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

[susan1122]

here ya go

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-bizarre-backstory-of-the-alleged-canadian-psycho-2012-6

Thank you! I hadn't seen that.

 

[prima.facie]

Yes, I do.

well like anything else in this BIZARE case...anything is possible...at this point i wouldn't be surprised if a story surfaces saying that luka was a secret member of the illuminati and was once seen at the bilderberg mtg....

:floorlaugh:

 

[DD_bwest]

Why do you think this officer of the court breached his client's confidentiality by running, not to the police during an international manhunt, but to a journalist?

I'm open to hearing what possible legitimate reason anyone thinks this guy had for committing one of the most basic ethical violations of the legal advocacy system.

How bout lrm asked him to? thats a thousand times more plausible that then lawyer created the entire thing.. for reasons you have yet to name..

it is possible the are in on it TOGETHER, as part of a broader long term defense of insanity, or that there really is a manny.. but thats getting a little out there..

if he goes to to police or the media, without LRM's wishes. he gets in major trouble. he goes to the media cause he says thats what LRM tells him to..

and how did the lawyer get the means to doctor up a photo of LRM, or even get a real photo of a beaten up LRM(i dont think its real but could be i guess..)

 

[Sigh Sister]

The attorney says in the comment section that LM wanted the story of the kittens "disseminated" and that he wanted his story of abuse told....

FWIW lol

I just read through the comments and I don't see where he said LM wanted the story of the kittens disseminated. Only the story of his abuse.

 

[Sealuzna]

The attorney says in the comment section that LM wanted the story of the kittens "disseminated" and that he wanted his story of abuse told....

FWIW lol

lol My BS-O-Meter is tighly in the red zone on that.

CNN would have loved this story, but putting it on an ezine? This lawyer should be disbarred for stupidity IMHO.

 

[DD_bwest]

I just read through the comments and I don't see where he said LM wanted the story of the kittens disseminated. Only the story of his abuse.

the kittens are part of the abuse, because according the the lawyer/emails, "manny" forced lrm to make the kitten videos

 

[Sealuzna]

well like anything else in this BIZARE case...anything is possible...at this point i wouldn't be surprised if a story surfaces saying that luka was a secret member of the illuminati and was once seen at the bilderberg mtg....

:floorlaugh:

Me either! :floorlaugh:

 

[prima.facie]

How bout lrm asked him to? thats a thousand times more plausible that then lawyer created the entire thing.. for reasons you have yet to name..

it is possible the are in on it TOGETHER, as part of a broader long term defense of insanity, or that there really is a manny.. but thats getting a little out there..

if he goes to to police or the media, without LRM's wishes. he gets in major trouble. he goes to the media cause he says thats what LRM tells him to..

and how did the lawyer get the means to doctor up a photo of LRM, or even get a real photo of a beaten up LRM(i dont think its real but could be i guess..)

i wanted to piggyback your post....

while this may sound like im showing sympathy for luka aka , im not....
BUT to step outside of the box of our anger and digust......the likelyhood that LM was a victim (of his parents, johns, relationships, etc) thurout his life is VERY VERY VERY plausible. it does not make an excuse for what he has done but it explains what he became and what he has done.

im not sure why people cant believe that many of his writings could very well be self-confessions........even horrible horrible people need an outlet and many people use writing as an outlet.

while LM has proven to be a liar, that does not negate the fact that he also may tell the truth at times too. it does become a matter of "the boy who cried wolf" but even that boy in the end told the truth......and nobody believed him because of his lies. lying does not negate truth telling ever happening.

and i absolutely believe that he has been a victim of abuse thruout his life and coupled with possible brain imbalances...the product of that is one f.cked up person who does extremely f.cked up things....

 

[Sigh Sister]

the kittens are part of the abuse, because according the the lawyer/emails, "manny" forced lrm to make the kitten videos

Got it. Thanks!

 

[Karmady]

lol My BS-O-Meter is tighly in the red zone on that.

CNN would have loved this story, but putting it on an ezine? This lawyer should be disbarred for stupidity IMHO.

I don't know what to make of it, really. But I did note that the two reporters on the story each claim to have masters degrees in journalism -- one from Northwestern and the other from NYU. If true, not too shabby and gives them some cred imo

 

[jellybeanz]

Hi, another lurker here that made the step to register. I am amazed at the skills on show on this website, truly astonishing.

Reason I am posting is with regards to Casablanca. Whilst checking through all the links, sockpuppets etc etc I stumbled upon the following video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ChsP5MBH_eg

I know this isnt going to prove much, but it at least gives an idea where he maybe became obsessed with the film.



I also found a poll made on a website by another of the sockpuppets, asking which of four films from LRM they liked best. I cant remember offhand the four options, but two were '13 Blocks' and 'Delivery Boy'. I do not know if these films were from his *advertiser censored* career, or were 'independant' ones he had made or intended to make.

 

[DD_bwest]

I don't know what to make of it, really. But I did note that the two reporters on the story each claim to have masters degrees in journalism -- one from Northwestern and the other from NYU. If true, not too shabby and gives them some cred imo

hes also been a member of the bar since 1981..

 

[Sealuzna]

I don't know what to make of it, really. But I did note that the two reporters on the story each claim to have masters degrees in journalism -- one from Northwestern and the other from NYU. If true, not too shabby and gives them some cred imo

You'd think with those credentials they'd be working for the New York Times.

Well, I'll keep the door ajar to the possibility that there's something to this, but I (and I'm not alone) have a problem with the way he went about this. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of him.

