentenced).

 

[Sigh Sister]

Ok. I'm done. Armin Meiws (sp?) didn't kill the man until 2001. Weirdness of the internet.....

 

[ToBeHonest]

There's been some discussion about LM pleading not guilty and wanting to go to trial, return to Canada because he 'trusts' Canada's judicial system, his motivation being to get attention, but what are the other motivations when the evidence against him seems so compelling?

I read this on his personal website under the tag for 'judicial system'--he plagiarized it, but I still think he believed the spirit of what he posted and did not have the ability to perhaps express himself. I feel the line I have underlined in this paragraph from LM's site may be very telling as to why he wants a jury trial--that he may think some unknown truth will be found and he will get a fairer judgment by doing so:

"The main flaw of the criminal justice system is that it is inherently adversarial which means the state attorney (prosecutor) and the defense attorney care about winning, not truth-seeking. Truth-seeking is the job for the judge and jury, but most cases (maybe 95%) settle outside of trial. Most people in the legal system will tell you its about who can put on the best show."

Just my speculation, of course, as it all is.

 

[Shimmers]

There's been some discussion about LM pleading not guilty and wanting to go to trial, return to Canada because he 'trusts' Canada's judicial system, his motivation being to get attention, but what are the other motivations when the evidence against him seems so compelling?

I read this on his personal website under the tag for 'judicial system'--he plagiarized it, but I still think he believed the spirit of what he posted and did not have the ability to perhaps express himself. I feel the line I have underlined in this paragraph from LM's site may be very telling as to why he wants a jury trial--that he may think some unknown truth will be found and he will get a fairer judgment by doing so:

"The main flaw of the criminal justice system is that it is inherently adversarial which means the state attorney (prosecutor) and the defense attorney care about winning, not truth-seeking. Truth-seeking is the job for the judge and jury, but most cases (maybe 95%) settle outside of trial. Most people in the legal system will tell you its about who can put on the best show."

Just my speculation, of course, as it all is.

I think you quite hit something there. Evidence present or not, he could play out the jury with a finetuned act, deviding them regarding their verdict. Correct me if I am wrong, but the jury determines whether your guilty or not and the judge gives you the associated punishment when you're found guilty?

Are there cases known where the jury said " not guilty" and the judge stepped in and convicted the accused anyway? Or is that by law not done and could never happen? Sorry, but I'm not very familair with judge/jury system, in my country we only have judges ( 1 or 3 depending on the profile of the case )

 

[TempleDrake]

I spoke recently with an FBI agent who had worked briefly on this case when LE was looking into whether or not Magnotta was in California, and we discussed the not guilty plea. He says he has never heard of a suspect in a case like this pleading guilty when first arrested- a guilty plea would leave no room for bargaining and no chance at any sort of reduced sentence.... It is apparently very typical and totally expected.

 

[pannekoek]

Thinking of 'all things Canadian', do we know what / when LRM's first ever *advertiser censored* film was or if streetbait 996 was the first one?

<snipsnip>

That was his first *advertiser censored* film, made in 2003. On this site there's a list with all his films...

http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=LukaRoccoMagnotta/gender=m/Luka-Rocco-Magnotta.htm

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

I spoke recently with an FBI agent who had worked briefly on this case when LE was looking into whether or not Magnotta was in California, and we discussed the not guilty plea. He says he has never heard of a suspect in a case like this pleading guilty when first arrested- a guilty plea would leave no room for bargaining and no chance at any sort of reduced sentence.... It is apparently very typical and totally expected.

Agreed! And in Canada (I don't know about elsewhere) a person merely has to say "not guilty" before the trial. When the trial begins, he can add whatever he wants - not guilty by reason of insanity, not guilty because I ate a Twinkie, not guilty because my religion made me do it, not guilty because I was defending myself, etc.

So, there's a LOT yet to come.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

And further to my post just above - I was speaking to some people today about the "tip" which led LE to the head.

After our conversations, I'm kinda thinking that perhaps he DID make a deal in order to get a 'soft prison'. We know he's going to want internet and to be protected from other prisoners. Maybe he did make a deal by giving up the location of the head in order to protect himself later.