P.S. I love one of the comments made over at that site: "So why didn't he kill this Manny instead?????????? "

LMAO!

 

[Jujercu]

Hi, another lurker here that made the step to register. I am amazed at the skills on show on this website, truly astonishing.

Reason I am posting is with regards to Casablanca. Whilst checking through all the links, sockpuppets etc etc I stumbled upon the following video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ChsP5MBH_eg

I know this isnt going to prove much, but it at least gives an idea where he maybe became obsessed with the film.



I also found a poll made on a website by another of the sockpuppets, asking which of four films from LRM they liked best. I cant remember offhand the four options, but two were '13 Blocks' and 'Delivery Boy'. I do not know if these films were from his *advertiser censored* career, or were 'independant' ones he had made or intended to make.

Interesting! Thanks and welcome

 

[Karmady]

hes also been a member of the bar since 1981..

Actually, that's the part that DOES give me pause. Unless he had clear instructions to divulge client communications or there are some exceptions to the rules I'm not aware of, I don't see a member of the bar, longstanding or not, doing so. The attorney-client privilege belongs, in all cases, to the client. It is not the attorney's to waive or not. Also, the lawyer acknowledged receiving payment, thus removing any doubt that an attorney-client relationship was created. Personally, I don't think the money even matters, but it certainly seals it.

I tend to believe the story. But I have NO idea what this lawyer could possibly have been thinking in giving this interview and information. Unless he had clear and unequivocal instructions from lm himself to share that information, he should not have imo.

fwiw, not everything said between an attorney and his client is privileged. But I do believe the information disclosed in this case would fall within the privileged category. Maybe someone else with a legal background will chime in.

 

[prima.facie]

Actually, that's the part that DOES give me pause. Unless he had clear instructions to divulge client communications or there are some exceptions to the rules I'm not aware of, I don't see a member of the bar, longstanding or not, doing so. The attorney-client privilege belongs, in all cases, to the client. It is not the attorneys' to waive or not. Also, the lawyer acknowledged receiving payment, thus removing any doubt that an attorney-client relationship was created. Personally, I don't think the money even matters, but it certainly seals it.

I tend to believe the story. But I have NO idea what this lawyer could possibly have been thinking in giving this interview and information. Unless he had clear and unequivocal instructions from lm himself to share that information, he should not have imo.

fwiw, not everything said between an attorney and his client is privileged. But I do believe the information disclosed in this case would fall within the privileged category. Maybe someone else with a legal background will chime in.

if you go to the comment section, the attorney is responding to [some] questions...he specifically stated that LM wanted his abuse story to be known....which I would think means that LM gave him permission to share....

he gave no other details and hopefully w/ the other inquires he will go back and answer those questions...

now i guess its a matter of...is the attorney legit or one big fat phony bologna....

 

[Karmady]

if you go to the comment section, the attorney is responding to [some] questions...he specifically stated that LM wanted his abuse story to be known....which I would think means that LM gave him permission to share....

he gave no other details and hopefully w/ the other inquires he will go back and answer those questions...

now i guess its a matter of...is the attorney legit or one big fat phony bologna....

I did see the comments, but I would have to have more specifics than I've seen in the article, the e-mails and the comments to conclude that lm agreed to waive the privilege. Wanting to take something to the police is WAY different than wanting to share it with the general public, imo. And also, lm's last e-mail (assuming it's legit) basically says he wants to leave it alone and move on. So unless there was some communication between the two after that, I'm not seeing a knowing waiver. I also haven't seen anything but denials of the kitten thing anywhere else by lm, so afaik there was no waiver by disclosure to a third-party. jmo

 

[Sigh Sister]

Actually, that's the part that DOES give me pause. Unless he had clear instructions to divulge client communications or there are some exceptions to the rules I'm not aware of, I don't see a member of the bar, longstanding or not, doing so. The attorney-client privilege belongs, in all cases, to the client. It is not the attorneys' to waive or not. Also, the lawyer acknowledged receiving payment, thus removing any doubt that an attorney-client relationship was created. Personally, I don't think the money even matters, but it certainly seals it.

I tend to believe the story. But I have NO idea what this lawyer could possibly have been thinking in giving this interview and information. Unless he had clear and unequivocal instructions from lm himself to share that information, he should not have imo.

fwiw, not everything said between an attorney and his client is privileged. But I do believe the information disclosed in this case would fall within the privileged category. Maybe someone else with a legal background will chime in.

I'm wondering if this is exactly what LM did... i.e. Leave instructions with this lawyer to release this info if he was ever arrested. That way LM could still tell his "story" to all his "fans" while behind bars.

 

[Karmady]

I'm wondering if this is exactly what LM did... i.e. Leave instructions with this lawyer to release this info if he was ever arrested. That way LM could still tell his "story" to all his "fans" while behind bars.

anything is possible, especially in this case. But I would think that if lm had done something like that it would have been part of the article so that everyone's butt was clearly covered from the jump. jmo

 

[prima.facie]

I did see the comments, but I would have to have more specifics than I've seen in the article, the e-mails and the comments to conclude that lm agreed to waive the privilege. Wanting to take something to the police is WAY different than wanting to share it with the general public, imo. And also, lm's last e-mail (assuming it's legit) basically says he wants to leave it alone and move on. So unless there was some communication between the two after that, I'm not seeing a knowing waiver. I also haven't seen anything but denials of the kitten thing anywhere else by lm, so afaik there was no waiver by disclosure to a third-party. jmo

you make some valid points....
it would be nice to have some more to go on....
when something leaves us with more questions than answers....that is frustrating to say the least....