:moo:

----------------

ETA: His lawyer COULD NOT have contacted LE about the location of the head. That would put the lawyer in a terrible position with the Law Society Of Canada. This is different than the Karla Homolka mess-up. Her lawyer was IN POSSESSION OF EVIDENCE (a video tape). So, previous comparisons are not applicable in this case.

 

[thedissent]

There's been some discussion about LM pleading not guilty and wanting to go to trial, return to Canada because he 'trusts' Canada's judicial system, his motivation being to get attention, but what are the other motivations when the evidence against him seems so compelling?

I read this on his personal website under the tag for 'judicial system'--he plagiarized it, but I still think he believed the spirit of what he posted and did not have the ability to perhaps express himself. I feel the line I have underlined in this paragraph from LM's site may be very telling as to why he wants a jury trial--that he may think some unknown truth will be found and he will get a fairer judgment by doing so:

"The main flaw of the criminal justice system is that it is inherently adversarial which means the state attorney (prosecutor) and the defense attorney care about winning, not truth-seeking. Truth-seeking is the job for the judge and jury, but most cases (maybe 95%) settle outside of trial. Most people in the legal system will tell you its about who can put on the best show."

Just my speculation, of course, as it all is.

Yeah, the problem with this, is that LRM's plagiarized graft concerns the U.S. criminal justice system, not the Canadian.

(LRM plagiarized this, among other this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090427181530AA9YJPO)

The Canadian criminal justice system, while still adversarial, is nowhere near as adversarial as the American.

Also, the Crown prosecutor's duty is the public interest. Here is the classic statement of the Crown prosecutor's duty in the Canadian legal system:

It cannot be overemphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction; it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented; it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength, but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness, and the justness of judicial proceedings.” (R. v. Boucher)

There is no room for winning and losing.

As for LRM's choice of a jury trial, I'm sure his choice is self-interested, like everything else. It's not about his "trust" but more about his own personal advantage.

We all know from LRM's interviews and online ramblings, that he is arrogant and self-regarding and probably thinks he can manipulate and outsmart a juror of average citizens better than a judge.

 

[TempleDrake]

I should have dug for more information from this FBI guy, but I was starting to feel like a creep for the level of interest I was showing and I had to change the subject. It just sounded to me as though no defense attorney worth their weight in sand would let a suspect like LM plead guilty straight out of the gate. It doesn't sound like it was a decision that was made to be incendiary or provocative, it just sounds like like a pretty typical tactic and like that's the way these things go.

And further to my post just above - I was speaking to some people today about the "tip" which led LE to the head.

After our conversations, I'm kinda thinking that perhaps he DID make a deal in order to get a 'soft prison'. We know he's going to want internet and to be protected from other prisoners. Maybe he did make a deal by giving up the location of the head in order to protect himself later.

:moo:

----------------

ETA: His lawyer COULD NOT have contacted LE about the location of the head. That would put the lawyer in a terrible position with the Law Society Of Canada. This is different than the Karla Homolka mess-up. Her lawyer was IN POSSESSION OF EVIDENCE (a video tape). So, previous comparisons are not applicable in this case.

 

[ToBeHonest]

And further to my post just above - I was speaking to some people today about the "tip" which led LE to the head.

After our conversations, I'm kinda thinking that perhaps he DID make a deal in order to get a 'soft prison'. We know he's going to want internet and to be protected from other prisoners. Maybe he did make a deal by giving up the location of the head in order to protect himself later.

:moo:

I agree to this! I think he had some kind of romantic idea about how his life would pan out as well as how prison was, but I would not be surprised if he is going absolutely nuts in solitary without acess to his admirers and that that drove him to a breaking point of sorts.

To address your comment about pleading, I agree, his lawyer would have advised that. However, I think LM has other ideas in his head that may have lead to the plea panning out as it did.

 

[Sierra20]

Can someone give me a little more info about these "deals" that could be made. For instance once LM gives over the info the investigators are after, could they then refuse to carry out the reduced sentence after all? Could the Judge decide to not go along with a softer sentence even though it was agreed months ago by investigators?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from ToBeHonest:

To address your comment about pleading, I agree, his lawyer would have advised that. However, I think LM has other ideas in his head that may have lead to the plea panning out as it did.


True, but at this stage of the game he doesn't have much choice other than following his lawyer's advice. Unless he's more delusional than we think. Oh, perhaps looking "delusional" IS his plan for the plea!


:moo:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Can someone give me a little more info about these "deals" that could be made. For instance once LM gives over the info the investigators are after, could they then refuse to carry out the reduced sentence after all? Could the Judge decide to not go along with a softer sentence even though it was agreed months ago by investigators?

It would be highly UNUSUAL for them to take the requested info and then change their minds and turn on their deal. That said.....the Judge can pretty much do anything he/she wants.

 

[Mozzmo]

LM's not guilty plea is not unexpected. He's been denying the kitten executions for a few years now. I am sure he'd love to get away with his crimes, and that in his deluded fantasies his mesmerizing charm (not) actually intoxicates a panel of jurors into suspending any connection to reality and agreeing with his "Manny forced me or I've been set up" defense. Having said that, I still believe the not guilty plea is mostly all about LM getting to finally star in his own reality show. Yes, it will be a circus, and LM will show off all his contortionist/illusionist skills as he attempts to wiggle, bend, and break all stretches of human sensibilities. Of course his act will be ridiculous, but then again it was only ever about getting the spotlight....not having the talent.

 

[thedissent]

And further to my post just above - I was speaking to some people today about the "tip" which led LE to the head.

After our conversations, I'm kinda thinking that perhaps he DID make a deal in order to get a 'soft prison'. We know he's going to want internet and to be protected from other prisoners. Maybe he did make a deal by giving up the location of the head in order to protect himself later.

:moo:

----------------

ETA: His lawyer COULD NOT have contacted LE about the location of the head. That would put the lawyer in a terrible position with the Law Society Of Canada. This is different than the Karla Homolka mess-up. Her lawyer was IN POSSESSION OF EVIDENCE (a video tape). So, previous comparisons are not applicable in this case.

Can't see the Crown ever making a deal with LRM when it likely has so much evidence against him.

Besides, the Crown cannot dictate sentencing. It can only make recommendations to a sentencing judge once LRM has fully confessed and plead guilty.

On these facts and in these circumstances, with the shocking, brutal, and callousness of the crime, no judge will allow LRM to ever see the light of day again.

And given his use of the Internet to increase the shock of this crime, I can't see any judge allowing him to access it. The same way hackers are often forbidden for using computers through out their sentence. I would hope the same order is made for LRM.

 

[thedissent]

LM's not guilty plea is not unexpected. He's been denying the kitten executions for a few years now. I am sure he'd love to get away with his crimes, and that in his deluded fantasies his mesmerizing charm (not) actually intoxicates a panel of jurors into suspending any connection to reality and agreeing with his "Manny forced me or I've been set up" defense. Having said that, I still believe the not guilty plea is mostly all about LM getting to finally star in his own reality show. Yes, it will be a circus, and LM will show off all his contortionist/illusionist skills as he attempts to wiggle, bend, and break all stretches of human sensibilities. Of course his act will be ridiculous, but then again it was only ever about getting the spotlight....not having the talent.

Yeah, he is so narcissistic and self-regarding, he probably believes he can "outsmart" a bunch of "dumb" average citizens. He'll get outsmarted and hoodwinked by the Crown lawyers at every turn.

 

[ToBeHonest]

Yeah, the problem with this, is that LRM's plagiarized graft concerns the U.S. criminal justice system, not the Canadian.

(LRM plagiarized this, among other this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090427181530AA9YJPO)

The Canadian criminal justice system, while still adversarial, is nowhere near as adversarial as the American.

Also, the Crown prosecutor's duty is the public interest. Here is the classic statement of the Crown prosecutor's duty in the Canadian legal system:



There is no room for winning and losing.

As for LRM's choice of a jury trial, I'm sure his choice is self-interested, like everything else. It's not about his "trust" but more about his own personal advantage.

We all know from LRM's interviews and online ramblings, that he is arrogant and self-regarding and probably thinks he can manipulate and outsmart a juror of average citizens better than a judge.

In this case, I truthfully don't think it matters if the quote I added reflected Canadian or US. I feel his thoughts and motives are that a jury will be more likely to see things his way and that he will be able to outsmart them. Additionally, w his NPD, I am sure he still views the Canadian system as quite adversarial, or will as soon as things take another turn against him.

Those are my thoughts. I don't think any of us can truly be right or wrong here because we have no have no idea what's going on behind the scenes.